299 réponses à ce sujet

[Ellestor]

DuskWarden wrote...

For the maker, the black city exists.

In the sense that the sun is evidence that Horus exists... because there's his right eye right there, silly.

There's apparently a city floating in the distance in the Fade, around which the story of the Black City was formed. But that's less evidence for the Maker than Mount Olympus is of Zeus.

DuskWarden wrote...

If you believe Andraste's powers were divine gifts rather than her being a powerful mage (personally I go with the mage) then there's that as well. Admittedly scant evidence, but it's there.

There's evidence if I believe? 

DuskWarden wrote...

For the Old Gods, we have the archdemons existing, and conversations with the Architect make it seems highly likely that he actually saw an old god.

Yeah, I was ignoring the Old Gods because we know there are ‘archdemons’ (very old, powerful dragons afflicted by a Blight) and I would definitely agree with whykikyouwhy with regards to them, i.e. that they certainly exist but are gods in name only.

Modifié par Ellestor, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]Ellestor wrote...

For the Old Gods, we have the archdemons existing, and conversations with the Architect make it seems highly likely that he actually saw an old god.[/quote]Yeah, I was ignoring the Old Gods because we know there are ‘archdemons’ (very old, powerful dragons afflicted by a Blight) and I would definitely agree with whykikyouwhy with regards to them, i.e. that they certainly exist but are gods in name only.
[/quote]

And why exactly would Flemeth and Morrigan be interested in capturing the soul of a reall old dragon? Especially since Flemeth is already really old... and can transform into a dragon?

The Archdemons are corrupted Old Gods. What that makes the Old Gods, exactly, is still up for debate. 

Given what is revealed in The Silent Grove, dragons themselves are key to all life in the world as we know it. So maybe really "old dragons" are more than just that. Maybe they do have a connection to the world, the Fade and the universe in general that elevates them above normal dragons and confers onto them power beyond mortal comprehension. And who is to say that's not worth worshipping? That's all being a god requires - worship. Not infinite, omnipotency.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Of course not. Just because we say "we're not going to provide you options to express atheism" doesn't mean we'll suddenly force you to express devout belief. In other words, just because it's not one thing doesn't mean it has to be the complete and extreme opposite.

Regarding this issue, there were a couple of times in DAO where you had the option of not expressing anything. For example, after the battle for Redcliffe when (uh... whoever NPC, I don't recall at the moment) invokes the Maker and says a prayer, two of your options are the correct religious response for the situation (I think it's "so let it be" or something similar to "amen") or to "stay silent."

Having the option to remain silent is really all I look for in those kind of things.

I am not Catholic, or religious at all. My uncle became a monk a long time ago and I went to his ordination/swearing in ceremony. I stood when everyone else stood, I sat when everyone else sat. I didn't pray aloud. I was polite and observant.

For an RPG example, I tend to play my characters based on their background in terms of religion. A human noble might be a follower, but a mage might not. A city elf might be conflicted by surroundings versus heritage. My initial rationale for trying to convince the Shaper to allow Brother Burkel to preach the Chant of Light is not because my character is an Andrastian, but because I think the exclusion of the Chantry is unfair. If someone wants to convert of their own free will, for whatever reason, that should be their choice, and having the Chantry in Orzammar is a vehicle for that choice.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 juillet 2012 - 12:51 .

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

That's indeed the case. Not believing in the Chantry or the Maker is not atheism-- though I suppose some folks might have different definitions. As I recall, DAO had options for dwarven and Dalish elf characters to openly scoff at the Maker-- but that's because they had beliefs of their own. Morrigan's a special case, sure, but I wouldn't call her an atheist. Even if someone else does, she's certainly not the norm.

And, yes, the player character could be a special case, too. Like I said, we don't go out of our way to say the player must endorse a religious view, we just don't offer options for the player to openly express atheism. If someone says we did this on occasion (for human characters?) in DAO, I'll take their word for it. They probably remember better than I do, at this point.

If it would really make fans happy, I'll modify my statement to say we'll consider offering the option to express doubt-- when it's appropriate. Meaning, if the issue of faith is directly in question. Otherwise, like I said, it's not really one of the viewpoints we allow for (among the many that we do). And that's as far as I'll give on that point.

Fair enough?

This sounds good to me, and I'm a principled atheist in real life.  It's quite possibly really, really difficult to give the PC the option to come out really strongly in favor of any particular belief stance in the game because doing this in certain circumstances ought to radically change the progress of the plot, lock you out of content, make your companions abandon you, etc.  In short, this one belief aspect ought to control the entire game.  Atheism is not a moderate stance.  (Deism is, and you can easily construe your character as a type of deist or agnostic, for instance.)

What I would like, is to not shoehorn the PC into either saying "I suppose that's true" or, alternatively, saying "you're a total moron!  I kick your moron ass!" when people bring up what they believe in conversation.  There's rarely an opportunity to point out the flaws in another person's position and yet do this in a respectful manner, the options generally are "cave" or "be horribly rude and confrontational" with perhaps a side order of "this is boring".

[mousestalker]

I, the player, do not believe in The Maker or Andraste or any of that. My characters may or may not, depending. In rpg's I play more than one character if I like a game. My characters are always as well mannered as possible. They may slice your head off, but they are awfully nice about it. What I want is when I play an atheist or agnostic is to have the ability to be polite. Some players may enjoy back talking the Grand Cleric. I don't.

What I'm asking is that if the dialogue choices allow expressions of disbelief, then they allow them consistently and in the same tone throughout. Establish early in the game if the character is abrasively atheistic or quiet about it. Nothing is worse than playing a smooth diplomatic character who has certain beliefs and then be forced into choosing a rude retort.

[Ellestor]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And why exactly would Flemeth and Morrigan be interested in capturing the soul of a reall old dragon? Especially since Flemeth is already really old... and can transform into a dragon?

Because they're super-powerful? That much seems demonstrated.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The Archdemons are corrupted Old Gods. What that makes the Old Gods, exactly, is still up for debate.

Yeah, by saying the Old Gods are ancient dragons, I'm agreeing that's what the archdemons are.

In order to say they're something else in the form of dragons (say, dragons possessed by certain spirits or some other entities), shouldn't we need to have evidence of that possession having taken place? Something like darkspawn capturing and dragging down ‘normal’ dragons for the process. But everything we've seen suggests the dragons that become the archdemons are already slumbering in the depths, doesn't it?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Given what is revealed in The Silent Grove, dragons themselves are key to all life in the world as we know it. So maybe really "old dragons" are more than just that. Maybe they do have a connection to the world, the Fade and the universe in general that elevates them above normal dragons and confers onto them power beyond mortal comprehension.

Powerful things are, indeed, powerful. I don't know why this means they would be ‘more’ than ‘just’ dragons, though.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And who is to say that's not worth worshipping? That's all being a god requires - worship. Not infinite, omnipotency.

Modifié par Ellestor, 10 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That's all being a god requires - worship. Not infinite, omnipotency.

Worship?  Alright then...













As for what being an atheist is, what atheism means - there is no church, set of beliefs, code of conduct... it's not a philosophy, a movement...
SOME people who are atheists join together, and SOME are activists - but there's no rules to being an atheist.

All that you can say for sure is that an atheist rejects the notion of gods. That could mean not knowing if they exist, that could mean KNOWING (as in firm belief held so strongly the person REALLY thinks it is truth) there are no gods. It could be a person who practices no religion, it could be a person who is a practicing Wiccan.

Atheist means a-theist, anti-theism... even if the anti is a bit strong in that explanation, as all it necessarily says is not believing in gods.

Paraphrasing what one person said, everyone is an atheist in regards to all the gods save their own.

It doesn't take a remarkable mind to make the jump from "I'm Sumerian and believe in Enlil, I don't believe in Ahura Mazda.... but lots of people do believe in Zoroastrianism and are wrong. And then there's those Horus worshipers... they're wrong too. But the Egyptians and the Persians must believe I am wrong as they assume they are right. If they are wrong, why couldn't I be wrong? We could all be wrong."

General perceptions of the "Dark Ages" as being this primitive, unquestioning, dogmatic period of hidebound adherence to religious doctrine are suffering under the propaganda of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Church was actually quite the engine of natural philosophy, and religious figures were very philosophical about many things - while believing or not believing what they would consider is another story.

*puts away his history soapbox*

Modifié par MerinTB, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:54 .

[jillabender]

MerinTB wrote...

General perceptions of the "Dark Ages" as being this primitive, unquestioning, dogmatic period of hidebound adherence to religious doctrine are suffering under the propaganda of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Church was actually quite the engine of natural philosophy, and religious figures were very philosophical about many things - while believing or not believing what they would consider is another story.

You're absolutely right - atheism may not have been defined as such in the Middle Ages, but Medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have bothered to come up with proofs for the existence of God if no one at that time ever considered the idea of his non-existence.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

General perceptions of the "Dark Ages" as being this primitive, unquestioning, dogmatic period of hidebound adherence to religious doctrine are suffering under the propaganda of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Church was actually quite the engine of natural philosophy, and religious figures were very philosophical about many things - while believing or not believing what they would consider is another story.

You're absolutely right - atheism may not have been defined as such in the Middle Ages, but Medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have bothered to come up with proofs for the existence of God if no one at that time ever considered the idea of his non-existence.

That is an excellent point.  St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 Proofs would not have been necessary if the existence of a god was never questioned.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

jillabender wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

General perceptions of the "Dark Ages" as being this primitive, unquestioning, dogmatic period of hidebound adherence to religious doctrine are suffering under the propaganda of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Church was actually quite the engine of natural philosophy, and religious figures were very philosophical about many things - while believing or not believing what they would consider is another story.

You're absolutely right - atheism may not have been defined as such in the Middle Ages, but Medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have bothered to come up with proofs for the existence of God if no one at that time ever considered the idea of his non-existence.

That is an excellent point.  St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 Proofs would not have been necessary if the existence of a god was never questioned.

Correct me if I am wrong but Thomas Aquinas was not trying to prove the existance of God, but to expalin what all men mean when they speak of God. That is quite different from proving the existance of God.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 juillet 2012 - 06:24 .

[Fast Jimmy]

As a side note, Aquinas' Proofs were to define capital G God, deity of the Judeo-Christian faith. However a god, by very definition, is anything that is worshipped.

So, despite the attempts to make that statement sound foolish with the above posted pictures, those are all valid and varied forms of godhood. Worshipping an institution, such as a company like Apple, an entertainer, such as a music star, a politcal leader, such as a dictator, or even just a philosophy, like a political belief or view on the universe... when taken to extremes, all of these things are worship. And all of them can confer, on differing levels, deification.

So The Old Gods are just that - beings that we're worshipped as gods a long time ago. If they have more power than your normal human, can live forever and are worshipped, that puts them above many other religious figures in our world.

[ianvillan]

With the sudden turn around of being able to say you dont believe in the maker to now being no atheists in ferelden. Could it be because Bioware wants the main character of DA3 to be a seeker, where atheism would not be appropiate.

[ScotGaymer]

I don't think that even in Dragon Age Origin there was an option to be entirely Atheist.

Atheism is a really extreme stance to have, IMO. And something that frankly didn't exist in the similar time period on earth and would be extremely unlikely to exist in the Thedasian universe where there are all sorts of fantastical things that could be taken as circumstantial but compelling evidence of a higher power.

I reckon that the options to deny the maker were mostly the non human characters having different beliefs. And the one instance of a human doing it seemed to be more along the lines of Agnosticism rather than outright Atheism.

[Iosev]

While I think that it is fine comparing Thedas to the medieval era and suggesting that if atheistic worldviews existed in medieval times, then why could such views not exist in Thedas, there's an important difference between the real world and Thedas: there are extraordinary and supernatural phenomena that exist in Thedas that many of its people see.

From spirits and/or demons, to the darkspawn, to the existence of the Fade, to magical abilities, to dragons, Thedas isn't a place like the medieval world where supernatural phenomena were just rumors, superstitions, and so on, but real occurrences. In general, I imagine that taking an atheistic worldview would be much more difficult for an individual living in Thedas, than it would for someone who lived during the medieval era.

With that said, I'm fine with the player having the ability to question or express disbelief in the Maker or Chantry dogma, but I personally don't see how a Thedosian can remain an atheist, after fighting higher and extraordinary beings such as an archdemon.

Modifié par arcelonious, 10 juillet 2012 - 07:35 .

[Icesong]

http://upload.wikime...itExplicit3.svg

Atheism isn't so rigid a classification as some of you seem to think.

[Realmzmaster]

Correct me if I am wrong but the Human Noble does not say I do not believe in a god, but I do not believe in the Maker.
This point goes back to how much realism do you want in the game. D & D had it various deities and demigods( In fact a whole book was issued on the subject). You could have a character that was an atheist, but that character could not be a cleric. Clerics draw their power from their god. In editions before the 4th druids were also in this category. The druid drew strength from nature or one of the several patron gods.

The atheistic traveling companion would deny the existence of the cleric's god, but would have to acknowledge the power comes from somewhere. Now these "gods" could be extremely powerful beings, a hairy thunderer or Cosmic Muffin who are able to impart their power to others. Once the power is imparted the receiver would revere and worship the 'god" to keep receiving that power.

I think this is one of the reasons why the Chantry priests and priestesses have no power from the Maker. It would be seen on the same level as magic. The Chantry would be hard press to explain the rule for mages and not their own people.

[Icesong]

arcelonious wrote...

While I think that it is fine comparing Thedas to the medieval era and suggesting that if atheistic worldviews existed in medieval times, then why could such views not exist in Thedas, there's an important difference between the real world and Thedas: there are extraordinary and supernatural phenomena that exist in Thedas that many of its people see.

From spirits and/or demons, to the darkspawn, to the existence of the Fade, to magical abilities, to dragons, Thedas isn't a place like the medieval world where supernatural phenomena were just rumors, superstitions, and so on, but real occurrences. In general, I imagine that taking an atheistic worldview would be much more difficult for an individual living in Thedas, than it would for someone who lived during the medieval era.

With that said, I'm fine with the player having the ability to question or express disbelief in the Maker or Chantry dogma, but I personally don't see how a Thedosian can remain an atheist, after fighting higher and extraordinary beings such as an archdemon.

You have to remember that fantastical things aren't necessarily associated with divinity, and what's fantastical to us isn't always so fantastical to the denizens of fantasy settings.

[Iakus]

 I have no problem with it being generally accepted in Thedas that the Maker exists.  In fact, I think that opens up all sorts of new possibilities, since just because it's accepted that he exists, that doesn't mean that everyone agrees on who or what the Maker is exactly.

I eman, the Chantry believes the Maker is a god to be worshipped.  Others might believe the Maker is simply a powerful Fade spirit (a Spirit of Creation?).  Still others might think he's a deity from another pantheon bearing a different name. mAybe there have been several Makers over the millenia.  

I mean, even in ancient Tevinter, they believed in the Maker even as they worshipped the Old Gods.  They did try to invade the Golden City, after all.  The Maker's realm.  Someone had to live there, right?

It makes sense that most people believe in the Maker.  What remains to be hammered out is what believing in the Maker means.  That's where roleplaying comes in.

[Iosev]

Icesong wrote...

http://upload.wikime...itExplicit3.svg

Atheism isn't so rigid a classification as some of you seem to think.

But those are classifications that are related to our own world, which I don't think could easily translate to a world filled with extraordinary beings and supernatural occurrences.  I agree that there is a broad spectrum of Atheism in our world, but I don't agree that it can be easily applied to a world like Thedas.

Modifié par arcelonious, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Correct me if I am wrong but Thomas Aquinas was not trying to prove the existance of God, but to expalin what all men mean when they speak of God. That is quite different from proving the existance of God.

There is a school of thought that Aquinas was actually trying to question the existence of God by raising the issue as a question at all.  For most people, it had probably never occurred to them to question the existence of God, and then along came Aquinas telling them what to do if they ever did.  And his "proofs", I would argue, raised more doubt that they dispelled by laying out quite clearly what came to be known as the Problem of evil.

[RussianSpy27]

David Gaider wrote...

This is also the case in Thedas. And the idea of getting into a discussion of what Morrigan or the Qunari is irrelevant in the context of how it should impact the player-- which, from the perspective of the writing team, is not at all. It's not one of the possible viewpoints that we offer, though we also don't go out of our way to do the opposite either, and we've no intention of changing that.

And that's where I'm going to leave it. If someone wants to take this as "but this was clearly a theme of the entire story whether you meant it or not and if you are changing that approach even though you just said you weren't then CLEARLY ALL IS LOST"... well, knock yourselves out. 

Are we to take that as an unintentional revelation that a DA3 hero will certainly not be a Quinari or for that matter a dwarf who believes in the Stone and not a diety?

[Icesong]

arcelonious wrote...

Icesong wrote...

Atheism isn't so rigid a classification as some of you seem to think.

But those are classifications that are related to our own world, which I don't think could easily translate to a world filled with extraordinary beings and supernatural occurrences.  I agree that there is a broad spectrum of Atheism in our world, but I don't agree that it can be easily applied to a world like Thedas.

Well, these are just terms to define different methods of reasoning/logic. I understood what you were saying about it being harder to be an atheist in Thedas, though as I said there are some considerations, but the range would still exist regardless.

Modifié par Icesong, 10 juillet 2012 - 08:36 .

[WotanAnubis]

arcelonious wrote...

From spirits and/or demons, to the darkspawn, to the existence of the Fade, to magical abilities, to dragons, Thedas isn't a place like the medieval world where supernatural phenomena were just rumors, superstitions, and so on, but real occurrences. In general, I imagine that taking an atheistic worldview would be much more difficult for an individual living in Thedas, than it would for someone who lived during the medieval era.

That always seemed a double-edged sword to me. 

On the one hand, yes, the fact of magic and the existence of spirts/demons certainly raised the odds of there being some kind of divine being somewhere else as well.

On the other hand, mages and spirits actually, factually influence the world in visible and sometimes terrible ways. Divine miracles, on the other hand, are curiously lacking, or vastly overshadowed by mundane magic. This suggests that the deities are hiding, apathetic, dead or non-existent, so why bother?

Oh, but that's right. The Maker has left the world and that's why there is absolutely no evidence of Him ever affecting the real world in any way. How very convenient.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

mousestalker wrote...

What I'm asking is that if the dialogue choices allow expressions of disbelief, then they allow them consistently and in the same tone throughout. Establish early in the game if the character is abrasively atheistic or quiet about it. Nothing is worse than playing a smooth diplomatic character who has certain beliefs and then be forced into choosing a rude retort.

Definitely agreed. I think DA2 had this issue in a few places (I'm reminded of a slaver quest, at least).

[Iakus]

WotanAnubis wrote...

That always seemed a double-edged sword to me. 

On the one hand, yes, the fact of magic and the existence of spirts/demons certainly raised the odds of there being some kind of divine being somewhere else as well.

On the other hand, mages and spirits actually, factually influence the world in visible and sometimes terrible ways. Divine miracles, on the other hand, are curiously lacking, or vastly overshadowed by mundane magic. This suggests that the deities are hiding, apathetic, dead or non-existent, so why bother?

Oh, but that's right. The Maker has left the world and that's why there is absolutely no evidence of Him ever affecting the real world in any way. How very convenient.

So would that encourage lack of belief, or lack of respect?  One could still believe in the Maker, but find him not worth worshiping because he's apathetic, absent, or whatever.