/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>5407

I would say both, I think projecting yourself into the game can make the experience more immersive. I for one have obsessed over which sect of Christianity I want to support in Crusader Kings 2, and have learned an awful lot as a result of that research. Other times it's more fun or practical to play the character rather than myself, and send assassins to kill my own son whose wife I've been having an affair with.

In a game like Red Dead Redemption I'll be the paragon of justice in the West, be actually distressed when I fail to save an innocent hostage. Then I get bored, throw on a bandana and chuck a stick of dynamite into the saloon. I always make sure to go out in a blaze of glory so the game loads back to my previous state. All the executions get pretty morbid after a while.

And New Vegas. New Vegas is the bomb.com

>>5422

I would say this is a reasonable approach. I've had a lot of fun throughout the years playing very "pious" characters, even when they were devoted to made-up religions like the TES Aedra or The Maker in DA.

>Red Dead Redemption

What a masterpiece of a game. I always think it best to make John a paragon of Justice and to make Jack an evil bastard. There is some tragic beauty in John trying to so hard to get away from a life of evil, and be a good father for his son, only to have Jack turn into a bank-robbing bandit.

I could go on about New Vegas forever, honestly. I'm always curious as to whom people sided with for the fate of New Vegas and why. I like Joshua Graham for obvious reasons

>>5438

>one of my favourite games wth a Christian theme was Bioshock Infinite.

I mean, as much as I enjoyed the game as a whole I couldn't help but feel it was pretty antagonistic towards Christianity, among other things. Although maybe I'm looking at it too superficially.

> Dragon Age Origins

Were you a dwarf? I tried to be "religious" in one play through but I found their whole Nippon-style ancestor worship way too pagan to actually feel any meaningful benefit in immersing myself in it. The Maker is interesting, though pretty "deist"; and the Qun is just Pol-pot tier State socialism.

>>5444

>I couldn't help but feel it was pretty antagonistic towards Christianity, among other things.

Possibly. Maybe I do not realise this because I am very disconnected to the Americanized "Christianity" that is showed there, so if it is attacked I do not really feel offended.

It is also not the game that best displayed Christianity, it just has a Christian theme and I really enjoyed the story mediocre game mechanics though

>Were you a dwarf?

I started once as a dwarf noble but never finished it. Maybe I should play it again.

I found their religion less interesting than their administration. I liked the strict caste system and the assembly much, their quest is also rather tough, especially as a dwarf noble.

I think Bhelen is the better choice usually

>The Maker is interesting, though pretty "deist"

How is he deist? I liked the Chantry in the game, although it is displayed very negatively.

It has a strong liberal bias when in fact the whole story proves the chantry right Is there one magi that does not become some sort of dangerous abomination or lunatic or apostate?

The templars are also really cool.

> and the Qun is just Pol-pot tier State socialism.

So far I have not played DA II, I have it lying arounf here for like 3 years now, so I do not know much about it.

What I got from in DAO it is very Nietzschean, /pol/ would surely like it.

>>5453

>Comstock

I really really liked him and could relate to him and was flashed by the ending.

Superficially I also liked the society he built and the way he handled it, but as you see later on when the story "jumps" to the future it has inherent flaws that will kill it.

>Once removed from that environment

He is made casteless by this and damned anyway. It would be hard to hold on to his believes when he goes from créme de la créme to worthless scum and non person in a single day.

>The story goes, iirc, that The Maker first made the spirits and their wolrd (The Fade),

Like in Christianity.

> though he turned away from them when they proved uncreative and dull. He then made humans and elves (but not dwarves, apparently) and gave them "true" free will, but they created "sin" an he felt great pain.

Seems also Christian to me, also how the spirits turn on humanity and the fall of the magisters when they enter the Golden city.

>So, as of right now, the Chantry believes The Maker to pay no attention to Thedas at all

Indeed, but they still honour him and pray, and also Andraste prays for humanity. So I think they at least think that he can intervene as he pleases, there are also blessings and even a prayer for civtory in battle before Ostagar.

On the other han Leliana's vision is turned away by the monastary with the mention that the maker is absent. Hm. The story seems a little bit inconsistent here.

The Urn of the sacred ashes was an impressive questline too, I liked the quiz with the "historic" personalities and it is obviously the DA version of the Holy Grail

>Nope. The Chantry is right, magick is dangerous as heck. The few hedge-wizards and Withces of the Wild who can control their powers are simply not worth endangering the lives of everyone in order to afford rookie mages some more liberties.

Indeed. I played as a Loyalist magi once, it is nice that you are able to do this, and how the story interacts with it.

but most of your companions will disagree with you obviously

If you really immerse yourself into the story I would not even take most companions.

Alistair ok, Leliana because I need her.

But that's it essentially. Zevran? Nope, I won't deliberately live with an assasin, nor with a heathen murderer or with Wynne after she tells me her state of affairs.

>I recommend it.

I think I will replay DAO once and then continue with it. Maybe really as a dwarf. Do your decisions in DAO affect DA II much?

>>5450

The chantry was partially wrong. Magic is dangerous of course but I think the real moral dilemma was whether or not the chantry had the right to dominate every aspect of a mage's life. Not to mention if you don't wish to take their test you are rendered an emotionless zombie. Of course at that point it wouldn't be possible to care, so again it's a bit gray there.

They were wrong about blood magic though. Channeling magic from the fade does leave you open to demonic possession but blood magic, since it uses your own vitality as a source, is actually far safer. It was taught to man by demons though so superstition around it makes sense.

Overall I think the chantry were portrayed as the typical religious bad guys in many cases but as you pointed out since the overwhelming majority of magi do something incredibly dangerous or selfish they might have a point. It's also worth pointing out that the chantry is usually the only organization maintaining a veneer of peace in times of crises. It's easy to criticize them but ultimately they have to make the tough calls. Without the chantry it would have been pure anarchy.

>>5459

> Magic is dangerous of course but I think the real moral dilemma was whether or not the chantry had the right to dominate every aspect of a mage's life.

A lot of mages in the game challenge the idea that magic need be contained or controlled at all. I'd say that one can argue and debate how much personal freedom a mage should be allowed, but the idea that mages must live separately, contained and under a stricter authority than everyone else for their safety and that of others is non-negotiable. How soft their beds should be and whether they should be allowed trips to the outside world is a different matter.

>blood magic,

Blood magic is inherently evil because it draws it strength precisely from life-giving substance. I'd honestly have a hard time believing that any mage who resorted to blood-magic in the first place would be content with limiting himself to his own blood supply. No, especially if given freedom, you end up with the Tevinter Empirium, where Magisters sacrifice their slaves and servants in blood magic rituals to feed their egos and lust for power.

>>5444

Living in New Mexico I feel very obligated to side with the NCR, in the hopes that they will come and liberate us from the Legion. Ally with everyone possible, kill all fiends, legion and powder gangers. When it comes to DA, Templars all the way. My favorite character was a dwarf noble who believed in the maker, was all about honor, restored his brother to the throne despite their past, convinced Alistair not to break his oath to the Grey Wardens, and posthoumously became a paragon by slaying the Archdemon in the name of the dwarves people, restoring his bastard son to his proper place.

>>5466

You could be right. But ultimately I think it's a question of politics. That being whether someone's right to freedom is worth being taken away for the safety of the whole. A murderer has broken a social contract, he violated someone else's rights and as such has had his taken away. A sociopath who is at risk to commit murder isn't locked up though, he hasn't committed a crime. A mage might be a risk, but should he be locked away because of it? I'm inclined to say no.

I'm not sure I see your reasoning with blood magic. It uses life as fuel, yes. However life does not need to be extinguished. A blood mage can use a bit of his own blood or someone else's but it is never required that he kill.

In response to potentially corrupt blood magi it goes back to my original point. Sure it can happen but that doesn't mean it's a guarantee to happen. You could make the same argument with money. Surely someone who can freely acquire money won't be happy with just a limited supply. He might start hurting people to acquire more! And sure that can happen and we punish those that choose to do so. But we don't punish them before they actually commit the crime.

Even if we took public safety as the goal to pursue it still seems counter productive to outlaw blood magic. If a mage's resources and freedom are strictly controlled then blood acquired ethically from say willing donors or sellers would be safer than magic from the fade because again there's no risk of demonic breach.

>>5469

>I'm inclined to say no.

Ok. I would say yes.

> A blood mage can use a bit of his own blood or someone else's but it is never required that he kill.

Lust for power is a powerful motive. I'm saying the moment that you begin to look at other peoples as these meat-sacks of blood, you're walking down the wrong path.

>Sure it can happen but that doesn't mean it's a guarantee to happen.

It literally happens *all the time* in the Tevinter Imperium where such things are accepted culturally. They use the blood of slaves and "willing" servants for their evil rites.

>But we don't punish them before they actually commit the crime.

But the Circle of Magi is not a punishment, its a blessing and a necessary precaution. I'm not talking about making all mages Tranquil, just removing them from civilized society and keeping them away in a space where they can safely learn how to control the fire within them, and then they can be of much use to society.

> If a mage's resources and freedom are strictly controlled then blood acquired ethically from say willing donors or sellers would be safer than magic from the fade because again there's no risk of demonic breach.

Because of the inherently demonic and volatile nature of blood magic and the individuals who often pursue it, I would think it prudent that any exceptions could be made for individuals should they prove themselves worthy of it first. The wardens, for example, have been known to tolerate and use blood mages when fighting back the blight.

>there's no risk of demonic breach.

Any time any type of magic is used at any moment there is the constant risk of demonic interference, Blood magic is no exception to this.

I dont play them anymore more because i get addicted to them easily.

>>5457

>She's a bitch, and she's mean as hell, but the way in which she does it.

She's very well written, same with Alistair. That's why I like it so much.

>Wynne. Is it because

Yes. I mean, you just came out of the tower and in good faith you convince the templars to not kill all. And then she admitts that she is an abomination, but it's ok because she "feels" the spirit is good.

Instakill irl

>>5459

>Magic is dangerous of course but I think the real moral dilemma was whether or not the chantry had the right to dominate every aspect of a mage's life.

See TOM

>>5466

>>5471

>But the Circle of Magi is not a punishment, its a blessing and a necessary precaution.

This.

>blood magic

Literally every single mage engaging in it goes crazy or becomes an abomination, and a single abomination can destroy entire villages after all.

The Baroness even became a demon by it. On the other hand there is no good coming from it, and it is forbidden in the Chant of Light.

Anyway, if one follows the discussion here he can get how good this game is written, when random people can get so engaged in discussing its world.

>>5492

Despite siding with the Templars, I originally thought that Knight-Commander Meredith was just as bad as Orsino. After she reveals how before she became a templar they hid her sister from the circle, the sister that later became possessed and massacred their entire village as well as her parents, I realized what a tragic character she really is.

>>5492

Also, one of the reasons I love DA so so much, is it's literally the only fantasy setting I've ever seen where people have a realistic reaction to magic. "HOLY CRAP, THIS GUY CAN LITERALLY KILL US WITH HIS MIND"