895 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

Vandicus wrote...

The writer(probably) views the Old Gods as gods, because by the average fantasy standard, from LoTR, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance, they are gods. Since their existence is a known fact, it is not incorrect to make a statement that true atheism is not possible in the DA universe.

For a creature to constitute a god, it need not be worshipped or revered. It may even be loathed and fought against. Power level is typically the measure of what constitutes a god in fantasy settings.

This point of contention with the author is based on maintaining a particular interpretation of what he said. I choose to pursue the more common interpretation of his statements.

I think DG has said that the Old Gods are neither created or creators. So they are not creators, which is one commonly used criterium for godhood. In addition, they are 'merely' biologically immortal, not truly immortal. (As we kill one ourselves as a mortal Warden in Origins) That the Old Gods are very old and powerful entities I would agree on, but not that they are gods.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Vandicus]

DuskWarden wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

The writer(probably) views the Old Gods as gods, because by the average fantasy standard, from LoTR, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance, they are gods. Since their existence is a known fact, it is not incorrect to make a statement that true atheism is not possible in the DA universe.

For a creature to constitute a god, it need not be worshipped or revered. It may even be loathed and fought against. Power level is typically the measure of what constitutes a god in fantasy settings.

This point of contention with the author is based on maintaining a particular interpretation of what he said. I choose to pursue the more common interpretation of his statements.

I think DG has said that the Old Gods are neither created or creators. So they are not creators, which is one commonly used criterium for godhood. In addition, they are 'merely' biologically immortal, not truly immortal. (As we kill one ourselves as a mortal Warden in Origins) That the Old Gods are very old and powerful entities I would agree on, but not that they are gods.

Edit: I can't find that quote, so I might be wrong in attributing it to DG.

The average modern fantasy setting does not have the prerequisite of creation/creators in order to be gods. Its also rare for the gods to be invincible, and common place for them to be struck down by mortals or other gods. I make the assumption here that DG has the same line of thought as most fantasy authors.

You're using the prerequisites of an absolute god.

Modifié par Vandicus, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[TEWR]

No, David Gaider did in fact say that, DuskWarden

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:30 .

[Vandicus]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

No, David Gaider did in fact say that, DuskWarden

Say what? That the Old Gods are not the creators? I don't think anyone has been suggesting that.

[TJPags]

When arguing about terms, it's a good idea to define them.  So:

ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show IPA

noun
1.
a [color=rgb(51,51,51)">person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever]doubter,[/color] skeptic, [color=rgb(51,51,51)">secularist, empiricist]heathen,[/color] heretic, infidel, pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.



a·the·ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show IPA

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective
pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

[color=rgb(51,51,51)">Can be confused:  1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry )]atheist,[/color] theist, deist.

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

From Dictionary.com.


Thus, an atheist denies the existance of a deity.  An agnostic simply claims it is impossible to know if one - or more than one - exists.

I submit that it is possible - and correct - to refer to Old Gods without actually acknowledging they are, in any way, Gods, the same way one can refer to the Maker without acknowledging that it is a God.

Egyptians and many acient societies worshipped the Sun as a god.  It's not incorrect to refer to the sun, or to refer to Ra (which I believe is the Egyptian name for the Sun-God) or Apollo (which I believe is the Greek name for the same Sun-God).  You can do so without ascribing any god-hood to them.

Morrigan clearly expresses - at least - doubt as to the godhood or even existence of the Maker and Adraste.  Personally, I think she denies that they are god rather than simply indicating doubt.  She refers to Old Gods, but I don't recall if she actually indicates that she considers them Gods, or if she is simply using the name by which these beings are known.

I think it's clear that there CAN be atheists in Thedas.  The issue actually is whether the DA games support this viewpoint for any type of larger or role-playing purpose.  The answer seems to be, it does not.

Modifié par TJPags, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:38 .

[TEWR]

Vandicus wrote...


The writer(probably) views the Old Gods as gods, because by the average fantasy standard, from LoTR, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance, they are gods. Since their existence is a known fact, it is not incorrect to make a statement that true atheism is not possible in the DA universe.

The Writers aren't the people of Thedas. If by their own lore they wrote the people of modern day Thedas as not believing the Old Gods are actual gods, but still label them such because that's their common name, then I see no reason to assume that people in Thedas believe they're gods.

Whether they're actual gods is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not people of modern day Thedas believe them to be gods.

For a creature to constitute a god, it need not be worshipped or revered.

It has to be considered a god by the people of the universe that it inhabits, which hasn't gone on for centuries.

They are more then likely actual gods, yes. I don't deny that. But I'm arguing from the perspective of what people in Thedas believe, not what is actually the truth. 

Now, I'm off to work

[Vandicus]

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Cousland is never given the opportunity to state that he believes in no gods. 

I don't recall the option to yell at the Archdemon "You're not real!". There are a number of completely rational explanations that explain why atheism in the modern sense is literally impossible(short of insanity) in the DA universe. 

In this case DG's statements are not at all contradictory to established lore and to Morrigan's beliefs(or lack thereof). The insistence that his statements are contradictory if the terminology for deities is restricted to the Abrahamic sort or restricted in such a way as to be different from the normal fantasy setting requirements for godhood is silly.

Atheists don't tend to say "there are no gods," they say there is "no God." They don't dismiss every God from every religion, so you're being disingenuous here. The Cousland Warden saying there is no Maker makes sense when he has only been exposed to the Andrastian Chantry at that point. He doesn't believe; he doesn't have to satisfy your litmus test.

People of non-Christian religions tend to say "there is no God" as well. Funny how that works. In other words such statements are not absolute proof of atheism, they are merely one of a number of possible indicators.

Cousland and Surana are Andrastians; therefore, it would be apt for them to say that they don't believe in the Maker, rather than saying they don't believe in any gods.

[Fallstar]

Vandicus wrote...
The average modern fantasy setting does not have the prerequisite of creation/creators in order to be gods. Its also rare for the gods to be invincible, and common place for them to be struck down by mortals or other gods. I make the assumption here that DG has the same line of thought as most fantasy authors.

You're using the prerequisites of an absolute god.

Those are the attributes which to me define the difference between a god and a powerful entity. In my opinion, calling something a god just because it's reached a certain power threshold isn't a good idea. Barack Obama and several other world leaders possess enough nuclear warheads to annihilate the vast majority of life. Should they be called gods? Equally, many scientists can do wonderful things to allow the creation of life where it would not naturally be possible. Should they be called gods? Of course they shouldn't. They're just human beings like you and me.

My point is that a powerful being shouldn't get an extra point of mana and suddenly ascend to godhood. True immortality and not having been created by another event/being are defining characteristics of godhood to me.

[TJPags]

Vandicus wrote...

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

See, here's the problem with Word of God (and I've had this argument on other issues):

Morrigan says what she says, which is that she does not believe in the Maker as a god.  How is that NOT atheism?

[IanPolaris]

If you read the Dictionary.com defintion closely an atheist is one that eithe denies OR *disbelieves* the existance of dieties. Denial is the positive statement that there is no God or gods. Disbelief is the statement that I don't believe in the existance of such things. They are NOT the same thing but both are considered to be atheists by definition.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

See, here's the problem with Word of God (and I've had this argument on other issues):

Morrigan says what she says, which is that she does not believe in the Maker as a god.  How is that NOT atheism?

Exactly.  Who do I believe DG or my lying ears?  Morrigan espouses in DAO and makes the classIC Atheistic arguments and does so with scorn for those that believe in such things.  She does so several times in DAO.

-Polaris

[Vandicus]

DuskWarden wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
The average modern fantasy setting does not have the prerequisite of creation/creators in order to be gods. Its also rare for the gods to be invincible, and common place for them to be struck down by mortals or other gods. I make the assumption here that DG has the same line of thought as most fantasy authors.

You're using the prerequisites of an absolute god.

Those are the attributes which to me define the difference between a god and a powerful entity. In my opinion, calling something a god just because it's reached a certain power threshold isn't a good idea. Barack Obama and several other world leaders possess enough nuclear warheads to annihilate the vast majority of life. Should they be called gods? Equally, many scientists can do wonderful things to allow the creation of life where it would not naturally be possible. Should they be called gods? Of course they shouldn't. They're just human beings like you and me.

My point is that a powerful being shouldn't get an extra point of mana and suddenly ascend to godhood. True immortality and not having been created by another event/being are defining characteristics of godhood to me.

So you disagree with how the writers of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance use the term god, as well as how the Greeks used the term, and how the Egyptians used the word god... I could go on, but you are basically restricting godhood to the Abrahamic version. Whether or not that's a good idea is up to debate, but writers simply don't treat it that way.

To you other guys, using atheist style arguments to deny the existence of one (unwknown) god does not mean denial of the existence of all gods, least of all the ones that are trying to kill everybody.

Modifié par Vandicus, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:56 .

[The dead fish]

Morrigan doesn't believe in the maker, she despises andrastian 's beliefs, doesn't mean she doesn't believe in anything.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 septembre 2012 - 06:58 .

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

See, here's the problem with Word of God (and I've had this argument on other issues):

Morrigan says what she says, which is that she does not believe in the Maker as a god.  How is that NOT atheism?

Exactly.  Who do I believe DG or my lying ears?  Morrigan espouses in DAO and makes the classIC Atheistic arguments and does so with scorn for those that believe in such things.  She does so several times in DAO.

-Polaris

Question, what is the song Losing My Religion about to you? 

Should you believe the artist that wrote the lyrics or your own lying ears when you're told that its not about atheism but is rather a colloquialism from the South(US)?

[IanPolaris]

Sylvianus wrote...

Morrigan doesn't believe in the maker, she despises andrastian 's beliefs, doesn't mean she doesn't believe in anything.

It doesn't mean she doesn't either.  I don't know what Morrigan thinks, but I do know she spoke and acted like an atheist in DAO and no DG never explicitly said she wasn't one. 

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

See, here's the problem with Word of God (and I've had this argument on other issues):

Morrigan says what she says, which is that she does not believe in the Maker as a god.  How is that NOT atheism?

Exactly.  Who do I believe DG or my lying ears?  Morrigan espouses in DAO and makes the classIC Atheistic arguments and does so with scorn for those that believe in such things.  She does so several times in DAO.

-Polaris

Question, what is the song Losing My Religion about to you? 

Should you believe the artist that wrote the lyrics or your own lying ears when you're told that its not about atheism but is rather a colloquialism from the South(US)?

I don't give a Rodent's posterior about what an REM song means.  I did take many courses in philosophy (it was one of my minors) and I know the classic atheist arguments against the teleological argument for god (or gods) when I hear them, and Morrigan spoke them in DAO (multiple times) almost line for line.  That tells my 'lying ears' that Morrigan at least acted like an atheist in DAO.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
The average modern fantasy setting does not have the prerequisite of creation/creators in order to be gods. Its also rare for the gods to be invincible, and common place for them to be struck down by mortals or other gods. I make the assumption here that DG has the same line of thought as most fantasy authors.

You're using the prerequisites of an absolute god.

Those are the attributes which to me define the difference between a god and a powerful entity. In my opinion, calling something a god just because it's reached a certain power threshold isn't a good idea. Barack Obama and several other world leaders possess enough nuclear warheads to annihilate the vast majority of life. Should they be called gods? Equally, many scientists can do wonderful things to allow the creation of life where it would not naturally be possible. Should they be called gods? Of course they shouldn't. They're just human beings like you and me.

My point is that a powerful being shouldn't get an extra point of mana and suddenly ascend to godhood. True immortality and not having been created by another event/being are defining characteristics of godhood to me.

So you disagree with how the writers of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance use the term god, as well as how the Greeks used the term, and how the Egyptians used the word god... I could go on, but you are basically restricting godhood to the Abrahamic version. Whether or not that's a good idea is up to debate, but writers simply don't treat it that way.

To you other guys, using atheist style arguments to deny the existence of one (unwknown) god does not mean denial of the existence of all gods, least of all the ones that are trying to kill everybody.

The writers of Forgotten Realms as part of being an adjunct to DND specifically *defined* what it means to be a god in those worlds.  That supercedes the common language definition in those settings.  Dragon-Age/Thedas has done no such thing...and you have failed to provide any citations to the contrary.

-Polaris

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...



The writers of Forgotten Realms as part of being an adjunct to DND specifically *defined* what it means to be a god in those worlds.  That supercedes the common language definition in those settings.  Dragon-Age/Thedas has done no such thing...and you have failed to provide any citations to the contrary.

-Polaris

Read the Simarillion? LoTR, commonly regarded as the basis for all modern fantasy uses similar god standards. 

IanPolaris wrote...


I don't give a Rodent's posterior about what an REM song means.  I did take many courses in philosophy (it was one of my minors) and I know the classic atheist arguments against the teleological argument for god (or gods) when I hear them, and Morrigan spoke them in DAO (multiple times) almost line for line.  That tells my 'lying ears' that Morrigan at least acted like an atheist in DAO.

-Polaris

 


The point is that while an argument can sound atheistic, or statements can sound atheistic, they are not conclusive signs of atheism. When the writer tells me that the character they wrote is not atheist, I believe them. 

Similar situations occur with characters whose sexuality or romantic interests are ambiguous in novels/television/various media. The fans insist that character X is surely interested in character Y because they demonstrate clear signs of romantic interest, while the author states otherwise.

Can you honestly claim that Morrigan's statements are solid clear undeniable proof that she's an atheist? If not, then the logical course of action is to simply accept DG's statements. If yes, simply accept it as a retcon. I don't find her conversations to be undeniable evidence though. 

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

The question of whether atheism is possible in Thedas is not up for debate. Word of God states atheism doesn't exist in Thedas.

I just happen to believe DG means that atheism can't exist because real gods in the form of Old Gods are known facts to the people of Thedas, rather than the "GRRR, DG is anti-atheist and is arbitrarily making it impossible to be atheist in DA". Given the existence of statements that allow questioning of the existence of deities whose existence are unknown, it does not seem plausible to claim that DG's statement that atheism does not exist in Thedas is a result of some form of anti-athiesm, or a mistake(really claiming that the writer can't set the rules of his own universe is silly).

Did you even read the "I think the option to be an atheist should return" thread? People address it was a mistake because it was a mistake:

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Probably because they could say things like "I've told you before I don't believe in the Maker" in the HN origin

If that was in there, then so be it. There wasn't intended to be an option to express atheism. And there certainly won't be again.

If he acknowledges the option "won't be there again," then he's conceding the point about the atheist option for the Cousland Warden. I guess he also forgot about what the Surana Warden can say about the Maker and The Warden's conversation with Justice about the Maker. Regardless, if he can't even remember Origins properly, I don't see how WoG applies when he contradicts what's explicitly in Origins and Awakening.

[cindercatz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she even expresses interest in what happens beyond the fade to some extent, and she's certainly very intent on something she discovered concerning the Black City

You're wrong, and thus corrected.

Either that, or I've never had her say anything of the sort on both accounts.

Vandicus wrote...

Word of god

Word of god doesn't mean much if you can't remember the details about characters.

cindercatz wrote...

Or an attempt to raise a sane god that would challenge the authority of a pre-existing power she accepts the existence of and rejects in principle? Seems like something she'd do.

No it doesn't.

lol, ok, I'm pretty sure she does to some degree. Not religiously, but she's about the most knowledgeable mage you'll meet in the game, including extra dialogue in every mage related part of DA:O. And you what, think she's stepping through the Eluvian because it looks fun?

There's nothing about her that says otherwise, though, so until we have further information one way or the other..

And why not? Great change is coming.. I gotta do something profound, please, please trust me, you can't follow because of what lies beyond, I'll raise him away from the world, he'll be something new, etc. etc., all paraphrased, of course. Sounds like the sort of thing she'd do to me. Doesn't sound megalomaniacal to me, so why bother.. I can't see Morrigan wanting to be godlike and endlessly seeking power, so why do you suggest she does what she does? I see her as selfless in certain fundamental ways. I guess you disagree? No?

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...



The writers of Forgotten Realms as part of being an adjunct to DND specifically *defined* what it means to be a god in those worlds.  That supercedes the common language definition in those settings.  Dragon-Age/Thedas has done no such thing...and you have failed to provide any citations to the contrary.

-Polaris

Read the Simarillion? LoTR, commonly regarded as the basis for all modern fantasy uses similar god standards. 

You have NO EVIDENCE to back your point.  In forgotten realms and dragonlance, there was a well defined and objective set of traits put out in game terms that absolutely DEFINED what was and was not a god in those worlds.  Simarillion does not do that.  Neither does dragon age.

IanPolaris wrote...


I don't give a Rodent's posterior about what an REM song means.  I did take many courses in philosophy (it was one of my minors) and I know the classic atheist arguments against the teleological argument for god (or gods) when I hear them, and Morrigan spoke them in DAO (multiple times) almost line for line.  That tells my 'lying ears' that Morrigan at least acted like an atheist in DAO.

-Polaris

 


The point is that while an argument can sound atheistic, or statements can sound atheistic, they are not conclusive signs of atheism. When the writer tells me that the character they wrote is not atheist, I believe them. 

If Morrigan could be a disquised alien from Mass Effect too, but there is no evidence that would lead me to believe that.  Morrigan talks and acts like she's an atheist.  Thus she should be regarded as one...and no DG did NOT explicitly say that Morrigan was not an atheist.  He dodged that...and did it in a way that you didn't notice.

Similar situations occur with characters whose sexuality or romantic interests are ambiguous in novels/television/various media. The fans insist that character X is surely interested in character Y because they demonstrate clear signs of romantic interest, while the author states otherwise.

Can you honestly claim that Morrigan's statements are solid clear undeniable proof that she's an atheist? If not, then the logical course of action is to simply accept DG's statements. If yes, simply accept it as a retcon. I don't find her conversations to be undeniable evidence though. 

I can't prove that Morrigan isn't really a disquised Asari either but that doesn't mean I should believe that.  Morrigan acts, talks, and walks like an atheist in DAO so it is fair to regard her as one.

-Polaris

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...



The writers of Forgotten Realms as part of being an adjunct to DND specifically *defined* what it means to be a god in those worlds.  That supercedes the common language definition in those settings.  Dragon-Age/Thedas has done no such thing...and you have failed to provide any citations to the contrary.

-Polaris

Read the Simarillion? LoTR, commonly regarded as the basis for all modern fantasy uses similar god standards. 

You have NO EVIDENCE to back your point.  In forgotten realms and dragonlance, there was a well defined and objective set of traits put out in game terms that absolutely DEFINED what was and was not a god in those worlds.  Simarillion does not do that.  Neither does dragon age.

IanPolaris wrote...


I don't give a Rodent's posterior about what an REM song means.  I did take many courses in philosophy (it was one of my minors) and I know the classic atheist arguments against the teleological argument for god (or gods) when I hear them, and Morrigan spoke them in DAO (multiple times) almost line for line.  That tells my 'lying ears' that Morrigan at least acted like an atheist in DAO.

-Polaris

 


The point is that while an argument can sound atheistic, or statements can sound atheistic, they are not conclusive signs of atheism. When the writer tells me that the character they wrote is not atheist, I believe them. 

If Morrigan could be a disquised alien from Mass Effect too, but there is no evidence that would lead me to believe that.  Morrigan talks and acts like she's an atheist.  Thus she should be regarded as one...and no DG did NOT explicitly say that Morrigan was not an atheist.  He dodged that...and did it in a way that you didn't notice.

Similar situations occur with characters whose sexuality or romantic interests are ambiguous in novels/television/various media. The fans insist that character X is surely interested in character Y because they demonstrate clear signs of romantic interest, while the author states otherwise.

Can you honestly claim that Morrigan's statements are solid clear undeniable proof that she's an atheist? If not, then the logical course of action is to simply accept DG's statements. If yes, simply accept it as a retcon. I don't find her conversations to be undeniable evidence though. 

I can't prove that Morrigan isn't really a disquised Asari either but that doesn't mean I should believe that.  Morrigan acts, talks, and walks like an atheist in DAO so it is fair to regard her as one.

-Polaris

So now you DON'T disagree with DG's statements but think they mean something else? What was that about believing DG or believing your lying ears?

If the author told me Morrigan was secretly a man I'd believe him. The writer writes the stories, I don't head canon things to contradict them and treat it as real canon. 

Modifié par Vandicus, 22 septembre 2012 - 07:41 .

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I can't prove that Morrigan isn't really a disquised Asari either but that doesn't mean I should believe that.  Morrigan acts, talks, and walks like an atheist in DAO so it is fair to regard her as one.

-Polaris

So now you DON'T disagree with DG's statements but think they mean something else now? What was that about believing DG or believing your lying ears?

If the author told me Morrigan was secretly a man I'd believe him. The writer writes the stories, I don't head canon things to contradict them and treat it as real canon. 

If the author told me something that didn't match up with the game, then he would be wrong. It's no different than when the writer was proven incorrect about The Warden expressing atheism; if he's wrong and contradicts what is expressed in the game, he isn't right simply by being one of the writers. The writer is one of the writers writing the stories, and isn't always correct. If you read the thread, you'd know that.

The Warden can express similar views in Awakening as well. When Justice asks if The Warden believes in the Maker, he can respond, "It's a foolish superstition." The Warden, unlike Hawke, has the option to voice that he doesn't believe in the Maker. It's unfortunate that the next protagonist won't have this level of freedom.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 septembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[IanPolaris]

This is what David Gaidar wrote yesterday.

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Morrigan makes it clear she doesn't believe in a higher power, so I don't see the point to this discussion. Morrigan is providing her view to Leliana, and making it clear she worships neither the Maker nor a higher power, and explains her reasons for her view. If Morrigan makes her views explicitly clear, I don't see why we are debating Morrigan's views in the first place.

I'd be careful about taking your interpretation of Morrigan's statements as pure facts-- but you seem to do that with everything else, so I guess there's no reason for you to stop here. Even so, I'll just say that your interpretation is not quite correct and leave it at that.

At no point does he deny that Morrigan is an atheist, but he did it in such a way that some of you failed to notice that.

-Polaris