390 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Lithuasil wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Even benevolent spirits have no knowledge of the Maker.

It's debateable if such a thing even exist, let alone if it's a reliable source. To question requires an incentive. In the real world, we have that because there's contradictions between scientific observations and religious text. In Thedas, there's not (to my knowledge anyway). 

It's quite obvious that there are spirits of things other than sin, hence not demons.

If you want to push this really far, I might be willing to concede a belief in the Maker's existence, but also believe that the Maker is a hideously evil tyrant who has to be stopped via any means possible.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't really care so long as I get to oppose the Chantry and not believe in the divinity of the Maker or Andraste. Is that entirely too much to ask?

Not at all. You don't need to justify wanting the choice, either; I can imagine there are mages who wouldn't believe in a religion that vilifies them, and people who think what the Chantry claims simply doesn't ring true to them. I went through Origins with my Surana Warden, who didn't worship the Maker, called the Chantry out for the destruction of the Dales, told Leliana that Andraste was simply a woman and not divine, and said he didn't believe in the Maker as it was a "foolish superstition" in Awakening. When I went through Dragon Age II, Hawke was religiously Andrastian, and I had no choice in the matter; it's not entertaining to play as a character who is forced to believe in a fictional religion that I find monstrous.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 30 septembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

Considering theology in practice probably only applies to scholars of the Chantry itself and perhaps nobility, it's kind of hard to imagine someone flat out say "There's no Maker, you're delusional. Get over it." in the sense that most people want, that's a more modern way of seeing things.

I mean, I'd claim Hawke was the perfect balance between devout follower and indifference. Yes, he uses the term "Maker" in two of his personalities and does mention "They're with the Maker", yet that doesn't stop Aveline--someone who many have claimed is irreligious--to say similar things.

It's ingrained into their culture, you can't get past that. Isn't telling Elthina the Maker had nothing to do with stopping the Blight and other such comments enough for you, do you really need to degrade every priest and the entire concept of the Maker just to satisfy your real-life bitterness towards religion?

Perhaps if you took to mind the world which your character lives in, the only ones who should be questioning the Maker's existence would really be the dwarves / dalish and human cults (Tevinter still uses the Maker). All which revere different figures by themselves, none which practice the existence of a non-deity or hating the concept of worship or afterlife (or stone).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 septembre 2012 - 07:50 .

[Swagger7]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Considering theology in practice probably only applies to scholars of the Chantry itself and perhaps nobility, it's kind of hard to imagine someone flat out say "There's no Maker, you're delusional. Get over it." in the sense that most people want, that's a more modern way of seeing things.

I mean, I'd claim Hawke was the perfect balance between devout follower and indifference. Yes, he uses the term "Maker" in two of his personalities and does mention "They're with the Maker", yet that doesn't stop Aveline--someone who many have claimed is irreligious--to say similar things.

It's ingrained into their culture, you can't get past that. Isn't telling Elthina the Maker had nothing to do with stopping the Blight and other such comments enough for you, do you really need to degrade every priest and the entire concept of the Maker just to satisfy your real-life bitterness towards religion?

Perhaps if you took to mind the world which your character lives in, the only ones who should be questioning the Maker's existence would really be the dwarves / dalish and human cults (Tevinter still uses the Maker). All which revere different figures by themselves, none which practice the existence of a non-deity or hating the concept of worship or afterlife (or stone).

I honestly didn't have too much of a problem with Hawke's having to say something about being with the Maker if you went the nice route in that conversation, as it's kind of an ***hole thing to tell someone that there is no afterlife right after a loved one died.  Save that for philosophical discussion, or as a response to someone trying to push their religion on you. (kind of like how you could question Aveline about whether she believed in the Maker or not when talking in her office)

I'd still like to see a tiny bit of questioning / critical comments available to the player, on par with DAO.  DAO handled this perfectly as far as I'm concerned.  And I have no trouble with "Maker preserve us!", "Andraste's Ass" etc.  Nonreligious people use religious swearing all the time.  I'm an atheist, and I say god****** every once in awhile, more so than when I was religious.  As a friend of mine said, "Why should the religious people get to keep all the fun swearing to themselves?" 

[upsettingshorts]

Might as well repost this here, it's ontopic:

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.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 septembre 2012 - 08:47 .

[Swagger7]

greengoron89 wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

@Swagger - What, so "minorities" should be absolved of any responsibility for what they say and do... simply because they're "minorities"?

Brilliant logic.

Way to put words in my mouth.  I was saying that people use these terms to dismiss people automatically, rather than listen to the content of their arguments.  In what way is this absolving minorities of responsibility for what they say and do?  If you wish to argue, please don't strawman me.

That's certainly not the impression your post gave me, but if that's really what you meant I won't argue the point.

How did you get that impression from my post?  I went back and re-read it, and I'm at a loss as to how this happened.  I don't mean to belittle you or anything, I'm really just curious.  If there's some flaw in the way I phrased it I'd like to know so I can make it clearer and avoid confusing other people.  it's very frustrating when you try to communicate something and accidentally send the wrong message.

[ElitePinecone]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I think secularism is enormously important in real life and I don't have any religious belief, but the way some are arguing for this strikes me as discomforting. It's less about whether an atheistic viewpoint makes sense in Thedas, and more about tearing down any example of institutionalised religion in any form, even in a fictional setting, just because one happened to be against it.

Would I like options to express doubt? Sure. But I'm happy to accept a "Word of Gaider" remonstration, down from atop a mountain (so to speak) that active campaigning against religious belief would be ludicrous to almost everyone in Thedas, in exactly the same way as organised atheism was inconceivable in much of the world (and still is) for centuries.

It's hardly the first time the developers have imposed a viewpoint on the world, which is, after all, fictional. The fact that nobody seems to have a problem with same-sex relationships in Thedas is fantastic - possibly unrealistic, if we're comparng it to real-world analogues - but clearly something a large section of the playerbase, and certainly the developers, have no problem with. 

Bioware owns (literally and creatively) Thedas as a setting, including the viewpoints and perspectives of its inhabitants. There are some viewpoints which are, quite simply, incongruous or anachronistic in Dragon Age's setting. I don't have a problem with this. 

[Merlex]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

People should really learn to leave their religious grievances at the door when playing a game, almost everyone who I've seen create threads like these seem borderline psycopathic in their hatred for real-world religion.

I'd modify this to say "when talking about fiction" but pretty much that.

It was like this in the Battlestar Galactica fandom too. 

Yeah, they were quite pissed at the spiritual ending. I often thought to myself, weren't they watching the whole series. It was the same with Lost.

[Swagger7]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

Might as well repost this here, it's ontopic:

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

[/quote]

To some extent I agree with this.  However, I think it takes an overly deterministic view of history (ie things had to happen exactly this way because that's the way they happened).  It's possible to image a different path to widespread religious questioning.  It's also possible for an individual to question a widely held belief (for either good or bad reasons) even when none of these conditions exist for the population as a whole.  

As an example, I shall here cite the "Catholic Encyclopedia":
"There were undoubtedly, to a certain extent at any rate, in classical
times those who either publicly scoffed at the authoritative myths of
their country's religion or philosophically explained their meaning away. So — but this in a truer sense — in the Middle Ages there were to be found rationalists, or free-thinkers, among the philosophers of the schools. The Fathers of the Church had met paganism with its own weapons and argued against the falsehoods with the help of the natural reason. The early heretics were free-thinkers in their rejection of the regulating authority of the Church upon points connected with their heresies, which they elaborated frequently upon rationalistic lines; and the pantheists and others of the schools criticized and syllogized revelation away in true free-thought style. Both were in consequence condemned; but the spirit of excess in criticism and the reliance on the sufficiency of human reason are as typical of the free thought of the medieval times as that of the twentieth century."
Source:  http://www.newadvent...then/06258b.htm

Even during the Middle Ages when the church ruled, there was questioning and criticism.

Again, I'm not saying that any of these people were necessarily full-on atheists, and I'm not arguing for any sort of openly anti-religious atheist PC.  I just want to not be railroaded into roleplaying absolute belief in a particular religious system.  This is counterproductive to player agency.  (It should really be bothersome to religious people as well, since many of them probably don't wish to roleplay a character who is strongly attached to a religion different from their own.)  Being allowed to take a position of "meh" is sufficient for me. 

In fairness, I think BioWare is well aware of the issue and will probably do a good job giving us choices in the matter.  It won't satisfy everyone, but then again, nothing ever does.  I just think it's important to raise all these issues now to ensure that the devs have an understanding of what different people want while there's still a chance to ensure it gets into the game.  After all, isn't that pretty much the purpose of having a forum for a game that isn't out yet?

[upsettingshorts]

I don't think it's deterministic - I don't hold that view at all, personally - but it is a simplification for the sake of space and time.  Nor am I disputing the existence of doubt or questioning by any given individuals or groups along the way.  The circumstances for lasting change have to be in place for lasting change to happen.  Essentially I don't believe breakthroughs in thought, especially on a grand scale, occur in a vacuum.  Fiction is a special case because it exists in its own continuity but we interpret it through our own perspective that has those pre-requisites met. 

As such, my point is not "it had to happen this way because it happened this way" but "it most certainly could not have happened this way had circumstances not laid the groundwork for it."  History is both our burden and our foundation.

Of course I take fewer issues with those who simply wish to have their characters express personal doubts than those who claim that this ought to be enough to justify full-blown cultural revolution in Thedas.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 septembre 2012 - 10:00 .

[LobselVith8]

Merlex wrote...

Yeah, they were quite pissed at the spiritual ending. I often thought to myself, weren't they watching the whole series. It was the same with Lost.

They did, which is why many fans hated how it ended, and how certain plots were handled, from Boomer's inconsistent characterization to Cavil as a comic book villain with a ludicrous plot.

[Merlex]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Yeah, they were quite pissed at the spiritual ending. I often thought to myself, weren't they watching the whole series. It was the same with Lost.

They did, which is why many fans hated how it ended, and how certain plots were handled, from Boomer's inconsistent characterization to Cavil as a comic book villain with a ludicrous plot.

There were some holes in the ending. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the entire ending. They could have handled Starbuck better as well. I hated how they characterized Cavil. His character had a lot of wasted potential.

But that wasn't what i was referencing. I was talking about the spiritual aspects of the series. About how head Caprica and head Six were real, and not guilt driven madness. A lot of people in the BSG community, wanted them to be imaginary, or computer chips. The evidence of head Six's existence was apparant thoughout the series. Also the whole all this has happened before and will happen again theme. There were some that wanted the President's visions and the prophecies, to turn out to be superstitious nonsence.

It was the same with Lost. It had a spiritual theme throughout the series. But a lot of people on the forums wanted John Locke's (not Smoky) beliefs to be proved false and crazy in the end. But these discussions are better left to those forums, and are a derail from this discussion.

[Swagger7]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I don't think it's deterministic - I don't hold that view at all, personally - but it is a simplification for the sake of space and time.  Nor am I disputing the existence of doubt or questioning by any given individuals or groups along the way.  The circumstances for lasting change have to be in place for lasting change to happen.  Essentially I don't believe breakthroughs in thought, especially on a grand scale, occur in a vacuum.  Fiction is a special case because it exists in its own continuity but we interpret it through our own perspective that has those pre-requisites met. 

As such, my point is not "it had to happen this way because it happened this way" but "it most certainly could not have happened this way had circumstances not laid the groundwork for it."  History is both our burden and our foundation.

Of course I take fewer issues with those who simply wish to have their characters express personal doubts than those who claim that this ought to be enough to justify full-blown cultural revolution in Thedas.

I see.  I mistakenly took the use of "does not happen" in your post for "could not have happened without".  My mistake.  I was recently arguing against a very determinism-centric individual on another forum recently and his attitude was fresh in my mind.

You are absolutely right that "it most certainly could not have happened this way had circumstances not laid the groundwork for it." by the way.

EDIT: fixed some egregious grammatical and spelling errors. 

Modifié par Swagger7, 30 septembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[upsettingshorts]

The fact anyone denied the spiritual themes of BSG after the episode called "The Hand of God" flabbergasted me. It was also hardly the only example, just the earliest case of them trying to beat it into the audience's collective skulls.  That episode.  Was not.  Subtle.

When some friends and I introduced the show - after it was finished - to some other friends of ours, we insisted on pointing out every single example of the theology of BSG by commenting, "There's religion in this show." We lost count of the number of examples. They were literally countless.  Okay you could probably count them if you dedicated yourself, but there would be a lot.

That said, nobody here is saying the finale was perfect. But the righteous anger at the fact God was involved - an active off screen participant in the plot through his agents since the pilot - was utter nonsense. Again, I'm an atheist.

Anyway, that's a totally off topic rant of the worst kind. But it does demonstrate the hostility in certain circles to faith and religion in fiction, even when it's a completely fictional universe in which God (or Gods) might actually exist.  In BSG, God exists, period. 

Swagger7 wrote...

I mistakenly thought the use of "does not happen" in your post for "could not have happened without".  

My wording was vague in that respect and you were absolutely right to raise the question.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 septembre 2012 - 11:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

slimgrin wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

You mean the vast swarths in which the largest, most devastating, and most systematic genocides in Human history have occured under the aegis of secular ideologies?

A symptom of the modern era. Don't think for a second ancient religious fanatics wouldn't do the same.

A symptom of the past eras which lacked major secular ideologies.

See? I can do it to.

And there is no militant secular movement. People don't kill each other in the name of not believing in religion.

A good many people were killed for just that during Soviet Purges. Granted, a good many people were killed for a lot of bad reasons during the Soviet Purges, but the Soviet Union was dominated by a secular ideology that has an impressive history of crimes against humanity without needing religion to play any role at all.

Regardless, you're missing the point: a militant secular movement is a secular movement that is also militant. That's, like, a lot of them: there are plenty of secular ideologies that justify doing great harm to other people without relying on god. Most militaries in the world today are decidedly secular.

They kill each other in belief of the wrong god, or the wrong sect, or the wrong faction...have you learned nothng from the conflict in the middle east?

That's it's barely noticable comparied to the attrocities of the secular ideologies that ruled certain parts of Asia and Europe?

I mean, if you're trying to say the religious extremists in the Middle East today are anywhere close to as bad as the secular ideologies that dominated in the 1940's, you're seriously ****ed up in your sense of proportion.

[Ridwan]

StElmo wrote...

One thing that has impressed me greatly and kept me in the DA game is the portrayal of the Chantry as apower hungry, dominant and manipulative force, in the DA universe.

It draws heavy parallels with the historical and modern day context of the Catholic Church in real world society - which I find absolutely fascinating.

If DA3 really ramps this up (something I expect is being hinted at with a title called "inquisition") I would be happy to put my money on the table, purely based on principle.

Exposing the flaws, injustices and overall powerplay of institutionalized religion in society is a controversial but highly respectable theme.

I really hope they do something outlandish and creative with this opportunity. If they don't and I will know this before I put down my money (from fan reviews) I will be sorely dissapointed.

Kind Regards,

Elmo

So you won't buy the game unless it's a platform for atheism or am I missing something here?

[Dean_the_Young]

Lithuasil wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It wasn't in DAO. I hardly see why it'd be harder here.

Because a position so far outside of societies norms requires a reason, especially in medieval times when "far out there" positions are much harder to uphold or form in the first place.
So yeah - having a character abandon the faith they were brought up with, after a series of traumatic events or in times of crisis should be an option. Starting out as a character decked out with modern, western beliefs should not.

I remember back around Awakening when someone, appalled at my less-than-liberal role playing choices and bitter about the limitions of social reforms you could enact, proceeded to outline their head-canon.

'First,' she began, 'My Warden would establish a Bill of Rights...'

[Dragoonlordz]

I do not really care about the bickering between right and wrong going on here. All I care about is the fact I do not want to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona. It goes against every single protaganist I have played in the DA universe to date, it goes against what I believe my stance would be in that world setting based on everything I have seen, done in the previous games. Thats what matters to me, I do not care to debate it as it is not something I will change my mind on.

A character that is forced to go against all that I have seen and played in this franchise is quite simply not a character I want to play. Simple as that really. Bioware have allowed the character to be anti-Chantry in previous games and anti-Qun. This next one I hope is no different. I do not want a character that I cannot control or with beliefs I cannot accept. It is better to allow for players to decide for themselves in the game whether they want to follow the Chantry, the Qun or neither.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:24 .

[General User]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I do not really care about the bickering between right and wrong going on here. All I care about is the fact I do not want to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona. It goes against every single protaganist I have played in the DA universe to date, it goes against what I believe my stance would be in that world setting based on everything I have seen, done in the previous games. Thats what matters to me, I do not care to debate it as it is not something I will change my mind on. A character that is forced to go against all that I have seen and played in this franchise is quite simply not a character I want to play. Simple as that really.

What makes you think that you would be forced "to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona"? 

You said it yourself, in the previous DA games the player has had ample opportunity to question the Chantry and the Qun, and even be outright hostile to them.

Modifié par General User, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[Dragoonlordz]

General User wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I do not really care about the bickering between right and wrong going on here. All I care about is the fact I do not want to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona. It goes against every single protaganist I have played in the DA universe to date, it goes against what I believe my stance would be in that world setting based on everything I have seen, done in the previous games. Thats what matters to me, I do not care to debate it as it is not something I will change my mind on. A character that is forced to go against all that I have seen and played in this franchise is quite simply not a character I want to play. Simple as that really.

What makes you think that you would be forced "to play a character that supports the Chantry or the Qun as a persona"? 

You said it yourself, in the previous DA games the player has had ample opportunity to question the Chantry and the Qun, and even be outright hostile to them.

Game is called Inquisition, seekers work for the chantry especially the divine, the theme of the game implies religious context. The way they handled the character in DA2 does also not inspire me. The use of framed narrative in that game, poor outcome and impact of choices. Like I said, I do not mind if companions are pro-Chantry or Qun, I think some should be and some not since adds to quality of dialogue and interactions but my character the one I am buying the game to play I do not want to be pro-Chantry or pro-Qun. So I just want to be sure that there is not only option for Chantry supporters or Qun supporters but also those which support neither in the next game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:50 .

[General User]

You got the theme of the game and major plot points from the title? I'm impressed.

[Dragoonlordz]

General User wrote...

You got the theme of the game and major plot points from the title? I'm impressed.

"A" potential theme of the game yes, I mentioned nothing about major plot points however.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[Wolf]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Game is called Inquisition, seekers work for the chantry especially the divine, the theme of the game implies religious context. The way they handled the character in DA2 does also not inspire me. The use of framed narrative in that game, poor outcome and impact of choices. Like I said, I do not mind if companions are pro-Chantry or Qun, I think some should be and some not since adds to quality of dialogue and interactions but my character the one I am buying the game to play I do not want to be pro-Chantry or pro-Qun. So I just want to be sure that there is not only option for Chantry supporters or Qun supporters but also those which support neither in the next game.

The title does not automatically need to be related to religion. Inquisition means to inquire, investigate. We merely associate it with an old institution in our own world. The game itself will likely deal with religion in some way, but I don't think Bioware's aim is to make you an enforcer of the Chantry, but a middle-man in all the chaos of the war.

Given the current state of Thedas, what the leaks suggest and the apparent theme of "saving the world from itself" it seems this Inquisition is formed by a few level-headed people who want to bring the confilct to an end. What their (and consequently our) actions will entail however, I cannot say.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

Based on the same amount of information, I wager another potential theme of the game is Dragonheart.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 septembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[Xilizhra]

It's ingrained into their culture, you can't get past that. Isn't telling Elthina the Maker had nothing to do with stopping the Blight and other such comments enough for you, do you really need to degrade every priest and the entire concept of the Maker just to satisfy your real-life bitterness towards religion?

It's interesting how you seem to believe that not believing in any god counts as "degrading" the beliefs of those who do. I suspect I may not be the one who's bitter. But no, that's not really enough if I'm still forced to follow a repugnant theology.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I think secularism is enormously important in real life and I don't have any religious belief, but the way some are arguing for this strikes me as discomforting. It's less about whether an atheistic viewpoint makes sense in Thedas, and more about tearing down any example of institutionalised religion in any form, even in a fictional setting, just because one happened to be against it.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to fight all religion. I'm trying to fight one religion. Not all religions, not the concept of religion, just one specific religion. Hell, I don't even care if I'm an atheist or if I hold to an alternate belief system (unless it's the Qun for some reason), my opposition is solely to the Chantry. Again, I'm against the Chantry alone, not all religions.

That's it's barely noticable comparied to the attrocities of the secular ideologies that ruled certain parts of Asia and Europe?

I mean, if you're trying to say the religious extremists in the Middle East today are anywhere close to as bad as the secular ideologies that dominated in the 1940's, you're seriously ****ed up in your sense of proportion.

In moral terms, they're just as bad, yes. The difference lies in logistics and force projection: today's religious extremists have far less of it. If they actually had world-conquering armies, they'd use them with just as much bloodshed involved.