34723 réponses à ce sujet

[Merela]

 

 

 

Source: http://lyrivm.tumblr...st/120860223709

[AresKeith]

 

 

 

Source: http://lyrivm.tumblr...st/120860223709

 

I really do like most of the armor and designs in this game 

[Merela]

So do I! Which makes me think, I've never ever found the pauldrons with the half- chantry suns on them. Does anyone know how they're called?

[Colonelkillabee]

I'm fairly certain it's lipstick.

Game graphics and developer spitshine. No lipstick.

[Merela]

 

Source: http://zakovdraws.tu...l-pairing-of-my

[Andres Hendrix]

A Divine, Supreme Being that created all there is is, by definition, the source of all morality. Therefore, whatever the Maker proclaims to be just is so. That the Supreme Being can't make mistakes is the basis of all monotheistic religions. If you can't accept that, that's fine. But Cassandra is a woman of faith and this is simply part of who she is.

 

Besides, the Chant of Light doesn't especifically says the Maker created the Darkspawn. Rather, according to it, the Magisters were tainting Heaven just by being there before the Maker was even aware they were there and all He did was return them to Thedas.

Then, the Magisters created the Darkspawn.

The first thing you wrote is silly, and causes all sorts of contradictions and does not solve the problems that I mentioned. It would essentially mean that the Darkspawn are not evil, and things like Broodmothers, created via rape, and forced cannibalism  is a 'just punishment'. FYI it's not just, and it is evil. If Cassandra really was a just and virtuous individual, I doubt she would say otherwise when juding whether or not the Darkspawn are evil, the problem is that she does not reflect on her beliefs that say where the evil comes from. "It's here religon" is no excuase, I think it would be patronizing to explain why.The Darkspawn in the introduction of DA:O and throughout the game are said to be a punishment from the maker to mankind.

[o Ventus]

The first thing you wrote is silly, and causes all sorts of contradictions and does not solve the problems that I mentioned. It would essentially mean that the Darkspawn are not evil, and things like Broodmothers, created via rape, and forced cannibalism  is a 'just punishment'. FYI it's not just, and it is evil. If Cassandra really was a just and virtuous individual, I doubt she would say otherwise when juding whether or not the Darkspawn are evil, the problem is that she does not reflect on her beliefs that say where the evil comes from. "It's here religon" is no excuase, I think it would be patronizing to explain why.The Darkspawn in the introduction of DA:O and throughout the game are said to be a punishment from the maker to mankind.

 

I haven't seen this entire exchange, but what kind of contradictions does the Maker being the source of morality impose? How unfamiliar are you with monotheistic religions (chiefly the 3 main Abrahamic faiths, and all of their thousands and thousands of sub-sects) that that idea and the idea of the god being infallible not make sense?

 

I don't see anybody claiming that things like the darkspawn or broodmothers are anything less than evil.

 

Really, if you don't like some of the things that the Chantry says the Maker does, try reading the Bible. God (and a good number of other major figures) does some pretty demented **** in there.

[Andres Hendrix]

I haven't seen this entire exchange, but what kind of contradictions does the Maker being the source of morality impose? How unfamiliar are you with monotheistic religions (chiefly the 3 main Abrahamic faiths, and all of their thousands and thousands of sub-sects) that that idea and the idea of the god being infallible not make sense?

 

I don't see anybody claiming that things like the darkspawn or broodmothers are anything less than evil.

 

Really, if you don't like some of the things that the Chantry says the Maker does, try reading the Bible. God (and a good number of other major figures) does some pretty demented **** in there.

I've already re-explained the "exchange" twice already, if you refuse to read it then you are at fault, I refuse to explain it again. By the look of things you most certainly are not paying attention to it, I already mentioned one contradiction in my last comment but apparently it flew over your head. Yes I am rather familiar with the Abrahamic religions; they have got nothing to do with  what I was writing about.

[o Ventus]

Well, I guess getting really hostile to someone asking a legit question is a valid response too.

[Andres Hendrix]

Well, I guess getting really hostile to someone asking a legit question is a valid response too.

 I refuse to keep repeating what I've already written.

[Merela]

 

 

Source: http://kollapsar.tum...-the-first-time

[MisterJB]

The first thing you wrote is silly, and causes all sorts of contradictions and does not solve the problems that I mentioned. It would essentially mean that the Darkspawn are not evil, and things like Broodmothers, created via rape, and forced cannibalism  is a 'just punishment'. FYI it's not just, and it is evil. If Cassandra really was a just and virtuous individual, I doubt she would say otherwise when juding whether or not the Darkspawn are evil, the problem is that she does not reflect on her beliefs that say where the evil comes from. "It's here religon" is no excuase, I think it would be patronizing to explain why.The Darkspawn in the introduction of DA:O and throughout the game are said to be a punishment from the maker to mankind.

I'm talking about a literal interpretation of the Chant which was released in Wot Volume 2. In it, the Magisters taint the Golden City even before the Maker is ware of their presence meaning, He did not create the Taint. He just returned the Magisters to Thedas.

 

At any rate, in the simplest terms possibles, the Darkspawn are evil and it's our fault they exist. We pissed off the Maker and He applied a just punishment on humanity. Why is it just? Because He did it. He is the Maker, He decides what is right and what is wrong, we don't.

Being the Maker, He is, by definition, above failure. Everything He does is perfect in action and wisdom.

 

That is the logic. You don't have to believe that is right for Andrastians to think in this matter but they do. And Cassandra is Andrastian.

That doesn't mean she thinks the Darkspawn are good, of course.
 

[Andres Hendrix]

At any rate, in the simplest terms possibles, the Darkspawn are evil and it's our fault they exist. We pissed off the Maker and He applied a just punishment on humanity. Why is it just? Because He did it. He is the Maker, He decides what is right and what is wrong, we don't.

Being the Maker, He is, by definition, above failure. Everything He does is perfect in action and wisdom.

 

That is the logic. You don't have to believe that is right for Andrastians to think in this matter but they do. And Cassandra is Andrastian.

That doesn't mean she thinks the Darkspawn are good, of course.

The games make it clear that the Darkspawn according to the chantry are a punishment. As for the rest I've already covered Cassandra's/The Chantry's masochism a page ago, the worship of such a 'maker' is pathetic, and if one is to follow such, as you call it, "logic" then one absconds from basic human decency, and  the seemingly inborn ability average moral human beings have to tell right from wrong. E.g. If a king was to order the poisoning of a people's food, the rape of their women, the murder of their children, and the disfigurement and insanity of many more of those people, all because a few doe eyed peasants broke into his house to see what was inside, I'm sure Cassandra would have no problem at least criticizing such a king. If that criticism does in fact disappear when that king is instead called "Maker", then that makes Cassandra a fool who balks at the progenitor of said evil.

[MisterJB]

The games make it clear that the Darkspawn according to the chantry are a punishment. As for the rest I've already covered Cassandra's/The Chantry's masochism a page ago, the worship of such a 'maker' is pathetic, and if one is to follow such, as you call it, "logic" then one absconds from basic human decency, and  the seemingly inborn ability average moral human beings have to tell right from wrong. E.g. If a king was to order the poisoning of a people's food, the rape of their women, the murder of their children, and the disfigurement and insanity of many more of those people, all because a few doe eyed peasants broke into his house to see what was inside, I'm sure Cassandra would have no problem at least criticizing such a king. If that criticism does in fact disappear when that king is instead called "Maker", then that makes Cassandra a fool who balks at the progenitor of said evil.

Attempting to apply human morality to a being that, if He exists, is as above us as we are above plancton is pointless.

What you think of Andrastians is up to you.
 

[MisterJB]

Cassandra lets a stupid institution, ruin a good thing that she has in her actual life because she is poisoned by her idealism, and faith in the Chantry

May I assume you apply the same standard to Ciri who ruins her relationship with Geralt in order to pursue the greater good?

[AresKeith]

then that makes Cassandra a fool who balks at the progenitor of said evil.

 

[Colonelkillabee]

Sounds like someone's just butthurt that Cass would rather help others as much as she can than pursue selfish personal desires, and instead of acknowledging her dedication and strength of will and duty, blames religious institutions for a decision she's made on her own. She's never been one to blindly serve. Her mind isn't poisoned, she's just not dick whipped.

[AWTEW]

 

Source: http://zakovdraws.tu...l-pairing-of-my

 

Damn, it Sera it was supposed to be a secret

 

I haven't seen this entire exchange, but what kind of contradictions does the Maker being the source of morality impose? How unfamiliar are you with monotheistic religions (chiefly the 3 main Abrahamic faiths, and all of their thousands and thousands of sub-sects) that that idea and the idea of the god being infallible not make sense?

 

I don't see anybody claiming that things like the darkspawn or broodmothers are anything less than evil.

 

Really, if you don't like some of the things that the Chantry says the Maker does, try reading the Bible. God (and a good number of other major figures) does some pretty demented **** in there.

 

The Bible is  rather tame, compared to other religious texts.

[o Ventus]

 

The Bible is  rather tame, compared to other religious texts.

I haven't read the Quran or the Torah, but if they're anything like the Bible, I'm not sure I really want to. 

 

I mean, in the OId Testament alone, God enables slavery, attempted genocide, father-on-daughter rape, a man being forced to marry his dead friend's wife under the threat of death, and in the book of Exodus, God punishes a bunch of Egyptians who had nothing to do with the Israelites being enslaved, just to prove a point, before later going on to tell Moses that he can take slaves of his own so long as they're Egyptian, because slavery is okay if you were a slave once before yourself, I guess?

 

I don't remember if it's from the Old or New Testament, but the book of Job too. That's probably the lowest showing of any major figures from the Bible, in my opinion. God goes and punishes Job, a deeply devout and selfless man, just to prove a point to Satan. His village is raided and plundered, his livestock is slaughtered, and Job himself becomes infested with huge and disgusting blisters. IIRC, his wife and daughter are also raped and killed.

 

The Bible is pretty X-rated and loaded with graphic content that would make  I don't mean that to offend anyone who is a Christian, or any denomination of Christian. I'm an atheist myself (the Bible being what puts me off of Christianity), but I don't particularly care what faith someone else follows so long as they don't hurt anybody.

[Hunter111]

If you're an English speaker, certain sections of the bible are worth (re)reading in the King James Version. The translation of the Vulgate into poetic, descriptive, moving language that everyone could understand is one of the greatest literary accomplishments of all time.

You don't have to read it as verbatim truth to find value in it, literary or otherwise.

[o Ventus]

You don't have to read it as verbatim truth to find value in it, literary or otherwise.

 

Maybe not 100% literal this-is-how-history-happened truth, I've always seen it as any other story in a novel (or in this case, a collection of stories) with a plot, setting, and characters. Frankly, and this is just me, but the characters are, by and large, just unlikeable up until the New Testament (and they still kind of suck even then, albeit much less so).

[Hunter111]

Right, and that's why I specified the King James Version. Who doesn't know "The Lord is my Shepard, I shall not want" or "Lift up thine eyes to the hills" or "Now I see through a glass, darkly". (I could go on for verses and verses).

The best of the King James Bible is lyrical and brilliant and meant to be read aloud, and for sheer beauty of language has seldom been surpassed.

Forget the narrative, or the specific religious message, and focus on the words. They are truly beautiful.

[HK-90210]

Ooo, we're talking about religious scripture? Count me in!

 

I haven't read the Quran or the Torah, but if they're anything like the Bible, I'm not sure I really want to. 

 

I mean, in the OId Testament alone, God enables slavery, attempted genocide, father-on-daughter rape, a man being forced to marry his dead friend's wife under the threat of death, and in the book of Exodus, God punishes a bunch of Egyptians who had nothing to do with the Israelites being enslaved, just to prove a point, before later going on to tell Moses that he can take slaves of his own so long as they're Egyptian, because slavery is okay if you were a slave once before yourself, I guess?

 

I don't remember if it's from the Old or New Testament, but the book of Job too. That's probably the lowest showing of any major figures from the Bible, in my opinion. God goes and punishes Job, a deeply devout and selfless man, just to prove a point to Satan. His village is raided and plundered, his livestock is slaughtered, and Job himself becomes infested with huge and disgusting blisters. IIRC, his wife and daughter are also raped and killed.

 

The Bible is pretty X-rated and loaded with graphic content that would make  I don't mean that to offend anyone who is a Christian, or any denomination of Christian. I'm an atheist myself (the Bible being what puts me off of Christianity), but I don't particularly care what faith someone else follows so long as they don't hurt anybody.

 

Spoilered for those who'd rather not read about my take on the Book of Job.

Spoiler

Job is one of those books that makes NO sense whatsoever when you don't believe in God. When I was an atheist, I thought the whole story was despicable. After I accepted Christ(long story), Job actually made sense. After what has happened to him, he accuses God of being unjust(a very reasonable opinion for the man to have, given what has happened to him). A lot of his speeches come down to him basically saying, "Seriously, WHAT THE ****, GOD?!". They are words that provide a voice for people who believe in God, but are angry at Him for one reason or another. Stuff that Job says are things that a lot of believers say at some point in their lives when they are angry with God. I like the the Bible tackles the idea of a person being angry with God. It certainly happens a lot.

 

A large part of the book, however, isn't voiced by Job. Most of the book is about Job's friends all gathering together to try and comfort him. But the things they say are the WRONG things to say to a person who is grieving. They say, basically, that Job deserves what he has gotten because he must have been doing things wrong, or behaving in evil way. They talk as if it is all Job's fault that he is suffering. The say this because they believe that God is completely just, so it only makes sense that Job deserves what has happened to him. But Job, being a righteous man, knows he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

But best speech in the book isn't even made by Job. It's by another man, Elihu, who tells both Job and his 'friends' that they're wrong. He says, basically, "God's ways are not ours. He's a higher being who knows WAY more than us, it's wrong to accuse him of injustice. It's also wrong to accuse those who suffer of wrongdoing. Suffering isn't always a punishment for wrongdoing. It's can also lead to growth and release from affliction."

 

Part of the reason the Book of Job can provide comfort to people who are suffering is that its message is a good one to hear when you're hurting: "This isn't because you're a bad person or that God hates you. Your pain and suffering have purpose. God's in control."

 

I totally understand that this doesn't make a lot of sense to a person that doesn't believe in a all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent God. One of the hardest things to come to terms with is why do good people suffer. Personally, I love the Bible. And I consider it to be the inspired Word of God. YMMV.

 

*ends off-topic tangent about 'Bible stuff'*

 

So....probably no mystery why I like Cassandra a lot. I consider religious faith(not fanaticism and zealotry, but faith) one of the most attractive things about a person. Plus, she walks a fine line between respect for tradition but desire for change. A line many believers must walk every day of their lives.

 

Also, I really hope that the DA writers release a full copy of the Chant someday. They do a pretty good job of mimicking religious language. Not quite the King James, but an enjoyable read.

[o Ventus]

 

Spoiler

Job is one of those books that makes NO sense whatsoever when you don't believe in God. When I was an atheist, I thought the whole story was despicable. After I accepted Christ(long story), Job actually made sense. After what has happened to him, he accuses God of being unjust(a very reasonable opinion for the man to have, given what has happened to him). A lot of his speeches come down to him basically saying, "Seriously, WHAT THE ****, GOD?!". They are words that provide a voice for people who believe in God, but are angry at Him for one reason or another. Stuff that Job says are things that a lot of believers say at some point in their lives when they are angry with God. I like the the Bible tackles the idea of a person being angry with God. It certainly happens a lot.

 

A large part of the book, however, isn't voiced by Job. Most of the book is about Job's friends all gathering together to try and comfort him. But the things they say are the WRONG things to say to a person who is grieving. They say, basically, that Job deserves what he has gotten because he must have been doing things wrong, or behaving in evil way. They talk as if it is all Job's fault that he is suffering. The say this because they believe that God is completely just, so it only makes sense that Job deserves what has happened to him. But Job, being a righteous man, knows he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

But best speech in the book isn't even made by Job. It's by another man, Elihu, who tells both Job and his 'friends' that they're wrong. He says, basically, "God's ways are not ours. He's a higher being who knows WAY more than us, it's wrong to accuse him of injustice. It's also wrong to accuse those who suffer of wrongdoing. Suffering isn't always a punishment for wrongdoing. It's can also lead to growth and release from affliction."

 

Part of the reason the Book of Job can provide comfort to people who are suffering is that its message is a good one to hear when you're hurting: "This isn't because you're a bad person or that God hates you. Your pain and suffering have purpose. God's in control."

 

I totally understand that this doesn't make a lot of sense to a person that doesn't believe in a all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent God. One of the hardest things to come to terms with is why do good people suffer. Personally, I love the Bible. And I consider it to be the inspired Word of God. YMMV.

 

*ends off-topic tangent about 'Bible stuff'*

 

 

That's actually my problem with it, the whole idea of "don't question it or challenge it, God's the one in control". It's basically saying "ahh, don't bother trying to fight against it, you have no real power".

 

@bold: That's my other big issue with it. Job and God both know that Job has done nothing wrong, yet God punishes him. And he doesn't just punish him, he makes his life a living hell, killing his family and friends, his livestock, and hideously deforming him with pus-filled boils. You say in that speech that suffering is also a release from affliction, when the one causing the affliction is the one also causing his suffering. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that only serves to victimize Job for no good reason. Job wasn't afflicted by anything prior. Job was living a good and pious life before God intervened and took it all away from him.

[Colonelkillabee]

Keep in mind that you're basing an entire religion off of a text that has been written and re-written by kings and authors that have killed for the chance to do so. Not to mention judging an entire religion with many branches that look at the bible and interpret it in many ways. No two people will ever read the abstractness of the bible and take away the same thing. And also keep in mind a lot of what you read is due to the different morality of the times. For instance, back then, the fact that Job got rewarded after his ordeal and earned eternity in heaven was enough to the masses at the time, despite the punishment that Job went through. I don't agree, but I also don't look at everything in the bible and go "Yup, I believe this all happened, and that Jesus literally will speak with a flaming sword coming out of his mouth." And of course, keep in mind of the difference between the old and new testament. The Quran unfortunately doesn't have the luxury of separating a lot of its crazy with "But that was the old me, check out the new hippe me with long hair and sweet robes, bro!" Which of course is an inaccurate portrayal of what was supposed to be a dark skinned man, but whatever.

 

Christianity is about love, in the end. That's the end goal, regardless of what the Bible teaches and what you take away from it. And even though the Bible's message contradicts itself due to alterations and its abstract nature, the message is still there if you look.