211 réponses à ce sujet

[Noctis Augustus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem presented is that the entire anti-slavery attitude and women in roles of power is ingrained into the lore of the universe, Chantry dogma empowers women because their religious icon is a woman herself and her entire crusade was against slavery.

Thedas is similar to our ancient societies in the respect that it's entirely built off the religious dogma being spouted by the people in charge, it's structure controls the entire world from monarchy to common-folk with education and theology only being provided to those under their control or those who've got the money for it.

The entire idea behind questioning Chantry beliefs requires that you'd be fully educated (nobility / circle mage / chantry scholar) or be born outside the Chantry's over-sight (Morrigan, Dalish or Dwarves) and even then, they're not athiests and have their own core beliefs.

The closest thing I'd say to atheism which would fit in the context of the universe is possibly Aveline, someone who doesn't let it dictate her entire life but it still had a significant impact on her that she still refers to the Maker and such. Similar to how most people in our world say "Thank god" or "They've gone to heaven/a better place/etc" through sheer societal influence.

Like I said before, I don't want to proclaim atheism I want to say that I don't believe in the Maker. I don't want to be tied to the Chantry in any way. DAO did this. I don't say those expressions and I'm from a catholic family so why shouldn't my character be able to do that? When Hawke says expressions tied to the chantry's beliefs it totally ruins my roleplay.

[Senya]

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense in a given plot or situation, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Edit: Again, this is my two cents. I understand your annoyance.

Modifié par almostinsane99, 11 avril 2013 - 03:41 .

[Noctis Augustus]

almostinsane99 wrote...

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Hopefully the "Inquisition" won't be connected to the chantry or andrastianism in any way.
I could do that for my own agenda so as long as they don't force us to be pro-andrastianism or even worse pro-chantry I'm fine.

It's my character (hopefully it won't be like DAII), who better understands someone created by me? The others? Sure it's up to the writers.

Like I said and I quote "They can contextualize those choices, I can state those views to people I'm going to kill, my companions and at the end.", so there are ways to not ruin plot cohesiveness while offering this choices. And how can not saying andrastian expressions like "By the Maker" ruin plot cohesiveness?

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 11 avril 2013 - 03:49 .

[Noctis Augustus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

Like I said before, I don't want to proclaim atheism I want to say that I don't believe in the Maker. I don't want to be tied to the Chantry in any way. DAO did this. I don't say those expressions and I'm from a catholic family so why shouldn't my character be able to do that? When Hawke says expressions tied to the chantry's beliefs it totally ruins my roleplay.

You're confusing belief in the Maker with belief in the Chantry, it appears.

Kind of like the belief that if you're religious, you must be part of some particular denomination--often true, but not always true.

Hence, it looks like you're asking for two different things.

Yes. Not believing in the Maker and not be affiliated to the chantry.

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 11 avril 2013 - 03:50 .

[Senya]

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Hopefully the "Inquisition" won't be connected to the chantry or andrastianism in any way.
I could do that for my own agenda so as long as they don't force us to be pro-andrastianism or even worse pro-chantry I'm fine.

It's my character (hopefully it won't be like DAII), who better understands someone created by me? The others? Sure it's up to the writers.

Like I said and I quote "They can contextualize those choices, I can state those views to people I'm going to kill, my companions and at the end.", so there are ways to not ruin plot cohesiveness while offering this choices. And how can not saying andrastian expressions like "By the Maker" ruin plot cohesivenesss?

If I remember right, the Inquisition is formed from a last, desperate peace conference that is ruined by outside forces. The leaked summary, I think, also implies Chantry sanction for you, but I can't find it. I could be wrong.

I wouldn't know about the exact nature on who has more to do with the character, but I see it as an even parternship between the writers and the player.

As for, "By the Maker", not asaying it wouldn't ruin plot cohesiveness, but it is part of the vocabularly of Thedas in the same way "God damn it!" is for us. I estimate about 99% people in real life use the latter at least once. All my friends do, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, etc.  I don't see it ruining the experience of anyone unless they're extremely sensitive. Though, maybe they could make it optional. It might depend on the Budget as someone else pointed out above.

Modifié par almostinsane99, 11 avril 2013 - 03:58 .

[Noctis Augustus]

almostinsane99 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Hopefully the "Inquisition" won't be connected to the chantry or andrastianism in any way.
I could do that for my own agenda so as long as they don't force us to be pro-andrastianism or even worse pro-chantry I'm fine.

It's my character (hopefully it won't be like DAII), who better understands someone created by me? The others? Sure it's up to the writers.

Like I said and I quote "They can contextualize those choices, I can state those views to people I'm going to kill, my companions and at the end.", so there are ways to not ruin plot cohesiveness while offering this choices. And how can not saying andrastian expressions like "By the Maker" ruin plot cohesivenesss?

If I remember right, the Inquisition is formed from a last, desperate peace conference that is ruined by outside forces. The leaked summary, I think, also implies Chantry sanction for you, but I can't find it. I could be wrong.

I wouldn't know about the exact nature on who has more to do with the character, but I see it as an even parternship between the writers and the player.

As for, "By the Maker", not asaying it wouldn't ruin plot cohesiveness, but it is part of the vocabularly of Thedas in the same way "God damn it!" is for us. I estimate about 99% people in real life use the latter at least once. All my friends do, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, etc.  I don't see it ruining the experience of anyone unless they're extremely sensitive. Though, maybe they could make it optional. It might depend on the Budget as someone else pointed out above.

*sigh* I don't even want peace. I want freedom for the mages. No compromise.

Yes but the player should be able to control the personality, the actions and appearance.

Would other players even care if the character didn't say that?

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 11 avril 2013 - 04:54 .

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

There weren't a lot of atheists in medieval Europe. Thedas is based on medieval Europe. Atheism is a very modern concept.

For the love of all that's holy can we please DROP this stupid notion that Thedas being based--and loosely at that, per the writers' own statements--means the same thing as identical? 

However poorly implemented the concept is, we are assured that Thedas is gender-egalitarian.  We also see that in the dominant religion of most of the known world, women are the ones in power.  We also see that slavery in most of the world is illegal on moral grounds.  We also see quite a few examples of progressive ideas.  It most assuredly is NOT "medieval Europe" in that context, let alone when you add the fantasical elements of mages, dragons, elves, dwarves, darkspawn, and other things that also did not exist in medieval Europe.  It's just really effing stupid to claim that atheism can't be a part of Thedas because it's based on medieval Europe, when we see plenty of elements which also did not belong to medieval Europe as being part of the setting.

Being based on something is in no wise the same thing as being lifted whole-cloth from it, but for some idiotic reason that's what people insist on it meaning whenever they try to justify some aspect of Thedas by claiming it was based on medieval Europe. 

As well as the fact that atheism is not a modern concept, and has existed for centuries.

[Senya]

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Hopefully the "Inquisition" won't be connected to the chantry or andrastianism in any way.
I could do that for my own agenda so as long as they don't force us to be pro-andrastianism or even worse pro-chantry I'm fine.

It's my character (hopefully it won't be like DAII), who better understands someone created by me? The others? Sure it's up to the writers.

Like I said and I quote "They can contextualize those choices, I can state those views to people I'm going to kill, my companions and at the end.", so there are ways to not ruin plot cohesiveness while offering this choices. And how can not saying andrastian expressions like "By the Maker" ruin plot cohesivenesss?

If I remember right, the Inquisition is formed from a last, desperate peace conference that is ruined by outside forces. The leaked summary, I think, also implies Chantry sanction for you, but I can't find it. I could be wrong.

I wouldn't know about the exact nature on who has more to do with the character, but I see it as an even parternship between the writers and the player.

As for, "By the Maker", not asaying it wouldn't ruin plot cohesiveness, but it is part of the vocabularly of Thedas in the same way "God damn it!" is for us. I estimate about 99% people in real life use the latter at least once. All my friends do, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, etc.  I don't see it ruining the experience of anyone unless they're extremely sensitive. Though, maybe they could make it optional. It might depend on the Budget as someone else pointed out above.

*sigh* I don't even want peace. I want freedom for the mages. No compromise.

Yes but the player should be able to control the personality, the actions and appearance.

Would other players even care if the character didn't say that?

Well, peace is the stated goal if you come from a peace conference and are sanctioned by the Chantry if what is implied holds true from the , admittedly, little information we have. Though, I can see you choosing to defy that for every demand fro the mages or even some mage extremists.

I personally don't care one way or another about what your character says or believes. But Bioware is in charge of providing choices and if the writers feel it doesn't make sense for them to have your character say this or that, then I have to acquiesce. I believe I read somewhere that you are the Chantry's last-ditch effort to end the fighting so, I would guess it doesn't make sense for them to choose an avowed atheist.

Of course, this is not going into what Allan Schumaker said earlier. Personally, I'd rather Gaider say why not to your question rather than what's implemented. I'm going by leaked information here.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The problem presented is that the entire anti-slavery attitude and women in roles of power is ingrained into the lore of the universe, Chantry dogma empowers women because their religious icon is a woman herself and her entire crusade was against slavery.

The historical Aveline played a role in changing the attitudes towards women as well, but Silfren's point remains that Thedas is not medieval Europe, not to mention that the people who claim that atheism is a "modern concept" are factually incorrect about that statement. The idea that atheists can't exist in Thedas, when atheists existed in our own historical past, is simply nonsense. There's no logical reason to prohibit atheism in a fantasy world where no one knows whether gods actually exist or not, particularly when the protagonist of the first game could be an atheist.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Thedas is similar to our ancient societies in the respect that it's entirely built off the religious dogma being spouted by the people in charge, it's structure controls the entire world from monarchy to common-folk with education and theology only being provided to those under their control or those who've got the money for it.

The entire idea behind questioning Chantry beliefs requires that you'd be fully educated (nobility / circle mage / chantry scholar) or be born outside the Chantry's over-sight (Morrigan, Dalish or Dwarves) and even then, they're not athiests and have their own core beliefs.

Actually, all it requires is that a person question the Chantry's dogma, and take the view that there is no Maker or higher power. It's why atheism has been a concept that has existed for centuries. There are multiple reasons a person can do doubt the validity of religion from any background. I see every reason for my elven mage to doubt the religious teachings of the Chantry, and Origins allowed my character to condemn the Chantry for invading the Dales and make it clear that he didn't believe in the Maker.

Dave of Canada wrote...

The closest thing I'd say to atheism which would fit in the context of the universe is possibly Aveline, someone who doesn't let it dictate her entire life but it still had a significant impact on her that she still refers to the Maker and such. Similar to how most people in our world say "Thank god" or "They've gone to heaven/a better place/etc" through sheer societal influence.

The closest would be The Warden, who can actually voice an atheist point of view, although the second closest would perhaps be Morrigan, who can explicitly state that she doesn't believe in the Maker or a higher power when she discusses religion with Leliana. I'm also not sure why you think an atheist would tell someone that he hopes God guides them or why an atheist would say that someone who died is with God now.

[The Elder King]

ibbikiookami wrote...


*sigh* I don't even want peace. I want freedom for the mages. No compromise.

Yes but the player should be able to control the personality, the actions and appearance.

Would other players even care if the character didn't say that?

I fear that the final solution of the mage-templar war is going to end with a compromise (because having two/three completely different outcomes could made the development of the next game extremely difficult, if not impossible). Not because I favour one of the other solutions (which I could hate, depending on what is the solution in the case of mage victory or templar victory), but because it'd somehow limits my roleplay experience. I'd like to make different character with different views and opinion on the topic, that will choose different solutions.

[Hazegurl]

Chchchchicken wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Yes, I'm sick of the maker and would love to tell the characters that. I tried avoiding dialouge options that made Hawke into a believer until he said some preset dialogue stuff about the maker.

I don't know if this will help you with that, but I always considered Hawke's outbursts to be more reflective of the language that people commonly use in Thedas.

I'm an athiest personally and I'm always saying things like "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" as exclamations. It's not something I think about, it's just how people around me speak so I internalized it.

When sarcastic Hawke spoke to Varric about the Ogre he killed in the prologue his/her dialogue was something like, "Maker! What do they feed those things?!" I probably would've said the same thing (except: Jesus!). It's not necessarily belief, it's just cultural assimilation.

I know it's not ideal for roleplaying purposes, but it might help if it comes up again?  I liked it personally because I thought it made Hawke feel like they were apart of the world of Thedas, but I played sarcastic Hawke so it might've fit better with that personality type than the others. So....your mileage may vary.

I agree, I say the same things even though I don't believe in God or Jesus so it is a culture thing that fits with Hawke's character. I also liked the "Maker what do they feed those things" line.  But I do recall him blessing someone or saying something about the maker guiding someone.  I just had to chalk it up to him being nice or telling a person what they want to hear. It's not a big deal of course and i'm glad Hawke's maker dialouge was kept at a minimal but as for DA3 I wouldn't mind being a walking contradiction of a character. A non believing Inquistitor could be fun.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

I fear that the final solution of the mage-templar war is going to end with a compromise (because having two/three completely different outcomes could made the development of the next game extremely difficult, if not impossible). Not because I favour one of the other solutions (which I could hate, depending on what is the solution in the case of mage victory or templar victory), but because it'd somehow limits my roleplay experience. I'd like to make different character with different views and opinion on the topic, that will choose different solutions. 

While I wouldn't be surprised if the developers took this approach (since they can't even handle the multiple choices and outcomes of Origins), I have absolutely no interest in playing a game where my protagonist helps put the mages back under the heel of the templars and the Chantry. I'd rather save my money and come up with my own conclusion to my canon run if the storyline is going to be that pointless.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



While I wouldn't be surprised if the developers took this approach (since they can't even handle the multiple choices and outcomes of Origins), I have absolutely no interest in playing a game where my protagonist helps put the mages back under the heel of the templars and the Chantry. I'd rather save my money and come up with my own conclusion to my canon run if the storyline is going to be that pointless.

To be fair, handling the multple choices of a previous game in the sequel is something extremely difficult. Bioware failed at least partially with the ME IP  (in DA they're avoiding the problem with different sets and locations, but at the end it could be problematic), and there aren't many rpgs who do imports. I don't think it's something that easy.

About the compromise, I'd suggest to wait to buy the game on release, and asking someone, withotu spoiling you, if there are multiple outcome for the war, since I doubt it'll be possible to know how many outcomes there'll be before release (I doubt Bioware will talk about the ending).
Not that a compromise would necessarily mean having the mage under the heels of the Chantry and the templars (my "compromise" solution  that I proposed in one of my threads is, in my opinion, not like that, though I think it's not going to happen in DA), but you wouldn't know if you're going to like it, and you might not like it because it would anyway involve talking with the Chantry and/or the templars (which assuming from your posts I doubt you're interested in).

[addiction21]

LobselVith8 wrote...


The closest would be The Warden, who can actually voice an atheist point of view, although the second closest would perhaps be Morrigan, who can explicitly state that she doesn't believe in the Maker or a higher power when she discusses religion with Leliana. I'm also not sure why you think an atheist would tell someone that he hopes God guides them or why an atheist would say that someone who died is with God now.

No the Warden never voice an atheist point of view. Only a disbelief in that one deity figure or another. YOU are adding everything else to those lines. They are never clear declarations of being atheist. If you want to interpret them in that why for your character then go ahead. 

And you have on multiple occasion had proclaimed atheists in these threads explain why they have or others might say such things. You just pretend they don't exist.

But continue repeating yourself for the hundredth thread and running around in circles.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

While I wouldn't be surprised if the developers took this approach (since they can't even handle the multiple choices and outcomes of Origins), I have absolutely no interest in playing a game where my protagonist helps put the mages back under the heel of the templars and the Chantry. I'd rather save my money and come up with my own conclusion to my canon run if the storyline is going to be that pointless. 

To be fair, handling the multple choices of a previous game in the sequel is something extremely difficult. Bioware failed at least partially with the ME IP  (in DA they're avoiding the problem with different sets and locations, but at the end it could be problematic), and there aren't many rpgs who do imports. I don't think it's something that easy.

I understand it's difficult, but there are handwaves and changes that weren't necessary. Leliana's ressurection, ignoring Zevran's choice to lead a new generation of Grey Wardens, Cullen's fate, the Magi Boon, the events that transpire because of the Dalish Boon, el. ect. It's more than a little difficult to feel like your choices matter when most of the consequences of your decisions get rectonned. It ruins my enjoyment of Origins when I know that the developers have rectonned the biggest achievement my Surana Warden could make when he asks the ruler to give his people their independence.

hhh89 wrote...

About the compromise, I'd suggest to wait to buy the game on release, and asking someone, withotu spoiling you, if there are multiple outcome for the war, since I doubt it'll be possible to know how many outcomes there'll be before release (I doubt Bioware will talk about the ending).

Frankly, if there's a compromise between the mages and the templars, then it's not for me. It's really that simple. While I don't really care whether or not it's one of the main stories, I have no interest in playing as a character who would restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles. It's not something I would find entertaining, it's not something I'd want to spend any time on, and I can save my money for other things.

hhh89 wrote...

Not that a compromise would necessarily mean having the mage under the heels of the Chantry and the templars (my "compromise" solution  that I proposed in one of my threads is, in my opinion, not like that, though I think it's not going to happen in DA), but you wouldn't know if you're going to like it, and you might not like it because it would anyway involve talking with the Chantry and/or the templars (which assuming from your posts I doubt you're interested in). 

Much like my disinterest in playing as another religiously Andrastian human, I'm not looking to play a game where my new protagonist basically craps on everything I did in Origins and Dragon Age II to emancipate the mages. It's simply not for me.

[Noctis Augustus]

almostinsane99 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

almostinsane99 wrote...

If I were to guess, it might be an integral part of the setting. You are playing as the Inquisitor who will at least nominally be tied to the Chantry. I don't think you'd have to take their orders, though. Heck, I think you'll probably be able to be antagonistic to Chantry authority or maybe make them take paths you want.

I wouldn't want to proclaim allegiance to the Chantry or practice Andrastianism personally as its beliefs conflict with my own, but I'd leave it up to the writers what choices they see someone in Thedas having as they'd have a better understanding of the culture and psychology of the individuals in Thedas. The main character doesn't have to be an author avatar for me.

Truthfully, I don't see it as a big deal. I'd like to play as an elf or dwarf, but that's not going to happen for story purposes either. If a choice would make the story awkward or make no sense, then I'd choose plot cohesiveness. Therefore, I understand them leaving out certain choices.

But I want to be an elf in the next game.

Hopefully the "Inquisition" won't be connected to the chantry or andrastianism in any way.
I could do that for my own agenda so as long as they don't force us to be pro-andrastianism or even worse pro-chantry I'm fine.

It's my character (hopefully it won't be like DAII), who better understands someone created by me? The others? Sure it's up to the writers.

Like I said and I quote "They can contextualize those choices, I can state those views to people I'm going to kill, my companions and at the end.", so there are ways to not ruin plot cohesiveness while offering this choices. And how can not saying andrastian expressions like "By the Maker" ruin plot cohesivenesss?

If I remember right, the Inquisition is formed from a last, desperate peace conference that is ruined by outside forces. The leaked summary, I think, also implies Chantry sanction for you, but I can't find it. I could be wrong.

I wouldn't know about the exact nature on who has more to do with the character, but I see it as an even parternship between the writers and the player.

As for, "By the Maker", not asaying it wouldn't ruin plot cohesiveness, but it is part of the vocabularly of Thedas in the same way "God damn it!" is for us. I estimate about 99% people in real life use the latter at least once. All my friends do, Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, etc.  I don't see it ruining the experience of anyone unless they're extremely sensitive. Though, maybe they could make it optional. It might depend on the Budget as someone else pointed out above.

*sigh* I don't even want peace. I want freedom for the mages. No compromise.

Yes but the player should be able to control the personality, the actions and appearance.

Would other players even care if the character didn't say that?

Well, peace is the stated goal if you come from a peace conference and are sanctioned by the Chantry if what is implied holds true from the , admittedly, little information we have. Though, I can see you choosing to defy that for every demand fro the mages or even some mage extremists.

I personally don't care one way or another about what your character says or believes. But Bioware is in charge of providing choices and if the writers feel it doesn't make sense for them to have your character say this or that, then I have to acquiesce. I believe I read somewhere that you are the Chantry's last-ditch effort to end the fighting so, I would guess it doesn't make sense for them to choose an avowed atheist.

Of course, this is not going into what Allan Schumaker said earlier. Personally, I'd rather Gaider say why not to your question rather than what's implemented. I'm going by leaked information here.

If that is true though I'm not going to buy the game. It's disppointing... there are so few triple A RPGs.

[LobselVith8]

addiction21 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The closest would be The Warden, who can actually voice an atheist point of view, although the second closest would perhaps be Morrigan, who can explicitly state that she doesn't believe in the Maker or a higher power when she discusses religion with Leliana. I'm also not sure why you think an atheist would tell someone that he hopes God guides them or why an atheist would say that someone who died is with God now.

No the Warden never voice an atheist point of view.

Only a disbelief in that one deity figure or another. YOU are adding everything else to those lines. They are never clear declarations of being atheist. If you want to interpret them in that why for your character then go ahead.

Actually, Gaider stating the exact opposite:

David Gaider wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Probably because they could say things like "I've told you before I don't believe in the Maker" in the HN origin

If that was in there, then so be it. There wasn't intended to be an option to express atheism. And there certainly won't be again. 

In fact, I recall Gaider repeating this statement in Xil's thread (here's that specific snippet):

Dave Gaider wrote...

Yes, there was indeed the occasional dialogue option to express it-- something you guys obviously remember better than we do (writing something over six years will definitely do that, let me tell you).

It seems like there was the option to express atheism for The Warden, which is probably by multiple people have pointed out there were options to express atheism in Origins and Awakening. I'm not sure why some people have such disdain for atheism that they want to prohibit other players from being able to have their fictional characters express it, as opposed to being forced to play as religiously Andrastian characters.

addiction21 wrote...

And you have on multiple occasion had proclaimed atheists in these threads explain why they have or others might say such things. You just pretend they don't exist.

You mean I provided links to a developer stating that The Warden could express atheism?

addiction21 wrote...

But continue repeating yourself for the hundredth thread and running around in circles.

I'm stating the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...



I understand it's difficult, but there are handwaves and changes that weren't necessary. Leliana's ressurection, ignoring Zevran's choice to lead a new generation of Grey Wardens, Cullen's fate, the Magi Boon, the events that transpire because of the Dalish Boon, el. ect. It's more than a little difficult to feel like your choices matter when most of the consequences of your decisions get rectonned. It ruins my enjoyment of Origins when I know that the developers have rectonned the biggest achievement my Surana Warden could make when he asks the ruler to give his people their independence.

I agree, though on the magi boon, I had the feeling it would come to this. I don't see the Chantry going to simply watch as a state (which isn't that powerful, and that was weakened by the Blight) grants freedom to a Circle.
Anyway, they definitely should've considered more the choices made in the previous game, considering that some of those wouldn't screw up the sequels and are fairly minor.

Frankly, if there's a compromise between the mages and the templars, then it's not for me. It's really that simple. While I don't really care whether or not it's one of the main stories, I have no interest in playing as a character who would restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles. It's not something I would find entertaining, it's not something I'd want to spend any time on, and I can save my money for other things.

You mean that you'll not buy the game if the compromise is the only solution, yes? I wouldn't see the problem with multiple outcomes, unless you're concerned about what would happen in the sequel.
Though again, a compromise wouldn't necessarily mean the return of the status-quo or the control of the Chantry (though I admit the second is more likely). Anyway, I understand your point.

Much like my disinterest in playing as another religiously Andrastian human, I'm not looking to play a game where my new protagonist basically craps on everything I did in Origins and Dragon Age II to emancipate the mages. It's simply not for me.

I understand ( I said that I had this impression). It's understable. I don't have a preferred solution (at least I douby my solution will be adopted, even in the case of multiple outcomes), so my disappointed would be limited to a restriction of my roleplaying experience, but I see your point (or the point of pro-templars who wouldn't want to play the game with a mage-only outcome).

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I understand it's difficult, but there are handwaves and changes that weren't necessary. Leliana's ressurection, ignoring Zevran's choice to lead a new generation of Grey Wardens, Cullen's fate, the Magi Boon, the events that transpire because of the Dalish Boon, el. ect. It's more than a little difficult to feel like your choices matter when most of the consequences of your decisions get rectonned. It ruins my enjoyment of Origins when I know that the developers have rectonned the biggest achievement my Surana Warden could make when he asks the ruler to give his people their independence.

I agree, though on the magi boon, I had the feeling it would come to this. I don't see the Chantry going to simply watch as a state (which isn't that powerful, and that was weakened by the Blight) grants freedom to a Circle.
Anyway, they definitely should've considered more the choices made in the previous game, considering that some of those wouldn't screw up the sequels and are fairly minor.

While I understand that's a point that some people have brought up, my issue with it is that we see that there are ramifications to the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence. Aside from the fact that Irving acts like it's already a given (to the point of thanking the Hero of Ferelden for freeing the Circle from its shackles), the independent Circle of Orzammar doesn't exist as a consequence of the Magi Boon that was granted for the Circle of Ferelden, and Cullen loses his mind and kills innocent mages as a result of the Circle of Ferelden being given it's independence.

For the developers to say that the Chantry simply said 'no' completely ignores that there were consequences to this boon actually happening.

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Frankly, if there's a compromise between the mages and the templars, then it's not for me. It's really that simple. While I don't really care whether or not it's one of the main stories, I have no interest in playing as a character who would restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles. It's not something I would find entertaining, it's not something I'd want to spend any time on, and I can save my money for other things.

You mean that you'll not buy the game if the compromise is the only solution, yes? I wouldn't see the problem with multiple outcomes, unless you're concerned about what would happen in the sequel.
Though again, a compromise wouldn't necessarily mean the return of the status-quo or the control of the Chantry (though I admit the second is more likely). Anyway, I understand your point.

It would be the problem if it was the only outcome for me (since I invested my time in Dragon Age as a franchise that would respect the prior choices of my previous characters and build on them in future games - since that is what the developers promised), but I appreciate you understanding my point.

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Much like my disinterest in playing as another religiously Andrastian human, I'm not looking to play a game where my new protagonist basically craps on everything I did in Origins and Dragon Age II to emancipate the mages. It's simply not for me. 

I understand ( I said that I had this impression). It's understable. I don't have a preferred solution (at least I douby my solution will be adopted, even in the case of multiple outcomes), so my disappointed would be limited to a restriction of my roleplaying experience, but I see your point (or the point of pro-templars who wouldn't want to play the game with a mage-only outcome). 

I would understand their point as well. It's one of the reasons I really became disappointed with Dragon Age II, when I found out how linear the storyline actually was - and I'm not looking for a repeat experience. There are a number of other issues that are turning me off to Inquisition - from the "human only" protagonist to having the main character be voiced - and adding to the pile would simply convince me that I shouldn't waste my time when the things I loved about Origins simply won't be found in the new game.

It's why I would like to see the return of the atheist option, since I liked being able to shape who my protagonist is, and what his views are. It was a lot of fun when I found out I could determine where my Surana protagonist grew up, his view on the Chantry controlled Circle and the templars, his favored Fraternity of the Enchanters, how he viewed blood magic, and how it felt to grow up as a child and as a mage in the Circle. I had choices, and I could choose who my protagonist was. It's why I think the players should have more freedom in defining who their character is, rather than being given a pre-developed character by Bioware as though we were playing a jRPG.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...


I would understand their point as well. It's one of the reasons I really became disappointed with Dragon Age II, when I found out how linear the storyline actually was - and I'm not looking for a repeat experience. There are a number of other issues that are turning me off to Inquisition - from the "human only" protagonist to having the main character be voiced - and adding to the pile would simply convince me that I shouldn't waste my time when the things I loved about Origins simply won't be found in the new game.

It's why I would like to see the return of the atheist option, since I liked being able to shape who my protagonist is, and what his views are. It was a lot of fun when I found out I could determine where my Surana protagonist grew up, his view on the Chantry controlled Circle and the templars, his favored Fraternity of the Enchanters, how he viewed blood magic, and how it felt to grow up as a child and as a mage in the Circle. I had choices, and I could choose who my protagonist was. It's why I think the players should have more freedom in defining who their character is, rather than being given a pre-developed character by Bioware as though we were playing a jRPG.

I agree that players should have more freedom in defining the PC of a WRPG (I played and enjoyed JRPG, but for different reasons). I hope that DAI will have more freedom than DA2.

[Gundar3]

Given that its been a LOOOOOOOONG time since I've been around the social network I'll go ahead and add my two cents as I feel this is a topic that actually warrants discussion.  Bonus points for Dev posts.
I don't mind characters (obviously including the player) that express disbelief or hatred towards the Maker, even if its harder to justify within the cultural context, because in the end it allows the player in the real world to express their real modern opinions or beliefs, and connect to the world of Thedas in their own way.  "A pillar of the RPG" in my mind, is directly that ability to relate to characters and live the experience.
While this is all well and good, I who live in the real world and have the audacity to believe in God and be religious, want the ability to actively (read believably) invoke and praise or pray to the Maker, or however Bioware intends to implament it.  At a minimum, it would allow me as a player to better connect to the world of Thedas and the various characters and groups in it.

What I am trying to get accross is that I hope the Bioware writers treat this sticky subject matter with respect.  I felt they did this in the past with Dragon Age 2 - because in the end I loved fighting Meredith who I felt was directly in opposition to the Chantry for her own crazed ends, and the Blood mages who... brought demons around everywhere.

Im sure Im not the only guy that enjoyed having both Sebastion and Anders in the party for the great arguments, even if I just wanted to crack Anders across the mouth time and time again and high five Sebastion.  Im sure people feel the same way about wanting to crack Sebastion - which means there was good balance so players of various beliefs dont feel marginalized, or have an ideology crammed down thir throat.

Overall, thats the thing that I'm worried about in the end. That this will become a game that, possibly not intentionally, is about the evils of organized religion.  Frankly im tired of hearing those arguments from basically every media source currently on the internet by people with chips on their shoulders.  I seek diversity of characters and beliefs.  I seek a compelling story with as many arguments as Bioware is willing to put in.  I dont mind seeing the evils of the Chantry and "religion" as long as we get a genuine dose of its goodness as well.  A healthy balance of believable characters that are openly hositle, or openly accepting to the Chantry is what I, and some of the people here are calling for.  This includes the Agnositc or Atheist belief (they are different afterall).

I think Bioware has demonstrated this balance before, I hope to see it again.

-P.S to any Devs that stumble accross this post-

I want to give a special thanks to the writers of Lair of the Shadow Broker in Mass Effect 2 for the (I guess easter egg?) of Cerberus assasinating the Pope to sway the College to find a successor that was more "human centric"... Through his rosary beads...  When I stumbled onto that, the Illusive Man just made things even more personal.

[Jennifer Brandes Hepler]

We are quite aware that we have many fans who dislike organized religion and also many for whom religion has been a positive force in their lives. We are keeping both groups of players in mind while we write. Obviously, we can't promise a perfect experience for everyone, but we are quite conscious of both points of view and are striving to recognize them in the game.

[Renmiri1]

Jennifer Brandes Hepler wrote...

We are quite aware that we have many fans who dislike organized religion and also many for whom religion has been a positive force in their lives. We are keeping both groups of players in mind while we write. Obviously, we can't promise a perfect experience for everyone, but we are quite conscious of both points of view and are striving to recognize them in the game.

Anders DA2 writer!!!!

Glad to see you still post around here ^^
 Hope you get to write for DAI 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 11 avril 2013 - 09:46 .