211 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Originally, Gaider said that. Gaider also conceded that the option existed in Origins since he forgot about it, but he said the option won't be avaliable ever again... until enough fans voiced their opposition to this that he changed his mind on the issue and said it might be avaliable.

Where did he state that it might be available? I definitely haven't seen that.

http://social.biowar...x/14614580&lf=8

(found via this thread http://social.biowar.../index/14334357 which is generally handy)

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David Gaider doesn't really understand what atheism is. All that I consider important is denial of the Maker.

I'd say he understands fairly well.

What makes you think he doesn't think that's the definition of Atheism?

His initial comments about the option for atheism leading to people wanting to destroy religion.

EntropicAngel wrote...

And I WILL say that atheism is usually tied to other beliefs, like evolution for example. Unlikely in the Dragon Age universe. 

Which is a moot point since Gaider conceded that the option existed when he was corrected on the issue. He also said in Xil's thread that fans have a better memory than he does.

[Xilizhra]

I'm not talking about that sense of entropy. I'm talking about complexity. Something went from a one-celled organism to multi-cellulared (sp?)? That violates the second law.

And further, gestalt systems like our organs are impossible with evolution.

But I don't really think this will go anywhere beneficial.

O rly?

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Also this, for those who want more detail.

[Xilizhra]

I disagree with his/her assessment of the law of thermodynamics. I don't agree that entropy refers solely to heat.

You can do that if you want to, but science isn't an opinion, and you'll still be wrong.

I have to go, because I've been sitting here for half an hour on
BSN--but i'm not trying to abandon this discussion. But regardless, it's
immaterial to what we were tlaking about initially: atheism is, by
definition, a mental rejection of theism. David has said this will not
be allowed (though again, if he said otherwise, please point it out).
Skepticism will be available.

I desire only one rejection, and that's of the Maker.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 08 avril 2013 - 02:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I'd encourage you to take the discussion of evolution to PMs please.

[Dave of Canada]

ibbikiookami wrote...

What is your opinion about the topic?

The fact that every protagonist aside from the Dalish Warden and Dwarven Wardens were raised with non-stop dogma and Chantry politics following them everywhere would make it rather difficult for me to believe that they'd be "athiest" in the modern sense of the term, Thedas doesn't have wide-spread education and the only people we're really seeing studying theology are Chantry-approved scholars.

Thus, I feel the closest thing to "athiesm" which I enjoy is full belief or hating what the Chantry does with the wide-spread dogma (similar to Anders in DA2), though I'll admit that upsets many people (the usual suspects) who hate religion themselves and can't seperate themselves from their character.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 avril 2013 - 03:57 .

[Xilizhra]

The fact that every protagonist aside from the Dalish Warden and Dwarven Wardens were raised with non-stop dogma and Chantry politics following them everywhere would make it rather difficult for me to believe that they'd be "athiest" in the modern sense of the term, Thedas doesn't have wide-spread education and the only people we're really seeing studying theology are Chantry-approved scholars.

We do see city elves rejecting the Maker when they join the Dalish, and not everyone born into a religious background stays that way. Also, whether you find it difficult to believe or not, there are still dialogue choices that let you reject Andrastianism, so they must have found some way to disbelieve.

[TheJediSaint]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thus, I feel the closest thing to "athiesm" which I enjoy is full belief or hating what the Chantry does with the wide-spread dogma (similar to Anders in DA2), though I'll admit that upsets many people (the usual suspects) who hate religion themselves and can't seperate themselves from their character.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with projecting one's self into the protagonist an RPG.   But I think that for people who hold strong real-world prejudices, they get upset when they cant express them in-game.   

There's also the issue that threads like this tend to devolve into either flamewars or soap-boxes.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 08 avril 2013 - 04:38 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't think that there's anything wrong with projecting one's self into the protagonist an RPG. But I think that for people who hold strong real-world prejudices, they get upset when they cant express them in-game.

Do note that hating the Chantry doesn't require one to hate all religion IRL. In fact, a devout Christian could well see the Chantry as horrid, as their god has outright rejected the world.

[TheJediSaint]

Filament wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

 But regardless, it's immaterial to what we were tlaking about initially: atheism is, by definition, a mental rejection of theism. David has said this will not be allowed (though again, if he said otherwise, please point it out). Skepticism will be available.

No, he said verbal rejection will not be allowed. He doesn't really have authority to say your character doesn't think that unless he writes autodialog implying your character is a believer.

I can't really say I see Thedas as an ignorant land of zealots like some people's view of the real life middle ages. I have no problem believing that, like on social issues, Thedas is significantly more modern than it is medieval when it comes to religion. If it's not then they really haven't done a good job of showing Thedosians "burn the heretic" and do other such barbaric things on a regular basis.

Thedas is only superfically based on Medival Europe.  Once you start digging, you'll notice it has completely different social conventions from those of actual medival europe.

[Dave of Canada]

Filament wrote...

If it's not then they really haven't done a good job of showing Thedosians "burn the heretic" and do other such barbaric things on a regular basis.

What we hear and what we see often seems to be very different things, unfortunately. For example, the Chantry Mother in Redcliffe will mention how she stopped the people from turning against you in some cases (IIRC, it's only if you're an elf/dwarf or mage but it shows the people aren't really above murdering their savior.) or how Wynne mentions most children don't make it to the Circle.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 avril 2013 - 05:20 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Considering examples like Ibn al-Rawandi (9th century) who rejected all religions, and Abul ʿAla Al-Maʿarri (10th century) who was an atheist or at the very least strongly anti-religion and who kept mocking all organized religions he could find (the guy was also vegetarian), it is erroneous to claim that atheism as a personal position did not exist in the Middle Ages because it evidently did. What didn't exist was an atheist movement.

As such, I really do not see the problem when it comes to players RPing characters who are atheist even if raised in a religious household (both examples above were raised as Muslims).

But that said, when it comes to Inquisition, seems to me that the protagonist has to be a Chantry supporter at least at the beginning.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Double post..

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 08 avril 2013 - 05:49 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

EntropicAngel wrote...


I'm not talking about that sense of entropy. I'm talking about complexity. Something went from a one-celled organism to multi-cellulared (sp?)? That violates the second law.

And further, gestalt systems like our organs are impossible with evolution.

Pfft ... you're wrong! The simplest explanation is ALWAYS the correct one! Like look at biology and how it is full of so simple things! /Sarcasm

Like a Donkey who would choose the nearest route to the destination no matter if there is a minefield or dangerous things!

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Considering examples like Ibn al-Rawandi (9th century) who rejected all religions, and Abul ʿAla Al-Maʿarri (10th century) who was an atheist or at the very least strongly anti-religion and who kept mocking all organized religions he could find (the guy was also vegetarian), it is erroneous to claim that atheism as a personal position did not exist in the Middle Ages because it evidently did. What didn't exist was an atheist movement.

Ibn Rushd and Avesina were quite a medieval scientist and they had their god.

Atheism existed in Medieval Age but it was quite unpopular. Their number could be less than 0.1 % of world population (I don't consider medieval era Pagans, Philosophical god believers or Buddhists as Atheists).

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 08 avril 2013 - 05:50 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Legatus Arianus wrote...
Atheism existed in Medieval Age but it was quite unpopular. Their number could be less than 0.1 % of world population (I don't consider medieval era Pagans, Philosophical god believers or Buddhists as Atheists).

Its popularity is irrelevent. 
If the player wants their character to be one of the 0.1% I don't see why not. 

[esper]

There is also the matter off being a mage and/or city elf. If you are an mage you can have a legitime reason for doubting the chantry, not all are going to go the 'Anders' route and develop their own version of the faith, a lot of mages who feel mistreated is just as likely to say that 'there is no truth in the andrastian faith whatsoever', espically if they see a connection between the faith and their treatment.

City elves do have the dalish faith to fall back on, but some of the city elves will not know how it goes (the dalish barely does) or be turned off by the dalish general attitude towards all non-dalish, so if they blame their treatment on the chantry, they might scoff at the 'silly human' faith, but believe the dalish to just as silly.

[MichaelStuart]

If I can ask a pointless question.

Assuming your character was atheist and everyone knew about it.
Would NPCs care enough to actual do anything? (Suicidal overconfidence not withstanding)

[Wulfram]

MichaelStuart wrote...

If I can ask a pointless question.

Assuming your character was atheist and everyone knew about it.
Would NPCs care enough to actual do anything? (Suicidal overconfidence not withstanding)

Well, no one seems to care about Merrill hanging around being Dalish.  And Hawke can say to the Grand Cleric that the Maker didn't have anything to do with defeating the blight with no repercussions, despite having no status at the time.  And the priest in the Cousland household doesn't do anything except disapprove of the future warden's disbelief.

And even conversion to the Qun - which is after all an atheist belief system - only seems to produce a response if it's politically difficult

[Noctis Augustus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

David Gaider doesn't really understand what atheism is. All that I consider important is denial of the Maker.

I'd say he understands fairly well.

What makes you think he doesn't think that's the definition of Atheism?

His initial comments about the option for atheism leading to people wanting to destroy religion.

EntropicAngel wrote...

And I WILL say that atheism is usually tied to other beliefs, like evolution for example. Unlikely in the Dragon Age universe. 

Which is a moot point since Gaider conceded that the option existed when he was corrected on the issue. He also said in Xil's thread that fans have a better memory than he does.

So... You can't claim disbelief...? I... Wha-? That's very disapointing... to outright take that choice from their buyers. So they want us to be like them? Follow their path? Isn't this a Role Playing Game!? I don't want to destroy religion! I do want to destroy the Chantry but that's not because it's a religion, it's because of what they are as a religion! This will be frustrating...

[Iosev]

While Thedas is partly inspired by Medieval Europe, it's ultimately a fantasy, so I don't think it matters how popular atheism was in our history, when Thedas doesn't have to adhere to it. If the developers want to craft a world where the majority of its fictional population believes in divine or powerful beings to various extents, it's ultimately their creative choice. Despite holding atheistic beliefs myself, I can easily role-play a religious protagonist, because I role-play with the game's setting in mind.

[nightscrawl]

ibbikiookami wrote...

What is your opinion about the topic? Would you like to declare your contextualized beliefs? Do you have a preference in any of them? Would you be frustated to only have a doubt or belief option?

I don't really care either way, to be honest. I tend to base my characters' opinions on this subject on how they were likely to have been raised. For example, my HN Warden and my Hawkes believed in the Maker. My characters are never very extreme about their faith, but just hold the view that this is how things are. I've had mage Wardens who went either way. With all of them however, I act low key about it, neither expressing support for fellow Andrastians, nor contempt for those of other faiths.

To your second point, I'm fine with head canoning most of it.