59 réponses à ce sujet

[WotanAnubis]

TommyServo wrote...


In any event, as far as whether anything is "true" - I imagine that only Andrastism is the "true" faith, and the whole Andrastian theology will have some sort of gritty historical basis. After Legacy, I can't see any other outcome.

The only gritty historical basis I can see is that, yep, a bunch of Tevinter magisters caused the darkspawn.

On the other hand, that dude's implication that the bright, Golden City they were promised was never there, casts some doubt on it being the Maker's (former) Heaven.

The Golden City may have been transformed into the Black City the moment the magisters stepped foot in it, or maybe it was black all along.

Or maybe Fen'Harel was just screwing with them.

[nightscrawl]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

David Gaider recently said that no one in Theidas is really an atheist...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

What Gaider said was a bit ridiculous.

I think his replies in that thread are being taken a bit too literally. I think this response by him is the best summary of the discussion, and I think was partly overlooked by some of the posters in that thread...

David Gaider wrote...

There was no "proof" of God, and yet in medieval Europe the fact that He existed was beyond question. A given person might hate Him or reject Him, but that does not mean He didn't exist. Sure, there might be exceptional individuals, but it was not a thing.

If you'll read it carefully, it's similar to previous statements (which are true) in the threads about sexuality in Thedas: there really are no such things as bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, straight, or gay. People in a medieval time setting did not think in those terms. Those are in fact relatively new terms, none of which are older than 150 years in our own society.

So I think this line of thought is where he is coming from on that issue. I also think that it goes to how complex do we want to be able to get in these games. In the Neverwinter Nights CC screen there was a box to fill in your deity. This input could be called for various story elements and your character would say "<Name> prays to <Deity> for blah blah," however the DM decided to word it.

I don't believe that the Dragon Age games were ever designed with the same roleplay depth in mind as NWN or any other such games. In fact, since in any CRPG you only have a preset amount of dialogue options, I argue that your character is never completely your own since you did not write those dialogue choices, and had it been left to you, might have chosen something completely different to say than what was provided by the game. NWN co-op certainly had more freedom since you had a chatbox you could type into, thereby creating your own dialogue, just like a PnP RPG.

At any rate, the title of this thread isn't really accurate. Anything revolving around "faith" can never be "true". That is the sole function on taking something on faith. If the concepts behind any single religion were to somehow be proven true, then it would be an axiom. Since so many (of our) religions take from the same sources, if any such proofs were offered, several groups might be able to claim that they were representative of their own beliefs.

Currently, there are only two (or four) known "religions" in Thedas: Andrastianity and its cousin in the Imperial Chantry, and the Elven Pantheon. To me, it is debatable whether or not the Qun can be considered a "religion" (yes, I know Fenris names it as such) as it's more about a set of rules and ideas governing all aspects of life, and not directly concerning the creation of the universe: to the Qunari, the world simply is, and the chaotic parts of it should be brought to order. Similarly, the dwarves do not worship the Stone, nor do they worship their ancestors, they revere them.

Finally, whether it's polytheism, monotheism, or the lack of atheism, it's certainly up to Bioware and its writers to decide what is appropriate for Thedas, regardless of whether or not it reflects real life.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[Uccio]

Don´t forget people that in Legacy dlc there is a miniguest where you can offer sacrifice to the Old God Dumat and you will even get a reply gift for it. So atleast one of the Old Gods is still around.


edit: wrong dlc name.

Modifié par Ukki, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:33 .

[WotanAnubis]

Ukki wrote...

Don´t forget people that in Awakening dlc there is a miniguest where you can offer sacrifice to the Old God Dumat and you will even get a reply gift for it. So atleast one of the Old Gods is still around.

The 'Old Gods' are the dragons that keep getting corrupted into Archdemons.

So yeah, they're still around.

[Plaintiff]

I strongly suspect that less than one faith in Thedas is true.

[Uccio]

But supposedly the dragon formed god Dumat was destroyed at the end of first blight. If he was just a dragon you think there was a option for getting a gift from him after making a sacrifice?

Modifié par Ukki, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:29 .

[nightscrawl]

Ukki wrote...

Don´t forget people that in Awakening dlc there is a miniguest where you can offer sacrifice to the Old God Dumat and you will even get a reply gift for it. So atleast one of the Old Gods is still around.

You are referring to this quest in the DA2 DLC Legacy. Dumat was the first Old God-turned-Archdemon who started the first Blight, and ended it by being killed by the first Grey Wardens. So supposedly he's not "alive" anymore, though who knows with that whole floaty soul thing.

At any rate, yes, I'm sure there are some people somewhere who are still worshipping the Old Gods. There are those who worship dragons as well, and the Chasind who have shamans and worship who knows what. IMO those things don't constitute "major religions."

I also don't really think that the inclusion of a random puzzle quest is really any indication of anything, to be honest. If they wanted to include some legitimate lore about Dumat, I'm sure that there are better things they can do.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 12 juillet 2012 - 01:29 .

[LobselVith8]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

What Gaider said was a bit ridiculous.

Considering the Cousland protagonist can explicitly state he doesn't believe in the Maker, and Morrigan tells Leliana that she doesn't believe in either the Maker or a higher power, I concur with you. There were posters (like Ethereal Writer) in that thread who also explained that Gaider was incorrect with his historical statement about atheism. I don't see why Gaider's views on atheism should prohibit the players from having the option to be atheist again in future Dragon Age games.

[Uccio]

Well, people keep referring to the dlc when they talk about the Corypheus talking about golden city as a proof for andrastean faith. So yes, that would constitute for Dumat´s presence too.


ps. I meant Legacy dlc.

[Uccio]

nightscrawl wrote...


At any rate, yes, I'm sure there are some people somewhere who are still worshipping the Old Gods. There are those who worship dragons as well, and the Chasind who have shamans and worship who knows what. IMO those things don't constitute "major religions."

The topic is about faith being true, not being one of the big ones.

[nightscrawl]

Ukki wrote...

The topic is about faith being true, not being one of the big ones.

The OP did mention three specific ones though, suggesting that the "true" faith might be among those three, rather than a nebulous faith in "something."

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why Gaider's views on atheism should prohibit the players from having the option to be atheist again in future Dragon Age games.

Because he's the head writer? I mean, if he doesn't intend for their to be atheism as it's own belief in Thedas -- and by his comments in that thread he didn't seem pleased that some players took it that way while playing -- he can certainly leave out dialogue options pertaining to such, which he appears to intend to do. To be honest, his initial reaction seemed surprised that people thought this in the first place. Now that he knows that people do think it, he will be more aware and deliberate in the crafting of dialogue options where this is concerned.

[LobselVith8]

Ukki wrote...

Well, people keep referring to the dlc when they talk about Corypheus talking about the golden city as proof for andrastian faith.

Really? That's odd. I don't see how the Golden/Black City means that Andrastian faith is correct, especially when the DLC Legacy seems to undermine the version provided by the Chantry of Andraste. Also, Corypheus never references the Maker, he only talks about Dumat. I don't even know if he is aware of the Andrastian faith, or if he's aware of the belief in the Maker. And the City was black when they got there, so it seems the Golden City turned Black beforehand.

[LobselVith8]

nightscrawl wrote...

Because he's the head writer?

So the option for the protagonist to not believe in the Maker should be denied to players because Gaider is the head writer? Despite the fact that atheism clearly exists in Thedas, as we have characters who not only don't believe in the existence of a creator, but have characters like Morrigan who explicitly state they don't believe in the Maker or in a higher power? I don't see why the protagonist should be forced to be Andrastian. The more I hear about Dragon Age III, the more it seems to be stripping away the choices we had in Origins.

[Chiramu]

Pretty unrealistic how there are no atheists... I personally prefer a bit of realism with my fantasy, like Peter Jackson.

[grregg]

LobselVith8 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Because he's the head writer?

So the option for the protagonist to not believe in the Maker should be denied to players because Gaider is the head writer? Despite the fact that atheism clearly exists in Thedas, as we have characters who not only don't believe in the existence of a creator, but have characters like Morrigan who explicitly state they don't believe in the Maker or in a higher power? I don't see why the protagonist should be forced to be Andrastian. The more I hear about Dragon Age III, the more it seems to be stripping away the choices we had in Origins.

Well, yes. And that's because David Gaider and his crew have to write it. It's not the question of "denying" and "stripping away," it's a question of which options should be implemented. It seems that atheism is just not that important and they are choosing to focus on something else.

You do write like DA3 already exists somewhere and all the BioWare has to do is to give us access to it. Just think that any and every option that they give us, has to be created and they have to ditch some of them if they ever want to push the game out of the door.

Especially considering that "Maker doesn't exist!" type of statements are likely to be seriously controversial in DA world, so it's not just a matter of writing the lines, you also have to account for consequences, or it'll all be just window dressing.

Modifié par grregg, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[Maclimes]

The "no atheists" thing that everyone is going on about is silly. Yes, there may be some atheists in the Dragon Age universe. That doesn't mean your hero gets to be one of them.

There are Qunari in the Dragon Age universe. That doesn't mean the Champion of Kirkwall gets to be one.

There are people who never joined the Grey Wardens. That doesn't mean the Hero of Ferelden gets that option.

There are refugees in Kirkwall who died in obscurity outside the walls. Doesn't mean Hawke gets to try that route.

There are people who worship dragons, and would have gladly submitted to the Archdemon. Doesn't mean the Warden gets to be one of them.

There are lots of things, people, opinions, and options that exist for the people of Thedas. But the game is not "The Sims: Thedas Edition". You are playing a particular hero, who has a particular background. You control his development and rise to fame. You make RELEVANT decisions about your character's personality and opinions. I can't remember what the Warden's favorite ice cream is. I don't think anyone complained when we weren't allowed to make Hawke depressed and suicidal.

Hawke is a powerful, strong-willed refugee from Lothering who's father was an apostate, mother was a former noble, and raised to believe in the Maker.

Why is the rest of that okay, but not the last bit?

Now, if the question of faith became relevant, then yes, atheism should be an option. (Honestly, DA3 does seem like the perfect opportunity for this, with the whole Mage/Templar/Chantry/"Where do your loyalties lie?" possiblities of the game.) However, it was never relevant before. Hawke's beliefs are meaningless in the context of the story, so it's better to just make assumptions and move on.

[Icesong]

Hawke is a powerful, strong-willed refugee from Lothering who's father was an apostate, mother was a former noble, and raised to believe in the Maker.

Why is the rest of that okay, but not the last bit?

Well, you know, they're not okay. Just like auto-dialogue and voiced protagonists aren't okay. These things are all part of the same issue: how much freedom you have to define your character. While still meeting the requisites of the plot...

Haha, you guys are so wrong! Look all these things you can't do! Isn't it great?

You're right, you can't do as many characters as you might want. It's beyond understandable though why not; but that should be where we're heading. Maybe by Dragon Age 9?

It's weird how you denigrate what should be the goal of an RPG by calling it The Sims.

Also, I for one do remember my Warden's favorite ice cream. Well, I wasn't sure if ice cream existed in Thedas. But my Warden didn't like sweets so would have no favorite.

[Maclimes]

Icesong wrote...

It's weird how you denigrate what should be the goal of an RPG by calling it The Sims.

Also, I for one do remember my Warden's favorite ice cream. Well, I wasn't sure if ice cream existed in Thedas. But my Warden didn't like sweets so would have no favorite.

It would be awesome to play an RPG where you have full, unmitigated control over your character. Wait, I did. It was called Skyrim. But that is not, and never has been, the Dragon Age series.

Dragon Age is not "Create a person in your way, however you want, and then that person gets wrapped up in big events".

Dragon Age is "Play this character we've created, and we'll give you a small amount of customization and control."

It's more akin to a JRPG in that respect. Think of Hawke as a more customizable version of Cloud, and you've got it. Maybe you don't LIKE that, and that's fine, but that's the way it is. It's basically one away step from Mass Effect to a more tradition RPG. But only one step.

[Icesong]

Maclimes wrote...

Icesong wrote...

It's weird how you denigrate what should be the goal of an RPG by calling it The Sims.

Also, I for one do remember my Warden's favorite ice cream. Well, I wasn't sure if ice cream existed in Thedas. But my Warden didn't like sweets so would have no favorite.

It would be awesome to play an RPG where you have full, unmitigated control over your character. Wait, I did. It was called Skyrim. But that is not, and never has been, the Dragon Age series.

Dragon Age is not "Create a person in your way, however you want, and then that person gets wrapped up in big events".

Dragon Age is "Play this character we've created, and we'll give you a small amount of customization and control."

It's more akin to a JRPG in that respect. Think of Hawke as a more customizable version of Cloud, and you've got it. Maybe you don't LIKE that, and that's fine, but that's the way it is. It's basically one away step from Mass Effect to a more tradition RPG. But only one step.

You're largely just elaborating on the point I encapsulated in saying "while still meeting the requisites of the plot".

RPGs are, among other things, stories. The framework of each RPG will be the main thing to determine how much freedom you have to create your own character within the story. An open world RPG like TES is going to have a lot more freedom, but they sacrifice things to achieve that. Things BW would rather have. So they create a stricter structure of storytelling and your character freedom gets reduced.

That doesn't mean you lose sight that the focus should be character freedom. As much that is feasible and practical should still be the goal. Thankfully BW still considers this to be true and we're not in JRPG territory.

I just denigrated JRPGs even though I haven't played one since Shenmue. And I loved Shenmue.

Modifié par Icesong, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[Maclimes]

Icesong wrote...

You're largely just elaborating on the point I encapsulated in saying "while still meeting the requisites of the plot".

RPGs are, among other things, stories. The framework of each RPG will be the main thing to determine how much freedom you have to create your own character within the story. An open world RPG like TES is going to have a lot more freedom, but they sacrifice things to achieve that. Things BW would rather have. So they create a stricter structure of storytelling and your character freedom gets reduced.

That doesn't mean you lose sight that the focus should be character freedom. As much that is feasible and practical should still be the goal. Thankfully BW still considers this to be true and we're not in JRPG territory.

I just denigrated JRPGs even though I haven't played one since Shenmue. And I loved Shenmue.

Look, I totally agree. There's the whole "character freedom vs cohesive narrative" element. It's a hard line to walk. Having the option to fill in your own character's details is fun, but the plot must ... Man, I can't even remember what this conversation is about. I'm getting old, and am enjoying arguing too much. Hang on, let me start over.

If religion is relevant for the story in any way, they need to make a decision.

For example, what if the main plot of DA3 is that of a deeply religious character, a priest of the Chantry, caught between two sides he both agrees with? Then the religion is set in stone, no matter what your opinion of your character. It's necessary for the plot that you lose the right to choose.

But what if the plot is about a character who must choose sides, based on what his belief is? Then you need to have the option to express your belief, with all the choices that entails. It's necessary for the plot that you have freedom to choose.

But what if belief and religion have nothing to do with the plot at all? Then it can be ignored. We don't need to be able to express our character's religious beliefs in this scenario, any more than we need to be able to express their opinion on sweets.

[LobselVith8]

Chiramu wrote...

Pretty unrealistic how there are no atheists... I personally prefer a bit of realism with my fantasy, like Peter Jackson.

Part of the problem is that atheism clearly exists in Thedas, so it's odd for Gaider to claim otherwise. Morrigan makes it explicitly clear that she doesn't believe in the Maker, and doesn't believe in a higher power during her conversation with Leliana:

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.

Thus, Gaider's claim that atheism doesn't exist contradicts what we know about Thedas.

grregg wrote...

Well, yes. And that's because David Gaider and his crew have to write it. It's not the question of "denying" and "stripping away," it's a question of which options should be implemented. It seems that atheism is just not that important and they are choosing to focus on something else.

The option was avaliable in Origins for The Warden to express that he didn't believe in the Maker. The option isn't avaliable for Hawke in Dragon Age II, and the writers made him an Andrastian, regardless of how the player feels about the fictional religion. I think that's a mistake to repeat in Dragon Age III.

Also, Gaider's trying to make it seem as though atheism simply doesn't exist in Thedas, but we know that isn't the case. Morrigan makes it clear that she doesn't believe in either the Maker or a higher power:

Leliana: So you truly do not believe in any sort of higher power?

Morrigan: It has been bothering you, I see. No, I do not. Must I?

Leliana: What do you believe happens to you after you die then? Nothing?

Morrigan: I do not go sit by the Maker's side, if that's what you mean.

Leliana: Only those who are worthy are brought to the Maker's side. So many other sad souls are left to wander in the void, hopeless and forever lost.

Morrigan: And what evidence of this have you? I see only spirits, no wandering ghosts of wicked disbelievers.

Leliana: It must be so sad to look forward to nothing, to feel no love and seek no reward in the afterlife.

Morrigan: Yes, the anguish tears at me so. You have seen through me to my sad, sad core.

Leliana: Now you're simply mocking me.

Morrigan: You notice? It appears your perceptive powers know no bounds.

Also, the Qunari seem to follow a philosophy, not any deity.

grregg wrote...

You do write like DA3 already exists somewhere and all the BioWare has to do is to give us access to it. Just think that any and every option that they give us, has to be created and they have to ditch some of them if they ever want to push the game out of the door.

Especially considering that "Maker doesn't exist!" type of statements are likely to be seriously controversial in DA world, so it's not just a matter of writing the lines, you also have to account for consequences, or it'll all be just window dressing.

There is a precedent for this: the Cousland protagonist could say that he doesn't believe in the Maker. The Surana protagonist could make it clear he doesn't worship the Maker. I don't see why this should be prohibited for the protagonist of Dragon Age III; I don't see why we should be forced to have religiously Andrastian protagonists when atheism clearly exists in Thedas. Every time I hear about Dragon Age III, all the freedoms that we had avaliable in Origins seem to be missing.

[Icesong]

Maclimes wrote...

Icesong wrote...

You're largely just elaborating on the point I encapsulated in saying "while still meeting the requisites of the plot".

RPGs are, among other things, stories. The framework of each RPG will be the main thing to determine how much freedom you have to create your own character within the story. An open world RPG like TES is going to have a lot more freedom, but they sacrifice things to achieve that. Things BW would rather have. So they create a stricter structure of storytelling and your character freedom gets reduced.

That doesn't mean you lose sight that the focus should be character freedom. As much that is feasible and practical should still be the goal. Thankfully BW still considers this to be true and we're not in JRPG territory.

I just denigrated JRPGs even though I haven't played one since Shenmue. And I loved Shenmue.

Look, I totally agree. There's the whole "character freedom vs cohesive narrative" element. It's a hard line to walk. Having the option to fill in your own character's details is fun, but the plot must ... Man, I can't even remember what this conversation is about. I'm getting old, and am enjoying arguing too much. Hang on, let me start over.

If religion is relevant for the story in any way, they need to make a decision.

For example, what if the main plot of DA3 is that of a deeply religious character, a priest of the Chantry, caught between two sides he both agrees with? Then the religion is set in stone, no matter what your opinion of your character. It's necessary for the plot that you lose the right to choose.

But what if the plot is about a character who must choose sides, based on what his belief is? Then you need to have the option to express your belief, with all the choices that entails. It's necessary for the plot that you have freedom to choose.

But what if belief and religion have nothing to do with the plot at all? Then it can be ignored. We don't need to be able to express our character's religious beliefs in this scenario, any more than we need to be able to express their opinion on sweets.

As I like to say, our characters will be required to do things by the plot but our reasons for doing them should be entirely our own. Religion factors much into that.

I don't agree that your beliefs shouldn't be expressed if they don't impact the plot. It's nice to have your character's beliefs acknowledged by the game. I want to be able to offer commentary on the world, such as the plight of the city elves, and maybe get a response in turn. But for religion I don't think we're too far off in what we'd want to see in-game. Would I like it if they had options similar to what DAO provided? Well, I loved that. But it wouldn't be necessary. As I said in the other thread, keeping silent on the issue is a good way to go. Silence says a lot.

Modifié par Icesong, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[Fallstar]

I certainly took my PC's religion (or lack of) into account when making decisions in DAO. If you think the chantry is a somewhat malign influence on Thedas as a whole, it makes the decision at the end of the Sacred Ashes questline much more complex. Do you let Genitivi walk away, which will probably lead to a stronger Andrastian chantry? Or does his refusal to discuss not publicizing the Urn's location make his death a necessity to prevent more suffering in the future.

If we are forced to believe in the Maker all that goes out the window. The ashes are a major find that will strengthen the faith of those who follow our religion. We'd just follow the questline, wouldn't think about defiling the ashes, wouldn't think about the repercussions this find will have in the long term. Just enjoy the combat and move onto the next area. Giving us the option to express disbelief in the Maker, or at least giving us the option to not express our belief, kept some of that ambiguity which made choices in DAO thought worthy.

[TEWR]

They're all true.

[Chiramu]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Pretty unrealistic how there are no atheists... I personally prefer a bit of realism with my fantasy, like Peter Jackson.

Part of the problem is that atheism clearly exists in Thedas, so it's odd for Gaider to claim otherwise. Morrigan makes it explicitly clear that she doesn't believe in the Maker, and doesn't believe in a higher power during her conversation with Leliana:

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.

Thus, Gaider's claim that atheism doesn't exist contradicts what we know about Thedas.

Then we are suppose to believe something else about what's happening with the Dragon Age lore (especially how additional scripts created outside of Gaider's hands are treated as "canon"). That Gaider is making it all up as he goes along :<.

Please make it more realistic Gaider. That's the whole reason The Lord of the Rings is so popular. The masses of fantasy fans don't want flashy lights and 50 feet jumps. We want magic that makes sense and real people, people that could exist in the real world.