inherit
401
0
1
41,820
DragonKingReborn
20,611
August 2016
dragonkingreborn
http://bsn.boards.net/threads/recent/143
https://i.imgur.com/1myVt9D.jpg
DragonKingReborn
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
887
590
|
Post by DragonKingReborn on Sept 27, 2017 20:06:07 GMT
Right - that's a good example. Experiences that 'break established, experienced lore' should be able to be retconned. We'd experienced in previous games the hatred and terror that blood mages evoke in others...being one was just plain weird. See that's a notion I disagree with entirely. By that notion, Hawke shouldn't have been allowed to be a mage in Kirkwall given the no-tolerance policy they had for apostates and their only excuse was "money". It's not as if Hawke advertised their use of bloodmagic. Being able to be a blood mage, or a reaver, or an assassin isn't lorebreaking. It's allowing us to play people who don't give a damn for the rules and who may even be evil bastards. It also lets us explore and demonstrate the notion that when used responsibly, blood magic in the hands of a well meaning, well intentioned person can just be a tool, showing that while people may hate and fear it, those people can be wrong. Sorry - a misunderstanding - I didn't disapprove of being allowed to be a blood mage in the game. It was just weird that no-one around us seemed to care and that, come Inquisition, Hawke had decided that blood magic was the root of all evil.
|
|
Sah291
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
Prime Posts: 1,240
Prime Likes: 1340
Posts: 862 Likes: 1,935
inherit
306
0
1,935
Sah291
862
August 2016
sah291
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem
1,240
1340
|
Post by Sah291 on Sept 27, 2017 20:21:05 GMT
As others have said, though, it is somewhat frustrating when it appears that every race has been struck with amnesia at some point because no one seems to remember anything beyond a certain point. At present I am having to assume the raising of the Veil did this to them. Otherwise we are given to understand that two races for whom remembering the past is very important, the elves and the dwarves, have apparently forgotten a lot of very important information, like the Titans. Yet in the case of the elves they remembered other things quite accurately. They remembered they could all do magic at one time, they were all immortal at one time, their gods were imprisoned by Fen-Harel, yet they forgot that Mythal was murdered by the other gods or that it was when Fen'Harel imprisoned the gods they lost their magic and immortality. In fact no race seems to remember that the world was once Veil-less. I find this rather hard to believe unless someone or something has been altering their memories (a possibility that may yet be revealed). I think we are meant to entertain the idea this is why Corypheus, and everyone else prior to that, wants the throne in the Golden City. Because part of becoming a God and occupying that throne, would be getting to define reality and rewrite history in this way. Last known deity to occupy it, was the Andrastian God, The Maker. And the Andrastian influence in Thedas is huge. There is the Qun as the biggest possible rival, but they are themselves pretty hostile to magic, so it isn't strange magic could have become widely forgotten as a result. It's also possible this is the way in which Solas will "destroy" the Thedas when he lowers the Veil. It will restart time and history, and the old world order and civilizations will be forgotten.
|
|
inherit
471
0
5,382
ladyiolanthe
3,966
August 2016
ladyiolanthe
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
591
695
|
Post by ladyiolanthe on Sept 27, 2017 21:18:22 GMT
Subverting expectations and preconceived notions can be a great storytelling tool. I agree, with the added proviso if used sparingly. I think the writers of DA have gone way too far. It would have been fine if only those Codices about the elves were made suspect -- that's congruent to the recent history of oppression of the elves and Churchill's, "History is written by the victors." And I'd even allow any Codices about Andrastianism to be suspect as well, because that whole thing is clearly another set up for a big PSYCH! reveal. But I'd stop there. Why must the Codices about the dwarves and Qunari also be suspect? About the Blights? About the history of Fereldan and Orlais? Mages and Templars? About dragons? About Fennecs and Nugs, for Maker's sake? And even if you say those are reliable, how can I tell? How can you guarantee to me that the writers won't suddenly decide it would be cool to fuck with the history of, I dunno, the Gray Wardens, and overturn something that was established in DAO codexes years ago? Pulling that trick even once, even if it was planned from the very beginning, calls everything in established lore into question. The reliability of everything is degraded with each application of that storytelling tool. I wouldn't say that all codices are 'suspect' by which I assume you mean untrue? They present information known to the character who wrote them in game, and presumed to be the truth by that character. The character might not have all the details right, as formerfiend mentioned in their post. If you need to have some certainty, then like with real history, you can find the same idea coming from multiple sources in some of the codices, and that lends some credence to certain events. It's just like looking something up on the internet - if you find only one website that presents a certain thing as fact, it's probably best not to take it as fact. But if you find the same thing from multiple credible sources, then the chances that that fact is indeed the truth increase significantly.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,745
gervaise21
10,854
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Sept 27, 2017 21:24:42 GMT
To be honest I don't believe the Maker ever occupied the Golden City. That is just the mythology of the Chantry which may or may not have been what Andraste actually taught. The Chantry's influence is huge, true Andrastriansim less so. There were many other variants of Andrastrianism but for some reason the Orlesian one took control of the south (even though Orlais did not conquer everywhere) and then Tevinter, having in fact been the first nation state to adopt the Maker as their god, decided they wanted to toe the line initially with what Orlais taught (no idea why) and then changed their minds about it later.
The more I find out about the development of the Chantry as the faith of Thedas, the less sense it makes to me. I didn't find it appealing in DAO and I just don't find it credible in DAI. It is a very odd religion.
|
|
inherit
9381
0
Sept 26, 2017 11:02:50 GMT
642
Superhik
538
Sept 24, 2017 18:39:20 GMT
September 2017
superhik
|
Post by Superhik on Sept 27, 2017 21:38:46 GMT
I'm having trouble taking this article seriously even without my dog humping my leg, at the moment.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 27, 2017 23:36:31 GMT
Retcons are always bad. These were not retcons. Well no, that's not really true. Retcons almost always happen. Anybody who thinks that people have this wholesome, perfect idea and that they chip away till they get to it don't seem to understand how messy the creative process can be. It's a natural thing on any creative field to fix, modify, revise, re-interpret or realize that the old idea is flawed, or getting nowhere and needs to be nudged on a different direction, or abandoned entirely. The issue that people usually have with retcons is with how they're implemented, or when they're just clumsy or glaring. So it's more a matter of 'how' rather than 'what'. That's not to say that I think that Bioware's retconning everything indiscriminately or make things as they go, I was making a generalized point. But it's quite obvious that with such big, non-linear, multi-chapter story told through medium as complex as modern game, some retcons will happen anyhow, even if not to the stable core of the story, but details surrounding it. So it's a two birds with one stone thing - on one hand they've created lore that is very realistic and therefore relatable and comments on people's subjetcivity, while at the same time they have a sensible buffer if they'd like to swap some things around.
|
|
inherit
8885
0
7,213
river82
4,949
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Sept 27, 2017 23:51:13 GMT
I wouldn't say that all codices are 'suspect' by which I assume you mean untrue? They present information known to the character who wrote them in game, and presumed to be the truth by that character. The character might not have all the details right, as formerfiend mentioned in their post. If you need to have some certainty, then like with real history, you can find the same idea coming from multiple sources in some of the codices, and that lends some credence to certain events. "Suspect" means unreliable, not untrue.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 27, 2017 23:58:50 GMT
To be honest I don't believe the Maker ever occupied the Golden City. That is just the mythology of the Chantry which may or may not have been what Andraste actually taught. The Maker might have not occupied Golden City, but something that might have inspired some aspects of the Maker might. I have to admit, I still have little idea what happens in this mural, but the general consensus sees to be that the middle of the picture potentially represents Golden/Black City. The idea seems to be supported by the presence of what looks like black-and-red peacock feathers. Where do we see such feathers? In DAO intro, when the narrator tells us what happened to magisters who breached the Golden City. And what's in the middle of those feathers on the mural? A symbol that looks like the sun. What's the symbol of Maker and the Chantry? The sun. It really is not that hard to understand if you know a bit about history of main religions IRL. The Chantry is basically Roman Catholicism. And Catholic Church went through many iterations and a couple of really big schisms, many times for political or ideological reasons. And considering that Tevinter is roughly based on Byzantium, that means that the schism has been inspired by the Great Schism, which is when Catholicism split to Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church. Plus, Dorian even has some dialogue about it and why there are differences between Southern Chantry and Imperial one, with the main bone of contention being Andraste - although in that regard the split resembles a tiny bit more a split between Christianity and Islam, with Christianity considering Christ as divinity, while Islam considers him just one of God's prophets.
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 955
inherit
6916
0
955
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 28, 2017 1:09:09 GMT
I'm given to understand that the one thing they've committed to is a refusal to ever definitively answer whether the Maker exists or not, one way or the other. The point of the Maker being the place of faith in a high fantasy setting.
With that in mind I don't think there's any point in debating whether or not the Maker exists because I don't believe that the writers at Bioware have a definitive idea over whether or not he exists, because they likely don't see that as the point of if. I also imagine they don't want to let meta knowledge of his existence or lack their of inform their writing of characters who believe or don't believe. And however much evidence they give to doubt the existence of the Maker, they'll always leave room for faith.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 28, 2017 1:19:50 GMT
I'm given to understand that the one thing they've committed to is a refusal to ever definitively answer whether the Maker exists or not, one way or the other. The point of the Maker being the place of faith in a high fantasy setting. With that in mind I don't think there's any point in debating whether or not the Maker exists because I don't believe that the writers at Bioware have a definitive idea over whether or not he exists, because they likely don't see that as the point of if. I also imagine they don't want to let meta knowledge of his existence or lack their of inform their writing of characters who believe or don't believe. And however much evidence they give to doubt the existence of the Maker, they'll always leave room for faith. Not being clear whether some sort of higher deity exists doesn't mean that they can't dismantle the idea of a Maker as it is understood by Chantry or Thedas. They already started that by revealing that it's not the Maker that is responsible for creating the Veil and in fact the world ain't what it's assumed it was. It's Pascal's Wager built-in fallacy all over again. The fact that some sort of supreme deity exists doesn't mean that it's the god we think it is.
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Sept 28, 2017 3:26:25 GMT
I agree, with the added proviso if used sparingly. I think the writers of DA have gone way too far. It would have been fine if only those Codices about the elves were made suspect -- that's congruent to the recent history of oppression of the elves and Churchill's, "History is written by the victors." And I'd even allow any Codices about Andrastianism to be suspect as well, because that whole thing is clearly another set up for a big PSYCH! reveal. But I'd stop there. Why must the Codices about the dwarves and Qunari also be suspect? About the Blights? About the history of Fereldan and Orlais? Mages and Templars? About dragons? About Fennecs and Nugs, for Maker's sake? And even if you say those are reliable, how can I tell? How can you guarantee to me that the writers won't suddenly decide it would be cool to fuck with the history of, I dunno, the Gray Wardens, and overturn something that was established in DAO codexes years ago? Pulling that trick even once, even if it was planned from the very beginning, calls everything in established lore into question. The reliability of everything is degraded with each application of that storytelling tool. I wouldn't say that all codices are 'suspect' by which I assume you mean untrue? They present information known to the character who wrote them in game, and presumed to be the truth by that character. The character might not have all the details right, as formerfiend mentioned in their post. If you need to have some certainty, then like with real history, you can find the same idea coming from multiple sources in some of the codices, and that lends some credence to certain events. It's just like looking something up on the internet - if you find only one website that presents a certain thing as fact, it's probably best not to take it as fact. But if you find the same thing from multiple credible sources, then the chances that that fact is indeed the truth increase significantly. Two quick responses: 1) By suspect I mean that I can no longer assume that anything in a Codex is uncomplicated canon, in the traditional way we think of canon for game lore. It could absolutely and forever be canon, or it might be canon now and might not be canon later, or it might be a distortion of what is later revealed to be the true canon, or it might be a plain old lie. How am I supposed to know which is which? 2) When I look up things on the internet that I care about, I seek alternative sources as a cross-check. How do I do that with DA game lore? And in any case, either way, it's exhausting, and not something I do with every tidbit that I come across -- in the internet case, I just treat everything as suspect and not attributable, meaning, I wouldn't mention it to someone else as something I'd put my word of honor behind. Is this how I'm going to have to treat Codex entries, past, present and future?
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Sept 28, 2017 3:35:50 GMT
To be honest I don't believe the Maker ever occupied the Golden City. That is just the mythology of the Chantry which may or may not have been what Andraste actually taught. The Chantry's influence is huge, true Andrastriansim less so. I couldn't agree more. This is what I meant by my suspicion that they (BW writers) are going to pull a fast one on us with respect to Andriastinism. Fooled you, it's really something totally different than what you thought! But you can't say it's "just" mythology, since there are eyewitnesses to stuff that is congruent to the mythology. Doesn't prove anything, of course, but makes it a lot less likely it's just made up stories to make children behave. The Maker/Golden City/Black City makes no sense to me either, and even worse, is the worst of several storytelling, not to mention theological, options. The creator of all things lives in a city you can go to, albeit with difficulty, and that the denizens of the Fade see it all the live long day no matter where they stand? Nonsense. As pure symbolism, it would have been grand, but as an actual thing that an eyewitness can attest to and that multiple eyewitnesses, including my own damn PC, can see at a distance? Terrible theology and terrible storytelling. And if you think the eyewitnesses were dupes or delusional, even worse storytelling. Which means, it's a setup, a red herring, a McGuffin, a deus ex ... okay, that's enough, I'll go back in my corner now.
|
|
inherit
471
0
5,382
ladyiolanthe
3,966
August 2016
ladyiolanthe
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
591
695
|
Post by ladyiolanthe on Sept 28, 2017 4:06:30 GMT
Two quick responses: 1) By suspect I mean that I can no longer assume that anything in a Codex is uncomplicated canon, in the traditional way we think of canon for game lore. It could absolutely and forever be canon, or it might be canon now and might not be canon later, or it might be a distortion of what is later revealed to be the true canon, or it might be a plain old lie. How am I supposed to know which is which? 2) When I look up things on the internet that I care about, I seek alternative sources as a cross-check. How do I do that with DA game lore? And in any case, either way, it's exhausting, and not something I do with every tidbit that I come across -- in the internet case, I just treat everything as suspect and not attributable, meaning, I wouldn't mention it to someone else as something I'd put my word of honor behind. Is this how I'm going to have to treat Codex entries, past, present and future? Thanks for clarifying #1. With #2, it might not be the most satisfying reply for you, but what I was trying to say is that there are "alternative sources" (ie, similar information that you get from multiple, different in-game perspectives) within the codices and other franchise material (eg. World of Thedas books, novels, comics, conversations with NPCs in game) that you can use as cross-checks, similar to how you would do it in the real world. It's meta, I guess, but it's there. (Edited for clarity.)
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 955
inherit
6916
0
955
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 28, 2017 4:16:05 GMT
All this being said, I would like to make the point that while over all I'm okay with Bioware having a mutable lore for Dragon Age where very little backstory is truly set in stone, I think there is a major caveat to that which is that just because Bioware has given themselves license to reveal that any given historical event happened differently than we've been lead to believe, that doesn't mean that the truth they reveal is the better, more interesting or intriguing story.
I've always believed that the writer reserves the right to have a better idea later on down the line, but sometimes what they think is the better idea, isn't.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,745
gervaise21
10,854
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Sept 28, 2017 10:38:55 GMT
Actually it is because I am a Catholic and thoroughly understand the history of my religion that I find this parody of it so hard to understand. There are certain things that are common to Judiasm/Christianity/Islam concerning God that are consistent to all three. There are certain things common to Christianity concerning Jesus that are common to Catholic/Orthodox/mainstream Protestant belief. The Great Schism between the Catholic/Orthodox Church was not about core beliefs such as whether Jesus was Divine or his basic moral teaching but rather about the authority of the Pope.
True some modern scholars and theologians may have thrown their own interpretation into the mix in an attempt to cast doubt on them but that is nothing like as contradictory as the faith of the Chantry has proven to be.
For a start off their great schism between north and southern Chantry was over the role of magic and mages in the world and whether or not Andraste was semi-Divine and/or a mage. That is a huge deal and far more akin to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. I still don't understand why, when Hessarian had made Andrastrianism the faith in Tevinter over 150 years before the establishment of the Chantry in Orlais, that Tevinter ever felt obliged to defer to the authority of their southern neighbour. Also if it was known in Tevinter that she was a mage (and it seems very likely she was) then it would also be known in the south. The Avvar have proven that the barbarians have a much more relaxed view of mages and since they were an offshoot of the Alamaari, it is likely the latter held similar beliefs. Why did they defer to the Chantry and allow all their mages to be vilified?
The Chantry teach that the Maker has rejected the world and is not actively involved with it any more. Only if the Chant is spread to the entire world will he relent and return. Very convenient to Drakon's empire building but I do wonder what he was doing for the previous millennia and why he rejected the world immediately upon her death when many of those in the south were actively following him. It wasn't a case of her entire army standing tamely by whilst she was burnt at the stake. They weren't even there. Considering she was kidnapped in secret, likely they only became aware what was going on when it was too late to do anything about it.
In Ferelden, there was even a separate prophet of the Maker that was active subsequent to her death, Gelgennig (who I suppose you could liken to the prophet Mohammed except the writers never made him that important). However, that is what is hard to understand. There were clearly other sects of the Maker across the south who were likely closer to what Andraste actually taught and I see no link between Drakon and the original faith, such as you have with the apostolic succession in the Christian Church, that would give his version of the faith its authority. What connection did Drakon and his Divine have with the original disciples of Andraste? None at all so far as I can tell apart from taking the name of one of them.
With Christianity it is universally accepted that the events concerning Jesus' death did occur in and around Jerusalem. According to the Bible his preaching did occur entirely in the region of Palestine. From what I understand of the history of Andraste, it would be the equivalent of scholars maintaining that Jesus actually did all his preaching and was arrested in Syria or even further north and then taken to Jerusalem for judgement.
In the Catholic Church there is also a continuous history of God continuing to be active in the world through individuals known as saints. They are all acknowledged to have had a close relationship with God and this continued after their death with regard to miracles performed in their name. In the Chantry religion no one is even certain where souls go after death but apparently the original "heaven" was corrupted, so now it is some vague place wherever the Maker went to. If the Maker was really the creator of the universe, why couldn't he keep people out of heaven in the first place?
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Sept 28, 2017 15:28:25 GMT
Two quick responses: 1) By suspect I mean that I can no longer assume that anything in a Codex is uncomplicated canon, in the traditional way we think of canon for game lore. It could absolutely and forever be canon, or it might be canon now and might not be canon later, or it might be a distortion of what is later revealed to be the true canon, or it might be a plain old lie. How am I supposed to know which is which? 2) When I look up things on the internet that I care about, I seek alternative sources as a cross-check. How do I do that with DA game lore? And in any case, either way, it's exhausting, and not something I do with every tidbit that I come across -- in the internet case, I just treat everything as suspect and not attributable, meaning, I wouldn't mention it to someone else as something I'd put my word of honor behind. Is this how I'm going to have to treat Codex entries, past, present and future? Thanks for clarifying #1. With #2, it might not be the most satisfying reply for you, but what I was trying to say is that there are "alternative sources" (ie, similar information that you get from multiple, different in-game perspectives) within the codices and other franchise material (eg. World of Thedas books, novels, comics, conversations with NPCs in game) that you can use as cross-checks, similar to how you would do it in the real world. It's meta, I guess, but it's there. (Edited for clarity.)I understand, but if I go down that line of thinking, why bother paying attention to any of the Codex entries at all? It's simpler to just base my understanding of canon as solely my character's in-game experience and the rest is just clickbait.
|
|
inherit
✜ Forge Mechanic
352
0
Aug 30, 2023 16:01:17 GMT
6,256
PapaCharlie9
3,851
August 2016
papacharlie9
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Sept 28, 2017 15:34:45 GMT
All this being said, I would like to make the point that while over all I'm okay with Bioware having a mutable lore for Dragon Age where very little backstory is truly set in stone, I think there is a major caveat to that which is that just because Bioware has given themselves license to reveal that any given historical event happened differently than we've been lead to believe, that doesn't mean that the truth they reveal is the better, more interesting or intriguing story. I've always believed that the writer reserves the right to have a better idea later on down the line, but sometimes what they think is the better idea, isn't. +1 agree. For me, it's been a mixed bag. I think the onion layers of elven history have been really well done, so far. Qunari history, on the other hand, feels a bit retconned to me. And Gray Warden revisionism is totally stupid and deplorable, imo.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 28, 2017 17:38:42 GMT
Actually it is because I am a Catholic and thoroughly understand the history of my religion that I find this parody of it so hard to understand. There are certain things that are common to Judiasm/Christianity/Islam concerning God that are consistent to all three. There are certain things common to Christianity concerning Jesus that are common to Catholic/Orthodox/mainstream Protestant belief. The Great Schism between the Catholic/Orthodox Church was not about core beliefs such as whether Jesus was Divine or his basic moral teaching but rather about the authority of the Pope. But that's the point - even less than divinity of central religious figure were reasons for great schisms as well as quite a few religious wars. So no, it's not really a parody. I mean, the reason why Anglican Church finally broke off from Roman Church was because the Pope refused to grant Heny VIII a divorce from one of his many wives... Bit long-ish so spoilering it:
There are contradictory beliefs even among one denomination, nevermind those that chose to break off from the Church.
That shows how weakened Tevinter was at one point. There's a lot of politics weaved in with religion and deference to certain religion or its branch was oftentimes a political decision. In other words - it's nothing new. Happened IRL many times. One needs only to skim through history of Europe to see that.
No, it wouldn't. The Chantry has enough authority and political power to change or suppress what was supposedly common knowledge or any other thing. This is how the Church controlled or suppressed many things at times, including progress of science or existence of other movements within Church.
Again, it's nothing new or uncommon. The animosity towards Tevinter which enslaved people or the fact that it's been ruled by mages only helped to strengthen the anti-magic sentiments or fuel willingness to separate Andraste from anything magical, including warping of her teaching about magic.
The Avvar didn't have anything to say here, neither did the old Alamarri. Once the sentiment, new religion or new ideology takes root, there isn't much stopping it. This isn't just something that works in religion. Ask yourself how the Soviets vilified anyone who wasn't them or 'rotten West' for example? Certainly not because someone 'allowed' them to.
I'm not sure why you don't understand why the Maker supposedly rejected the world immediately after Andraste's death? I mean, the Chant is pretty clear about that and it's been explained many times in the games - the belief is that Andraste was the one person who supposedly convinced the Maker to come back and the world betrayed them both by murdering Andraste. The fact that there were many actively following the Maker is irrelevant, if the one burned at the stake was the one person who reached him in the first place and whom he chose to be his Bride.
Also - the death of a prophet or holy person usually has a galvanizing effect on those who follow them and facilitates the birth of new narratives surrounding them. This is precisely what happened to Christianity after death of Jesus after all.
More than likely was based on many prophets or messiahs that came after Jesus or were contemporary to him.
Not sure what is so hard to understand here? There were clearly other sects of Christianity and many of them claimed to be closer to what Jesus actually taught, or are argued to be closer by scholars. Naturally, they were either shunned, more or less quietly stomped out or conveniently forgotten later when those in power were rewriting history over nearly 2 millenia, to create this cozy illusion of monolithic faith sprouting near fully-formed out of Christs's teachings. This is like... almost the exact opposite of what really happened, even if you start counting the amount of gospels and other ancient texts (of those we know that survived, even if in fragments) that were not included in the Bible once the Church actually began compiling it.
Plus, what connection Constantine the Great has to apostles or Jesus? Yet he's the one who had some of the biggest influence over the shape of Christianity as we know it. The proximity to original prophet or divinity has little to do with it. A lot of it is politics and how much power someone has at a crucial time.
The 'universality' you're talking about is a product of nearly two millenia of tailoring history to make it seem universal. However, what is universal within a denomination or even a few denominations is not necessarily 'universally accepted' among those who consider themselves Christians. Just look at what Mormons believe in.
Also - canonical gospels were pretty much all written in Greek by people who likely were never anywhere close to Palestine (given the amount of geographical errors, among others) 30 years to century after Jesus' death. In reality, while we have enough evidence to suggest that basis upon which the legend of Jesus was built likely existed, there's evidence to suggest that Biblical Christ is an amalgamation of many prophets living at that time in Juadea and filtered later through some Greek beliefs and philosophies. Nevermind that some things never happened or when they were claimed to have happened, like Census of Quirinius, which occured 10 years after Herod's death and never required people to travel to homes of distant ancestors to register. What does that has to do with anything? The fact that the Chantry lacks Saints doesn't make it any less of a religion obviously based on Roman Catholic Church just like lack of Trinity or changing the gender of those who can be priests or heads of the Chantry/Church negates what Chantry is based on. They share enough of characteristics.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 28, 2017 17:39:46 GMT
All this being said, I would like to make the point that while over all I'm okay with Bioware having a mutable lore for Dragon Age where very little backstory is truly set in stone, I think there is a major caveat to that which is that just because Bioware has given themselves license to reveal that any given historical event happened differently than we've been lead to believe, that doesn't mean that the truth they reveal is the better, more interesting or intriguing story. I've always believed that the writer reserves the right to have a better idea later on down the line, but sometimes what they think is the better idea, isn't. +1 agree. For me, it's been a mixed bag. I think the onion layers of elven history have been really well done, so far. Qunari history, on the other hand, feels a bit retconned to me. And Gray Warden revisionism is totally stupid and deplorable, imo. What revisionism are you talking about? And what Qunari retcon?
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 28, 2017 17:52:53 GMT
Thanks for clarifying #1. With #2, it might not be the most satisfying reply for you, but what I was trying to say is that there are "alternative sources" (ie, similar information that you get from multiple, different in-game perspectives) within the codices and other franchise material (eg. World of Thedas books, novels, comics, conversations with NPCs in game) that you can use as cross-checks, similar to how you would do it in the real world. It's meta, I guess, but it's there. (Edited for clarity.)I understand, but if I go down that line of thinking, why bother paying attention to any of the Codex entries at all? It's simpler to just base my understanding of canon as solely my character's in-game experience and the rest is just clickbait. Because biased codices are still a trove of information - even if not necessarily in direct sense. They betray biases and perspectives of those who have written them, making it a wonderful tool for advanced worldbuilding. Also - your character's in-game experience ain't devoid of biases as well. The whole reason why the first game may seem to romanticize Wardens a bit is predominantly because our protagonist has hardly any idea about them and is surrounded by people who don't really know more about them than we do - and we are inclined more to believe those who romanticize them because a.) we're one of them b.) we have to work against those who want to turn the world against us. Then there are opinions held by our companions, which in many respects are like opinions of those who wrote all those codices - their world is colored by many things: their experience, their emotions or the culture they were raised in. They're also hardly' clickbait', but we know we have to apply a grain of salt when we listen to their perspectives.
|
|
inherit
8750
0
Apr 26, 2018 20:05:42 GMT
1,585
tacsear
1,072
Jun 16, 2017 19:04:21 GMT
June 2017
tacsear
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR
Painkiller3477
|
Post by tacsear on Sept 28, 2017 18:16:56 GMT
I like the canon-changing thing too, but when every goddamn thing we know turns out to be wrong it kinda loses its charm.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
26,745
gervaise21
10,854
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Sept 28, 2017 19:51:31 GMT
I won't continue the argument on these forums because it involves too much discussion of real world issues but just for the record, you are wrong about so many aspects and have clearly been influenced by a lot of popular so called "scholarly" ideas about the early church rather than actually having fully researched them yourself. Incidentally the Catholic Church was well established long before Constantine the Great. The Council of Nicaea that he asked to be convened to hammer out exactly what his new state faith believed in comprised the bishops of the faith from across the known world including Great Britain, in other words the apostolic succession that I referred to in my post. That was his link back to the time of Jesus. Drakon had no such similar authority backing up his claims.
Also for your information, Gelgennig was around in the period between the death of Andraste and the formation of the Chantry. He had a vision of Andraste encouraging him to continue her work that had been left unfinished by her death. He was encouraged to unite the tribes of what came to be known as Ferelden in the faith. In particular he converted the Ash Warriors to faith in the Maker and Andraste. They never acknowledged either the Chantry or the Chant of Light but since they were killed off at the beginning of DAO, this detail has largely been overlooked. However, it does beg the question, if that area already had their own authentic version of the faith, why did they adopt the faith of Orlais? They have always steadfastly resisted occupation by Orlais, so why accept their religion over their own?
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 28, 2017 20:34:54 GMT
I won't continue the argument on these forums because it involves too much discussion of real world issues but just for the record, you are wrong about so many aspects and have clearly been influenced by a lot of popular so called "scholarly" ideas about the early church rather than actually having fully researched them yourself. A lot of what you dismiss as popular "scholarly" ideas widely are accepted among actual scholars, including Catholic ones. I know, I did my homework. I've never made the argument that Constantine the Great created Catholic Church, but that he made political decisions that allowed it to rise to prominence and eventual domination, hence shaping Christianity as we know it now. It is a commonly accepted fact that it was a turning point for the whole religion. Because there was no such institution in early Andrastianism as apostles so nobody cared for 'apostolic succession'. Both Constantine and Drakon were political visionaries that united/strengthened large swathes of land and religion played a part in that. That is a common thread between them. So he was just like many people who claimed to hear Jesus or claimed to be Jesus shortly after his death or centuries later. Nothing new. In fact he sort of sounds like Paul of Tarsus a bit. Also - if they didn't necessarily considered the faith to be "Orlesian", the people could convert while still staunchly resisting the occupation.
|
|
inherit
4406
0
602
duskwanderer
Awesome
1,011
Mar 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
March 2017
duskwanderer
|
Post by duskwanderer on Sept 28, 2017 23:47:17 GMT
As such, the changes and evolutions fit together in a coherent mold. By contrast, changing something in the present day that's already established, like that stupid Aqun-Athlok thing, was just a cheap grab. Wait, where did that contradict something previously established? Sten in Origins responds very quickly that women do not fight under the Qun, as women are not warriors. The army of the Qun is described is exclusively male, whereas the artisans are exclusively female (and the priesthood is both). When the Qunari were first met, they were assumed to be all male, because the army was the only thing the Thedasians saw. If there were females among the army, they would have been seen. This is established by the game's lore. The reason they did the whole Aqun-Athlok thing, I'll admit I did not know. Maybe they did it to capitalize on the SJW bandwagon or something. Doesn't really matter, they did it poorly. I can see the reason why IB thinks of Krem as a man: Because, as a spy, he's trained to use whatever he can. Delusions are powerful things, and if you know how to use them, you have a great advantage.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,095 Likes: 16,599
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
16,599
midnight tea
7,095
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 29, 2017 0:08:48 GMT
Wait, where did that contradict something previously established? Sten in Origins responds very quickly that women do not fight under the Qun, as women are not warriors. The army of the Qun is described is exclusively male, whereas the artisans are exclusively female (and the priesthood is both). When the Qunari were first met, they were assumed to be all male, because the army was the only thing the Thedasians saw. If there were females among the army, they would have been seen. This is established by the game's lore. The reason they did the whole Aqun-Athlok thing, I'll admit I did not know. Maybe they did it to capitalize on the SJW bandwagon or something. Doesn't really matter, they did it poorly. I can see the reason why IB thinks of Krem as a man: Because, as a spy, he's trained to use whatever he can. Delusions are powerful things, and if you know how to use them, you have a great advantage. There's no "capitalization on SJW bandwagon", because anyone who cares about social justice at any capacity wouldn't like to live under the Qunari as they are portrayed in any game. So this is just a complaint of people who seem to have hard time understanding that the Qunari didn't suddenly become tolerant of transgender people and everybody's happy there, but they would just happen to accept Krem and his choices of both lifestyle and occupation due to a quirk in culture. The Qunari can't imagine women taking arms so much that any woman who chooses to fight (or is likely designated to it) is not considered a female - this happens regardless of someone's choice, Krem just happens to identify as male and does fighting for living, so he would just happen to fit in that particular, very narrow niche. And IB doesn't really care - in a sense that he's alright with it anyhow. He happens to like living outside of the Qun even if he hardly admits to it and accepts people as they are, which includes hidden apostates, among others. We only have to nudge him to get out.
|
|