499 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Tranquil are not Tranquilized for the sake of labor

Regardless of the intent, that's what they end up being. They are the main source of funds for the Circle, via enchantements and stores (like Wonders of Thedas) which only Tranquils are allowed to operate in.
But I agree that Tranquilization does not seem, to me, that it's a removal of free will. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
And yea, I don't think we know how much the Chantry profits from this. I think it's safe to say that it does, but we don't know the percentage it takes from the profits.

I disagree.  It's not apparent it's a removal of free will, but (especially if you read the codex entries on Tranquil), I'd argue that essentially it is.  After all, what is it that drives us to make the decisions we make?  What we like, what we don't like, who we love, what we are loyal to,etc?  Without emotions the things that drive our will go *poof*.  Lily expresses it very well when she says that Jowan not knowing what he lost if made tranquil (in terms of loving her) makes it soo much worse.

She's right.  I strongly doubt that tranquil have what we would consider free-will since free-will seems to require at least some emotional basis for it (any more than machines really have free will...and tranquil seem nothing more than biological machines at this point).

And that makes me more interested in knowing about the Lucrosians. How are they planing to accumulate wealth exactly? Only via Tranquils? Or do they plan on expanding their source of income? I can think of several uses for mages that does not involve dangerous magic where they can sell their services for money. Heck, they'd make excellent firefighters for instances. Healers. Improve agriculture....etc. 

I suspect that Lucrusians would sell their talents and abilities to the highest bidder or better yet go into business.  As you say, there are many things that magic can do very well that don't require enchanting that people would pay good money for (and not just in battle either).

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Though I really don't see why the Chantry would want the mages and Templars so hostile. Even if the relationships were forbidden surely they would want the two groups friendly towards on another? (If only to make it harder for mages/templars to leave and for mages to willingly attack templars.

I think it's because the templars aren't supposed to feel sorry for mages and try to help them escape or to be unwilling to kill them if need be.

There is some irony here:

• Shale: I am told that the Qunari put mages on leashes. Leashes! What a delightful concept!
• Sten: It is not something that one should take pleasure in. It is done because it is necessary.
• Shale: Why not put them out of their misery? Crush their skulls and be done with it. Fast. Efficient. Fun.
• Sten: You have been offended by such men, so your
  bloodlust can be forgiven. But these ones you speak of are to be pitied.
  Even so, they must serve, just as any other must serve. All must find
  their place within the Qun.

But of course I am not implying taht the Qunari system is better and Sten sometimes acts somewhat to the contrary of what he is saying here (then again, it's not his purpose to deal with mages as such his feelings are irrlevent and not representative of the system).

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A skilled spy or sabateur had the realistic potential to kill a few dozen in acts of sabatoge.

Abominations, even from the weak and untrained, can potentially wipe out hundreds, and see entire settlements destroyed.

Actually a skilled sabateur (esp if used in conjuction with overt military action) could wipe out thousands as well (think Chernobyl...yes that was an accident, but it's something a sabateur could easily have done).  For that matter blowing up ammo factories, etc etc.  Also information can effectively kill far more than lives than just dozens.

Sadly, nuclear powerplants of such scale were lacking around WW2, as were the means for such dashing factory raids. And while far be it from me to deny information is power, that sort of information is very, very specific in location and opportunity, and not as available or universal as potential magi dangers.

So if anything the spy/sabateur is a greater threat than any "abomination" save perhaps the most powerful.

Abominations (no need for scare quotes, really: they do exist and that is how they are referred to) in such a setting would have every ability to do anything a regular sabateur can, and more.

From a fundamental moral perspective there is not.  You are enslaving people based on who they are rather than what they've done.  It's fundamentally immoral.  If I have to explain that to you, then I feel very sorry for you.

I don't live in a moral world. I live in a physical world. People who have different dangers to others are treated differently. I have restrained people who could not stop themselves from hurting others, I unabashadly support the practice of quarantine for those who are extreme, even if not intentional, threats to others, and I will not refuse the rational, orderly detention of others before they can harm others so long as there is a process for it that can be improved.

As I said, I do not live in a fundamentally moral world. I live in a world in which fundamentalism is dangerous, and your morality is not more important than other peoples lives.

If you agree that locking away mages is a good idea, then the internment of the Japanese was equally good.  It's almost the same thing for almost exactly the same reasons.  You don't get to hold one position without the other at least with any logical consistancy.

Silly logical fallacy.

Most any mage has the power to do great harm to others and posses unmatchable powers, and even unwillingly or unintentionally, just on a bad day's lost control, turn into a grave threat to not only him/herself, but everyone around them. They are potentially dangerous despite age and intent, and the reasons for regulating and segregating them from a population that would kill them out of hand is the lives of everyone involved.

The ethnic Japanese interred were not in a position to do great harm, did not possess supernatural unmatchable powers, were no more dangerous to others than any given person, and were not even Japanese citizens in the first place. The basis for their detention was a groundless fear in large part also motivated by greed and unfounded fears, and their detention gave no discernable protection to anyone.

Flemmeth is not a threat.  She is a bogey-woman used to frighten children.  Outside her swamp, I've yet to see any solid evidence of how Flemeth is a real threat.  Uldred became what he did and could do what he did BECAUSE of the chantry and the circle system.  If anything Uldred is exhibit A in why the system has to be dismantled.  So for that matter is Conner.  The system is so bad that Isolde didn't want to put her son through it and set up conditions that invited the entire situation.

Flemmeth is the single most dangerous character we've met. She set in motion the means to take control of the spirit of an Old God. No matter what she does with it, she is incredibly dangerous.

The power Uldred had to misuse is what he was born with. Nothing the Chantry could do, besides Tranquility, would prevent the potential for abuse. The unrestrained nature of the Abomination is the point, not his intent.

The point is there are plenty of magical traditions outside the chantry and none of them show evidence of a rife abomination problem.  To justify the highly extreme act of enslaving a group of people just for what they are (with no trial or consideration possible), you need overwhelming justification, and it just isn't there no matter how hard the Chantry (and it's apologists) insist upon it.  [Heck look at Anerin who escaped before his harrowing and was a branded malificar.  Abomination bait?  Nope. A nice, well adjusted young mage who just wants to be left alone.]

-Polaris

None of them show any evidence of anything at all. What we know of the Tevinter mageocracy is that it's a mageocracy. What we know of the Rivain shamans is that there are Shamans who do it. We don't know how those things effect their nations. We don't know if they turn out better or worse. The most you have ever provided is that there aren't codex's from the Chantry saying that there aren't frequent disasters.

This is not hard evidence of anything.

[IanPolaris]

KoP,



Well, the Qun have a strong antipathy towards magic (that makes the Chantry look mild), but to their credit (such as it is), Sten (and the Qunari in general) never try to pretend that the enslavement of mages (however it's justified) is anything other than what it is....overt enslavement. That wins them points for honesty at the very least in my book.



-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
She's right.  I strongly doubt that tranquil have what we would consider free-will since free-will seems to require at least some emotional basis for it (any more than machines really have free will...and tranquil seem nothing more than biological machines at this point).

"Reason is the slave of the passions" - David Hume

I agree that it removes a large and crucial part of free will. And it reminds me too much of the Jedi and it reawakens my old disgust towards them.

I suspect that Lucrusians would sell their talents and abilities to the highest bidder or better yet go into business.  As you say, there are many things that magic can do very well that don't require enchanting that people would pay good money for (and not just in battle either).

-Polaris

I think they are my favorite fraternity and, were I in a position of power in Ferelden, would support whole heartedly in a mutually beneficial relationship.

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In the interest of clarity, we know very well that the Chantry does not do that practice. Templar/Mage relations, and Mage/Chantry worker relations, are strictly forbidden. The similarity is in effect of emotional linkage to the location of detention, not the means of creating and maintaining such linkage.

Of course it is.  Templars like all those in the Chantry that take holy vows are forbidden from having carnal relations at all.  Of course that just increases the likelyhood that mages in templar custudy will be abused (esp female ones) and I have seen no indication that the Chantry cares other than to say, "tut tut".

The reason is simple enough (and why many religions have such restrictions).  The chantry wants it's templars to be totally tied to itself with no inconvenient emotional bonds getting in the way.

-Polaris

Wow. This is rich. In no less than the same quote-post, you've contradicted what I said, contradicted yourself on what you contradicted, and somehow disproved something you never even really countered.

Just... man. I'm shaking my head.

My hat's off to you. I'll henceforth simply nod and smile and say I agree to anything you say in this thread, because I can now tell that's likely all you'll recognize.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually a skilled sabateur (esp if used in conjuction with overt military action) could wipe out thousands as well (think Chernobyl...yes that was an accident, but it's something a sabateur could easily have done).  For that matter blowing up ammo factories, etc etc.  Also information can effectively kill far more than lives than just dozens.[/quote]Sadly, nuclear powerplants of such scale were lacking around WW2, as were the means for such dashing factory raids. And while far be it from me to deny information is power, that sort of information is very, very specific in location and opportunity, and not as available or universal as potential magi dangers.
[/quote]

Tell that to the crews of freighers that got sunk by U-Boats because their route was known.  Tell that to the people down stream of a major dam that gets blown.  Tell that to the people who's city was bombed because sabateurs guided the planes in.  My comparison is very apt.


[quote]
[quote]
So if anything the spy/sabateur is a greater threat than any "abomination" save perhaps the most powerful.[/quote]Abominations (no need for scare quotes, really: they do exist and that is how they are referred to) in such a setting would have every ability to do anything a regular sabateur can, and more.
[quote]
From a fundamental moral perspective there is not.  You are enslaving people based on who they are rather than what they've done.  It's fundamentally immoral.  If I have to explain that to you, then I feel very sorry for you.[/quote]I don't live in a moral world. I live in a physical world. People who have different dangers to others are treated differently. I have restrained people who could not stop themselves from hurting others, I unabashadly support the practice of quarantine for those who are extreme, even if not intentional, threats to others, and I will not refuse the rational, orderly detention of others before they can harm others so long as there is a process for it that can be improved.
[/quote]

What you are describing (quarantine) are EXTREME measures by any measure.  In the case of people hurting themselves and/or others, it's because of what they are doing and/or have done.  The best case for your side is quarantine, but that as I just said is an EXTREME measure taken when there is a real and immediate and known threat if you do not.  None of that applies here.  The moral imperitive is very much part of the real world whether you want it to be or not.

[quote]
As I said, I do not live in a fundamentally moral world. I live in a world in which fundamentalism is dangerous, and your morality is not more important than other peoples lives.
[/quote]

If you could show positive evidence for a real and immediate threat, there would be a lot more sympathy for your position.  The only thing we know is that the chantry deliberatly HYPES such a threat to justify it's system.  If anyone is falling into the "fundamentalist" error it's the Chantry.

[quote]
[quote]
If you agree that locking away mages is a good idea, then the internment of the Japanese was equally good.  It's almost the same thing for almost exactly the same reasons.  You don't get to hold one position without the other at least with any logical consistancy.

[/quote]Silly logical fallacy.

Most any mage has the power to do great harm to others and posses unmatchable powers, and even unwillingly or unintentionally, just on a bad day's lost control, turn into a grave threat to not only him/herself, but everyone around them. They are potentially dangerous despite age and intent, and the reasons for regulating and segregating them from a population that would kill them out of hand is the lives of everyone involved.
[/quote]

Evidence would be nice.  There is no evidence that the chantry's circle system does anything to prevent this and there is quite a lot of annecdotal evidnece that it makes matters worse.

[quote]
The ethnic Japanese interred were not in a position to do great harm, did not possess supernatural unmatchable powers, were no more dangerous to others than any given person, and were not even Japanese citizens in the first place. The basis for their detention was a groundless fear in large part also motivated by greed and unfounded fears, and their detention gave no discernable protection to anyone.
[/quote]

The US Navy an US Govt didn't think so.  Neither did the US population as a whole (the internment was hugely popular at the time).  In fact Japanese spies in Hawaii in  particular did do a lot of damage.

[quote]
[quote]
Flemmeth is not a threat.  She is a bogey-woman used to frighten children.  Outside her swamp, I've yet to see any solid evidence of how Flemeth is a real threat.  Uldred became what he did and could do what he did BECAUSE of the chantry and the circle system.  If anything Uldred is exhibit A in why the system has to be dismantled.  So for that matter is Conner.  The system is so bad that Isolde didn't want to put her son through it and set up conditions that invited the entire situation.[/quote]Flemmeth is the single most dangerous character we've met. She set in motion the means to take control of the spirit of an Old God. No matter what she does with it, she is incredibly dangerous.
[/quote]

I didn't say that Flemeth wasn't a dangerous woman.  I said she wasn't a threat.  There is a difference.  The Templars have proven useless against Flemeth or even her daughter witches, and yet Femeth hasn't run amuck and razed Fereldan to the ground...and she's been around for centuries at the very least.  Given this, she's hardly a threat in the way you mean...and certainly a power that the Chantry is helpless against anyway. 

[quote]
The power Uldred had to misuse is what he was born with. Nothing the Chantry could do, besides Tranquility, would prevent the potential for abuse. The unrestrained nature of the Abomination is the point, not his intent.
[/quote]

Anyone with power can misuse it.  Why not lock up all the nobles in Ferelden because they might misuse their royal powers.  Sheesh.  The reason Uldred could do what he did was because the very secrecy and paranoia regarding blood magic and abominations, not only made it possible for Uldred to form a shadow circle right under the Chantry's nose (and Irving was totally fooled...read his journal) but actually gave them a form of magic that the chantry was helpless against because of their own stupidity.  Marry that with a since of being wrongly imprisoned and you've got a witches brew just waiting for demons to take advantage of it.


[quote][quote]
The point is there are plenty of magical traditions outside the chantry and none of them show evidence of a rife abomination problem.  To justify the highly extreme act of enslaving a group of people just for what they are (with no trial or consideration possible), you need overwhelming justification, and it just isn't there no matter how hard the Chantry (and it's apologists) insist upon it.  [Heck look at Anerin who escaped before his harrowing and was a branded malificar.  Abomination bait?  Nope. A nice, well adjusted young mage who just wants to be left alone.]

-Polaris
None of them show any evidence of anything at all. What we know of the Tevinter mageocracy is that it's a mageocracy. What we know of the Rivain shamans is that there are Shamans who do it. We don't know how those things effect their nations. We don't know if they turn out better or worse. The most you have ever provided is that there aren't codex's from the Chantry saying that there aren't frequent disasters.

This is not hard evidence of anything.

[/quote]

To justify the acts you are defending, you need to show me with hard evidence that you HAVE to lock away mages and throw away the key.  The fact that Tevinter, and many other cultures (including the Dalish both as a kingdom and as clans) do just fine without this system is evidence against your position. Negative evidence is valid.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 décembre 2010 - 11:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes Polaris. Of course Polaris. You're absolutely right in all respects, Polaris.

[BelgarathMTH]

(MAJOR HUGE SPOILER FOR END OF GAME - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NEVER FINISHED)

As a brief diversion from the fireworks here (delightful, by the way - Dean, you are my hero!) --

I have a little secret to confess - I have never before this very evening finished the game! That's right, I only just now, right now, finished for the first time! I had on previous playthroughs stopped a little short of the final chapter because I wanted to try some different builds or ideas. (Respec 1.6 put an end to that problem for me.)

Here's what I did, and one of my choices directly impacts this discussion:

1)Landsmeet - intended to spare Logain, Alistair insisted that he must be executed, I let myself be talked into it, made Alistair do the deed. Used my infuence to have him spare Anora and lock her in the tower. Made Alistair king.
2)Did the Dark Ritual - made Alistair have sex with Morri since I always thought those two liked each other anyway. (I am gay to the core and would not have been able to do the deed. In a gay relationship with Zevran. Had sex with Alistair while he was inexperienced, decided he, being of royal blood, and since he was as bi as Zev, should be straight so he could have heirs. Told him I didn't love him, hardened him. I was lying, but I love Zev too, so hey, it was all for the best.)
3) Beat the Archdemon. (Epic battle on Nightmare, way cool! Only used the Redcliffe men and didn't need any other alliances.)
4) At Alistairs coronation, he offered me any boon. ASKED HIM TO FREE THE MAGES' CIRCLE.

So now, much of this discussion can take a different turn. While I believe that mages need to be policed, my loyalty to mages like First Enchanter Irving make me think that mages can and should police themselves, being trained and supervised by others who are sympathetic to them.

The main point of this post is that - it should be remembered that the player character has a way to exercise political influence at the end of the game, and if you think that mages can supervise themselves better than the Templars, you actually can make that happen in-game.

I've never been so happy and satisfied with the resolution of a story. Dragon Age is a most awesome game!

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 29 décembre 2010 - 11:06 .

[IanPolaris]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

4) At Alistairs coronation, he offered me any boon. ASKED HIM TO FREE THE MAGES' CIRCLE.

I almost always pick this as well when I play a mage.  The problem is nothing changes.  King Alistair (or Queen Anora...she also grants this boon) tells the Grand Cleric, "Free the Circle",and the Grand Cleric says, "Go fish"

Nothing changes.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

With mana clash and the anti-magic school, I think a mage police would in fact be better equipped than Templars, to deal with other mages. But of course: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?



That's why I want to know about Ancient Tevinter dammit! Why were we in the semi civilized Ferelden anyways?

[Bigdoser]

Don't worry KoP we might see more of the tevinter in dragon age 2 who knows we may be able to side with them. Rember BW said that we can be named champion by different groups.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

With mana clash and the anti-magic school, I think a mage police would in fact be better equipped than Templars, to deal with other mages. But of course: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

That's why I want to know about Ancient Tevinter dammit! Why were we in the semi civilized Ferelden anyways?

Nice Watchman quote.  However, don't think it's hopeless.  I think there is a strong place in any army for warriors trained in Templar skills (minus the Lyrium addiction which doesn't seen necessary anyway) and I think such warriors would be trained not only to fight magic but to work with allied magic as well.  Also bear in mind that mages like anyone else are human.  Those in magical law enforcement would have to show superlative character and would be watched by others carefully just as our own Secret Police (FBI, MVD, whatever depending on nation) is.  Accountability would be key I think.

I also have no problem with the idea that any crime done by magic would automatically draw a much harsher response than crime done another way.

-Polaris

[Dean_the_Young]

Not only Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, but how much to does the lore follow game play?



Magic was unbalanced as was. It could well be that, in the lore (and DA2?), Templars (who will be a much more important focus apparently) will be far better against magic, as lore-intended.



Magic-resistant armor was great and all, but I always had a feeling that the immunity and resistance was intended to be characteristic of the Templar, not the metalwork around him. An increasingly magic-resistent passive ability, rather than Mental Fortress, could have illustrated the intent: as it was, Templars weren't that much better against mages either.

[Dean_the_Young]

Not only Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, but how much to does the lore follow game play?



Magic was unbalanced as was. It could well be that, in the lore (and DA2?), Templars (who will be a much more important focus apparently) will be far better against magic, as lore-intended.



Magic-resistant armor was great and all, but I always had a feeling that the immunity and resistance was intended to be characteristic of the Templar, not the metalwork around him. An increasingly magic-resistent passive ability, rather than Mental Fortress, could have illustrated the intent: as it was, Templars weren't that much better against mages either.

[IanPolaris]

Let me make on thing clear. The idea that Templar-like warriors should exist to help police magic is something I am all for. I think such warriors should work in tandem with bonded (voluntarily bonded mind you) mages to regulate magic and fight magical crime and abuse.



I also don't think such should be left to a single organization either. Cross accountability is key I think.



In fact in a Dwarven Circle, I could easily imagine Dagna getting in contact with the Warden-Commander of Ferelden and/or King Alistair and asking to train selected warriors to assist and guard mages in the Orzammar circle...but such warriers would answer to Dagna...and King Bhelen not the chantry.



Just a few thoughts. The problem I have with the Templars is they are a drug addicted arm of the Chantry and the chantry provides no oversight and/or accountability for how they handle mages.



-Polaris

[BelgarathMTH]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sigh,

I can not believe that people are openly supporting bigotry and slavery just because of an accident of birth even in a fictional world. It makes me a sad panda to think such attitudes still exist even now. [And yes, pro-chantry posters, that is *precisely* what you are advocating and defending. Given this extreme position, the burden of proof is on you to show it's actually necessary. I've shown at least empirical evidence that strongly indicates it is not.]

-Polaris

Empirical evidence? Are you kidding? Empirical? That means you have to do an experiment with a control group. Do you even know what the word means? This is analysis of a work of literature, not science. Good grief.

Polaris, you are rapidly making quite a fool of yourself, my friend, by refusing to give even a single counterargument to points being made, and flailing about like a madman with logical fallacy after logical fallacy, (the quote above being ad hominem, your reference to "bigotry" and "slavery" being clearly emotional straw men, and basically a whole lot of simply ignoring your opponents' counterpoints.)

We are not promoting attitudes of any kind about real life, 21st century democracies. We are engaging in hypothetical what-if discussion about a work of literature.

Get a grip, Polaris. The definition of psychosis is a mental state where the victim cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[BelgarathMTH]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Ultimately I think a combined approach would be needed. You'd need mage "inspectors" to make sure all the mages were on the up and up, but then you'd need templars to keep a look out for mages on the rampage and for rogue inspectors.

Hanz, I think you make a lot of sense. I'll be sure to use my influence with King Alistair to try to get him to implement your ideas.

'Will be starting Awakenings tomorrow, so I know I might change my tune again once I know the rest of the canon.

[IanPolaris]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sigh,

I can not believe that people are openly supporting bigotry and slavery just because of an accident of birth even in a fictional world. It makes me a sad panda to think such attitudes still exist even now. [And yes, pro-chantry posters, that is *precisely* what you are advocating and defending. Given this extreme position, the burden of proof is on you to show it's actually necessary. I've shown at least empirical evidence that strongly indicates it is not.]

-Polaris

Empirical evidence? Are you kidding? Empirical? That means you have to do an experiment with a control group. Do you even know what the word means? This is analysis of a work of literature, not science. Good grief.

The word applies as long as we understand we are comparing control groups within the game.  The game/story itself gives us the evidence and within that context it is empirical evidence.

Polaris, you are rapidly making quite a fool of yourself, my friend, by refusing to give even a single counterargument to points being made, and flailing about like a madman with logical fallacy after logical fallacy, (the quote above being ad hominem, your reference to "bigotry" and "slavery" being clearly emotional straw men, and basically a whole lot of simply ignoring your opponents' counterpoints.)

Really?  Very strong arguments have already been made (and not by me I hasten to add) that what the mages undergo is essentially by definition both slavery and bigotry.  Thus no logical fallacy has been made.  If you accept the convention definitions of both words and still defend what the Chantry does, then you are (arguably I admit but it is a valid line of attack) defending both.

As for ignoring my opponent's counterpoints, I am not.  I am merely pointing out that the burden is on them to show why an extreme solution is needed.  Indeed if anyone's points have been ignored it's been mind since the best that they can say about the lack of an apparent abomination problem outside the Andrastian nations is, "It's a story so you don't get to use valid negative evidence".

We are not promoting attitudes of any kind about real life, 21st century democracies. We are engaging in hypothetical what-if discussion about a work of literature.

Get a grip, Polaris. The definition of psychosis is a mental state where the victim cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Yes, a game.  A game that is being played by real people with 21st century mentalities and attitudes.  Again (and I've said this before), if you want to play a moral monster in a game, so be it.  If you want to defend a morally reprehensible system in a game for whatever reason (including just the lulz), go for it.  Just be aware that you are doing so.

-Polaris

[BelgarathMTH]

Polaris, I'll try saying it one more time. We are doing literary analysis here. The standard of proof is quotations from the source material, and that is only to support theories about what is actually in the literature being studied.



Any drawing of analogies or parallels to real life is purely specualtive and subjective. Academia has no condoned "proof" whatsoever about trying to apply fiction to real life as though such endeavors were objective.



The standard of proof for propositions made in real life is empiricism. Attempting to claim that the tools of empiricism can be used to apply a piece of literature to real life is very similar to the fundamentalist religionist's claim that his or her sacred piece of writing is supported by empirical means. It simply isn't so to anyone who truly approaches life as a hard empiricist, as I do.



I object to your cheap and false appeal to the connotative respectability implied by the word "empricism", and I do so as a philosophical hard empiricist.



The only valid approach to a game like Dragon Age, which I am complimenting by granting it the status of "literature" is to ask "what did the author intend"? We are all getting a little out of hand in this thread in our subjective and emotional connections of the literary themes contained in Dragon Age to our own psychological impressions of real life.



I must object most strenuously to the apparent disconnect from reality that is going on here, as evidenced by extremely emotional argumentation in support of ideas that should be discussed as relating to real life, not as relating to a work of fiction, unless we are all clearly on the same page about what we are doing in our interactions here.

[IanPolaris]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

Polaris, I'll try saying it one more time. We are doing literary analysis here. The standard of proof is quotations from the source material, and that is only to support theories about what is actually in the literature being studied.

And I have appealed to such. 

Any drawing of analogies or parallels to real life is purely specualtive and subjective. Academia has no condoned "proof" whatsoever about trying to apply fiction to real life as though such endeavors were objective.

First of all this a forum and not a moderated Oxford symposiom of literature.  In the second place, no one appointed you debate moderator.  Finally, analogies aren't "proof" but if you can show a the same system IRL, you can appeal to logical consistancy.  I have and so have many other posters.

The standard of proof for propositions made in real life is empiricism. Attempting to claim that the tools of empiricism can be used to apply a piece of literature to real life is very similar to the fundamentalist religionist's claim that his or her sacred piece of writing is supported by empirical means. It simply isn't so to anyone who truly approaches life as a hard empiricist, as I do.

Deal with it.  This is not just a story but an interactive world and as such, we can appeal to in-universe consistancey and yes "empiricism" where "empiricism" is used to measure the verisimillitude of the world in question.  Baring direct word from the writers of the world, we can use different situations within the world and cross compare just as though it were real since this is an interactive roleplaying universe.  The same would apply if I were talking about say Ebberon or Forgotten Realms.

I object to your cheap and false appeal to the connotative respectability implied by the word "empricism", and I do so as a philosophical hard empiricist.

Deal.  What I am doing is valid especially on a non-academic board devoted to an interactive RPG world.

The only valid approach to a game like Dragon Age, which I am complimenting by granting it the status of "literature" is to ask "what did the author intend"? We are all getting a little out of hand in this thread in our subjective and emotional connections of the literary themes contained in Dragon Age to our own psychological impressions of real life.

This is an interactive RPG universe which means the even the word of the author isn't aways the final word (for example DG has no say as to what our individual wardens might think).  Even then, you have failed to show what DG (or any other author) has intended in contrast to my points which means my points about the lack of "Abominations Gone Wild" stand.

I must object most strenuously to the apparent disconnect from reality that is going on here, as evidenced by extremely emotional argumentation in support of ideas that should be discussed as relating to real life, not as relating to a work of fiction, unless we are all clearly on the same page about what we are doing in our interactions here.

'
What disconnect?  We all know it's a fictional world and game.  However, the moral issues are very much germane in both fiction and life.  The same justifications that are used in game for mages can be used out of game for other reasons.  I am not saying that we should blur the line, but you don't get to say, "you can't make RL comparisons".  We can, I have (as have others), and I will continue to.

Deal.

-Polaris

[BelgarathMTH]

ROFLMAO.



Nyah, nyah! Deal! Bleah! Deal!



ROFLMAO.



This whole thread has degenerated into a playground game of king of the hill!!!



This is so funny! All of us are obviously intelligent people here! We need to lighten up.

[BelgarathMTH]

:lol:=]:P=]:lol::lol::O

<whew>