262 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Riona45 wrote...
I think you're taking a comment I made in a much different direction than I intended for it to go.

My mistake was quoting you when I often make the same argument in other threads on the Chantry.  It's more of a general point.

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I suppose the question would be 'What is the earliest real world historical culture do you see as valuing individual freedoms?'

I mean, the USA is often portrayed as being based on those ideals, but it still engaged in imperialism, genocide, and slavery.

Universal freedom?  Extremely recent, historically.  19th century at the earliest and varying depending on culture and country.

Mmm... I'd have to say it hasn't truly happened yet. We're still slaves to certain social restrictions and ideas, nevermind the politics and economics that limit individual freedom.

[upsettingshorts]

Aermas wrote...

The Magna Carta would be one, though it is strictly nobles only.

Kinda.

Riona45 wrote...
I think you're taking a comment I made in a much different direction than I intended for it to go.

My mistake was quoting you when I often make the same argument in other threads on the Chantry.  It's more of a general point.

leonia42 wrote...
Mmm... I'd have to say it hasn't truly happened yet. We're still slaves to certain social restrictions and ideas, nevermind the politics and economics that limit individual freedom.

Whether it is in effect isn't really the point.  The arguments for it really started being made, forcefully, in the 19th century. I'd cite a really, really obvious example but mentioning it would be like dropping a bomb on the thread.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:21 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Universal freedom?  Extremely recent, historically.  19th century at the earliest and varying depending on culture and country.

Still, I'm not sure that concept needs be universal to justify freeing some people just because freedom is good.  Freedom can be good - as an accepted ideal - and still not applied to everyone as a matter of historical record.  The early United States being a good example of this.

Okay, can you give specific examples of what would need to happen in a culture before you'd classify it as 'valuing individual freedom'?

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay, can you give specific examples of what would need to happen in a culture before you'd classify it as 'valuing individual freedom'?

I can do it in the case of overthrowing the Chantry in terms of freeing mages:  Abolitionism in the US and other places, where people recognized and championed the right of those who are different then them to be free.  It is of course interesting that nations in Thedas would ban slavery and not free mages, but since mages do not exist in the real world, they're something of a special case.

Mages are a very small minority, and while mages themselves may rise in an open revolt, they do it in their own self-interest and as such it isn't representative of any popular views on the contemporary value of freedom.  It would be comparable to Spartacus' slave revolt in that it terrified the average Roman citizen that they were free and out of their cages, as it were.

Even in that specific example, the United States still didn't seem to care much for the rights of the Native Americans or Filipinos, so lionia42 has a point in that the concept of freedom as a social value is very much in doubt even in the modern era.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Maria Caliban]

TimelordDC wrote...


Could you point me to the freeman reference please or are you refering to freeholder? I've never heard that before and one of the key areas in my module is based on the pseudo-serfdom model that Ferelden seems to follow.
If you are refering to freeholder, then very few people are actually freeholders - those who own their own lands.

The Dragon Age RPG book by Green Ronian. It also makes reference to the Avvars, who still live in the highlands.

According to the devs, the Landsmeet was based on the thingstead and they imagined Ferelden law and governing as being like that.

I doubt slavery is illegal.

It is illegal is both Ferelden and Orlais. The Empress has actually made the laws against it more strict. Remember that Andreste fought the Imperium because they were conquering and enslaving everyone, and wherever she went she freed the slaves.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay, can you give specific examples of what would need to happen in a culture before you'd classify it as 'valuing individual freedom'?

I can do it in the case of overthrowing the Chantry in terms of freeing mages:  Abolitionism in the US and other places, where people recognized and championed the right of those who are different then them to be free.

Okay. And Thedas has already has a major abolitionist movement. Andreste freed the elves within the Imperium and her sons granted them the Dales.

Just to be sure though, you're arguing that unless a culture frees mages, a people who can cause incredible devastation, they don't prize individual freedom? Even in modern times, someone who could murder you with a thought would probably not get to lead a normal life.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I suppose the question would be 'What is the earliest real world historical culture do you see as valuing individual freedoms?'

The Dutch Republic, most notably during her Golden Age.

[Mr. Man]

This thread implies that the world somehow WASN'T on the brink of war before. What about the blight? or the Fereldan Civil War. Truth is, of course the world is on the brink of war, it always is. What fun would it be if it wasn't.

Anyways, I aint helping the Chantry even if it is. I can't stand them. I think that the various nations of Thedas should be perfectly able to unite against the Qunari without the Chantry, if they can't do that...well, have fun memorizing the Qun.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Just to be sure though, you're arguing that unless a culture frees mages, a people who can cause incredible devastation, they don't prize individual freedom?

Not unreservedly, no.  The argument is simply that overthrowing the Chantry in order to free the mages would terrify the average person in Thedas.  It wouldn't be sunshine, rainbows, and puppies as so many Chantry-blowing-up posters (not necessarily anyone in particular) imply.  A mage can fight for his or her own freedom.  Mages may revolt in exchange for self determination, but the idea that Hawke or anyone else would gain anything remotely resembling popular support for doing so isn't consistent with how Thedas is actually described.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Even in modern times, someone who could murder you with a thought would probably not get to lead a normal life.

Maybe maybe not, but even then there would be persuasive arguments on the basis of imprisoning people based on the idea that they might is punishing thoughtcrime.

I mean, a sort of useful counterexample would be gun ownership in the US.  Both sides make persuasive arguments over the precise danger of firearm use, and whether or not owning a gun actually makes someone more or less likely to commit violent crime.  Mages are kinda like people who have their guns permanently attached to their bodies.  If they haven't committed a crime other than being a deadly weapon, does that warrant imprisonment?  

I'd say Thedas would unequivocally argue yes.  And the modern world would be very much divided over it.

Mr. Man wrote...

I can't stand them.

Why?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[Aermas]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Just to be sure though, you're arguing that unless a culture frees mages, a people who can cause incredible devastation, they don't prize individual freedom?

Not unreservedly, no.  The argument is simply that overthrowing the Chantry in order to free the mages would terrify the average person in Thedas.  It wouldn't be sunshine, rainbows, and puppies as so many Chantry-blowing-up posters (not necessarily anyone in particular) imply.  A mage can fight for his or her own freedom.  Mages may revolt in exchange for self determination, but the idea that Hawke or anyone else would gain anything remotely resembling popular support for doing so isn't consistent with how Thedas is actually described.

Maria Caliban wrote...
Even in modern times, someone who could murder you with a thought would probably not get to lead a normal life.

Maybe maybe not, but even then there would be persuasive arguments on the basis of imprisoning people based on the idea that they might is punishing thoughtcrime.

I mean, a sort of useful counterexample would be gun ownership in the US.  Both sides make persuasive debates over the precise danger of firearm use, and whether or not owning a gun actually makes someone more or less likely to commit violent crime.  Mages are kinda like people who have their guns permanently attached to their bodies.  If they haven't committed a crime other than being a deadly weapon, does that warrant imprisonment?  

I'd say Thedas would unequivocally argue yes.  And the modern world would be very much divided over it.

Mr. Man wrote...

I can't stand them.

Why?

I made the same point somewhere in the beginning of this thread about mages being living guns, & so they need to be regulated because unlike here in America normal citizens cannot go out & find suitable protection from the weapons, the only solution is the Templars

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not unreservedly, no.  The argument is simply that overthrowing the Chantry in order to free the mages would terrify the average person in Thedas.  It wouldn't be sunshine, rainbows, and puppies as so many Chantry-blowing-up posters (not necessarily anyone in particular) imply.  A mage can fight for his or her own freedom.  Mages may revolt in exchange for self determination, but the idea that Hawke or anyone else would gain anything remotely resembling popular support for doing so isn't consistent with how Thedas is actually described.

I tend to agree with that. Since its rise, the only effective forces against the Orlesan Chantry has been the Tvinter Chantry, the qunari, and the elves (the 'pagans.') As in, other religious groups that would be no better than the Chantry if given power.

No one in their right minds would oppose it to help mages. As far as everyone knows, the last time mages were free, they crushed Thedas under their bootheel and created the darkspawn.

Maybe maybe not, but even then there would be persuasive arguments on the basis of imprisoning people based on the idea that they might is punishing thoughtcrime.

The reason punishing people because of a thoughtcrime is considered 'bad' is that a thought doesn't do damage. If a thought could call a demon to you or cause someone's had to explode, you could no longer make that argument.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The reason punishing people because of a thoughtcrime is considered 'bad' is that a thought doesn't do damage. If a thought could call a demon to you or cause someone's had to explode, you could no longer make that argument.

But in your example "thought" describes the ease through which a mage could kill someone, not the internal decision to go through with it.  That's where the gun metaphor comes in, someone armed with a gun can quite easily kill someone who is not.

The point still comes down to whether or not pre-emptive imprisonment is justified. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[Leonia]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Okay, can you give specific examples of what would need to happen in a culture before you'd classify it as 'valuing individual freedom'?

I can do it in the case of overthrowing the Chantry in terms of freeing mages:  Abolitionism in the US and other places, where people recognized and championed the right of those who are different then them to be free.

Okay. And Thedas has already has a major abolitionist movement. Andreste freed the elves within the Imperium and her sons granted them the Dales.

Just to be sure though, you're arguing that unless a culture frees mages, a people who can cause incredible devastation, they don't prize individual freedom? Even in modern times, someone who could murder you with a thought would probably not get to lead a normal life.

Andraste's war against the Imperium was nearly 1000 years ago (going by the Chantry calendar) so maybe it's time for another abolotionist movement? Not that I am one of those "Chantry is evil, let's set the mages free!" types. I agree, mages are freaking scary and their needs to be some sort of control. Though maybe if the Chantry (or some other group) actually tried to *understand* magic instead of just saying "it's evil, lock them up" we could see some discussion happening that could result to a better way to manage mages. Some significant progress could be made without there being some sort of war or major conflict, but how likely is that to happen?

As for the Dales, well, the Dalish have lost two homelands now and aren't they due to get a third or are they just supposed to casually drift off into extinction? Tensions from both the mages and the Dalish against the Chantry may be reaching a boiling point. We can argue if they are justified or not or whether we believe the Chantry should dictate their lives or not but at the end of the day.. some revolutions just happen when people can't take the status quo any more, regardless if it is the logical thing to do or not.

I'm not anti-Chantry at all but I think either they need to adapt to the changing social/political situations across Thedas or risk going to war. That said, we're not 100% sure the war mentioned in the marketting for DA 2 necessarily involves people rising up against the Chantry. It could be the Andrastian Chantry versus the Imperial Chantry or a specific group of mages versus the local Chantry or heck it could just be Thedas v. Qunari with the Chantry not taking sides. We really don't know yet what "the world is on the brink of war" means as of now. But given the history of Thedas, there have been *plenty* of times where the world has been on the brink of war, whether it was Chantry-related, Blight-related, the old days of the Orlesian or Tevinter empires..it's not exactly a new concept. What makes this so unique is the warning perhaps that Morrigan gives in Witch-hunt that change is coming to the world.

Modifié par leonia42, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:55 .

[Maria Caliban]

leonia42 wrote...


Andraste's war against the Imperium was nearly 1000 years ago (going by the Chantry calendar) so maybe it's time for another abolotionist movement? Not that I am one of those "Chantry is evil, let's set the mages free!" types. I agree, mages are freaking scary and their needs to be some sort of control. Though maybe if the Chantry (or some other group) actually tried to *understand* magic instead of just saying "it's evil, lock them up" we could see some discussion happening that could result to a better way to manage mages. Some significant progress could be made without there being some sort of war or major conflict, but how likely is that to happen?

To be sure, the mages of the Circle constantly study magic, but they don't *understand* it. It's possible that the Imperium has a better grasp of magic, but would they share that information with the Andresan Chantry?

And honestly, I find the Chantry and Templars are making the best of a bad situation. A mage that doesn't learn to control themselves will likely become an abomination and most mages turn when they're children and can't control their powers.

I see taking them off to the tower as being the best solution. I don't agree with imprisoning them there for all their life, however.

As for the Dales, well, the Dalish have lost two homelands now and aren't they due to get a third or are they just supposed to casually drift off into extinction? Tensions from both the mages and the Dalish against the Chantry may be reaching a boiling point. We can argue if they are justified or not or whether we believe the Chantry should dictate their lives or not but at the end of the day.. some revolutions just happen when people can't take the status quo any more, regardless if it is the logical thing to do or not.

I don't see the remaining elves as being strong enough to mount a military campaign against the Chantry. If they could get the alienage elves to join them, itmight work.

I'm not anti-Chantry at all but I think either they need to adapt to the changing social/political situations across Thedas or risk going to war.

The greatest change in the social and political situation is the qunari. And to be sure, if you're not a dalish or a mage (a tiny percept of the population and people who aren't citizens of any nation), I'm not sure why you'd object to the Chantry.

If the vast majority of people in nations where the Chantry resides are happy with them and they have the backing of the most powerful empire on the continent, why would the Chantry adapt?

What makes this so unique is the warning perhaps that Morrigan gives in Witch-hunt that change is coming to the world.

I like to imagine it's a lead in to DA III where we finally see what caused the humans and later the qunari to flee from the northern hemisphere.

[Lurklen]

On the thought crime issue with mages, while mages themselves choosing to do violence is a risk, the number one thing you hear from people who are afraid of mages and have some idea what they can do is Abomination. To use the human gun analogy it'd be like if one in five of those people had a chance of exploding and destroying a city block by accident. In some ways the intention of the mage themself doesn't matter it's the risk they present because of their succeptability to possession.

Something I hope comes up in the game considering Mage Hawk is an apostate hopfully we see how they deal with the threat of possession.

@Maria Caliban
 Did they flee the north or just migrate? Or in the case of the qunari expand their empire.

Modifié par Lurklen, 05 novembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Maria Caliban]

The qunari aren't part of a greater empire.

And the 'fleeing' was simply speculation. Something is driving species to Thedas.

[Lurklen]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The qunari aren't part of a greater empire.
And the 'fleeing' was simply speculation. Something is driving species to Thedas.

 Not now but they came in warships ready for an invasion, they had to have come from somewhere. You could be right though maybe they were fleeing something. Do we know if they came from the north or from the east? I looked on the wiki and it doesn't really say. It does say though that humans are believed to have come from Par vollen, is Par vollen an island or the southron most tip of a continant. Because if it's an island than how did humanity get there? And on Andrastian mages hey I guess it could be worse they could be under qunari control.

[Mr. Man]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

I can't stand them.

Why?

Maybe it's because most members of the Andrastan Chantry seem like a bunch of old cranky ladies, the only one of them I ever liked was Leliana and she left them.

Modifié par Mr. Man, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:49 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wow... That's an unusally shallow point of view, even for the anti-chantry camp... So, the fact the older women of the organization (who has probably served it for many years, and got a lot more theological knowledge than any other sister), get promoted to leader posistions, is the reason you can't stand the Chantry?

[Mr. Man]

Modifié par Mr. Man, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[Mr. Man]

Mr. Man wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wow... That's an unusally shallow point of view, even for the anti-chantry camp... So, the fact the older women of the organization (who has probably served it for many years, and got a lot more theological knowledge than any other sister), get promoted to leader posistions, is the reason you can't stand the Chantry?

Ok, the real reason is I'm an atheist and don't trust religion (the Chantry included). But I didn't feel like talking about my deeper reasons so I just made up a shallow excuse for hating them.

[Leonia]

Mr. Man wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wow... That's an unusally shallow point of view, even for the anti-chantry camp... So, the fact the older women of the organization (who has probably served it for many years, and got a lot more theological knowledge than any other sister), get promoted to leader posistions, is the reason you can't stand the Chantry?

Ok, the real reason is I'm an atheist and don't trust religion (the Chantry included). But I didn't feel like talking about my deeper reasons so I just made up a shallow excuse for hating them.

Er. So your Warden/Hawke must be an Athiest too because you're uncomfortable about a fictional religion in a video game? This somehow reminds of this time I was trying to explain the plot of FF X to my, at the time, really Christian boyfriend who refused to listen to me talk about a made-up religion in a video game and how it affected the plot.

[Maria Caliban]

I usually attempt to create a distinct personality for my PC's (inasmuch as the game allows) while still representing my real-world concept of a hero. Given that religion has caused a great deal of suffering, I don't think it's 'wrong' for someone to take a real world dislike of it into the game.

[Leonia]

It's not wrong it's just.. it feels like meta-gaming. I don't know. Maybe my post didn't make much sense *goes for a coffee*