895 réponses à ce sujet

[Spicen]

Calians wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Calians wrote...

At the end of the day after smashing a mage rebellion me and the lord seeker will be chillen at the Imperial Chantry singing of our victory.

Very religious extremist templar will be there too sitting on some mage corpses while quoting verses from The Chant of Light.

Down with mages. They are nothing but abominations that should have been dealt with.

That is really extreme dont you agree?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Calians wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Calians wrote...

At the end of the day after smashing a mage rebellion me and the lord seeker will be chillen at the Imperial Chantry singing of our victory.

Very religious extremist templar will be there too sitting on some mage corpses while quoting verses from The Chant of Light.

Down with mages. They are nothing but abominations that should have been dealt with.

Without "mages", you're Warden would have been dead and Fereldan conquered by the Darkspawn.

[Fallstar]

I'm not bothered about being unable to express belief or disbelief in the Maker, what I am bothered about is whether or not I can oppose the organizations that use the will of the divine as an excuse to pursue campaigns motivated by racist and expansionist policies, in addition to promoting the idea that some humans are some form of sub-species that don't deserve basic freedoms. Let alone the treatment of non humans. In addition to the destabilizing effect the chantry and other organizations have had on Thedas as a whole.

The religious ideas behind it don't really concern me, it's the way the chantry uses those religious ideas as a means of control and to justify political ends which cause vast amounts of suffering.

In short: the ability to express your viewpoint regarding theism would be nice from a character building standpoint, but isn't really necessary. The ability to express your viewpoint regarding the Chantry is far more important.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:55 .

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's very simple: The contemporary notions of atheism and secularism floating around this thread and others like it pretend that history isn't about cause and effect.

As such, they can make demands like... "let's fight all religion!" in a world - Thedas - that isn't remotely prepared to challenge the moral authority of religion.

The secularism of the Enlightenment does not happen without the humanism of the Renaissance, the humanism of the Renaissance doesn't happen without the breaking down of Church authority during the Reformation, the Reformation doesn't happen without the various crisis of the Catholic Church in the previous centuries, the various crisis don't happen without widespread corruption and politicization of the Church, and there isn't any classical philosophy to "re-discover" during the Renaissance if the Greeks and Romans never wrote anything down.

The problem with these threads is they advocate jumping from the beginning to the end without anything like the above ever taking place, and this strains credulity in favor of arguing for what essentially amounts to wish fulfillment. "I do not like organized religion in real life, and would take great pleasure in tearing one down in a game."

I say all of this as a real contemporary atheist. But I do not pretend that modern secularism isn't the result of centuries of slow, inconsistent progress. These are steps Thedas has not taken yet, and while I'd be interested in seeing them being taken, in their own way in their own time, I'm not about to throw my hat in with those who would say all those steps aren't as important as the end result. Because they're wrong.

I suspect the more practical reason for not broaching the topic is not to stir the pot. It was the same with Mass Effect. The player and Ash had a rather blunt discussion about religion in ME1, to help establish her as a charcter. Some fans liked this dynamic - thought it was rather bold myself - and so we asked for more of it in the sequels....nope. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Calians wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Calians wrote...

At the end of the day after smashing a mage rebellion me and the lord seeker will be chillen at the Imperial Chantry singing of our victory.

Very religious extremist templar will be there too sitting on some mage corpses while quoting verses from The Chant of Light.

Down with mages. They are nothing but abominations that should have been dealt with.

Without "mages", you're Warden would have been dead and Fereldan conquered by the Darkspawn.

Without mages, there wouldn't be a Darkspawn threath to deal with in the first place.

[Fallstar]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Without mages, there wouldn't be a Darkspawn threath to deal with in the first place.

If you believe the chantry over the dwarves I don't really know what to say.

[Vandicus]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Calians wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Calians wrote...

At the end of the day after smashing a mage rebellion me and the lord seeker will be chillen at the Imperial Chantry singing of our victory.

Very religious extremist templar will be there too sitting on some mage corpses while quoting verses from The Chant of Light.

Down with mages. They are nothing but abominations that should have been dealt with.

Without "mages", you're Warden would have been dead and Fereldan conquered by the Darkspawn.

Without mages, there wouldn't be a Darkspawn threath to deal with in the first place.

Guys, this is both OT and non-constructive. This thread is not about mages vs templar but the inclusion of different religious or non-religious affiliations. 

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

I suspect the more practical reason for not broaching the topic is not to stir the pot. It was the same with Mass Effect. The player and Ash had a rather blunt discussion about religion, to help establish her as a charcter. Some fans like myself liked this dynamic - thought it was rather bold myself - and so we asked for more of it in the sequels....nope. 

I'm not so sure.

I have no reason to assume, at this stage, that the events of Dragon Age 3 aren't set up to begin knocking over some of those dominos.  The moral authority of the Chantry will be weakened by the events the game (and the interim between it and DA2), I'd wager.

But we'll see.  Even if it does happen, it's only one step of many, and I highly doubt the Dragon Age series will go on long enough that we find ourselves in whatever the equivalent of modern times is.

[King Cousland]

David Gaider wrote...

Either the insults and aggressiveness in some of the posts here are toned down or bans will be handed out. I have the power-- I will use it.

Dev-Man!

[aries1001]

There is a difference in believing in Andraste and the Maker, especially the point being that a Maker even existed at one time. The Maker and the belief in him (her?) are in Thedas just this: a belief, a faith. No one in Thedas at the point in time where our story takes place has even seen the Maker, just heard the Chantry's version of the story behind Andraste and the Maker. (and let me tell you - even I doubt the Chantry is telling ti whole truth here...)

Is it possible for the people of Thedays, say Ferelden or Orlais to doubt that the maker exist? Yes, it is, it could be when bad things happen to good people. As I remember it, didn't Fenris? react rather vehemently against the idea of magic, makers, and magisters?

As for Aveline in DA2, yes she expressed some doubt abouit if the Maker even existed, but I saw this more as consequence of her losing her husband in the way she did than really expressing atheistic beliefs (in the sense David Gaider talks about).

Morrigan, and Flemeth, for obvious reasons do not believe in the Maker at all, they believe in, well, themselves, and nature as some sort of deity as far as I can tell. Flemeth is known as the wild witch of the (korcari) wilds, and brought her daugther, Morrigan, up to believe in the same she did - e.g to oppose Chantry teaching, especially maybe those tales and stories about the Maker that the Chantry is telling.

The Dwarfs, then? Don't believe in the Maker either, they worship the Stone. The Dalish Elves do not believe in the Maker, the worship the Old Gods (as it seems to me) trying to find a way to return to old ways of the Dalish. And the city elves worship nature, I'd say with a tree standing in the middle of their - habitat - e.g. place where they live in the city.

I'm not so sure that the Qun is actually an atheistic philosophy? Surely, the Qun must believe in something higher than themselves? e.g. nature or the ideal of a nation?

[KingRoxas]

What a joke, haha. Pathetic.

Modifié par Kingroxas, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:08 .

[NUM13ER]

Okay so nice to see the threads being derailed by arguing a completely different topic. Anyway back to the OP...

I do find it odd that anyone would officially state no atheists/faithless people could exist. One of my playthroughs (Human Mage IRC) you could state your beliefs or rather the lack thereof. Morrigan certainly seemed to be of the opinion an all seeing creator didn't exist and even argued magic wasn't necessarily evidence to the fact.

Dwarves go to the stone and believe in ancestor worship as opposed to that of gods. In other words a legacy is their immortality. Even Qunari, despite being a religious faction, have no deity. It seems rather silly to claim no-one doesn't believe in gods in Thedas when there are entire factions that clearly do not in fact believe in any.

Though I'd be more worried that a future PC would be Andrastian by default. As (at the very least) we've been able in the past to denounce a belief in the Chanty's teachings. I certainly think the Chantry is not only corrupt but is built on lies surrounding actual people and events.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[MisterJB]

DuskWarden wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Without mages, there wouldn't be a Darkspawn threath to deal with in the first place.

If you believe the chantry over the dwarves I don't really know what to say.

The Chantry offers an explanation to the existence of creatures that defy the natural order of Thedas (read: Darkspawn have to be the product of magic) that is, partially, backed by a Magister whose life spans millenia.
The dwarves have no explanation other than "They just appeared."

[Fallstar]

Vandicus wrote...
Guys, this is both OT and non-constructive. This thread is not about mages vs templar but the inclusion of different religious or non-religious affiliations.

It is actually on topic. The idea that mages are to blame for the darkspawn gives the chantry justification for locking the mages away. At the end of the day, the mages represent a source of power that the chantry cannot control, so they contain it instead. The idea being that some mages several centuries ago became the first darkspawn, so all mages alive now should also be feared. I'm not quite sure how the people of Thedas fell for that, but hey. That also justifies the Chantry maintaining a standing army in the Templars.

If it were ever discovered that say, the Dwarves encountered the first darkspawn "in their own image" (genlocks, so they couldn't have been the human magisters) before the magisters were corrupted into darkspawn, that would surely mean that the darkspawn weren't created through the evils of magic. So people might question their fear of magic, and therefore the true purpose of the Chantry having a large military force. And the chantry can't be having that now can they.

Whether or not the mages were the first darkspawn is one of the pillars the chantry is built on. If that fact were called into doubt, as it is in Origins, it would provide a very good reason for our protagonists to question the rest of the Chantry's teachings too. After all, if they lied about this, why wouldn't they lie about that and maybe even that too? So it is on topic really.

[Vandicus]

DuskWarden wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
Guys, this is both OT and non-constructive. This thread is not about mages vs templar but the inclusion of different religious or non-religious affiliations.

It is actually on topic. The idea that mages are to blame for the darkspawn gives the chantry justification for locking the mages away. At the end of the day, the mages represent a source of power that the chantry cannot control, so they contain it instead. The idea being that some mages several centuries ago became the first darkspawn, so all mages alive now should also be feared. I'm not quite sure how the people of Thedas fell for that, but hey. That also justifies the Chantry maintaining a standing army in the Templars.

If it were ever discovered that say, the Dwarves encountered the first darkspawn "in their own image" (genlocks, so they couldn't have been the human magisters) before the magisters were corrupted into darkspawn, that would surely mean that the darkspawn weren't created through the evils of magic. So people might question their fear of magic, and therefore the true purpose of the Chantry having a large military force. And the chantry can't be having that now can they.

Whether or not the mages were the first darkspawn is one of the pillars the chantry is built on. If that fact were called into doubt, as it is in Origins, it would provide a very good reason for our protagonists to question the rest of the Chantry's teachings too. After all, if they lied about this, why wouldn't they lie about that and maybe even that too? So it is on topic really.

A. the discussion is about whether an atheist option for a PC is a good or bad idea, not about "We should destroy all mages" or "mages are esential to the existence of the wardens"

B. The Chantry's records on darkspawn creation/existence are based on Tevinter records. Neither the Chantry nor Andraste existed at the time the darkspawn came into being. Therefore the validity of transcribed records is largely irrelevant to a PC's choice of faith. 

[Merlex]

Nevermind. I should have read further.

Modifié par Merlex, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[Realmzmaster]

I have no problem with people wanting to go against the Chantry as organization.I hope that people are not saying they want to kill all templars and the Templar order. If that is the case why?

Basically you would kill the decent templars along with the evil. What if during the war you find a templar protecting a village from mages intent on burning it to the ground. What about the templar who use to make the rounds in Awakening to protect the outlying areas and farmers. Do you kill them?

What about the templars and mages who want to work together to provide checks and balances for mages allowing them to live with their families and protecting the villages or cities at the same time?

Are gamers going to slaughter templars who do not raise their sword against the PC?

How is it justice if the PC kills brothers and sisters of the faith who have raised no hand against PC?

Will the PC become like Meredith painting all templars with the same brush and have guilt by association.

Back on topic. If the writers want to include the option then that is fine. I am use to playing games where there was a plethora of gods or you could pick no god. The drawback was if you picked no god the PC would not have access to any quests that would be assigned by that religious order. 

The PC could also only receive quests ( aside from quests that had no religious affiliation)  from the religious order they were part of.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[MisterJB]

DuskWarden wrote...
It is actually on topic. The idea that mages are to blame for the darkspawn gives the chantry justification for locking the mages away. At the end of the day, the mages represent a source of power that the chantry cannot control, so they contain it instead. The idea being that some mages several centuries ago became the first darkspawn, so all mages alive now should also be feared. I'm not quite sure how the people of Thedas fell for that, but hey. That also justifies the Chantry maintaining a standing army in the Templars.

If it were ever discovered that say, the Dwarves encountered the first darkspawn "in their own image" (genlocks, so they couldn't have been the human magisters) before the magisters were corrupted into darkspawn, that would surely mean that the darkspawn weren't created through the evils of magic. So people might question their fear of magic, and therefore the true purpose of the Chantry having a large military force. And the chantry can't be having that now can they.

Whether or not the mages were the first darkspawn is one of the pillars the chantry is built on. If that fact were called into doubt, as it is in Origins, it would provide a very good reason for our protagonists to question the rest of the Chantry's teachings too. After all, if they lied about this, why wouldn't they lie about that and maybe even that too? So it is on topic really.

First and foremost, fear of mages originates in what they can do, not just in what the mages of the past did. Abominations, mages incapable of controlling their powers, mages who feel their power entitles them to do whatever they please to mundanes.
Even if the Darkspawn were eradicated today, these valid reasons to fear mages and magic would still exist.

Second, the Chantry supports the idea that the Five Original Darkspawn (FOD) fled underground after they blackened the Golden City. If the FOD killed all male dwarves they came across and experimented on the women then, logically, the first "common" Darkspawn the dwarves would have ever encountered would have been Genlocks.

The Darkspawn are immortal. They do not age, they do not require food or air, the Taint mantains them. And their reproductory system is entirely dependant on the other races. It is impossible for such a race to develop on their own. The Taint's origins has to be rooted in magic the likes of which the current mages could never dream of attaining.

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:26 .

[Fallstar]

MisterJB wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...
If you believe the chantry over the dwarves I don't really know what to say.

The Chantry offers an explanation to the existence of creatures that defy the natural order of Thedas (read: Darkspawn have to be the product of magic) that is, partially, backed by a Magister whose life spans millenia.
The dwarves have no explanation other than "They just appeared."

The dwarves are an independent source in this matter. The Andrastian chantry has zero to minimal influence in the Dwarven kingdoms, so they have no bias, no reason to lie. The chantry on the other hand, has a very significant reason to lie (namely to sustain fear of mages and keep the mages contained). That suggests the dwarven reports are more reliable.

The magister's millenium long lifespan doesn't really come into it does it? I think that the magisters did enter the black city, but I don't think that they are the first darkspawn or cause of the darkspawn. Why would I? There's nothing to connect the two ideas.

The dwarven explanation of "they just appeared" is perfectly valid. You don't find things till you find them. If the dwarves hadn't expanded the Deep Roads far enough to reach the first darkspawn, or to reach the source of the taint, they obviously wouldn't have come across the darkspawn. Until they did expand far enough. There is no need for any other explanation than that. Wouldn't you tend to reject more convoluted explanations when we have one which is perfectly reasonable and far simpler?

[Iosev]

I personally have no problem with the protagonist being able to express disbelief in the Maker, as long as it is consistent with the character's background and the world of Thedas (which is filled with magic, spirits, powerful beings, a predominantly Andrastrian human society, etc.).  Perhaps something similar to how Aveline expressed her uncertainty for Andrastrian beliefs.

Modifié par arcelonious, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:40 .

[Ryzaki]

Edit: Whoops see this is what happens when you enter a discussion late.

Anyway all I want is to express disbelief if my PC's religious views are a part of the conversation. Tis all.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:29 .

[Xilizhra]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I have no problem with people wanting to go against the Chantry as organization.I hope that people are not saying they want to kill all templars and the Templar order. If that is the case why?

Basically you would kill the decent templars along with the evil. What if during the war you find a templar protecting a village from mages intent on burning it to the ground. What about the templar who use to make the rounds in Awakening to protect the outlying areas and farmers. Do you kill them?

What about the templars and mages who want to work together to provide checks and balances for mages allowing them to live with their families and protecting the villages or cities at the same time?

Are gamers going to slaughter templars who do not raise their sword against the PC?

How is it justice if the PC kills brothers and sisters of the faith who have raised no hand against PC?

Will the PC become like Meredith painting all templars with the same brush and have guilt by association.

Back on topic. If the writers want to include the option then that is fine. I am use to playing games where there was a plethora of gods or you could pick no god. The drawback was if you picked no god the PC would not have access to any quests that would be assigned by that religious order. 

The PC could also only receive quests ( aside from quests that had no religious affiliation)  from the religious order they were part of.

I'll kill any loyalist templars fighting the war. I'll accept surrenders.

[MisterJB]

DuskWarden wrote...
The magister's millenium long lifespan doesn't really come into it does it? I think that the magisters did enter the black city, but I don't think that they are the first darkspawn or cause of the darkspawn. Why would I? There's nothing to connect the two ideas.

I believe my previous post can adress most of the arguments you raised in yours and, in an effort to avoid repeating myself, I'll just adress this one while asking you to read said previous post.

The Taint connects it. Corypheus is, obviously, a Tainted human that did not become a ghoul. We must ask ourselves: why is that? What makes him different?
The possibility exists that Corypheus is simply a very special victim of the Taint rather than its source. However, since no one in Thedas is rushing to offer new theories and the fact remains that Corypheus is a genuine darkspawn that used to be human; the only of its kind, as far as we know; and that he invaded a City on the heart of the Fade before the dwarves ever encoutered the first genlocks; which could not have appeared on their own; the possibility that the Chantry is, in fact, right is strong indeed.

Modifié par MisterJB, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[King Cousland]

Avejajed wrote...

I think it's interesting that people who dislike real world religion also do not like made-up video game religion.

Actually this is something I've noticed too. It's interesting also to see how people's real-world political views can shape their views on fiction.