262 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Riona45 wrote...

I thought we were giving our own opinions.

Oh indeed.  My point whenever the Chantry comes up - in the context of "blow it up or don't" is that it is irresponsible - from an in-character perspective - to either essentially meta-reason (Martin Luther for example does not exist in Thedas) the justification for doing so, or blow up the Chantry simply because you either don't like religion or don't like how they treat mages.

More or less, I think that any decisions regarding the Chantry need to be made for ingame reasons and consider ingame consequences.  Or the discussion is just silly and guaranteed to veer off topic.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Riona45]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Oh indeed.  My point whenever the Chantry comes up - in the context of "blow it up or don't" is that it is irresponsible to either essentially meta-reason (Martin Luther for example does not exist in Thedas) the justification for doing so, or blow up the Chantry simply because you either don't like religion or don't like how they treat mages.

Not sure if you're speaking of me, personally, but I never stated anywhere that I intended to destroy the Chantry.  As for using meta-reasoning (on the forums, I presume?), I've found that pretty much everyone does that unless they claim not to have any opinion at all.

More or less, I think that any decisions regarding the Chantry need to be made for ingame reasons and consider ingame consequences. 

I agree.

Modifié par Riona45, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[JrayM16]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

I thought we were giving our own opinions.

Oh indeed.  My point whenever the Chantry comes up - in the context of "blow it up or don't" is that it is irresponsible - from an in-character perspective - to either essentially meta-reason (Martin Luther for example does not exist in Thedas) the justification for doing so, or blow up the Chantry simply because you either don't like religion or don't like how they treat mages.

More or less, I think that any decisions regarding the Chantry need to be made for ingame reasons and consider ingame consequences.  Or the discussion is just silly and guaranteed to veer off topic.

I would disagree, I think there are plenty of in-game justifications for wanting to get rid of the Chantry.

A dwarf character, for example, might want to do so because of how the chantry will sometimes try to force their religion onto them.  Or a merchant, dwarven or otherwise, might want the chantry gone because of their monopoly on the lyrium trade.  Or a disgruntled lyrium-addicted templar.  Or a disgruntled mage.  Or the elves in retribution of the exalted march.  Or, who knows, maybe your character would be super-imposed by the player to have the ideas that Martin Luther did about organized religion.  Or philosophers like Voltaire.

There are plenty of reasons in my opinion.

[upsettingshorts]

JrayM16 wrote...
I would disagree, I think there are plenty of in-game justifications for wanting to get rid of the Chantry.

A dwarf character, for example, might want to do so because of how the chantry will sometimes try to force their religion onto them.  Or a merchant, dwarven or otherwise, might want the chantry gone because of their monopoly on the lyrium trade.  Or a disgruntled lyrium-addicted templar.  Or a disgruntled mage.  Or the elves in retribution of the exalted march.  Or, who knows, maybe your character would be super-imposed by the player to have the ideas that Martin Luther did about organized religion.  Or philosophers like Voltaire.

There are plenty of reasons in my opinion.

I didn't say there were't reasons, just often the discussions over blowing up the Chantry veer into non-reasons.  And consequences are almost never considered.

The only justification among those you list that I can't buy is that your player can be a super-imposed Martin Luther or Voltaire.  I don't really view that as being possible, though I imagine Syvlius would.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Well now, I never expected this topic coming this far.

[JrayM16]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...
I would disagree, I think there are plenty of in-game justifications for wanting to get rid of the Chantry.

A dwarf character, for example, might want to do so because of how the chantry will sometimes try to force their religion onto them.  Or a merchant, dwarven or otherwise, might want the chantry gone because of their monopoly on the lyrium trade.  Or a disgruntled lyrium-addicted templar.  Or a disgruntled mage.  Or the elves in retribution of the exalted march.  Or, who knows, maybe your character would be super-imposed by the player to have the ideas that Martin Luther did about organized religion.  Or philosophers like Voltaire.

There are plenty of reasons in my opinion.

I didn't say there were't reasons, just often the discussions over blowing up the Chantry veer into non-reasons.  And consequences are almost never considered.

The only justification among those you list that I can't buy is that your player can be a super-imposed Martin Luther or Voltaire.  I don't really view that as being possible, though I imagine Syvlius would.

I think super-imposed attitudes are fine.  That's how one would have to govern decisions that a character would make after all. 

The difference between what Sylvius means by this style and what I mean is this:

Sylvius has a persona that governs the intent of what his character says and does, and that is canon.

I have a persona that governs why I select the choices pre-defined by Bioware.

Although I agree with you first point, albeit I think it's mostly a result of people not getting their points across clearly enough.

[Aermas]

In Fereldan slavery is legal & in the Tevinter Imperium even more so, as mages are NOT slaves, most people should be wanting to free the elves inslaved by the Nobles before they should want the mages to have more rights. Mages are all walking talking weapons, you have to view this in a reasonable way. If a mage gets mad because a farmer looked at him funny the mage could burn an entire town to cinders.

[Riona45]

Aermas wrote...

In Fereldan slavery is legal...

Actually no, it isn't.

[upsettingshorts]

Does Ferelden have serfdom?

[Riona45]

Aermas wrote...
most people should be wanting to free the elves inslaved by the Nobles before they should want the mages to have more rights.

Again, they aren't enslaved, but people have discussed the mistreatment of elves in general.  Inevitablity someone will come along and dismiss the elves as being "butthurt."

[Riona45]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does Ferelden have serfdom?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.  I double-checked the wiki and didn't see anything about it.

[namedforthemoon]

The entire planet is on the brink of war? Because that would be the world. Or maybe it's just Cassandra's world, her little spot in the Free Marches.

[TimelordDC]

Riona45 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Does Ferelden have serfdom?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.  I double-checked the wiki and didn't see anything about it.

They don't have serfdom as it existed in England and other places but they do have an adapted version, if it can be called that. Most of the lands are owned by Banns and the rest by freeholders. The common farmer never owns his lands and they are still bound to pay taxes and duties to the Banns (similar to serfs). This is evident in Stolen Throne when there are tales of Banns imposing extra taxes on the common men because it was demanded from them.
They don't have a serf hierarchy with tiers, etc. but the basic framework is there.

[upsettingshorts]

namedforthemoon wrote...

The entire planet is on the brink of war? Because that would be the world. Or maybe it's just Cassandra's world, her little spot in the Free Marches.

I imagine she means Thedas.  In the same way a Roman citizen might say, "The world" he would mean Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of near Asia.

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Who says the concept of individual freedom is a value prized by Thedas? It certainly wasn't always the case in Western society. It took centuries of philosophical and socioeconomic thought to arrive at that consensus.

A citizen of Ferelden is called a 'freeman.' The Bannorn are the still powerful remnants of tribal leaders and they just kicked out a large force that tried to introduce concepts like divine right to rule. Likewise, slavery is illegal and abhorrent, even for elves.

Yes, there is at least one place in Thedas where individual freedoms are prized. Is it the same in every place? No, but Orlais is in the middle of its Renaissance, not only is it wealthy, but there's a circulation of ideas, and the nobility strongly supports the sciences and arts. Could they possibly prize individual freedoms? Within the limits of class and propriety, they might.

Alternatively, parts of Thedas are controlled by the qunari, and we know what they think about individual freedoms.

Thedas is not homogeneous.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:49 .

[Leonia]

I always got the impression that the Riviani were pretty big on personal freedom even though they are heavily influenced by the Qun. Elves at least seem to be more free around there, based on some banter between Sten and Zevran.



While Orlais is making culutral advances, they still seemed to be pretty focused on putting on airs and trying to impress one another instead of going out of their way to help the lesser classes. At the very least, Chevaliers seem to have a lot of personal freedom but I think there are those in Orlais who fall victim to that, so not everyone has that same sort of freedom. Granted, we never really her much about Orlesian elves or commoners (Fiona and Leliana are sort of all we have to go on) and I'd love to hear more. Heck, let's GO to Orlais and see it for ourselves.

[Riona45]

leonia42 wrote...
 At the very least, Chevaliers seem to have a lot of personal freedom but I think there are those in Orlais who fall victim to that, so not everyone has that same sort of freedom.

Maria accounted for that--"Within the limits of class and propriety, they might."  She wasn't saying things in Orlais were perfect.

[Leonia]

Riona45 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...
 At the very least, Chevaliers seem to have a lot of personal freedom but I think there are those in Orlais who fall victim to that, so not everyone has that same sort of freedom.

Maria accounted for that--"Within the limits of class and propriety, they might."  She wasn't saying things in Orlais were perfect.

Sure, wasn't saying she said they were perfect. Just putting some of my own observations out there. I was trying to think of more examples of Rivain promoting individual freedom but really can't recall where I got that idea from so sort of focused more on the differences between them and Orlais.

[Riona45]

Fair enough.

[upsettingshorts]

My point was that until I see the equivalent a bunch of sans-culottes storming the Bastille or people disguised as Chasind dumping tea in Denerim harbor, I'm gonna take meta-reasoning based on universal freedom skeptically.

That doesn't mean there isn't some concept of freedom from foreign rule, especially in the case of Ferelden as Maria pointed out - just that in the context of overthrowing an institution like the Chantry for the sake of freeing the mages doesn't strike me as something that would have much popular support within the world of Thedas and would more likely anger and frighten people.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:13 .

[Maria Caliban]

leonia42 wrote...

I always got the impression that the Riviani were pretty big on personal freedom even though they are heavily influenced by the Qun. Elves at least seem to be more free around there, based on some banter between Sten and Zevran.

While Orlais is making culutral advances, they still seemed to be pretty focused on putting on airs and trying to impress one another instead of going out of their way to help the lesser classes. At the very least, Chevaliers seem to have a lot of personal freedom but I think there are those in Orlais who fall victim to that, so not everyone has that same sort of freedom. Granted, we never really her much about Orlesian elves or commoners (Fiona and Leliana are sort of all we have to go on) and I'd love to hear more. Heck, let's GO to Orlais and see it for ourselves.

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.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My point was that until I see the equivalent a bunch of sans-culottes storming the Bastille or people disguised as Chasind dumping tea in Denerim harbor, I'm gonna take meta-reasoning based on universal freedom skeptically.

The freeholders decide which Bann they give their taxs to. You haven't have a 'No taxation without representation' demonstration when you already pick who represents you.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

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.

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.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[Riona45]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My point was that until I see the equivalent a bunch of sans-culottes storming the Bastille or people disguised as Chasind dumping tea in Denerim harbor, I'm gonna take meta-reasoning based on universal freedom skeptically. 

I think you're taking a comment I made in a much different direction than I intended for it to go.  I was mostly saying I didn't find a certain point someone made to be compelling.  I even pointed out to you that I never declared anywhere that I had a desire to "destroy" the Chantry.  So to use what I said to talk about using "meta-reasoning" (especially in a thread where pretty much everyone is doing that) seems kind of unfair.

[TimelordDC]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Who says the concept of individual freedom is a value prized by Thedas? It certainly wasn't always the case in Western society. It took centuries of philosophical and socioeconomic thought to arrive at that consensus.

A citizen of Ferelden is called a 'freeman.' The Bannorn are the still powerful remnants of tribal leaders and they just kicked out a large force that tried to introduce concepts like divine right to rule. Likewise, slavery is illegal and abhorrent, even for elves.

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.

I doubt slavery is illegal. As far as I can see, nothing is illegal - some things are not looked upon favorably (hence, done in secrecy) and those are usually determined by the Chantry. I suspect even Orlesian rulers bow down to the Chantry because the Chantry came to Orlais' rescue with an Exalted March against the Dales and I'm pretty sure they won't let them forget that fact.

Edit: This forum is fast!

Modifié par TimelordDC, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[Aermas]

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