335 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

LOL, I am reminded how it was rumored in my country that half a generation of children came to believe that cows were purple because a cholocate brand used cows painted purple in advertisements.

Anyway, I would advise to stick more closely to Thedas in your discussion in this thread, otherwise it may get locked as off-topic. For a less restricted debate, I have created the new group Religion and Atheism in Thedas.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 24 janvier 2014 - 09:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

I am just trying to demonstrate that where we begin, will determine where we will end.

We should all begin in the same place - the rational default position of uncertainty.

But that luxury is a fairly recent development.  As In Exile pointed out earlier in the thread, for most of human history there simply wasn't an available worldview that didn't include the divine.

Morrigan's remark, however, suggests that the lack of a diety is an available worldview in Thedas.  It might not be ommonly held, but it does seem to exist.  As such, real world history of theology is perhaps not a useful analogue.

[AlanC9]

There's a general RPG design issue in play here. How much of an outlier from the setting is the PC allowed to be? My understanding of the setting is that in the aspect of religion it's much closer to medieval Europe than, say, late Republican Rome. Epicureans and whatnot would be very thin on the ground in such a world, wouldn't they? (Morrigan doesn't really enter into this, since she's got a fairly unusual background.)

Note that I'm only talking about the ROI here. How much of the word budget should be burned on this sort of thing?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 janvier 2014 - 09:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't really see how the word budget enters into it. The line that should be drawn lies between forcing religious belief and not forcing religious belief. DAO certainly didn't force religious belief on the PC.

Not doing something doesn't cost any words.

[AlanC9]

It depends on whether or not the topic comes up in the plot. I was assuming that it did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

It depends on whether or not the topic comes up in the plot. I was assuming that it did.

As long as the option to avoid voicing an opinion exists, then all opinions are supported.

[Grieving Natashina]

I'll start this on topic: For one, I think Morrigan didn't like Leliana very much after Leliana told everyone about her vision. That conversation happens very early on (I get it before I am done with Lothering,) and Morrigan think's Leliana a blind fool. They don't discuss religions at all much after that. I can see someone like Morrigan immediately shut down and become antagonistic upon hearing Leliana talk about her vision. So there's that to consider. Secondly, as a few have pointed out, Morrigan could have very well changed in the last decade. I'm not the same person I was at 20 that I was at 30 that I am now.

Now, this next part is driving me crazy. I don't know how this misuse of a word got started, but I want to make something clear. Being an agnostic is not the same as being atheist. An atheist believes in nothing, as some have stated. Agnostics believe that there is something more probably out there, but refuses to give it a name or anything more than a nebulous idea. Agnostics are not religious, as they do not follow any sort of doctrines or dogma from a church.

I am an agnostic. I am not religious, but I believe that there is something beyond our understanding at work here. Please get those terms right.

[Grieving Natashina]

Ugh, since the edit isn't working right:

Agnostics are not religious, as they do not follow any sort of doctrines, dogma from a church. Nor do they necessarily believe in any sort of God(s), merely in something bigger than ourselves.

[Barrendall]

Atheism isn't just a state of disbelief or non-belief. We just don't believe in anything without the evidence to support it.

[Grieving Natashina]

Yep, which is not the same as being agnostic. There won't be any atheists in Thedas, but I can see folks calling themselves agnostic ("Is it the Maker? The Creators? I don't know, but there sure is something out there.")

That's just my take on it. The two terms are not one and the same.

[Medhia Nox]

@Barrendall111: Yes - I assure you, you do. Don't say "anything".

----

On topic - her commentary to Leliana, the only one I'm aware where she states emphatically about her disbelief - is one made with the impassioned view of a self-important young academic. It does not mean she is wrong - but what does she personally perceive as a "god"?

We can't know that.

We do know she's aware of what an "Old God" turned Archdaemon is... she knows her ritual "might" cleanse this Archdaemon and recreate this "Old God" - but what does Morrigan think an "Old God" is? It all depends on her belief.

Which we don't know.

Furthermore - Morrigan is not at all scientific or rational in her mindset. There is nothing intrinsically rational about survivalism. In fact, the knowledge that you will inevitably die would, in my opinion, make survival at all costs an irrational act based on fear. Survival is, for humans at least, based on a sense of self - human CAN negate this, and those humans are capable of self-sacrifice. A sense of self is not rational - it is given irrational importance in the perspective of the self.

Morrigan is an irrational creature, as all humans are, taking irrational actions for irrational ends (because she has no idea what will "really" happen with this ritual).

She might not believe in the Maker - but it is not because she appeals to scientific reason.

[Rotward]

There seems to be confusion on what agnostic. It's someone who is unsure as to whether there is or isn't a god; they don't think one can know for certain either way.

[Grieving Natashina]

That's pretty much been said.

That's why I agree with D. Gaider's decision not to have any atheists in Thedas. It still leaves a lot of room for debate among those that are non-religious.

[Rotward]

Games don't exist for, and shouldn't revolve around, forum debate.

[Barrendall]

@Medhia Nox: Good thing you're here to do my thinking and talking for me...I meant what I said. I believe what can be reasonably backed up by evidence so please cut the condescension.

[Grieving Natashina]

@Rot Not on the forums! I meant for the people of Thedas. The people of Thedas can leave it up for debate, which is where the writers come in. The writers can have a lot of fun causing debates between companions and NPCs about religion and faith.

Debating religion on any forum, especially a gaming one, tends to make people edgy and hostile.

[Grieving Natashina]

Last note and then I'll leave you guys to it: My grandmother and my mother taught me that there are two big things you don't discuss with strangers in any real detail: religion and politics.

[Ieldra]

Starsyn wrote...
The people of Thedas can leave it up for debate, which is where the writers come in. The writers can have a lot of fun causing debates between companions and NPCs about religion and faith.

And they did in DAO, and in DA2. No doubt they will do so again. I'm just saying that if that's so, I find it wilfully restrictive if they prevent the player character from participating in them unless it's to agree with some religious doctrine or other.

Of course I don't know if they'll do that. Things *might* be as simple as "The Old Gods exist, so atheism makes no sense, but we can still express disbelief in the Maker".  If so, fine with me, but that still leaves the fact that the Chantry denies the Old Gods' divinity, so I should be able to do the same on top of disbelieving in the Maker, which is also expressed by an NPC in DA2. Regardless from which angle you approach it, I think the restriction makes no sense at all.

@all:
Can we please stop arguing the semantics here? Go to this group if you want to do that.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 07:12 .

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Barrendall111: Yes - I assure you, you do. Don't say "anything".

On topic - her commentary to Leliana, the only one I'm aware where she states emphatically about her disbelief - is one made with the impassioned view of a self-important young academic. It does not mean she is wrong - but what does she personally perceive as a "god"?

We can't know that.

We do know she's aware of what an "Old God" turned Archdaemon is... she knows her ritual "might" cleanse this Archdaemon and recreate this "Old God" - but what does Morrigan think an "Old God" is? It all depends on her belief.

Which we don't know.

Furthermore - Morrigan is not at all scientific or rational in her mindset. There is nothing intrinsically rational about survivalism. In fact, the knowledge that you will inevitably die would, in my opinion, make survival at all costs an irrational act based on fear. Survival is, for humans at least, based on a sense of self - human CAN negate this, and those humans are capable of self-sacrifice. A sense of self is not rational - it is given irrational importance in the perspective of the self.

Morrigan is an irrational creature, as all humans are, taking irrational actions for irrational ends (because she has no idea what will "really" happen with this ritual).

She might not believe in the Maker - but it is not because she appeals to scientific reason.

She justifies her disbelief with basically the same reason modern atheists use: common sense. She hasn't seen the Maker and there is nothing she can undeniably attribute to him.

• Leliana: How can someone who practices magic have so little capacity to believe in that which she cannot see?
• Morrigan: Magic is real. I can touch it and command it and I need no faith for it to fill me up inside. If you are looking for your higher power, there it is.

The world appears as one in which he doesn't exist, so almost certainly he doesn't. This is the position any unbiased mind would take. This discussion is seriously tainted by thousands of years of religious indoctrination, thousands of years of privilege to claim the ludicrous with impunity and demand, of all things, to be *respected* for it. It boggles the mind, really.

Sorry about the rant, but to disbelieve in omnipotent invisible friends is an eminently sensible position to take, in any time period, in any culture. Unless these entities come out and do something in a way that can't be ignored. The Old Gods did(*). The Maker didn't. Case closed. It is really, really that simple.

Oh, and don't think that the more knowledgeable religious people aren't aware of this. That's why it's called "faith" after all. I don't recall which one of the early Christian scholars said it, but there is this famous quote "I believe even though I know it's absurd" or something like that. Faith is a predisposition through which people interpret experience. It can't be acquired by empirical evidence of its object. If that were available, it wouldn't be faith but knowledge. Rather consequently, Morrigan rejects the relevance of faith for telling you anything meaningful about the world:

• Leliana: I do not need to know because I have faith. I believe in Him and feel His hope and His love.
• Morrigan: "Faith." How quickly those who have no answers invoke that word.

-------------------
(*) You may still doubt that the archdemons are the Old Gods, but that's more a problem of attributition: the archdemons are real, and they are called gods. You can't get any closer to a real god since there is no objective attribute that makes a god a god. Consequently, if they are not *the* Old Gods, then they're still gods of their own according to predominant terminology.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:48 .

[Ieldra]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Rather clear here that there's no consensus on what agnostic means.

And by extension (since some are equating the two), atheism.

A refusal to claim absolute certainty does not make you an agnostic. From wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unable to be known.

And no, knowledge does not mean absolute certainty, or we would never really know anything.

And now can we leave this unproductive sideshow behind, please? Calling it one thing or the other doesn't change what this all is about: the question whether we'll be able to, or should be able to, express disbelief in the Maker (or any other god) with our player character in future DA games, considering that several NPCs in the already existing games do. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 08:07 .

[TurretSyndrome]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Calling it one thing or the other doesn't change what this all is about: the question whether we'll be able to, or should be able to, express disbelief in the Maker (or any other god) with our player character in future DA games, considering that several NPCs in the already existing games do. 

I agree with this. If they think it's necessary to restrict players from taking one stance while allowing them(or even forcing them) to take the opposite one, there needs to be a proper explanation. Without a good explanation, I won't take 'no' for an answer. Especially for DA:I, with all their constant talk regarding player freedom.

[n7stormrunner]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Calling it one thing or the other doesn't change what this all is about: the question whether we'll be able to, or should be able to, express disbelief in the Maker (or any other god) with our player character in future DA games, considering that several NPCs in the already existing games do. 

I agree with this. If they think it's necessary to restrict players from taking one stance while allowing them(or even forcing them) to take the opposite one, there needs to be a proper explanation. Without a good explanation, I won't take 'no' for an answer. Especially for DA:I, with all their constant talk regarding player freedom.

does "likely to be beheaded or lit on for for saying if the wrong people heard " count as a good reason?

[Ieldra]

n7stormrunner wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Calling it one thing or the other doesn't change what this all is about: the question whether we'll be able to, or should be able to, express disbelief in the Maker (or any other god) with our player character in future DA games, considering that several NPCs in the already existing games do. 

I agree with this. If they think it's necessary to restrict players from taking one stance while allowing them(or even forcing them) to take the opposite one, there needs to be a proper explanation. Without a good explanation, I won't take 'no' for an answer. Especially for DA:I, with all their constant talk regarding player freedom.

does "likely to be beheaded or lit on for for saying if the wrong people heard " count as a good reason?

Not for a restriction that applies everywhere, no. We have NPCs making statements about this, and in the office of Kirkwall's guard captain of all places, with an open door to the hallway. Also, not being able to force your stance on gods into every conversation where gods come up is perfectly acceptable. However, when circumstances do not restrict me and it would be approrpiate to say something about how I stand towards the gods, I should absolutely be able to say my part. I could do that in DAO, I see no reason why that suddenly shouldn't apply any more.

Oh, and couldn't I say to Elthina that I don't believe in the Maker? I don't recall because I never saw a reason to burden her with that knowledge, but I seem to recall a paraphrase to that effect.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 janvier 2014 - 09:31 .

[n7stormrunner]

Ieldra2 wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

TurretSyndrome wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Calling it one thing or the other doesn't change what this all is about: the question whether we'll be able to, or should be able to, express disbelief in the Maker (or any other god) with our player character in future DA games, considering that several NPCs in the already existing games do. 

I agree with this. If they think it's necessary to restrict players from taking one stance while allowing them(or even forcing them) to take the opposite one, there needs to be a proper explanation. Without a good explanation, I won't take 'no' for an answer. Especially for DA:I, with all their constant talk regarding player freedom.

does "likely to be beheaded or lit on for for saying if the wrong people heard " count as a good reason?

Not for a restriction that applies everywhere, no. We have NPCs making statements about this, and in the Office of Kirkwall's guard captain of all places, with an open door to the hallway. Also, not being able to force your stance on gods into every conversation where gods come up is perfectly acceptable. However, when circumstances do not restrict me and it would be approrpiate to say something about how I stand towards the gods, I should absolutely be able to say my part. I could do that in DAO, I see no reason why that suddenly shouldn't apply any more.

what if it's never approrpiate? what though out the whole game at no time does it make sense to talk about how you feel about the gods? cause I gotta say it doesn't seem like somehing if I was writing the game I would be in a hurry to write that in.

though admittedly if your not human it make sense a least once to say "yeah, not my people's god/gods." but otherwise it seems like something they have to go out of their way to write.