390 réponses à ce sujet

[Windninja47]

The chantry can be portrayed however Bioware wants it to, but let's not make this game a critique on the catholic church (or any other church for that matter). I myself am not Catholic but I want this game to be made to be fun to play, not one to get all up it's own ass while trying to give some bigoted message.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, and because these two said it it MUST be right, right? Wrong.

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Withidread wrote...

Why do so many people feel there must be a political/religous/whatever statement? Why can't we just have a game that's fun to play?

Because this is the BSN and a game can only be fun if it supports one's worldviews, or supports their arousal.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[Potato Cat]

In Origins, I felt the Chantry was quite possibly the greatest threat to Thedas give or take a bit of Flemeth. But in DA2, Elthina really helped change my opinions of it. And from what I've heard about the current Divine, she seems more or less the same. And since the Templars have splintered off, the Chantry seems OK since they can't be glorified lyrium druglords anymore. So perhaps I might think the Chantry are the good guys this time around, depending on their treatment of mages, (but despite their even-more-extreme treatment of mages, I still love the Qun and the Qunari). So I won't necessarily mind working for them, even if they are a filthy human organisation.

[jaikss]

Wulfram wrote...

The chantry should be shown as an organisation made up of people of diverse outlook and morality.

I agree.So far DA has done a decent job at that,I'll be pretty disappointed if in DA3 the chantry devolves into a "religion is bad,mkay" message.

[Wulfram]

Windninja47 wrote...

The chantry can be portrayed however Bioware wants it to, but let's not make this game a critique on the catholic church (or any other church for that matter). I myself am not Catholic but I want this game to be made to be fun to play, not one to get all up it's own ass while trying to give some bigoted message.

Well, the Catholic Church's policy of locking up Mages in towers is highly questionable, and I think it's important to highlight this.

And they could do a lot more to stand up for Elvish civil rights too.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, and because these two said it it MUST be right, right? Wrong.

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

The issue here is, that just because two persons view it as a prison, doesnt mean that it is, or that it is even common to view it as such. Many slaves in Rome had no problems being a slave, since they still had better living conditions than many citizens. Yet, there will always be malcontents.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, and because these two said it it MUST be right, right? Wrong.

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

The issue here is, that just because two persons view it as a prison, doesnt mean that it is, or that it is even common to view it as such. Many slaves in Rome had no problems being a slave, since they still had better living conditions than many citizens. Yet, there will always be malcontents.

So basically, any evidence that supports your viewpoint is incontravertable, while any that doesn't is inadmissable?

Oh yeah, that's fair.

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, the Catholic Church's policy of locking up Mages in towers is highly questionable, and I think it's important to highlight this.

And they could do a lot more to stand up for Elvish civil rights too.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

I gave two opposing examples from the Warden and an NPC (an actual in-game person, not a novel character) on the previous page. What's your point?

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[TheBlackBaron]

I don't know. Will systematically attacking organized religion prove IT?

But seriously, what wulfram said. The Chantry is it what is is - "an organisation made up of people of diverse outlook and morality". There's no reason to change that just because BSN's boner has swung back towards militant atheism from militant arousal (or militant absurdity, in the case of the endings).

[General User]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, and because these two said it it MUST be right, right? Wrong.

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

The issue here is, that just because two persons view it as a prison, doesnt mean that it is, or that it is even common to view it as such. Many slaves in Rome had no problems being a slave, since they still had better living conditions than many citizens. Yet, there will always be malcontents.

So basically, any evidence that supports your viewpoint is incontravertable, while any that doesn't is inadmissable?

Oh yeah, that's fair.

Think of it this way: virtually every time a 'mage protagonist' has an opportunity to rant and rail about the Circles, that same protagonist also has an opportunity to say something positive about the Circles.  Any given charatcers opinions are only evidence of what that characters opinions are, nothing less and nothing more.

Consider also that the player character in the games, has motivations, viewpoints, and perspectives that are uniquely divorced from the narrative and setting itself because they come from the actual player sitting on the other side of the screen.  Making much of the player character's expressed opinions, to no small degree, worthless.

[Volus Warlord]

Was the OP molested or something?

[LobselVith8]

nightscrawl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, because two mages from Thedas said it, it's clearly not limited to a modern, Western viewpoint, which is why I brought up those examples in the first place.

I gave two opposing examples from the Warden and an NPC (an actual in-game person, not a novel character) on the previous page. What's your point?

That Lithuasil was mistaken to say the viewpoint is limited to a Western perspective when two characters from Thedas can express it.

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware is not out to take sides. The writers I see it try to portray what they think is going on in the DA universe. Slavery is present. You have people who are actively working to spread it (like Castillion) and people who think it is wrong (like Isabela who tells Hayder that they were people).
You have same sex relationships because they exist. Bioware shows second-class citizenry (elves and refugees) and poverty.Those examples exist in real life history.

There are organizations like the Chantry. People in the organization can be evil. People seeking power, status, influence etc exist in any organization. Also the people in any organization can do good.
Someone brought up the Mafia (actually the correct term is Cosa Nostra), which is a criminal organization, but in some lawless areas the Cosa Nostra actually brought peace and stability. Residents were actually able to walk the streets at night without fear. In fact the officials welcomed them because the Cosa Nostra imposed order. It was mutually beneficial. So the Cosa Nostra did good while pursuing their interests and in some eyes were seen as heroes.
Just showing that people in the organization can be both good and evil.
Al Capone was considered a good guy (many considered him to be a modern day Robin Hood) to some during Prohibition because he helped keep the liquor flowing and setup speakeasies. By all accounts Al Capone was a good family man (even though he cheated on his wife) because he took care of the family. Capone was a populist hero who support charities. Overall history sees him as bad because of his illegal activities.

The problem lies when one wants to bring in their real world prejudices and impose them on a game world. I do not want either to be shoved down my throat. Show me both sides of the issue and allow me to arrive at my own conclusion on what I think. I do not need a game to be like what Samuel Goldwyn said: When I want your opinion I'll give it to you.

Games are foremost to be fun not to make a political statement.

[Iosev]

One of the main reasons why I like Dragon Age is because it can discuss topics that can only be done in a fantasy, such as, "What if magic was real and the dominant political and religious institutions had good reasons to control it?" Thus, you can have the Inquisition in Dragon Age parallel the historical Inquisitions, but remain very different due to its fantasy elements.

I personally would rather not tackle subjects like whether or not a god exists, because you can already discuss that subject in real-life (i.e., you do not need a fantasy setting to explore that subject).  In a fantasy, I would much rather explore ideas such as gods truly existing, and what would that mean for the people in the fantasy.

In addition, I would very much prefer that Bioware continued to present moral dilemmas (such as presenting both positive and negative aspects of each side) instead of pushing a particular political agenda like criticizing religious institutions heavily in one way.

Modifié par arcelonious, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:38 .

[demonic_cookie]

I don't see what's so controversial about critiquing organized religion. It's not about being atheist or agnostic of hindu or a worshiper of The Great Spaghetti Monster, it's about the simple fact that organized religion was (and is) above all a political power. We can critique governments, but we can't critique churches? I call bull. It's not someone out to get the religious folk, it's just history. Not even that ancient a history.

That said, I think DA writers are doing well on the religion front so far. I would feel uncomfortable if I saw any one clear "message" in the series. I appreciate their efforts to paint things as complex as they are in the real world and not provide easy answers. (except, maybe, "smash darkspawn". but then again, DAA had a few things to say about that too...)

Modifié par demonic_cookie, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[FINE HERE]

As someone who is religious(Catholic), I'm not exactly comfortable playing a game that would look like it's condemning my religion as evil...

arcelonious wrote...
I personally would rather not tackle subjects like whether or not a god exists, because you can already discuss that subject in real-life (i.e., you do not need a fantasy setting to explore that subject).  In a fantasy, I would much rather explore ideas such as gods truly existing, and what would that mean for the people in the fantasy.

I think I agree? The fact that it is a fantasy, should seperate the game from real life and allow things like God, or gods, to exist, as it has no effect on real life. The game shouldn't be controlling people's belief. It's a work of fiction. So the concept of exploring the effect is pretty fun, but not so much when real-life conparisons are being made...

[joshko]

Honestly I think the "whole religion is evil blah blahblah blah blah!" is quite drawl. Why not instead explore:
The possible benefits and shortcomings of organized religion.
The conflict between a human's desire for power while trying to adhere to a philosophy that does not allow it.
The differences between religion as an organization, and religion as a philosophy that you apply to your life.

These are interesting, "Bah religion is evil!" is boring.

[Cultist]

I would like to see inquisitor who will exterminate any Chantry member, harm any Chantry-related and try to destroy Chantry as an organization.
Because for a lot of people only option of Andrastean Pro-Chantry protagonist is a deal-breaker.

[TheJediSaint]

Cultist wrote...

I would like to see inquisitor who will exterminate any Chantry member, harm any Chantry-related and try to destroy Chantry as an organization.
Because for a lot of people only option of Andrastean Pro-Chantry protagonist is a deal-breaker.

Well, if they value being able to impose their views on the world more than participating in a good story, then sure.

[Androme]

What amazes me is how people are always so keen on criticising the Chantry but not the Qun, and calls the Chantry power-hungry people, a reflection of how Atheists are in the real world; continously criticise Christianity, but not a word about Islam. While we can with absolute certainty conclude that it is in fact the Qun (and Islam in the real world) that wishes for power the most out of the two.

Modifié par Androme, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:49 .

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

Think of it this way: virtually every time a 'mage protagonist' has an opportunity to rant and rail about the Circles, that same protagonist also has an opportunity to say something positive about the Circles.  Any given charatcers opinions are only evidence of what that characters opinions are, nothing less and nothing more.

The divide between the Libertarians and the Loyalists addresses this as well; essentially, the entire Fraternity of the Enchanters expresses that not all mages are the same in their views.

General User wrote...

Consider also that the player character in the games, has motivations, viewpoints, and perspectives that are uniquely divorced from the narrative and setting itself because they come from the actual player sitting on the other side of the screen.  Making much of the player character's expressed opinions, to no small degree, worthless.

If The Warden saying that the Circle is "an oppressive place" is supposed to be worthless, why does Wynne retort that The Warden can change that it's an oppressive place if he returns to the Circle as a leader? If the dialogue options reflect actual attitudes about the society, the people, and the institutions, it makes no sense to say the dialogue from The Warden is worthless.