390 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

I'd just like to point out that, in Skyrim, there was at least enough uncertainty to facilitate debate over whether or not Talos counts as a 'god', and there was as much evidence for his existence and status as a deity as there was for the other eight divines (ie, his shrine works).

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

The phrase I'm referring to wasn't an epithet, it was a rather quiet and genuine-sounding sendoff.

Isn't that when Hawke tells Feynriel, who believes in the Creators, that he hopes the Maker guides him?

Xilizhra wrote...

That was when Leandra died, to Merrill, who doesn't even believe in the Maker.

Which was another moment where Bioware dictated who my protagonist was, rather than giving me the choice. I prefer having choices in what my character believes in, like The Warden had in Origins and Awakening, rather than playing a protagonist who is forced to be religiously Andrastian, like Hawke.

[Xilizhra]

I'd argue that you can. You can quesition their doctrines and dogmas and even ridicule the various religions of Thedas. If your character makes statements supportive of one faith but critical of another can they not be said to be followers of that faith?

Now, try this on for size: maybe Hawke said "she with the Maker now" not because it's what Merrill believed, or what Hawke believed, but because it is what Leandra would have wanted to hear.

IIRC, it's impossible for Hawke to actually support the Creators or ridicule the Maker, for instance. In fact, I don't think you can ever really do any supporting/ridiculing except for supporting the Maker.

As for the other thing... I'm sorry, but I don't quite see how that makes sense. Why would Leandra care what Hawke said? If she's happy, she'll be happy and it won't matter, and if she's not, she'll just feel more upset at Hawke's false hope.

Isn't that when Hawke tells Feynriel, who believes in the Creators, that he hopes the Maker guides him?

No, that's the thing you say in battle. I honestly don't remember the line with Feynriel, although I can imagine it.

I'll also say give an example of further precedent for not believing in the Maker: Aldenon the Wise, he whose progressive views were sadly not matched by his fashion sense (brown, more brown, a bit of gray, and two dogs tied to a stick; really, Bioware?). "What Aldenon believed, only Aldenon knew, but he most certainly did not believe in the Maker."

[LobselVith8]

Lithuasil wrote...

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.

And there are people who respectfully disagree with you about that opinion, like me.

Lithuasil wrote...

What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.

Why should the choice be removed from the player? If it's not entertaining to them and they dislike it, it's detrimental to their respective gameplay. I don't want to play Bioware's character in Dragon Age, I'm interested in playing mine. I want the freedom I had with The Warden, not the limitations I experienced with Hawke.

Lithuasil wrote...

And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong? 

Simply because some people think it makes sense to play an atheist in Dragon Age doesn't mean they always play one; I go through Skyrim with a Sithis worshipping assassin and a Tribunal mage.

[BouncyFrag]

12 pages....really?

[Xilizhra]

BouncyFrag wrote...

12 pages....really?

Religion, even in-game, still matters to people.

[NoUserNameHere]

Any other soap boxes we can shoehorn into the franchise? Maybe a SOPA analogue? Do the dwarves need healthcare reform desperately? Maybe they can shoehorn in another bombing rife with 9/11 symbolism, indefinitely detain all mages in a secret island prison.

[Xilizhra]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Any other soap boxes we can shoehorn into the franchise? Maybe a SOPA analogue? Do the dwarves need healthcare reform desperately? Maybe they can shoehorn in another bombing rife with 9/11 symbolism, indefinitely detain all mages in a secret island prison.

They pretty much already do that last one. In any case, by your analogy, fighting for the templars is a soapbox in favor of American fundamentalism or something.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd argue that you can. You can quesition their doctrines and dogmas and even ridicule the various religions of Thedas. If your character makes statements supportive of one faith but critical of another can they not be said to be followers of that faith?

Now, try this on for size: maybe Hawke said "she with the Maker now" not because it's what Merrill believed, or what Hawke believed, but because it is what Leandra would have wanted to hear.

IIRC, it's impossible for Hawke to actually support the Creators or ridicule the Maker, for instance. In fact, I don't think you can ever really do any supporting/ridiculing except for supporting the Maker.

Remember, there have been two (or three) player characters in Dragon Age so far.

Between conversations with Aveline, Anders, Sebastian, Grand Cleric Elthina, the Arishok, Merrill, and a few others, Hawke has ample opportunity to express a wide range of opinions on the Chantry and it's doctrines and express a number of levels of belief or doubt in the the Maker.  And to either listen patiently or dismiss it as nonsense when various elves start going on about the Creators.  Similarly the issue comes up in Origins/Awakening in conversations with Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan, Sten, Velanna, various Chantry priests, and the Dalish elves.  Again with options to express various levels of belief, disbelief, approval, tolerance, acceptance, indifference, or disdain.

In all cases, the player character has been able to express a wide range of sentiments on the various religions of Thedas and their doctrines.  There is no reason to expect that this would change in DA3.

As for the other thing... I'm sorry, but I don't quite see how that makes sense. Why would Leandra care what Hawke said? If she's happy, she'll be happy and it won't matter, and if she's not, she'll just feel more upset at Hawke's false hope.

For greiving persons to say or do what they think the deceased would have wanted of them is actually quite common.

Modifié par General User, 30 septembre 2012 - 03:50 .

[Macross]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

Any other soap boxes we can shoehorn into the franchise? Maybe a SOPA analogue? Do the dwarves need healthcare reform desperately? Maybe they can shoehorn in another bombing rife with 9/11 symbolism, indefinitely detain all mages in a secret island prison.

Apples and Oranges mate. Religion is a big part of Dragon Age, from the very start and DA2 has just made it a bigger part as well (conflict against the Qun, Mage and Templar War, The Chantry falling apart etc...).

Those anaologues are unneeded, but a strong thematic look at faith and organised Religion in DA3 could really help lift DA3 from being just another game and make it something special.

[The Edge]

I would say leave the critique on religion out of it. I don't believe that the video game industry is ready to handle the subtleties of the arguement (in most cases).

Modifié par The Edge, 30 septembre 2012 - 03:49 .

[BouncyFrag]

12 more pages.....CONFIRMED

[Xilizhra]

Remember, there have been two (or three) player characters in Dragon Age so far.

I'm not complaining about DAO; that went well.

Between
conversations with Aveline, Anders, Sebastian, Grand Cleric Elthina,
the Arishok, Merrill, and aothers, Hawke has ample opportunity to
express a wide range of opinions on the Chantry and it's doctrines and
express a number of levels of belief or doubt in the the Maker.
And to either listen patiently or dismiss it as nonsense when various elves start going on about the Creators. Similarly the issue comes up in Origins/Awakening in conversations with
Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan, Sten, Velanna, various Chantry priests, and
the Dalish elves. Again with options to express various levels of belief, disbelief,
approval, tolerance, acceptance, indifference, or disdain.

Again, I'm not concerned about DAO so much as DA2's precedent. IIRC, you can never express doubt in the Maker, only doubt that the Maker literally intervened through the Hero of Ferelden. You never get to bring up the Chantry with a lot of the people you mentioned, and with Sebastian, everything you say about it is forced into being positive. You're not even allowed to support the Resolutionists in Faith, or their cause at all. And "listening patiently" isn't the same thing as belief.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Heh.. a very common misconception these days.
The faults of the Catholic Church are maginfied a thousandfold and peddled as the truth.

Do you know that at one point they were selling "Tickets to Heaven"? 
Completely forgetting about morals because of Greed, which in their belief, they will go to hell for, the Irony.
They have done plenty like this and worse.

I know.
the Church has done plenty of bad things...but again - you know how the media area. They make it sound even worse. They ommit things. They skew things.

You cannot forget that the Curch (Chantry too) is a big organization. Anything that is big and organized will display the same weakness. Because it's full of people. And because poeple natually crave organization. Order.

Doesn't mater oif it's organized religion, organized cake baking, organized lottery, orgaaniozed banking, organized charity, organized mages association or whatever - all of them are equally "flawed" in that they are big and full of people. And some peopel will unavoidably be ****s. The Church is no more "evil" or "corrupted" than any other organization.

[Macross]

The Edge wrote...

I would say leave the critique on religion out of it. I don't believe that the video game industry is ready to handle the subtleties of the arguement (in most cases).

See, I disagree, The Video Game industry (or any real creative art's based industry) will never truely be ready to tackle and issue until they start tackling it and some game companies have (Dues Ex Human Revoultion looked brillantly at the concept of Trans-Humanism and the concept of being natural vs making ourselves better while 10 years earlier the first Dues Ex looked amanzingly at the threat of Terrorism in turning a state into a pseudo fasicstic place).

With the way DA has gone about religion, I don't think there is a gaming series out there that could potenial look at Religion as well as Dragon Age could, so it would be a great step for Bioware to actually explore the issue.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Urzon wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Urzon wrote...

When i read some of these post, it almost makes me feel bad about being an atheist..

Then maybe you should grow a pair.

So i could go out and impose my views and opinions onto other people, all the while demonizing the other side? If i wanted to keep doing that, i wouldn't have become an atheist.

All people ultimatively try to influence other people to share their views - conciously or not.
Don't kid yourself.

[Swagger7]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lithuasil 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. 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.

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.
What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.
And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past? Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god, the Dragons were not gods to my character. They were cannon fodder. Skyrim was not about religion it was about civil war and dragons and racial differences to me (I killed and mocked the Daedra at every opportunity in the game). From all the evidence I just presented above, this next game does appear to have a very large religous theme implied. I have no idea why people are being so offended by the idea that someone has a concern that would like eased regarding whether based on that evidence, I will still get to freedom to roleplay as I would like to do so.

Except you've encoutered at least two gods in the history of the Elder Scrolls.  Talos gives you his "lucky coin" in Morrowind, and Akatosh beats the tar out of Mehrunes Dagon.  Clearly, the gods of the Elder Scrolls actually exist within the canon of the series.

EDIT:  (Skyrim Spoiler Alert) I forgot to include that the Nord's afterlife (Shor's Hall) exists as well, and you go there to kill Alduin.

Modifié par Swagger7, 30 septembre 2012 - 04:03 .

[CELL55]

Xilizhra wrote...

Remember, there have been two (or three) player characters in Dragon Age so far.

I'm not complaining about DAO; that went well.

Between
conversations with Aveline, Anders, Sebastian, Grand Cleric Elthina,
the Arishok, Merrill, and aothers, Hawke has ample opportunity to
express a wide range of opinions on the Chantry and it's doctrines and
express a number of levels of belief or doubt in the the Maker.
And to either listen patiently or dismiss it as nonsense when various elves start going on about the Creators. Similarly the issue comes up in Origins/Awakening in conversations with
Alistair, Leliana, Morrigan, Sten, Velanna, various Chantry priests, and
the Dalish elves. Again with options to express various levels of belief, disbelief,
approval, tolerance, acceptance, indifference, or disdain.

Again, I'm not concerned about DAO so much as DA2's precedent. IIRC, you can never express doubt in the Maker, only doubt that the Maker literally intervened through the Hero of Ferelden. You never get to bring up the Chantry with a lot of the people you mentioned, and with Sebastian, everything you say about it is forced into being positive. You're not even allowed to support the Resolutionists in Faith, or their cause at all. And "listening patiently" isn't the same thing as belief.

I think that the problem that you have here is with the amount of origins that were available in DAO as opposed to DA2. In DAO, you could have someone believe in the Creators BECAUSE they were a Dalish, or have someone believe in the Stone BECAUSE they were a dwarf. DA2 only allowed you to roleplay as a Fereldan peasant, and as such that necessitated that Hawke had at least SOME grounding in the Chantry, as it just wouldn't have made sense to portray him otherwise.

The solution to your not wanting to play as a follower of the Chantry seems to me to be the option to play as different origins again, like in DAO. The character's origins and their beliefs being closely intertwined, IMO.

[Xilizhra]

I believe it's perfectly reasonable for a Circle mage to not believe in the Maker (hell, even a human noble could avoid doing that), and desire an option for such in DA3. Though being a Dalish wouldn't be horrible.

[Dragoonlordz]

Swagger7 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lithuasil 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. 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.

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.
What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.
And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past? Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god, the Dragons were not gods to my character. They were cannon fodder. Skyrim was not about religion it was about civil war and dragons and racial differences to me (I killed and mocked the Daedra at every opportunity in the game). From all the evidence I just presented above, this next game does appear to have a very large religous theme implied. I have no idea why people are being so offended by the idea that someone has a concern that would like eased regarding whether based on that evidence, I will still get to freedom to roleplay as I would like to do so.

Except you've encoutered at least two gods in the history of the Elder Scrolls.  Talos gives you his "lucky coin" in Morrowind, and Akatosh beats the tar out of Mehrunes Dagon.  Clearly, the gods of the Elder Scrolls actually exist within the canon of the series.

I never played Morrowind. I tried and it gave me migranes so I stopped. Skyrim on the other hand did not. The question was asked about Skyrim, as a game I played I explained what I did in that and how my character interacted and viewed the world. You will also find more detail about it from me further down the thread from the one you quoted.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 30 septembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...
As Gaider said in another thread, asking "I wish to announce myself as an atheist" quickly develops into "I want to go on a crusade against all religion".

As Gaider rather badly misunderstood in the other thread. I don't need to go on a crusade against all religion; neither the Creators nor the Stone have done anything bad to me, only the Maker.

So basicly you want to go on a crusade? <_<

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...
As Gaider said in another thread, asking "I wish to announce myself as an atheist" quickly develops into "I want to go on a crusade against all religion".

As Gaider rather badly misunderstood in the other thread. I don't need to go on a crusade against all religion; neither the Creators nor the Stone have done anything bad to me, only the Maker.

So basicly you want to go on a crusade? <_<

Not against belief specifically; my aim is to annihilate the templars and break the power of the Chantry forever.

[Swagger7]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lithuasil 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. 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.

Your avatar makes posts like this... entertaining to read                                                                                                    
Seriously though - no one talks about forcing you to support the chantry, let alone the qun. We're just arguing that a fully formed position of atheism is highly unrealistic in world like Thedas, especially right off the bat, before the character has had any  sort of world-view-challenging experience.
What I find interesting is "why?" What's so unbearable about accepting that a character of yours might take some world-viewsfor face value until he or she has any reason to challenge them? The only reason I've heard so far is "I always did it" - but that only says something about the kind of roleplaying you did before, and it's hardly a valid reason to repeat mistakes of the past.
And, if you'd indulge me - would you cling to a similar position of religious denial in a different setting (Like say, the Elder Scrolls), where Atheism is quite literally wrong?

Firslty why do you assume it was a mistake in the past? Secondly in Skyrim my character never believed in a god, the Dragons were not gods to my character. They were cannon fodder. Skyrim was not about religion it was about civil war and dragons and racial differences to me (I killed and mocked the Daedra at every opportunity in the game). From all the evidence I just presented above, this next game does appear to have a very large religous theme implied. I have no idea why people are being so offended by the idea that someone has a concern that would like eased regarding whether based on that evidence, I will still get to freedom to roleplay as I would like to do so.

Except you've encoutered at least two gods in the history of the Elder Scrolls.  Talos gives you his "lucky coin" in Morrowind, and Akatosh beats the tar out of Mehrunes Dagon.  Clearly, the gods of the Elder Scrolls actually exist within the canon of the series.

I never played Morrowind. I tried and it gave me migranes so I stopped. Skyrim on the other hand did not. The question was asked about Skyrim, as a game I played I explained what I did in that and how my character interacted and viewed the world. You will also find more detail about it from me further down the thread from the one you quoted.

Those weren't Daedra though, they were the "gods", the Nine Divines.  Throughout human history most religions have had gods which the believed were far weaker than the various monotheistic religions of today claim regarding their own gods.  Saying that they aren't gods because they don't seem so to you just confuses the issue by replacing a legit definition with your own.

[The Edge]

Macross wrote...

The Edge wrote...

I would say leave the critique on religion out of it. I don't believe that the video game industry is ready to handle the subtleties of the arguement (in most cases).

See, I disagree, The Video Game industry (or any real creative art's based industry) will never truely be ready to tackle and issue until they start tackling it and some game companies have (Dues Ex Human Revoultion looked brillantly at the concept of Trans-Humanism and the concept of being natural vs making ourselves better while 10 years earlier the first Dues Ex looked amanzingly at the threat of Terrorism in turning a state into a pseudo fasicstic place).

With the way DA has gone about religion, I don't think there is a gaming series out there that could potenial look at Religion as well as Dragon Age could, so it would be a great step for Bioware to actually explore the issue.

I guess that games like DA have the potential of making huge steps forward in terms of story and allusion; with that said, I think that things like religious debate require the same narrative care that Deus Ex had with it's themes.

Saying the video game industry isn't ready may be a broad stroke because, as you have shown, other games have addressed big issues with class. Given DA2's argueably rushed story, I'm just unsure if Bioware could treat the subject with the same amount of care. (As a world building device, Bioware does a great job craftingThedas with it's religious themes; as the focal point of the plot, I'm not so sure at this point...)

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

I believe it's perfectly reasonable for a Circle mage to not believe in the Maker (hell, even a human noble could avoid doing that), and desire an option for such in DA3. Though being a Dalish wouldn't be horrible.

It's also reasonable for an apostate to not believe in the docturine of an anti-mage religion.