895 réponses à ce sujet

[KingRoxas]

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

And I'll welcome them as the heroes they are. (To their own people.)

[Realmzmaster]

Avejajed wrote...

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

That is because gamers project themselves into their PC even if they do not think they do. It is a natural tendency. It takes considerable effort to role play a different way. The gamer has to remind hisself/herself what would the PC do not what I would do unless of course you are roleplaying yourself as the PC.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[Olmerto]

Avejajed wrote...

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

Truly.  They are doing themselves a disservice by precluding their enjoyment of an alternative universe where all things are a possibility.

[Iosev]

Avejajed wrote...

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

I personally consider myself an agnostic (particularly empirical or weak agnostism), yet I have absolutely no problem playing as a religious protagonist.  I think a lot of people try to roleplay with their own "shoes" on, instead of trying to roleplay within the protagonist's "shoes", if that makes sense.

With that said, I think there is also a certain amount of empathy that many player's may feel for the people disenfranchised by the Chantry, particularly the elves and mages.

Modifié par arcelonious, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:04 .

[Shadow Fox]

To OP what exactly is your beef with religion?

[Realmzmaster]

Xilizhra wrote...


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

Templars have family in the cities, towns and villages. Many of them would go back to protect those people from both mages and templars bringing the war to that area. If they surrender to the PC and party who then protects those people? The PC would disarm them or is the PC going to accept the templars word that they are not loyalists?

[Iakus]

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

[Shadow Fox]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So you agree Meredith was right to call the annulment then?

[Ryzaki]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

To OP what exactly is your beef with religion?

Not directed at me but I have no beef with it. I just want to be able to play an atheist PC that's not bitter or with some horrible flaw to "justify" his/her lack of faith.

[Shadow Fox]

Ryzaki wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

To OP what exactly is your beef with religion?

Not directed at me but I have no beef with it. I just want to be able to play an atheist PC that's not bitter or with some horrible flaw to "justify" his/her lack of faith.

This isn't the first time I've seen her demonize religion so I thought I'd ask.

[Ryzaki]

Ah okay. I thought it was directed more at the OP than Xili being her usual extremist self.

[Heimdall]

iakus wrote...

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

Many don't seem to see the distinction.

[Wulfram]

iakus wrote...

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

Either or both depending on the character.  The chantry is more likely to be directly relevant to the plot though.

Of course in DA2 you were implicitly placed in opposition to the Chantry, as an apostate or an associate of apostates.  Which was a problem too - there should definitely have been an option to (try to) turn Anders and Merrill in to the Templars.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ah okay. I thought it was directed more at the OP than Xili being her usual extremist self.

[Shadow Fox]

EntropicAngel wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Obviously this something many people are pessimistic about, because of Gaider's earlier (bizarre) insistence about no atheists existing on Thedas. However, we did get him to concede that they'd consider the option of expressing doubt, which is a decent step closer to allowing it to be roleplayed, and I see no reason why we should let supporting the option die out.

I'll say this much: when the original thread was up, I asked the rest of the team what they remembered of the original game, and we all agreed that "atheism" was not something we'd ever supported as a viewpoint for the PC. And by supported, I mean something that-- whenever the topic arose-- we would make sure we included it as an option. Anything we consider "supported" is something we would make sure to maintain consistently throughout the game... that's a design term we take seriously.

Yes, there was indeed the occasional dialogue option to express it-- something you guys obviously remember better than we do (writing something over six years will definitely do that, let me tell you). I don't know if we would consider that "supported" as I defined above, but you're correct that it definitely pops up.  Probably because, at the time, such an option seemed appropriate, and I wouldn't have a problem with that even now.

The part where I get stuck, and am clearly quite poor at expressing the exact point where my support for this idea breaks down, is where "atheism" stops being "I doubt that the Maker actually exists" to being some kind of political view... as atheism often is in the modern world. More secularization than atheism, really. There's a strong streak of anti-religious organization present here on the forums, and when the topic is broached it seemed to be done in the sense of "I should be allowed to go on a crusade against all religion", which is really the thing that I believe is out of place in our setting. Being able to occasionally express doubt, sure... but in order to make such a view supported we would need to provide a full path for such a stance.

The forums being what they are, they will automatically interpret that as in only the extreme opposite must then be the truth-- I'll never be able to express ANYTHING anti-religious and therefore must myself BE RELIGIOUS OMG!... which of course is simply not so, but I guess if you intend to freak out about it go ahead and get it out of your system.

And that's as far as I'll go on that topic. Thanks.

That was well said sir. 


I'm very religious, but I hold no hate for things that wingnuts within my religion seem to hate.  In the context of this conversation, I would not use Andraste's teachings to hate my brothers and sisters in faith.  Magic not ruling over man is not keeping the mages in chains, but it is keeping them in check.  Both sides of the conflict are doing things wrong.  Mages cannot be totally free, yet they should not be mistreated because their gift can and does go wild.

Kirkwall was an abomination in every sense of the word.

Having a character that has doubt or straight out does not believe is one thing, but having a character that hates all belief systems and is actively trying to "enlighten" the world into secularism would not be my idea of fun.

Very good points.

I would also like to point out that the Dragon Age universe was created by Bioware. That means that if bioware decides that the Maker is real, He's real, and that should not be something to complain about.

But they will.

[KingRoxas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ah okay. I thought it was directed more at the OP than Xili being her usual extremist self.

Must just say: Awesome pug avatar. 

Modifié par Kingroxas, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:45 .

[Cultist]

iakus wrote...

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

I bet most people here who want "atheist" option just don't care. They start caring when someone says "You must believe in XYZ!" or when character is forced to support some belief they don't care or even dislike. Like Mark of the Assassin where you have no option but to support qunary spy. You cannot say no, can't refuse, your only option is to accept and agree.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


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

Templars have family in the cities, towns and villages. Many of them would go back to protect those people from both mages and templars bringing the war to that area. If they surrender to the PC and party who then protects those people? The PC would disarm them or is the PC going to accept the templars word that they are not loyalists?

If they don't have a problem with free mages, I don't have a problem with them. Otherwise things get ugly.

Avejajed wrote...

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

There are essentially two ways to roleplay: you can either imagine an entirely separate character and go through the game according to their decisions or you can pretend it's 'you' and make the protagonist's choices according to your own preferences and sensibilities. Both are valid forms of roleplay.

[iSignIn]

It would be pretty ironic if an Inquisitor is not religious, wouldn't it? Because an Inquisitor's chief weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope Divine.

Modifié par iSignIn, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:50 .

[Shadow Fox]

Cultist wrote...

iakus wrote...

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

I bet most people here who want "atheist" option just don't care. They start caring when someone says "You must believe in XYZ!" or when character is forced to support some belief they don't care or even dislike. Like Mark of the Assassin where you have no option but to support qunary spy. You cannot say no, can't refuse, your only option is to accept and agree.

When they use anti-religous dogma to make ther point I'd say they do though.

Ofcourse I'm not refering to everyone who wants the option however.

[Shadow Fox]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...


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

Templars have family in the cities, towns and villages. Many of them would go back to protect those people from both mages and templars bringing the war to that area. If they surrender to the PC and party who then protects those people? The PC would disarm them or is the PC going to accept the templars word that they are not loyalists?

If they don't have a problem with free mages, I don't have a problem with them. Otherwise things get ugly.

Avejajed wrote...

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

There are essentially two ways to roleplay: you can either imagine an entirely separate character and go through the game according to their decisions or you can pretend it's 'you' and make the protagonist's choices according to your own preferences and sensibilities. Both are valid forms of roleplay.

B ut what if they have good sensible reasons fot thier reluctance*EX: dangerous zealots like Anders free to roam unchecked even my mages have a problem with that*

[Iakus]

Cultist wrote...

iakus wrote...

 Not sure I want to read through all these pages of back and forth so I'll just ask here:

Is it the Maker people want to reject so badly, or the Chantry?

I bet most people here who want "atheist" option just don't care. They start caring when someone says "You must believe in XYZ!" or when character is forced to support some belief they don't care or even dislike. Like Mark of the Assassin where you have no option but to support qunary spy. You cannot say no, can't refuse, your only option is to accept and agree.

I just wonder because the Chantry, while the dominant human religion, is hardly the only religion in Thedas. Tevinter has their Black Chantry (and the Elder Gods before that).  The Dalish have their gods, Dwarves have the Stone, the Chasind have their gods, even the qunari, while they don't have gods, have the Qun, which is essentially revered as a religion in itself.  Religion is everywhere in Thedas, and takes many forms.

Not liking the Chantry because of their particular teachings is an understandable position.  Particularly if you're sympathetic to mages.  One can even question who or what the Maker is.   Or what his intentions really are.But doubting the existence of the Maker strikes me as a bit more...extreme. ...in Thedas.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

]But what if they have good sensible reasons fot thier reluctance*EX: dangerous zealots like Anders free to roam unchecked even my mages have a problem with that*

We can deal with that on a situation-by-situation basis. But they aren't going to get to keep their Circles.

Although if any of them try to lay a finger on Anders specificially I'm blowing them straight to Hell.