299 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

The way I am reading David Gaider's comments, and the way that I have always looked at religion in the DA-verse from the PC perspective, is that powerful beings exist. Whether or not they are viewed as gods by the individual, and thus ascribed a faith and worship of the divine (they are prayed to, seen as creators or as beings that respond directly to sacrifice and entreaty, etc), is left for the player to decide for his/her character. 

So for Thedas and beyond, the Maker, the Old Gods, Fen'Harel, Mythal, and the like, all exist, or existed in some way, shape or form. Some NPCs put their faith and trust in these beings, and so can the PC. The existence of these beings is acknowledged, but calling them and treating them as gods, as something to be worshipped, is flexible based on how you want to role-play.

That's more or less how I've viewed the religions of Thedas outside of my actual playthroughs. That all of the beliefs are in fact true.

In-game, I may make some of my PCs believe differently, but outside of that I do think the Maker exists, the Dalish Pantheon is real, the Stone is a living entity, and whoever else is real. Who knows? Maybe the Chasind/Avvar gods are real as well.

I come to that belief based on what I see and read about in-game.

whykikyouwhy
Yes, Hawke makes some comments about the Maker, or uses his name as a battlecry/curse. So does Aveline, who, in conversation with Hawke, indicates that she is not a follower, or at least not a devout one (the specific dialogue escapes me right now).

Wesley's with the Maker now, or he isn't.

Pretty sure that was it, along with her stating that while the Chant is beautiful she doesn't know the validity of it, but believes that maybe the Chant just needs to be beautiful and nothing else.

I think.

The battle cries I could take as being simply expressions akin to "Oh God..." or "For Christ's sake" and the like. Maybe some anyway, as I believe a diplomatic Hawke's lines aren't always like that but some sound suspiciously more like professing his/her beliefs in battle.

Anyway, some I can take like that. PS3 users don't get to hear Hawke's battle cries, so what they actually are is not clear to me.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 juillet 2012 - 01:20 .

[LobselVith8]

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 phenomenon 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, then it would be for someone living during the medieval era.

Not necessarily. Morrigan and Leliana address these factors in their discussion about a higher power, and Morrigan doesn't think these factors prove anything:

Leliana: I'm wondering Morrigan... do you believe in the Maker?

Morrigan: Certainly not. I've no primitive fear of the moon such that I must place my faith in tales so that I may sleep at night.

Leliana: But this can't all be an accident. Spirits, magic, all these wondrous things around us both dark and light. You know these things exist.

Morrigan: The fact of their existence does not presuppose an intelligent design by some absentee father-figure.

Leliana: so it is all random, then? A happy coincidence that we are all here?

Morrigan: Attempting to impose order over chaos is futile. Nature is, by its very nature, chaotic.

Leliana: I don't believe that. I believe we have a purpose. All of us.

Morrigan: Yours, apparently being to bother me.

Some people might share Leliana's view, and others might share Morrigan's. Even in a world of magic and spirits, people may not believe in a higher power. I can imagine that the scion of an apostate might have doubts about the Chantry and its teachings. I don't see why Hawke isn't allowed to voice an atheistic perspective like The Warden. It's unfortunate that the more I hear about Dragon Age III and the future of this franchise, the more it seems to be stripping away from what we once had.

[Abispa]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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).

I had no problem playing a Hawke was was, as I am, an atheist. Though I agree the Warden could be more vocal (thanks to the fact that s/he could be a dwarf, elf, as well which allowd the human to be equally as antagonistic to the Chantry).

Speaking from experience, as an atheist I rarely ever have to bring my beliefs up IRL. The American midwest is about as conservative religious as the deep South, though more Catholic than Baptist. I agree that there are VERY RARE situations where I've needed to put my foot down, but they were usually forceful on my part because of someone else being very overbearing on his/her faith.

Any atheists in Thedas would probably avoid discussing his/her views openly since it'd probably cause more trouble than it's worth. Let Cassandra think I respect her Chantry. Let Merrill think I respect her pathetic pantheon of Gods who get themselves locked into alternate dimensions. I don't see a need for Bioware to introduce situations where religious beliefs MUST be accepted for rejected clearly. I'd prefer some ambiguity that allows for flexible headcanons for MOST players.

You could argue that you should at least be given to the option to be be overtly atheist, which would be "realistic," but then I could argue that the "realistic" outcome is that none of the important squadmates needed to complete the adventure wanted to team with your hero, thus s/he could never complete the mission. The end. That was your game taken to it's logical conclusion. Meanwhile another player continues on with the adventure.

It is, in the end, a matter of resources. I would LOVE it if BioWare would create a game that caters to EVERY possible decision a character could make, (I'd be curious what this "Sylvius the Mad" chap who keeps posting could create if he ever got enough resources to make a game) but in this age of VA and cut scenes, I can see the necessity if Gaider to focus our gameplay in certain directions.

Just, not as "focused" as DA2, please. And I say that as a fan of that game (for the most part).

Modifié par Abispa, 11 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Your definition of "god" is ridiculous.  I cannot be an atheist by your definition, as not only do I clearly accept the empirical evidence that people worship all sorts of things, but I personally accept that how I feel about certain people/things borders on "worship."

So, I guess I'm religious after all.  Church of Joss Whedon and Douglas Adams, if nothing else.  Which, considering they both are atheists as well, is all kinds of wacky that belongs in one of their works.


EDIT:  Just to clear things up -

dictionary.com

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

merriam-webster

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

wikipedia
(small g god redirects to deity)

A deity is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true.

Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are also frequently expressed as having human form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. Deities are often thought to be immortal, and are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions comparable but usually superior to those of humans.

Natural phenomena whose causes are not understood, such as lightning and catastrophes such as earthquakes and floods, are sometimes attributed to them. They may be thought to be able to work supernatural miracles and to be the authorities and controllers of various aspects of human life (such as birth or an afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of everything (the Earth or Universe and all contents).


----

You know, just to put out there that (outside of Fast Jimmy) the generally accepted definition of a god (or deity, the words are interchangeable when not specifically referring to the Christian God) is more than anything that is worshipped.

Outside of, you know, using "god" in a metaphor ("Michael Jordan was a basketball god") or a similie ("Scott Walker is worshipped by tea party conservatives like a god.")

No one, when discussing beings of great power, creators of the universe, emodiements of natural phenomenon, or especially atheism, would use the last two defintions off of merriam-webster, before anyone goes there.

Modifié par MerinTB, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:14 .

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

Church of Joss Whedon and Douglas Adams, if nothing else. 

Oh that reminds me. You are late with your Tithe. Buffalo wings or potatoes (they may not fix everything) are acceptable.

[Josielyn]

I think the best role playing games offer the same options you have in real life: to agree or disagree with someone else's belief, or lack of it, and also handle the consequences of either of the choices. Some people like to experience the same as their real life, some the opposite as their real life. Either way, you learn alot about your true self in the process. We all have different personal experiences that make us believe or disbelieve. The question is: how much will you influence or let yourself be influenced by others? Would you let your character be persuaded by an NPC (i.e. your romantic NPC) to change your character's belief? Or would you be willing to risk losing your romantic NPC because they did not see things your way? Or will your character find a way to persuade their best non-romantic NPC to "agree to disagree"? If everyone agreed with you all the time and if you agreed with everyone all the time, there wouldn't be much to write about. There are other subjects besides religion that people can agree or disagree over, and still keep their own identity. I think it is acceptable for a game company to provide alternatives to that subject.

[Cultist]

I am ok if you can't express disbelief in all supernatural omnipotent powers. I am concerned that this will lead to removing options to express nihilism. To stripping PC of any option to strongly oppose Chantry, various factions of the Chantry and at the same time oppose Qun and other beliefs.
I am afraid that we will be presented with choices like, for example, "Side with Chantry" or "Side with Qun" and removing any option to fight them both. Like Mark of the Assassin where you can oppose Tallis yet in the end forced to side with her even after you separate ways and refuse to help her.

[Daerog]

I wouldn't be surprised by it, they did it with the end of DA2, choose one or the other, can't fight or ignore both or side with the qunari. I'm not saying this in a negative way, just how the story/game goes.

Edit: Couldn't just kill both Bhelen and Harrowmont, couldn't ask the abomination Connor to use the undead to help fight the Blight (that would be odd...), other limited options...

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 11 juillet 2012 - 11:01 .

[bloodmage13]

I understand that people want to express their personal views in video games but this is ridiculous. Bioware is a business. Why would they risk alienating some of their fans by focusing on religion. We can argue about religion in real life. I play dragon age to kill things and hump elves ( maybe dwarves in the future).
* full disclosure I am religious

[Lotion Soronarr]

GodWood wrote...

I still think it's silly to roleplay a flatout Dawkins atheist in a medeval setting which lacks organized rational/logical/scientific thought, public education etc, etc.

Personally, despite being an atheist in RL, I like to play my characters as varying degrees of religious and not simply have them as self-inserts who have come to enlighten the foolish barbarians with my modern wisdom.

But GodWood, that requires people to be sensible.
You know you cannot ask that - some people will absolutely have to insert their RL views on religion in the game.

[Wulfram]

It's not silly to play a Mage who rejects Andrasteanism because it rejects him. Or a City Elf who rejects the faith imposed on his people by conquest but cannot make the leap to following the absent gods of his distant ancestors.

Hawke had every reason necessary to have unconventional religious beliefs. And it's not like most of his party would take offence.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But GodWood, that requires people to be sensible.

I think a sensible person would have bothered to read the OP and see that this option was available for The Warden, even though it's denied for Hawke. Morrigan stands as another example, supported by her conversation with Leliana where she explicitly says she doesn't believe in a higher power. I provided an excerpt of the conversation 10 hours ago, which you can find on the top of the page (page 9). Given how Hawke is the child of an apostate, it would have been realistic for him (or have) to have some doubts about the Andrastian Chantry, if the player wanted their protagonist to be atheist. That option was denied to us, and Hawke instead voices that "a particular person" is with the Maker, thereby indicating that he's Andrastian regardless of our imput.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You know you cannot ask that - some people will absolutely have to insert their RL views on religion in the game.

I guess when my Dunmer assassin becomes a member of the Dark Brotherhood, it means I'm actually a follower of the Dread Father Sithis? Or am I a follower of the Tribunal because my Dunmer mage has the Tribunal Hand warpaint on his forehead? I honestly don't understand how you can conflate wanting the protagonist in a fictional universe to be atheist towards a fictional religion with real life. I'm asking for control over the protagonist over scenes where the protagonist is outside our control - like the scene where Hawke tells a romanced Merrill that "this person" is with the Maker. Apparently, we aren't going to have that control anymore, like we did with The Warden.

[Wulfram]

I point out again that you don't have to say that someone is with the maker. That it in fact only happens if you choose to agree that this someone is in a better place.

[WotanAnubis]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


But GodWood, that requires people to be sensible.
You know you cannot ask that - some people will absolutely have to insert their RL views on religion in the game.

The sad thing is, this whole thing probably wouldn't get discussed this much if it had never been an option. If Thedas and the faith that ruled most of it had just been presented as is without ever really being challenged or called into question, I think a lot of people would just roll with it, myself included.

But they didn't do that. They included Morrigan and Aveline and gave the Warden the option to voice their own dissenting opinion.

And, as is so very often the case, once presented with the option to do X, RPG players tend to get grouchy if that option is then taken away from them.


I mean... let's say DA3 forced the player to be pro-Mage and took away the player's ability to be pro-Templar. How many people would be happy with that?

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

I point out again that you don't have to say that someone is with the maker.

It isn't as though you have the option between agreeing and disagreeing with the idea that the Maker even exists - you have the option to say "someone" is with the Maker, or acting like an ungrateful brute towards someone who is trying to comfort you. Why should Hawke say "someone" is with the Maker in the first place? Why are we denied any control over our protagonist's religious views? I don't see the point in forcing my protagonist to be an Andrastian if I don't want him to be one.

Wulfram wrote...

That in fact only happens if you choose to agree that this someone is in a better place.

With the only two other options being to attack Merrill for trying to comfort you, and there is no indication given that Hawke would say anything of the kind from the dialogue line.

[Wulfram]

Yes, we could have done with a friendlier non-religious answer. Though personally, I think it makes sense for Hawke to be a bit of a jerk at that point - people do that when they're upset.

Merrill says "x is in a better place now" and the paraphrase is "you're right". That's an extremely strong indication that Hawke is going to say something religious - I really can't see any other interpretation.  I suppose someone head canoning the Hawke converted to the Elvish religion might be annoyed.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 juillet 2012 - 01:15 .

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

Yes, we could have done with a friendlier non-religious answer.

Considering there are only three options, I think it would have made sense for them to be varied - rather than having two options essentially have Hawke verbally attack Merrill for trying to comfort him at this time.

Wulfram wrote...

I really can't see any other interpretation.

Yet we aren't choosing to determine what our protagonist believes in - it's not like New Vegas or Skyrim where we chose dialogue options that establish certain aspects of our protagonist, including his beliefs. There is no alternative to Hawke voicing an Andrastian religious view. And there is no indication that being irate with Merrill means that Hawke isn't Andrastian, it simply means he isn't voicing an Andrastian perspective - which he does in combat and in other conversations, including some of his dialogue with Sebastian and Grand Cleric Elthina.

Why the developers think that giving us a fixed protagonist with a fixed religious view is better than giving us choices in the matter is beyond me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But GodWood, that requires people to be sensible. [/quote]

I think a sensible person would have bothered to read the OP and see that this option was available for The Warden, even though it's denied for Hawke. Morrigan stands as another example, supported by her conversation with Leliana where she explicitly says she doesn't believe in a higher power. I provided an excerpt of the conversation 10 hours ago, which you can find on the top of the page (page 9). Given how Hawke is the child of an apostate, it would have been realistic for him (or have) to have some doubts about the Andrastian Chantry, if the player wanted their protagonist to be atheist. That option was denied to us, and Hawke instead voices that "a particular person" is with the Maker, thereby indicating that he's Andrastian regardless of our imput.[/quote]

No actually.
As someone else put it, the Warden can expresses dibelief in the Maker (which would be agnosticism), not atheism.

Either way, I wanted my Warden to to about 500 things he couldn't. From punching Howe the second time they met, to becoming a clown. From leaving Ferelden to teaching the people the quantum theory.
Can I do any of these things? Nope.
Does it matter? Not really.
One will always be restricted and SHOULD be restricted to what makes sense within the setting.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


[quote]
I'm asking for control over the protagonist over scenes where the protagonist is outside our control.[/quote]

Isn't the whole point of those scenes for players to NOT have control, so the story can be driven in a certain way?

[berelinde]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not silly to play a Mage who rejects Andrasteanism because it rejects him. Or a City Elf who rejects the faith imposed on his people by conquest but cannot make the leap to following the absent gods of his distant ancestors.

Hawke had every reason necessary to have unconventional religious beliefs. And it's not like most of his party would take offence.

This, pretty much.



I play protagonists with a variety of religious views. Most are mages, and the only one that embraced Andrastianism whole cloth was a homicidal donkey-hole who betrayed his own people for the sake of his faith. I needed a "pro-Templar" playthrough, and that was it. It was the least fun I've ever had playing a video game. The one I have the most fun playing is more or less Adrastian, but he has a lot of trouble reconciling what he knows to be true (that he isn't a Maker-cursed menace to humanity) with what the chantry tells people is the truth. I've also run characters who rejected Andrastianism utterly, and they've been fun, too.

What do I take away from this? The only time the game has been un-fun is when faith is mandated. I won't waste my money on an un-fun game.

[bloodmage13]

At the end of the day is anyone not gonna get DA3 just because you cannot make atheist remarks? I feel that only a very small number of people would say yes

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think a sensible person would have bothered to read the OP and see that this option was available for The Warden, even though it's denied for Hawke. Morrigan stands as another example, supported by her conversation with Leliana where she explicitly says she doesn't believe in a higher power. I provided an excerpt of the conversation 10 hours ago, which you can find on the top of the page (page 9). Given how Hawke is the child of an apostate, it would have been realistic for him (or have) to have some doubts about the Andrastian Chantry, if the player wanted their protagonist to be atheist. That option was denied to us, and Hawke instead voices that "a particular person" is with the Maker, thereby indicating that he's Andrastian regardless of our imput.

No actually.
As someone else put it, the Warden can expresses dibelief in the Maker (which would be agnosticism), not atheism.

Considering the Andrastian Chantry is pretty much the only religion for most humans in Andrastian lands, it's a valid option to express atheism by voicing that the protagonist does not believe in the Maker. Despite your clear disdain for atheism in any form, it's disingenious of you to claim otherwise.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Either way, I wanted my Warden to to about 500 things he couldn't. From punching Howe the second time they met, to becoming a clown. From leaving Ferelden to teaching the people the quantum theory.
Can I do any of these things? Nope.
Does it matter? Not really.
One will always be restricted and SHOULD be restricted to what makes sense within the setting.

Considering I'm asking for the same option that was avaliable in Origins for The Warden, I don't think it's too much to ask.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm asking for control over the protagonist over scenes where the protagonist is outside our control.

Isn't the whole point of those scenes for players to NOT have control, so the story can be driven in a certain way?

I think an RPG should permit the player to have control over their own character. I'm playing a game, not watching a movie.

[berelinde]

At the end of the day, is anyone not going to buy DA3 just because they have lost the ability to define a rather prominent part of their character's identity? The percentage may be somewhat higher.

David Gaider has said that an individual character's personal religious views will continue to be open to interpretation. He stated that our characters will continue to have the ability to reject or doubt the tenets of Andrastianism... as much as they have in previous games.

I'm not thrilled with the fact that Hawke's dialogue and combat barks continually reference the Maker, but I can deal with it. Atheists say "God bless you" when someone sneezes, too. They just don't expect anybody to actually be blessed as a result of it.

[Fallstar]

Ellestor wrote...
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.

It fits the story, and we have no other explanation for the presence of the Black City than that provided by the chantry. Now I am not saying this is remotely good evidence, after all, making up gods to explain what we can't understand isn't exactly unheard of. Personally I do think that the 'Maker' entity dwelled there at one point, but that the city was never golden, as hinted by Corypheus ("The city, it was supposed to be golden!") Either way, we have a black city which the Old Gods either tricked the magisters into believing was the seat of the Maker, or they also genuinely believed it was. 

There's evidence if I believe? 

Well, it is certainly a possibility that Andraste's powers were gifts of the Maker (whether he is a divine being or a very powerful spirit type, he could still impart power). The other possibility is that she was a Somniari mage/blood mage, but such things aren't common knowledge. As evidenced by Hawke needing to be told by Keeper Marethari about them. So to most people in Thedas, and indeed to me pre-DA2, there didn't seem to be much of an alternative explanation for Andraste's abilities other than "they got exaggerated a bit over time." Yet our experience in the temple ruins in DAO suggests that whatever Andraste was, she and her guardians were certainly powerful, and doesn't indicate that her power was exaggerated.

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.

Well, we have been told that the Old Gods are "neither creators or created." I'm not sure what 'created' means here, it could mean that they are eternal. I am taking it to mean that whatever event created the rest of Thedas, of divine origin or no, that the Old Gods existed before it. My opinion is that they are not 'just' old, powerful dragons, but rather are old, powerful beings which take the form of dragons. Not that this makes them true gods per se, but certainly remarkably powerful entities that could be mistaken for such - as we see with the old Tevinter Imperium.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:06 .

[MerinTB]

bloodmage13 wrote...
At the end of the day is anyone not gonna get DA3 just because you cannot make atheist remarks? I feel that only a very small number of people would say yes

My reasons for not getting DA3 will have almost absolutely nothing to do with whether the game lets me play an atheist or not.  Especially if the story for the game world is that there ARE gods.

My favorite D&D class? Paladin.  What I end up playing an often lot? Cleric.

Fantasy is fantasy - no problem accepting magic, elves, dragons or gods in a video game.

I think very few, if anyone, in this thread are arguing for ADDING atheism in.  I think most thought non-belief was largely already present, especially in DA:O, and are a bit surprised the lead writer said that it wasn't meant to be, and won't be in the future.  Thread title is "option should RETURN", after all, showing the OC had the same (apparent) misconception about Origins that I shared.

Though I've not paid super-close attention to all the posts in this thread.

Modifié par MerinTB, 11 juillet 2012 - 04:11 .

[Ellestor]

bloodmage13 wrote...

I understand that people want to express their personal views in video games but this is ridiculous. Bioware is a business. Why would they risk alienating some of their fans by focusing on religion. We can argue about religion in real life. I play dragon age to kill things and hump elves ( maybe dwarves in the future).
* full disclosure I am religious

Never mind ‘personal views’, though. This is as simple as whether a character believes the elves were once immortal or not. It doesn't necessitate a focus to just not assume that a character will take it on faith. I don't think BioWare has done that, I just think a stance of ‘atheism doesn't exist’ invites it.

Also, I'd say it's pretty well focused on already. The Chantry is kind of a big deal. And since they're not so big on crushing heretics (anymore) or keeping people illiterate, I think one would expect to see more non-believers around than in the medieval Europe that David was pointing out. Dark Ages these ain't.

Modifié par Ellestor, 11 juillet 2012 - 04:34 .