390 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

I think duelling trolls mean this thread has just about run its course. Not to mention thatdiscussion of real world religion is off-topic.

[bloodmage13]

As a Catholic I would totally be turned off I played a game that bashed religion.

[Madmoe77]

The waters of irony run very deep in this thread.

DA3 certainly shouldn't become The Exorcist with swords and armor, nor should it become a handheld tirade from Richard Dawkins. Allowing the main character choice is enough. As difficult as that already is to do.

[slimgrin]

bloodmage13 wrote...

As a Catholic I would totally be turned off I played a game that bashed religion.

Oh noes! 

[The Hierophant]

slimgrin wrote...

bloodmage13 wrote...

As a Catholic I would totally be turned off I played a game that bashed religion.

Oh noes! 

Stop hatin.

[StElmo]

bloodmage13 wrote...

As a Catholic I would totally be turned off I played a game that bashed religion.

I'm not saying it should bash relgiion, key word is institutionalized.

referring to religious practice that leans on dogma and rhetoric over the core principles layed out in its origin.

[the_one_54321]

AlienWolf728 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Why does it it have to be a bad thing?

Why can't we see parts that are both good and bad?

Because people around here think these games exist to preach their exclusive pro this or anti that message. Ironically, the games do a great job of showing what idiots extremists at both ends of an idea can be (Meredith/Orsino/Loghaine/etc), though the extremists around here just see these people as IRL heroes. "You SHOULD blow up buildings if its full of people who don't support your beliefs!"

^ Finally a sane man.

Seconded. That post was awesome.

[Vit246]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Why does it it have to be a bad thing?

Why can't we see parts that are both good and bad?

Because people around here think these games exist to preach their exclusive pro this or anti that message. Ironically, the games do a great job of showing what idiots extremists at both ends of an idea can be (Meredith/Orsino/Loghaine/etc), though the extremists around here just see these people as IRL heroes. "You SHOULD blow up buildings if its full of people who don't support your beliefs!"

^ Finally a sane man.

Seconded. That post was awesome.

I agree with the part about extremists. However....

The part with "blowing up buildings full of people who don't support your beliefs" is overly simplistic and it is far more complicated than just that.

[Vandicus]

Vit246 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Why does it it have to be a bad thing?

Why can't we see parts that are both good and bad?

Because people around here think these games exist to preach their exclusive pro this or anti that message. Ironically, the games do a great job of showing what idiots extremists at both ends of an idea can be (Meredith/Orsino/Loghaine/etc), though the extremists around here just see these people as IRL heroes. "You SHOULD blow up buildings if its full of people who don't support your beliefs!"

^ Finally a sane man.

Seconded. That post was awesome.

I agree with the part about extremists. However....

The part with "blowing up buildings full of people who don't support your beliefs" is overly simplistic and it is far more complicated than just that.

Its overly simplistic in regards to Anders and why he did what he did, but some people on the forums do take the view that all the people in the building deserved their fate for supporting the Chantry in any way.

[upsettingshorts]

Vit246 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlienWolf728 wrote...

Rojahar wrote...

Fawx9 wrote...
Why does it it have to be a bad thing?

Why can't we see parts that are both good and bad?

Because people around here think these games exist to preach their exclusive pro this or anti that message. Ironically, the games do a great job of showing what idiots extremists at both ends of an idea can be (Meredith/Orsino/Loghaine/etc), though the extremists around here just see these people as IRL heroes. "You SHOULD blow up buildings if its full of people who don't support your beliefs!"

^ Finally a sane man.

Seconded. That post was awesome.

I agree with the part about extremists. However....

The part with "blowing up buildings full of people who don't support your beliefs" is overly simplistic and it is far more complicated than just that.

As would be characterizing Meredith the way more than half the forum does.  That is, I'd wager, implied already by Rojahar's argument.

[the_one_54321]

Vit246 wrote...
The part with "blowing up buildings full of people who don't support your beliefs" is overly simplistic and it is far more complicated than just that.

Did Anders blow up a church full of people worshiping as they typically do, just because the church was run by people that disagree with his beliefs? Or did he not? 

Also, what upsettingshorts said. The point is that both sides are wrong. Very wrong.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:12 .

[Xilizhra]

As would be characterizing Meredith the way more than half the forum does. That is, I'd wager, implied already by Rojahar's argument.

Well, there are many people who claim that Meredith is exceptionally extreme for a templar. I disagree. I think she's only slightly extreme for a templar until her mind gets warped.

Did Anders blow up a church full of people worshiping as they typically
do, just because the church was run by people that disagree with his
beliefs? Or did he not?

No. The Chantry was full of templars and their ultimate leader, and he blew it up to set off a chain of events that would end with the mage rebellion. What the beliefs of the people inside were was more or less irrelevant.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 octobre 2012 - 05:14 .

[Vandicus]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Vit246 wrote...
The part with "blowing up buildings full of people who don't support your beliefs" is overly simplistic and it is far more complicated than just that.

Did Anders blow up a church full of people worshiping as they typically do, just because the church was run by people that disagree with his beliefs? Or did he not? 

Anders blew those people up to cause a certain effect. Not simply because the church was run by people that disagreed with his beliefs. He intentionally commits an act that will incense the templars into taking drastic action, and in turn force the hands of mages. So to answer your question, he did not.

[CELL55]

Xilizhra wrote...

No. The Chantry was full of templars and their ultimate leader, and he blew it up to set off a chain of events that would end with the mage rebellion. What the beliefs of the people inside were was more or less irrelevant.

Uhh...no. The Chantry was full of Grand Cleric Elthina and her fellow priestesses, who, as you may recall, was unable to enforce any kind of control over the Templars. She was in no way the "ultimate leader" as you say, of the Templars. In theory she was supposed to have control over the Templars, but in practice it was Meredith who was running the show. All Elthina could do was try and keep the peace between the mages and templars, and by killing her, Anders removed any chance for compromise, which was his whole point. Elthina was trying to prevent total anarchy, not to opress mages, and not to push for their emancipation. 

[Xilizhra]

CELL55 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No. The Chantry was full of templars and their ultimate leader, and he blew it up to set off a chain of events that would end with the mage rebellion. What the beliefs of the people inside were was more or less irrelevant.

Uhh...no. The Chantry was full of Grand Cleric Elthina and her fellow priestesses, who, as you may recall, was unable to enforce any kind of control over the Templars. She was in no way the "ultimate leader" as you say, of the Templars. In theory she was supposed to have control over the Templars, but in practice it was Meredith who was running the show. All Elthina could do was try and keep the peace between the mages and templars, and by killing her, Anders removed any chance for compromise, which was his whole point. Elthina was trying to prevent total anarchy, not to opress mages, and not to push for their emancipation. 

I could be wrong, but in the Chantry explodey cutscene, I saw a lot of armored men in skirts standing around, and no one else but Elthina. I don't know who else they could be. And considering how quickly Meredith backed off from Elthina at the beginning of Act 3, with Elthina pretty much treating her rather blatantly as a young child, I don't believe for a minute that Elthina couldn't have reined Meredith in had she wanted to. I contend that she's far more sly than she appears, and is simply preserving the appearance of bland neutrality so that Meredith will take all of the blame, something she's accustomed to doing and in a position where public opinion hardly matters. I also suspect she was behind Petrice's plot, and that even Petrice's death worked in her favor to stir rage against the qunari (Petrice's plaintive calls of "Grand cleric?" in Following the Qun smack of a conspirator betrayed).

[Allan Schumacher]

...Also how is this garbage still open? Have the mods quit their jobs/fell asleep?

If you think a thread deserves scrutiny from a mod, I recommend a PM (report a post has a very long turn around time) to one (or all) of the moderators for the forum.

I did peek into this thread from time to time, as I haev no issue with discussing religion from a chantry perspective and I think Dragon Age does a pretty decent job of not forcing any organization (or its individuals) into a particular box to try to reflect a bit more.

Having said that, this thread HAS run its course.