172 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I would suggest that given the very limited employment of all powerful gods, using omniscience or omnipotence(particular to the dominant segment of religions on Earth) is too restrictive of a metric, simply because they are not generally employed by writers.

 

We'd too easily fall into a semantic trap of being unable to discuss the gods of most settings by the term gods.

The problem is that we don't know what definition is employed by the writers here, if they even intend to have an accepted definition instead of leaving it to the players to decide whether the Old Gods and the Elven Pantheon are technically "gods." Though as for the major in-setting definition it seems to be the same as the Judeo-Christian one. Isn't that what the dominant religious sect and its major offshoot define "god" as?

[Corwyn]

I think too many people are taking a game universe too seriously as if it's somehow become a proxy for real life.  

 

Atheist are acting as if invalidating the gods of Thedas will in some way prove the gods of the real world are also false and the other side people are rushing to the ramparts to defend fictional gods they don't believe in as if it was their own god under attack.  

 

Take a step back and take a deep breath, this is a fictional game universe and really shouldn't have anything to do with anybody's real beliefs.

[Ieldra]

I think too many people are taking a game universe too seriously as if it's somehow become a proxy for real life.  

 

Atheist are acting as if invalidating the gods of Thedas will in some way prove the gods of the real world are also false and the other side people are rushing to the ramparts to defend fictional gods they don't believe in as if it was their own god under attack.  

 

Take a step back and take a deep breath, this is a fictional game universe and really shouldn't have anything to do with anybody's real beliefs.

I don't think so. The Andrastean religion and its Maker are built around exactly the same "design principles" as Christianity and its God. They're deliberately made to invoke the same type of response from people. The same questions arise with regard to the Maker, his existence and how the rules he supposedly laid down should influence people's lives. The same questions arise with regard to the role of faith and skepticism. That means that any character who you roleplay to think like you in these matters will inevitably run into the same answers. Meanwhile, the elven gods are more like the gods of Northwest European non-Christian mythologies, likely to have some historical roots in human figures of the past, even though their real history has been lost.

 

Given this deliberate similarity, people take this topic seriously because if one ideology is (in)validated in the fictional world, this will send a message about the same topic in the real world. It's simply how stories work. This is why it is important that it's possible to convincingly play a believer or a non-believer in this game, especially since faith and skepticism are main themes.  

[Vandicus]

The problem is that we don't know what definition is employed by the writers here, if they even intend to have an accepted definition instead of leaving it to the players to decide whether the Old Gods and the Elven Pantheon are technically "gods." Though as for the major in-setting definition it seems to be the same as the Judeo-Christian one. Isn't that what the dominant religious sect and its major offshoot define "god" as?

 

 

We're arguing about technical power levels and relative rank. Not their existence, or their possession of super powers.

 

Widespread acceptance of the existence and even the direct regular intervention of a deity in the setting doesn't mean its impossible for a character to be an atheist. However, that more or less also requires either denial or ignorance of relevant divine interactions. 

 

Specific to DA, we have yet to establish interaction of a divine nature(although this isn't what's being debated at the moment, we seem to be arguing over how powerful a deity needs to be to be considered a god), and existence isn't common knowledge either.

 

I'm making the argument that debating technical power levels and relative strength already falls outside the realm of atheism, from a metagame perspective there exists no merit in saying "This isn't really a god because he's only able to level cities with a wave of his hand, gods are restricted to continent level destruction and above". Once we've accepted that some being is supernatural in nature, it doesn't make sense to call it something besides a god.

 

Likewise in character, if a denizen of Thedas accepted the notion that some elven god of halla burns down villages with lightning bolts when he's feeling bored, regardless of worship of said being, or worship or acknowledgement of a more powerful being, they've stopped being an atheist.

[Corto81]

I don't think so. The Andrastean religion and its Maker are built around exactly the same "design principles" as Christianity and its God. They're deliberately made to invoke the same type of response from people. The same questions arise with regard to the Maker, his existence and how the rules he supposedly laid down should influence people's lives. The same questions arise with regard to the role of faith and skepticism. That means that any character who you roleplay to think like you in these matters will inevitably run into the same answers. Meanwhile, the elven gods are more like the gods of Northwest European non-Christian mythologies, likely to have some historical roots in human figures of the past, even though their real history has been lost.

 

Given this deliberate similarity, people take this topic seriously because if one ideology is (in)validated in the fictional world, this will send a message about the same topic in the real world. It's simply how stories work. This is why it is important that it's possible to convincingly play a believer or a non-believer in this game, especially since faith and skepticism are main themes.  

 

I agree with this, except in part with the part where you say it was possible to convincingly play a non-believer.

It was possible to play a non-believer, right up to the part where you could or should be able to make any changes or decisions.

No matter what you say or do, everyone basically acknowledges it and waves it off.

 

The game doesn't let you do a single thing differently, regardless of whether you're a believer or a non-believer.

 

No matter what you say or do, you're still the religious symbol of an organization founded and run on religious grounds.

(as mentioned before in this thread)

 

Coupled with the fact that I really didn't see why they needed a religious organization in the first place to battle Corypheus, I just

didn't think it was the smartest way to go.

Especially under the name Inquisition, which rings really bad in Europe (and rightfully so).

[joejoe099]

hello Atheism+ thread of BSN, how are you today? Shall be argue more on how bioware isn't be inclusive on my bear-kin mentality? or my genderfluid studies degree not giving me a job there? Oh, you know what they should really do? Add a character that's like goku and sonic in their next game. Sonku, or Goic. Yeah, that'd be getting to my level.

[Corwyn]

I don't think so. The Andrastean religion and its Maker are built around exactly the same "design principles" as Christianity and its God. They're deliberately made to invoke the same type of response from people. The same questions arise with regard to the Maker, his existence and how the rules he supposedly laid down should influence people's lives. The same questions arise with regard to the role of faith and skepticism. That means that any character who you roleplay to think like you in these matters will inevitably run into the same answers. Meanwhile, the elven gods are more like the gods of Northwest European non-Christian mythologies, likely to have some historical roots in human figures of the past, even though their real history has been lost.

 

Given this deliberate similarity, people take this topic seriously because if one ideology is (in)validated in the fictional world, this will send a message about the same topic in the real world. It's simply how stories work. This is why it is important that it's possible to convincingly play a believer or a non-believer in this game, especially since faith and skepticism are main themes.  

 

I can certainly appreciate how the similarities between the game and real life faiths could lead to people transferring real life feelings to the game (actually the widespread use of real world parallels is one of the things I like least about the DA universe).

 

However I respectfully disagree with the idea that the game can send a message about faith in the real world.  If in DA4 we find the Maker is indeed real the gods of the real world will be no more real then they were yesterday, conversely if we find the Maker is merely a powerful spirit or doesn't exist at all it again they will be no more false then before.

 

That said I agree the game should and I think mostly does let the player forge their own path as far as the story will permit.

[Corto81]

We're arguing about technical power levels and relative rank. Not their existence, or their possession of super powers.

 

Widespread acceptance of the existence and even the direct regular intervention of a deity in the setting doesn't mean its impossible for a character to be an atheist. However, that more or less also requires either denial or ignorance of relevant divine interactions. 

 

Specific to DA, we have yet to establish interaction of a divine nature(although this isn't what's being debated at the moment, we seem to be arguing over how powerful a deity needs to be to be considered a god), and existence isn't common knowledge either.

 

I'm making the argument that debating technical power levels and relative strength already falls outside the realm of atheism, from a metagame perspective there exists no merit in saying "This isn't really a god because he's only able to level cities with a wave of his hand, gods are restricted to continent level destruction and above". Once we've accepted that some being is supernatural in nature, it doesn't make sense to call it something besides a god.

 

Likewise in character, if a denizen of Thedas accepted the notion that some elven god of halla burns down villages with lightning bolts when he's feeling bored, regardless of worship of said being, or worship or acknowledgement of a more powerful being, they've stopped being an atheist.

 

Your logic is flawed.

A supernatural being in high fantasy world is different from a supernatural being in real life (if it existed).

A supernatural being in high fantasy is not a god by definition. I mean, my rogue can make his entire group invisible, is he a god?

 

In a world filled with dragons and liches and demons, acknowledging that there are powerful beings does not make you "stop being an atheist".

If anything, the basis of religion in fantasy worlds is much  harder to explain that in real life, and mostly it has less to do with "power" and more to do with creation and "a personal god".

In a fantasy world, drawing the line between what would make someone an extremely powerful mage or an ascendant or a god...?

It's basically not even worth arguing over.

BUT...

 

Andrastians pray to a personal god, a god who watches their every move and action.

 

An atheist, in Thedas, does not deny the existence of extremely powerful beings. (they obviously exist, does not mean they're gods)

But he does deny the existence of a god who created the world or who watches over you all day and night etc.

 

...

 

For anyone interested in this, I recommend Scott R Bakker's books, The Second Apocalypse series.
First book is called the "The Darkness That Comes Before". It's a wonderful series, philosophy mixed in with fantasy, about a founding of a religion in a fantasy world.

Hard to get into, but once you do, it's fantastic.

[Vandicus]

Your logic is flawed.

A supernatural being in high fantasy world is different from a supernatural being in real life (if it existed).

A supernatural being in high fantasy is not a god by definition. I mean, my rogue can make his entire group invisible, is he a god?

 

In a world filled with dragons and liches and demons, acknowledging that there are powerful beings does not make you "stop being an atheist".

If anything, the basis of religion in fantasy worlds is much more harder to explain that in real life, and mostly it has less to do with "power" and more to do with creation and "a personal god".

In a fantasy world, drawing the line between what would make someone an extremely powerful mage or an ascendant or a god...?

It's basically not even worth arguing over.

BUT...

 

Andrastians pray to a personal god, a god who watches their every move and action.

 

An atheist, in Thedas, does not deny the existence of extremely powerful beings. (they obviously exist, does not mean they're gods)

But he does deny the existence of a god who created the world or who watches over you all day and night etc.

 

...

 

For anyone interested in this, I recommend Scott R Bakker's books, The Second Apocalypse series.
First book is called the "The Darkness That Comes Before". It's a wonderful series, philosophy mixed in with fantasy, about a founding of a religion in a fantasy world.

Hard to get into, but once you do, it's fantastic.

Supernatural depends on the setting. Fireballs aren't supernatural in Thedas. Answering prayers is.

 

Acknowledging the existence of Bane in Forgotten Realms makes you not an atheist. Acknowledging the existence of something like a dragon or lich, does not mean you aren't an atheist.

 

 

Never said that characters can't deny the existence(or powers) of the very tiny subset of beings we have here under consideration. I'm if you've started quibbling about whether one god is a more powerful judge of the dead than the other, you've passed the point of atheism being a relevant concept.

 

 

TL;DR

 

I did not say we have evidence of divine intervention in Thedas. I said if you have accepted that divine intervention occurs, and are arguing that a being must be omnipotent and omniscient to qualify as a god, then you're not really talking about atheism anymore.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Supernatural depends on the setting. Fireballs aren't supernatural in Thedas. Answering prayers is.

 

Acknowledging the existence of Bane in Forgotten Realms makes you not an atheist. Acknowledging the existence of something like a dragon or lich, does not mean you aren't an atheist.

 

 

Never said that characters can't deny the existence(or powers) of the very tiny subset of beings we have here under consideration. I'm if you've started quibbling about whether one god is a more powerful judge of the dead than the other, you've passed the point of atheism being a relevant concept.

 

 

TL;DR

 

I did not say we have evidence of divine intervention in Thedas. I said if you have accepted that divine intervention occurs, and are arguing that a being must be omnipotent and omniscient to qualify as a god, then you're not really talking about atheism anymore.

What even is "supernatural" in settings like Thedas or The Forgotten Realms, though?

[Cainhurst Crow]

You can at every available option deny the maker is real or that anything that occurs to you is religious in any way. This does damage morale and hope in people you talk to but it is there.

 

Personally I like that they gave people who want to play an unsure person plenty of room to work with. It actually was a good journey to go from "I don't believe in the maker" to "I don't have all the answers, only good intentions" throughout the game imo.

[Ieldra]

I agree with this, except in part with the part where you say it was possible to convincingly play a non-believer.

It was possible to play a non-believer, right up to the part where you could or should be able to make any changes or decisions.

No matter what you say or do, everyone basically acknowledges it and waves it off.

 

The game doesn't let you do a single thing differently, regardless of whether you're a believer or a non-believer.

 

No matter what you say or do, you're still the religious symbol of an organization founded and run on religious grounds.

(as mentioned before in this thread)

 

Coupled with the fact that I really didn't see why they needed a religious organization in the first place to battle Corypheus, I just

didn't think it was the smartest way to go.

Especially under the name Inquisition, which rings really bad in Europe (and rightfully so).

The way you can express character traits and the way the game world reacts to them are different things. You are never forced to subscribe to any beliefs nor are you forced to act as if you believed, except with that cult in the Hinterlands (which, indeed, I find very annoying). Meanwhile, the world's acknowledgement of your non-belief is limited to your inner circle and the Fade. To yourself and your friends, you are who you are. To the world at large, you're the religious figure whether you want it or not.

 

Is that annoying? Yes, it absolutely is, but it has nothing to do with your roleplaying. What other people believe of me doesn't change who I am. It's also not implausible, and for that reason I'm willing to accept it. Agency over other people's beliefs should be very limited.

 

As for my decisions, we rarely give reasons for our decisions, do we? So if your (non)-belief informs some of your decisions, that's never contradicted by the story.

 

Where I agree is about the term "inquisition". I don't know who came up with the idea, but it has a very bad ring indeed. it's basically impossible to speak with anyone in my social circle about DAI without seriously raised eyebrows, and I keep feeling seriously uncomfortable with the organization I'm leading in DAI, no matter that I can guide it to be something different. The memetic ballast of the term is not so easily discarded. 

[Ieldra]

What even is "supernatural" in settings like Thedas or The Forgotten Realms, though?

I propose this tentative definition: a supernatural entity is any entity postulated as the agent of an event, whose existence cannot be justified by reason and observation.

 

In fantasy worlds where some form of philosophical idealism is observable truth, it is quite possible that there aren't any supernatural entities. The distinction is difficult though. Take Thedas's spirits, who embody ideas. Can we say that a spirit of compassion literally "is" compassion in any meaningful way? Regardless of whether they are, they are observable, thus part of observable reality aka "nature", while the Maker isn't. Are the gods of the Forgotten Realms the ideas they represent or are they more a reflection of people's beliefs?

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

[Corto81]

The way you can express character traits and the way the game world reacts to them are different things. You are never forced to subscribe to any beliefs nor are you forced to act as if you believed, except with that cult in the Hinterlands (which, indeed, I find very annoying). Meanwhile, the world's acknowledgement of your non-belief is limited to your inner circle and the Fade. To yourself and your friends, you are who you are. To the world at large, you're the religious figure whether you want it or not.

 

Is that annoying? Yes, it absolutely is, but it has nothing to do with your roleplaying. What other people believe of me doesn't change who I am. It's also not implausible, and for that reason I'm willing to accept it. Agency over other people's beliefs should be very limited.

 

As for my decisions, we rarely give reasons for our decisions, do we? So if your (non)-belief informs some of your decisions, that's never contradicted by the story.

 

Where I agree is about the term "inquisition". I don't know who came up with the idea, but it has a very bad ring indeed. it's basically impossible to speak with anyone in my social circle about DAI without seriously raised eyebrows, and I keep feeling seriously uncomfortable with the organization I'm leading in DAI, no matter that I can guide it to be something different. The memetic ballast of the term is not so easily discarded. 

 

My dude wanted to try and educate people etc... Tell them the Mark was an accident and not a sing from Heavens.

Tell them to believe in fellow human and help each other vs an evil - it all has nothing to do with religion etc.

 

It's not something that really got in the way of my enjoying the game, but it didn't help either.

 

Bottom line, I just don't understand why they went the religious organization route in the first place (especially one with such an unfortunate name).

It could've been as easily been a secular organization and avoided all these issues.

(also, being an atheist is actually a problem in a huge number of countries in Western society - including my country, so I don't see why they just didn't move around the whole thing)

[Bod02]

Yes but given its revealed at least the elven gods exist, both spirits and demons exist and the fact the old gods tend to rise as archdemons its pretty much amounts to being a flat world atheist in to deny the existence of all gods in this setting.

Yeah and what with Andraste's Ashes and all the supernatural happenings.

 

I don't believe god exists in real life but it's unlikely anyone in Dragon Age would be an atheist with it being set in the middle ages and all the evidence of a higher power.

 

Not to mention there's hardly any signs of evolution and the humanoid "races" flies in the face of evolutionary logic.

[Ridwan]

lol atheists.

[Ieldra]

Yeah and what with Andraste's Ashes and all the supernatural happenings.

 

I don't believe god exists in real life but it's unlikely anyone in Dragon Age would be an atheist with it being set in the middle ages and all the evidence of a higher power.

 

Not to mention there's hardly any signs of evolution and the humanoid "races" flies in the face of evolutionary logic.

What evidence in a higher power? Even Thedosians acknowledge that the Maker does not appear to act. Also, it's not set in the middle ages, it is its own world and time. If you must compare it with real-world history, it's more evocative of the late Renaissance, which is when the Enlightenment started with all its debates on the role of faith and reason.

 

Also, evolution has nothing to do with faith as such. It's just that a particular real-world religion has a creation myth and some people insist that it's to be taken literally. I can easily believe that God has made the world as it is, including all the laws that govern evolution, by starting the big bang or something like that. It is, in fact, what many reasonable religious people believe in my experience. Evolution is a particularly American obsession in my experience, I have no idea why that should be so. Believe it's controlled by God or whatever, that's odd to me but ok, but it's plainly ridiculous to deny it altogether, regardless of which gods you believe in. 

[Bod02]

Also, evolution has nothing to do with faith as such. It's just that a particular real-world religion has a creation myth and some people insist that it's to be taken literally. I can easily believe that God has made the world as it is, including all the laws that govern evolution, by starting the big bang or something like that. It is, in fact, what many reasonable religious people believe in my experience. Evolution is a particularly American obsession in my experience, I have no idea why that should be so. Believe it's controlled by God or whatever, that's odd to me but ok, but it's plainly ridiculous to deny it altogether, regardless of which gods you believe in. 

It has lots to do with it. Despite all their evidence being hilariously bogus, if creationists actually proved it, their logic makes sense. If we didn't evolve, something must have made us to be such intricate things.

 

Now you have people, supposedly different species, that are like "white ppl but stronk dwarf" "white ppl but pointy ear/has moar magic/live longer or something(they did and lost it or something right?)" "white ppl but horny steroid abuser". And it does make you think someone up there is playing with their legos

 

 

Also, how do you explain some dead dude's burnt bones magically curing Eamon?

[Bod02]

[Bod02]

Non-slip!

[Heimdall]

The problem is that we don't know what definition is employed by the writers here, if they even intend to have an accepted definition instead of leaving it to the players to decide whether the Old Gods and the Elven Pantheon are technically "gods." Though as for the major in-setting definition it seems to be the same as the Judeo-Christian one. Isn't that what the dominant religious sect and its major offshoot define "god" as?

The elven gods as the Dalish describe them, however, seem to be closer to the definition employed by, say, Norse mythology: gods with limited power, limited knowledge, and can apparently be killed.

[Bod02]

The elven gods as the Dalish describe them, however, seem to be closer to the definition employed by, say, Norse mythology: gods with limited power, limited knowledge, and can apparently be killed.

Does that even really matter? If someone believed Norse gods were real you wouldn't call them an atheist

[Zwingtanz]

I roleplayed my Inquisitor as Andrastian, which had nothing to do with my real life beliefs or even my personal opinion on DA mysticism. I don't do self-inserts.

[Heimdall]

Does that even really matter? If someone believed Norse gods were real you wouldn't call them an atheist

I was addressing the idea that the in-setting definition of "god" was closer to the Judeo-Christian usage.