895 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He certainly seems to thinks you're twisting his words. As well as lecturing him on what you think he got wrong in a setting he co-designed.

It's very far from unheard of for setting creators to forget details about their settings. Quite common, really.

It's more common for certain fans of certain settings to misinterpret them and then lecture said creators on what they got wrong because the setting continutiy does not match their head-canon.

@Wereparrot: Really? By that logic, Mr. T now constitutes a higher power, because he's more powerful than me. When some referes to a higher power, they refer to a life form that essentially created and has control over everything comprehensible to man.

The Old Gods most likely didn't create the world, and don't have control over everything. They do not constitute a "higher power".

Godhood constitutes a higher power, even if their are many of them and some gods are more powerful than others. Poseidon was less powerful than Zeus, but that didn't stop the Ancient Greeks revering him as a god, or 'higher power'.

[Wereparrot]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He certainly seems to thinks you're twisting his words. As well as lecturing him on what you think he got wrong in a setting he co-designed.

It's very far from unheard of for setting creators to forget details about their settings. Quite common, really.

It's more common for certain fans of certain settings to misinterpret them and then lecture said creators on what they got wrong because the setting continutiy does not match their head-canon.

AND, it's explicitly shown that she doesn't believe in a higher power. Why continue to dispute that?

Because I think Morrigan is more confused about what she may or may not believe than what she actually says.

[Adrian68b]

To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic". Translated into DA universe: "Any magic advanced enough in not distinguishable for godhood". It means nothing to me if an entity is named God or not in DA. The only thing important is about its power and influence in DA.

Modifié par Adrian68b, 22 septembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[Wereparrot]

Adrian68b wrote...

To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic". Translated into DA universe, it could mean: "Any magic advanced enough in not distinguishable for godhood". It means nothing to me if an entity is named God or not in DA. The only thing important is about its power and influence in DA.

Then why call them gods? That's the key word. Either a god is a higher power or he isn't a god.

[LobselVith8]

Wereparrot wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic". Translated into DA universe, it could mean: "Any magic advanced enough in not distinguishable for godhood". It means nothing to me if an entity is named God or not in DA. The only thing important is about its power and influence in DA.

Then why call them gods? That's the key word. Either a god is a higher power or he isn't a god.

That's their name. The Old Gods are called that by everyone because that's the name they were given centuries ago. It doesn't make them literal gods. Some scholars think they are simply "ancient dragons."

[Adrian68b]

"God" is just a word. It is not necessary to carry the same meaning in DA as in real world. Maybe "a high power being" is a good substitute. Or maybe not. We don't know, and I am happy with this.
We know nothing defititive about the Old Gods. Their powers, actions, origin (if any). The only facts we have firsthand are about an Archdemon. The isn't even a definitive fact about an Archdemon being a corrupted Old God. Only second hand statements (Chantry lore, GW suspicions, Morrigan/Architect statements).

Modifié par Adrian68b, 22 septembre 2012 - 02:26 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Wereparrot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He certainly seems to thinks you're twisting his words. As well as lecturing him on what you think he got wrong in a setting he co-designed.

It's very far from unheard of for setting creators to forget details about their settings. Quite common, really.

It's more common for certain fans of certain settings to misinterpret them and then lecture said creators on what they got wrong because the setting continutiy does not match their head-canon.

@Wereparrot: Really? By that logic, Mr. T now constitutes a higher power, because he's more powerful than me. When some referes to a higher power, they refer to a life form that essentially created and has control over everything comprehensible to man.

The Old Gods most likely didn't create the world, and don't have control over everything. They do not constitute a "higher power".

Godhood constitutes a higher power, even if their are many of them and some gods are more powerful than others. Poseidon was less powerful than Zeus, but that didn't stop the Ancient Greeks revering him as a god, or 'higher power'.

I see that as different. I think there is a fundamental difference between "God" and "a God". If you describe a "higher power" as someone more powerful than you, then the term really loses all meaning. It also completely messes with the defintion of athiesm. When i, and i assume most others, refer to a "higher power", they're refering to the being that created and controls everything.

[Ryzaki]

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

[Vandicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Machines for some reason are not considered for the application of such terminology in most cases(there are a few exceptions to this rule of thumb that I'm aware of). The Leviathan might perhaps qualify, though we're not sure if its immortal or merely long lived.

The Reapers actually appear to be based on the evil god from beyond time and space attempting to destroy all life/existence archetype. In many settings they would be literal gods. Given the nature of the first two games(merely delaying the inevitable as is typical for settings with Lovecraft themed enemies) I was rather surprised that the last one let everything be resolved so easily and superficially.

[LobselVith8]

Wereparrot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

AND, it's explicitly shown that she doesn't believe in a higher power. Why continue to dispute that?

Because I think Morrigan is more confused about what she may or may not believe than what she actually says.

Morrigan articulates her views quite proficiently when speaking to Leliana. I heard no confusion from Morrigan's dialogue, especially as she affirmed why a world of magic doesn't automatically mean an intelligent design was involved:

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.

I think Morrigan's responses to Leliana were quite thorough in addressing the opposite point of view from a believer like Leliana.

[Ryzaki]

Vandicus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Machines for some reason are not considered for the application of such terminology in most cases(there are a few exceptions to this rule of thumb that I'm aware of). The Leviathan might perhaps qualify, though we're not sure if its immortal or merely long lived.

The Reapers actually appear to be based on the evil god from beyond time and space attempting to destroy all life/existence archetype. In many settings they would be literal gods. Given the nature of the first two games(merely delaying the inevitable as is typical for settings with Lovecraft themed enemies) I was rather surprised that the last one let everything be resolved so easily and superficially.

Reapers are half organics and apparently have the intelligence of organics (along with memories). They're not machines (at least from the definitions I see used for it). (which makes Shep machines can be broken comment dumber than it originally was in hindsight).  There are Reaper machines (mostly the processing units) but those are incapable of thought or action without the Reaper controlling it.

..Ugh don't remind me of the ending. Starbrat...just...ugh.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 septembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

AND, it's explicitly shown that she doesn't believe in a higher power. Why continue to dispute that?

Because I think Morrigan is more confused about what she may or may not believe than what she actually says.

Morrigan articulates her views quite proficiently when speaking to Leliana. I heard no confusion from Morrigan's dialogue, especially as she affirmed why a world of magic doesn't automatically mean an intelligent design was involved:

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.

I think Morrigan's responses to Leliana were quite thorough in addressing the opposite point of view from a believer like Leliana.

This line particularly expresses doubt in the Maker. Gods can exist without an inherent creation story tied to any of them. Moreover this dialogue professes skepticism rather than absolute belief that the Maker does not exist. 

I still think Morrigan believes that she herself is a higher power.

[Wereparrot]

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Well, a Cerberus scientist does describe the term 'god' as being a verb and not a noun. But if we consider that in the Abrahamic religions an important attribute of godhood is omnipotence, then in that sense the reapers cannot be gods, because they are not omnipotent.

[Adrian68b]

DA lore is uncertain, and for me it is perfect this way. It would be boring to play a game with everything set in stone. No surprises, no discovery. I would really enjoy a DA game or a DLC with the PC a scholar searching for new lore. So far, part of DA:O and DA2 fun was given by new bits of lore, gradually altering my knowledge.

[Vandicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Machines for some reason are not considered for the application of such terminology in most cases(there are a few exceptions to this rule of thumb that I'm aware of). The Leviathan might perhaps qualify, though we're not sure if its immortal or merely long lived.

The Reapers actually appear to be based on the evil god from beyond time and space attempting to destroy all life/existence archetype. In many settings they would be literal gods. Given the nature of the first two games(merely delaying the inevitable as is typical for settings with Lovecraft themed enemies) I was rather surprised that the last one let everything be resolved so easily and superficially.

Reapers are half organics and apparently have the intelligence of organics (along with memories). They're not machines. (which makes Shep machines can be broken comment asisine in hindsight). 

..Ugh don't remind me of the ending. Starbrat...just...ugh.

The application of the word god is ultimately dependent on the writer. The appearance of Leviathan to the player is certainly god-like. Some Geth do worship the Reapers, but it seems that the writer does not consider them gods. Maybe its because their powers are "scientifically" derived? I believe it also has to do with the Reapers machine-like nature. Yes there's the whole sentient juice makes a Reaper thing they've got going on, but they are largely treated as pure synthetics(Including in the ending, where the beam would technically only roast a Reaper's synthetic parts in a destroy ending). As a result the writer treats them as machines and thinks of them as machines. 

[Ryzaki]

Wereparrot wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Well, a Cerberus scientist does describe the term 'god' as being a verb and not a noun. But if we consider that in the Abrahamic religions an important attribute of godhood is omnipotence, then in that sense the reapers cannot be gods, because they are not omnipotent.

True and the Leviathans were actually worshipped as gods.

As for omnipotency the old gods wouldn't count either. Humanity has killed 6 (or is it 5?) of them.

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

This line particularly expresses doubt in the Maker. Gods can exist without an inherent creation story tied to any of them. Moreover this dialogue professes skepticism rather than absolute belief that the Maker does not exist. 

I still think Morrigan believes that she herself is a higher power.

The beginning of the conversation has Morrigan express that she doesn't believe in the Maker:

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.

Morrigan expresses she believes in no higher power, in conversations where it's clear Morrigan is espousing an atheist point of view in contrast to Leliana's religious viewpoint. I get the feeling it bothers some people in this thread that there are atheists in Thedas; I don't see the problem, nor do I see why the protagonist needs to be forced to be religiously Andrastian. We should have, at least, the same level of freedom and choice that we did with The Warden, who could voice an atheist perspective.

[Vandicus]

Wereparrot wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Well, a Cerberus scientist does describe the term 'god' as being a verb and not a noun. But if we consider that in the Abrahamic religions an important attribute of godhood is omnipotence, then in that sense the reapers cannot be gods, because they are not omnipotent.

To restrict the term god to the term used by Abrahamic religions means gods would be virtually nonexistent in fantasy settings.

[Wereparrot]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He certainly seems to thinks you're twisting his words. As well as lecturing him on what you think he got wrong in a setting he co-designed.

It's very far from unheard of for setting creators to forget details about their settings. Quite common, really.

It's more common for certain fans of certain settings to misinterpret them and then lecture said creators on what they got wrong because the setting continutiy does not match their head-canon.

@Wereparrot: Really? By that logic, Mr. T now constitutes a higher power, because he's more powerful than me. When some referes to a higher power, they refer to a life form that essentially created and has control over everything comprehensible to man.

The Old Gods most likely didn't create the world, and don't have control over everything. They do not constitute a "higher power".

Godhood constitutes a higher power, even if their are many of them and some gods are more powerful than others. Poseidon was less powerful than Zeus, but that didn't stop the Ancient Greeks revering him as a god, or 'higher power'.

I see that as different. I think there is a fundamental difference between "God" and "a God". If you describe a "higher power" as someone more powerful than you, then the term really loses all meaning. It also completely messes with the defintion of athiesm. When i, and i assume most others, refer to a "higher power", they're refering to the being that created and controls everything.

As am I. Hence what I said about Poseidon being a higher power through godhood, even though Zeus was an even higher power still. I think it's possible that, if the Old Gods are as the name implies, Morrigan might be a pagan.

[Wereparrot]

Vandicus wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LOL yeah I just realized that if we use immortal and supremely powerful as indicators of godhood the Reapers are gods. Rofl.

Well, a Cerberus scientist does describe the term 'god' as being a verb and not a noun. But if we consider that in the Abrahamic religions an important attribute of godhood is omnipotence, then in that sense the reapers cannot be gods, because they are not omnipotent.

To restrict the term god to the term used by Abrahamic religions means gods would be virtually nonexistent in fantasy settings.

Haven't I spoken about paganism aswell?

[Ryzaki]

Vandicus wrote...
The application of the word god is ultimately dependent on the writer. The appearance of Leviathan to the player is certainly god-like. Some Geth do worship the Reapers, but it seems that the writer does not consider them gods. Maybe its because their powers are "scientifically" derived? I believe it also has to do with the Reapers machine-like nature. Yes there's the whole sentient juice makes a Reaper thing they've got going on, but they are largely treated as pure synthetics(Including in the ending, where the beam would technically only roast a Reaper's synthetic parts in a destroy ending). As a result the writer treats them as machines and thinks of them as machines. 

Which ultimately means the word god in the setting could be different from our word god making this whole arguement about atheism pointless. When I hear god I think unkillable, creator, eternal life. If it doesn't hit those qualifications it's not a "god" IMO. You can call it a god but it's not a god. Just a powerful being that they call god. If that makes any sense.

...Reapers powers are not scientifcally derived. SPACE MAGIC goes on alot of the time. Just with scientific mumble jumbo to make it seem like less of it.

Which never made any sense to me. Only time they're treated as half organics is in the Synthesis ending. *shrugs*

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 septembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

This line particularly expresses doubt in the Maker. Gods can exist without an inherent creation story tied to any of them. Moreover this dialogue professes skepticism rather than absolute belief that the Maker does not exist. 

I still think Morrigan believes that she herself is a higher power.

The beginning of the conversation has Morrigan express that she doesn't believe in the Maker:

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.

Morrigan expresses she believes in no higher power, in conversations where it's clear Morrigan is espousing an atheist point of view in contrast to Leliana's religious viewpoint. I get the feeling it bothers some people in this thread that there are atheists in Thedas; I don't see the problem, nor do I see why the protagonist needs to be forced to be religiously Andrastian. We should have, at least, the same level of freedom and choice that we did with The Warden, who could voice an atheist perspective.

Absence of belief is not in itself an indication of atheism. An agnostic could very well take the same stance. Agnostics don't believe in any gods.

[Wereparrot]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

AND, it's explicitly shown that she doesn't believe in a higher power. Why continue to dispute that?

Because I think Morrigan is more confused about what she may or may not believe than what she actually says.

Morrigan articulates her views quite proficiently when speaking to Leliana. I heard no confusion from Morrigan's dialogue, especially as she affirmed why a world of magic doesn't automatically mean an intelligent design was involved:

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.

I think Morrigan's responses to Leliana were quite thorough in addressing the opposite point of view from a believer like Leliana.

It's perfectly in keeping with Morrigan's personality that she would never let her guard down, least of all to someone she doesn't really like.

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

Absence of belief is not in itself an indication of atheism. An agnostic could very well take the same stance. Agnostics don't believe in any gods.

In a society where the Andrastian Chantry is the only religion, it's a valid option for The Warden to express an atheist viewpoint. Many have done so with that specific intention with the Cousland and Surana Warden, myself included (for the latter).

[Vandicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
The application of the word god is ultimately dependent on the writer. The appearance of Leviathan to the player is certainly god-like. Some Geth do worship the Reapers, but it seems that the writer does not consider them gods. Maybe its because their powers are "scientifically" derived? I believe it also has to do with the Reapers machine-like nature. Yes there's the whole sentient juice makes a Reaper thing they've got going on, but they are largely treated as pure synthetics(Including in the ending, where the beam would technically only roast a Reaper's synthetic parts in a destroy ending). As a result the writer treats them as machines and thinks of them as machines. 

Which ultimately means the word god in the setting could be different from our word god making this whole arguement about atheism pointless. When I hear god I think unkillable, creator, eternal life. If it doesn't hit those qualifications it's not a "god" IMO. You can call it a god but it's not a god. Just a powerful being that they call god. If that makes any sense.

...Reapers powers are not scientifcally derived. SPACE MAGIC goes on alot of the time. Just with scientific mumble jumbo to make it seem like less of it.

Which never made any sense to me. Only time they're treated as half organics is in the Synthesis ending. *shrugs*

But we actually know what the writer thinks in this case. DG made it clear that atheism(in our modern sense at least) does not exist in Thedas. Now that basically means one of two things.

A. Atheism is arbitrarily impossible in Thedas
B. Atheism is impossible by virtue of things that the writer considers gods being known facts to the populace.(In this case I believe these known gods are the Old Gods, though Flemeth and other localized beings might count. In fact demons and spirits might qualify as minor deities from the writer's perspective).

As for the Reapers powers being "scientifically" derived, yeah its totally space magic, ergo the quotes around the word scientific. But when people view powers as a result of science, they don't usually qualify as supernatural beings.

The ending of ME3 was annoying to me not because of any similarity in the endings, or even the minorly foreshadowed deus ex machina, but because it lacks any semblence of internal continuity(and the whole insane troll logic of the AI). Just five minutes previous Shepard goes through the whole moral debate about why TIM's path is wrong/impossible, and here he has the option to turn around and invalidate everything that he/she's done in the previous games because of the need for a "happy" ending.