335 réponses à ce sujet

[Veruin]

Rotward wrote...
 Curbstomp + wits = amusing image. 

Don't you have a bridge you need to be collecting tolls for?

[Rotward]

Veruin wrote...

Rotward wrote...
 Curbstomp + wits = amusing image. 

Don't you have a bridge you need to be collecting tolls for?

I can't express displeasure at having a preset personality in a role playing game, without it being trolling? 

[Veruin]

Rotward wrote...
I can't express displeasure at having a preset personality in a role playing game, without it being trolling? 

No, the fact that you post insultingly (When it's not even somewhat justified) reminds me of an angry troll.

[Rotward]

Veruin wrote...

Rotward wrote...
I can't express displeasure at having a preset personality in a role playing game, without it being trolling? 

No, the fact that you post insultingly (When it's not even somewhat justified) reminds me of an angry troll.

Insultingly, sure, but toward something that doesn't exist. Other posters made it personal, and I'm happy to oblige. 

[Ieldra]

@Rotward:
Your latest post appears to indicate this was all a misunderstanding. If your post referred to my OP and the fact that we might be forced to play a religious character then my comment was unjustified. I was assuming you were answering my latest post where I told what my main character would and would not believe, insulting them and with them, me.

Am I correct in assuming your first post referred to the OP? If so, then perhaps this shows it's advisable to be aware of the context if you post something generally insulting, even if it's a fact you are insulting rather than a person.

Besides, David Gaider made it clear that the fact we aren't allowed to express atheism doesn't mean we'll be forced to express belief. Well, I have my doubts about the outcome considering certain lines in DA2, but that's what he said.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:19 .

[Rotward]

@Ieldra2 Yes, I was posting in reference to your OP. I haven't read the other post. I mean, come on, one of the origins is a qunari who's not part of the Qun. We can't express our disillusionment in the qun? Our party members are going to state their beliefs time and time again (judging by every other bioware game) and we can't comment unless it's to agree?

That's self defeating in a role playing game.

[Barrendall]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Is this a codex I'm not finding?  I haven't read the books so I'm relying on ingame info only and I'm curious if I'm overlooking this information somewhere.  If you could link it for me I would really appreciate the help.

It's on the Wiki, but the source is the book The Calling. Some people read all the books, I've read none, but at least important lore reveals in the books usually make it to the Wiki. 

According to Dragon Age: The Calling, the Grey Wardens know the locations of the prisons of each of the Old Gods, however they are in the Deep Roads and cannot easily be accessed by the Wardens without cutting through millions of darkspawn. The Architect told the Wardens that his plan involved advancing the Taint in them, before sending them through the Deep Roads undetected to kill the Old Gods.[/list]
Huh. They know where they all are, but can't get there. 

That does beg the question, doesn't it? How do they know, if they can't get there, which means they've never been there. That would also mean they've never seen a Old God before awakening and leaving its prison. 

"Scrying". I guess. Or a half-heard tale from another source, unstated. 

Thank you thank you sir.

[Ieldra]

Rotward wrote...
@Ieldra2 Yes, I was posting in reference to your OP. I haven't read the other post. I mean, come on, one of the origins is a qunari who's not part of the Qun. We can't express our disillusionment in the qun? Our party members are going to state their beliefs time and time again (judging by every other bioware game) and we can't comment unless it's to agree?

That's self defeating in a role playing game.

I am in full agreement with this. I'm not expecting to make a disagreeing statement every time the Maker comes up in a conversation, but there are times when doing otherwise would be out of character for an unbeliever, and then it is necessary that we get the option. 

For instance, should the events at the Golden City come up, it would be out of character for Eorlin Amell not to comment that in his opinion, the involvement of the Maker was something the Chantry made up and he doesn't see any "sin" in an attempt to reach the City. If he's among friends, that is.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:44 .

[Gwydden]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rotward wrote...
@Ieldra2 Yes, I was posting in reference to your OP. I haven't read the other post. I mean, come on, one of the origins is a qunari who's not part of the Qun. We can't express our disillusionment in the qun? Our party members are going to state their beliefs time and time again (judging by every other bioware game) and we can't comment unless it's to agree?

That's self defeating in a role playing game.

I am in full agreement with this. I'm not expecting to make a disagreeing statement every time the Maker comes up in a conversation, but there are times when doing otherwise would be out of character for an unbeliever, and then it is necessary that we get the option. 

For instance, should the events at the Golden City come up, it would be out of character for Eorlin Amell not to comment that in his opinion, the involvement of the Maker was something the Chantry made up and he doesn't see any "sin" in an attempt to reach the City.

I don't believe it's healthy to expect it to be so specific.

[Ieldra]

Gwydden wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rotward wrote...
@Ieldra2 Yes, I was posting in reference to your OP. I haven't read the other post. I mean, come on, one of the origins is a qunari who's not part of the Qun. We can't express our disillusionment in the qun? Our party members are going to state their beliefs time and time again (judging by every other bioware game) and we can't comment unless it's to agree?

That's self defeating in a role playing game.

I am in full agreement with this. I'm not expecting to make a disagreeing statement every time the Maker comes up in a conversation, but there are times when doing otherwise would be out of character for an unbeliever, and then it is necessary that we get the option. 

For instance, should the events at the Golden City come up, it would be out of character for Eorlin Amell not to comment that in his opinion, the involvement of the Maker was something the Chantry made up and he doesn't see any "sin" in an attempt to reach the City.

I don't believe it's healthy to expect it to be so specific.

I do, in fact, expect that Bioware's dialogue writing will get less and less specific and more and more generic in response to the limitations of paraphrasing and voiced protagonists. Their response to complaints about lines that don't fit certain player character concepts appears to be "we won't let them say anything about the matter and leave it all in the imagination" rather than "we need to allow for different opinions". 

That doesn't mean I can't complain about it. This approach totally destroys roleplaying if brought to its logical conclusion, and the temptation to be generic is why I think paraphrasing is the worst new feature in video role-playing games of the last 20 years (and yes, I have been playing video rpgs for that long and longer). I believe it is necessary to be specific about things in conversations where these things are a major topic. Not being able to comment on the events of the Golden City was no problem for the rest of DA2, but I was very, very annoyed I couldn't say anything even remotely like the above in DA2:Legacy in response to Anders' astonished comment that the stories do appear to be true.

We'll see how things go. DAI will come out roughly at the same time as Pillars of Eternity. While DAI will likely be hugely impressive in various aspects, I expect PE to be a better roleplaying game. I would love to be proven wrong, but I'd bet a copy of either game on the outcome. In a way, I already have with my investment in PE.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 janvier 2014 - 10:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Is the supernatural/natural distinction really applicable to Thedas? In a world where magic is observable and measurable, what's the difference?

Supernatural things are typically those which are not observable and measurable.  In Thedas, magic would count as natural.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Which, of course, means that with everything else being equal, "A super-powerful entity did it" has equal validity as an explanation as any other which makes no recourse to such entities. The thing is, everything else is usually not equal. Most things aren't moved around or influenced by gods or mages, so it doesn't make sense to prefer explanations involving them unless there is some reason to believe that they may actually be involved. There are hints in the story that the Veil may be an artificial construct, thus, even though we don't know yet, I am predisposed towards explanations that make it so. Without those hints, I would be predisposed to the explanation that the Veil has always existed.

I'm not really happy with "doesn't make sense" above. People find arguments from design awfully attractive in a world with zero  evidence of intelligent "supernatural" beings intervening. How much more attractive would those arguments be in a world where such interference is a known fact? I'm not even sure a "naturalistic" explanation would pass the parsimony principle in a world full of Fade spirits.

[AlanC9]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I do, in fact, expect that Bioware's dialogue writing will get less and less specific and more and more generic in response to the limitations of paraphrasing and voiced protagonists. Their response to complaints about lines that don't fit certain player character concepts appears to be "we won't let them say anything about the matter and leave it all in the imagination" rather than "we need to allow for different opinions". 

Are those limitations actually real? Is Hawke actually more limited than, say, the Bhaalspawn? Only in the sense that things come up in DA2 that just don't come up in BG2.

[LobselVith8]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I do, in fact, expect that Bioware's dialogue writing will get less and less specific and more and more generic in response to the limitations of paraphrasing and voiced protagonists. Their response to complaints about lines that don't fit certain player character concepts appears to be "we won't let them say anything about the matter and leave it all in the imagination" rather than "we need to allow for different opinions". 

Are those limitations actually real? Is Hawke actually more limited than, say, the Bhaalspawn? Only in the sense that things come up in DA2 that just don't come up in BG2. 

In comparring The Warden to Hawke, and the limitations imposed on the latter, I would say they are real. Hawke is quite defined as a character, while I have more flexibility in shaping who I want my Warden to be.

[Mirrman70]

I would like to take the time to remember that neither the warden nor Hawke nor any other character in Dragon Age belong to the player. The stories of these games are fairly plot driven within the sense that no matter what path you take you are still going from point A to point B to point C. you should be happy you are allowed some control over your characters personality at all. retconning lore will forever be a right to the writers of all universes everywhere. that being said, religion is a fundamental part of thedas and outside of morrigan there have been no characters that are openly skeptical of divine existences. I also believe that Morrigan meant that she did not believe in a god that held any true and constant influence.

[Medhia Nox]

@SylviustheMad: And yet, there is a codex entry - albeit a funny one - that states that the mage involved believes it's ludicrous to consider magic nature.

It's the missing socks codex.

[LobselVith8]

Mirrman70 wrote...

I would like to take the time to remember that neither the warden nor Hawke nor any other character in Dragon Age belong to the player. The stories of these games are fairly plot driven within the sense that no matter what path you take you are still going from point A to point B to point C. you should be happy you are allowed some control over your characters personality at all.

I think people play RPGs for plenty of reasons, but for some of us, it's not to play as a pre-defined character we have little control over.

Mirrman70 wrote...

retconning lore will forever be a right to the writers of all universes everywhere. that being said, religion is a fundamental part of thedas and outside of morrigan there have been no characters that are openly skeptical of divine existences. I also believe that Morrigan meant that she did not believe in a god that held any true and constant influence.

Religious belief isn't fundamental, since The Warden could say he didn't believe in the Maker, and Aveline's remarks about the Maker also stand out. The same degree of freedom that was available in Origins would be preferable for some of us.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SylviustheMad: And yet, there is a codex entry - albeit a funny one - that states that the mage involved believes it's ludicrous to consider magic nature.

Just as, in the real world, some people don't consider many agricultural products to be natural.

Both positions are absurd.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I said this in response to you expressing doubt of the claim that the Wardens know the location of the sleeping dragons who could become Archdemons. This is not said by or even around Morrigan, but by Grey Wardens we have no reason to doubt in the book "The Calling".

Why do we have no reason to doubt them?

what are your reasons for believing them, other than thinking these Grey Wardens and/or their sources are trustworthy?

Also, I have no reason to doubt Morrigan when she says she doesn't believe in a higher power. There are things where I would question her statements based on what I know about her, but this is not one of them. It fits her and her expressed worldview perfectly.

Lying about some things doesn't mean lying about all things. I never suggested she was lying about that particular discourse, nor do I think she is.

Though she might be. If only to get Leliana off her back.

She says she doesn't believe in higher powers. Period. That means she doesn't believe the Old Gods fall under her definition of "higher powers", i.e. she believes that they are not gods.

I think you're assuming a lot based on your personal definition of higher power.

Sounds like atheism to me, unless there are gods for which the term "higher power" is inappropriate. Since we have no hard definition of "higher power", that is not so easy to determine.

It's easy to determine. Plenty of people here have provided possible ways of reconciling Gaider's statement with Morrigan's dialogue. If you can't accept any of them, well... Good luck asking for Gaider to further justify his own characters to you.

[Barrendall]

A hard definition of "Higher Power" could be "Intelligent Design". So we have to ask ourselves this. Does Morrigan believe that the Old Gods created Thedas? Does she believe that the Maker or Old Gods control the world's actions? Does she believe in pre-ordained fate? From the banter I've picked up (and I could be wrong) I would strongly say no.

[Rotward]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I do, in fact, expect that Bioware's dialogue writing will get less and less specific and more and more generic in response to the limitations of paraphrasing and voiced protagonists. Their response to complaints about lines that don't fit certain player character concepts appears to be "we won't let them say anything about the matter and leave it all in the imagination" rather than "we need to allow for different opinions". 

Are those limitations actually real? Is Hawke actually more limited than, say, the Bhaalspawn? Only in the sense that things come up in DA2 that just don't come up in BG2. 

In comparring The Warden to Hawke, and the limitations imposed on the latter, I would say they are real. Hawke is quite defined as a character, while I have more flexibility in shaping who I want my Warden to be.

It's not a limitation, as much as discouragement. Giving hawke as much freedom in design would have been expensive. I have low expectaions for inquisitions characters. 

[LobselVith8]

Rotward wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

In comparing The Warden to Hawke, and the limitations imposed on the latter, I would say they are real. Hawke is quite defined as a character, while I have more flexibility in shaping who I want my Warden to be. 

It's not a limitation, as much as discouragement. Giving hawke as much freedom in design would have been expensive. I have low expectaions for inquisitions characters. 

It would be incredibly discouraging for me if the Inquisitor was as limited as Hawke was. I certainly don't want to play as another pre-defined character.

[CybAnt1]

A Grey Warden says that the Wardens know where the dragons sleep who might become archdemons. Now, unless we have a reason to believe that the Wardens have incorrect information or are lying, we should assume that they really do know and consider arguments based on the assumption that they don't really know as methodically flawed, and dismiss them. Consequently, we should accept that it is possible to know where they are and that Morrigan may know as well, and that her plans aren't based on mere assumptions about the existence of these dragons. Doing anything else means dismissing evidence with no plausible reason and engaging in speculation in a vacuum.

You can accept whatever you want, my point is, unless this has been clarified in some lore reveal in a medium that escaped my notice (and as I said, I don't read the books), what we've been told so far does not suggest HOW the Gray Wardens know this. That in itself is reason for doubt. Show your work - offer proof - doubt what you don't have evidence for - IMHO a sound principle in any aeon.  

Plato heard from Solon who heard from the Egyptian Priests of Thebes (or so he says, anyway, but let's take him at his word) that Atlantis existed. Is that enough for me to now go looking for Atlantis? BTW, many people have done just that, of course. 

Here's what I do know. Morrigan wanted an OGB. If I did the Dark Ritual (or someone did), she now has one. I concur it was for some other reason than saving the Warden or someone's life. Problem is, even post-Witch Hunt, we (all of us) have no freaking idea why. Whatever Morrigan knew or knows now, we don't. Full stop. 

Some Wardens may have gone through the eluvian (possibly lured by the fact that she says our child is on the other side), and might now know some of what she knows, but the game developers put that moment offscreen, so players wouldn't see and know it.

I am arguing not for the embrace of doubt and disbelief (wrt the old gods, I'm not dealing with any other Thedan deities), merely for the acceptance and realization of ambiguity and uncertainty. The devs seem keen on building it into the world - I kinda like it. 

So the Gray Wardens know everything about them? Apparently not. They didn't know about the song that they hear when unawakened/nonsentient, only the Architect knows this. 

Does anybody know how all 7 (if there are only 7) got imprisoned in those caverns? No? (Other than the Chantry making an undemonstrable claim about it, saying "The Maker did it," no one has any other answer.) 

Suggests to me they are working with incomplete information. Then the only question is how much. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 janvier 2014 - 05:11 .

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
There is no opposing point of view available.

You're comically wrong. You have two other options on the dialogue wheel

People prior to me have brought this to your attention before you and I discussed this, as well as their issue with Hawke being limited to expressing only one point of view with no counterpoint available: 

Yes, and all of these people are not only intellectually dishonest, they are actually lying about the choices availble. "The other option is being (in my opinion) mean to Merril which I don't want to do" is NOT Hawke is forced to say his mother is with the Maker. 

The other two dialogue options have Hawke mad at Merrill; there's actually no dialogue option for Hawke to express that he doesn't believe in the Maker, which is echoed in the dialogue with Sebastian where you can affirm belief in the Maker and Andraste, but you don't have the option to express that you don't believe. 

That's because Merril doesn't ask you "Do you believe in GOD, Y/N?" She says, "Your mother is in the afterlife" and your option is "YES". And when you pick yes, the spoken response is "My mother is in the Andrastian afterlife". 

You are picking the religious option. To complain that this forces you to be religious is bonkers. 

Yes, DA2 does not have an anti religion option. You are right. But that is not the same as being forced to be religious. 

Modifié par In Exile, 24 janvier 2014 - 05:45 .