1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Riona45]

Malanek999 wrote...
IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group.

This point is the "kicker" that many people in these debates overlook.  I guess it's much easier to pretend that people are arguing for no regulation standards at all rather than better standards.

[Morroian]

GreyArea wrote...

Exactly. The question you have to ask is do we need mages? Are they useful to us? Can you live without mages? I say my life wont be a bit worse without mages - the opposite is true. I would at least be safe.

Given the potential productive uses of mages society would definitely be better off if they were used productively.

[Ziggeh]

GreyArea wrote...

I can't believe anyone could say mages should be able to walk freely anywhere. It is not about hate but just common sense. What happened in Connor catastrophy? A whole village almost destroyed. How much proof you want untill you believe one mage can destroy a village and a group of mages can destroy the whole world?

You're that guy who was refering to things as Melkor on another account aren't you?

I apologise for reading a purpose into your actions.

[Ziggeh]

Riona45 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group.

This point is the "kicker" that many people in these debates overlook.  I guess it's much easier to pretend that people are arguing for no regulation standards at all rather than better standards.

I think the relationship is inherently antagonistic, that any group placed to guard another will develop animosity on both sides.

[Riona45]

Yes, well, that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it.  "Any such relationship will be bad (I know that for a fact!), so let's not bother to discuss the obvious errors of this one."  What a cop-out.  Why bother even trying to have a discussion?

Modifié par Riona45, 07 février 2011 - 05:05 .

[Ziggeh]

Riona45 wrote...

Yes, well, that seems like a very simplistic way of looking at it.  "Any such relationship will be bad (I know that for a fact!), so let's not bother to discuss the obvious errors of this one."

Heh, firstly, I have experimental evidence of the fact, if you want to get into that, secondly, how did you read dismissal of the discussion in general terms from my opinion about the nature of the relationship?

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

I can't believe anyone could say mages should be able to walk freely anywhere. It is not about hate but just common sense. What happened in Connor catastrophy? A whole village almost destroyed. How much proof you want untill you believe one mage can destroy a village and a group of mages can destroy the whole world?

You're that guy who was refering to things as Melkor on another account aren't you?

I apologise for reading a purpose into your actions.

I see he is banned. I can't be what is banned. It is just grey area.

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 05:15 .

[Nashiktal]

Ziggeh wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group.

This point is the "kicker" that many people in these debates overlook.  I guess it's much easier to pretend that people are arguing for no regulation standards at all rather than better standards.

I think the relationship is inherently antagonistic, that any group placed to guard another will develop animosity on both sides.

Well it depends on the system. A guard/prison system like today does indeed cause antagonism toward one another. Its a power and control thing. If I remember this correctly, an experiment was done with pretend prison wardens, and pretend prisoners, and it somehow turned into a very violent system.

However another type of system that is similar yet different... Is the Guardian/prisoner interaction. (Think Bioshock Infinity)

Where the Guardian protects the prisoner from all outside influences, being a source of protection and sometimes friendship, yet can cause antagonism since the prisoner is still a prisoner.

[Riona45]

Ziggeh wrote...
Heh, firstly, I have experimental evidence of the fact, if you want to get into that...

Are you going to draw a real-life parallel after suggesting (borderline lecturing) that isn't a good idea because it results in an incomplete understanding?  Maybe you're right.  But no, I don't think we should "get into that."  The history of threads like this suggests that that would not be the best idea.

...secondly, how did you read dismissal of the discussion in general terms from my opinion about the nature of the relationship?

"...any group placed to guard another will develop animosity on both sides."  And you just left it at that, like there's nothing else to say.  "It's going to be bad no matter what," by itself implies that there's no real reason to change.  Maybe you didn't intend to be dismissive, but that's why I thought you were.

Modifié par Riona45, 07 février 2011 - 05:44 .

[GreyArea]

Nashiktal wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group.

This point is the "kicker" that many people in these debates overlook.  I guess it's much easier to pretend that people are arguing for no regulation standards at all rather than better standards.

I think the relationship is inherently antagonistic, that any group placed to guard another will develop animosity on both sides.

Well it depends on the system. A guard/prison system like today does indeed cause antagonism toward one another. Its a power and control thing. If I remember this correctly, an experiment was done with pretend prison wardens, and pretend prisoners, and it somehow turned into a very violent system.

However another type of system that is similar yet different... Is the Guardian/prisoner interaction. (Think Bioshock Infinity)

Where the Guardian protects the prisoner from all outside influences, being a source of protection and sometimes friendship, yet can cause antagonism since the prisoner is still a prisoner.

Interesting, but how you think a guardian helps when a mage suddenly turns into powerful abdomination and casts crushing prison on the guardian? Not to speak of all other spells including mind control. If the mage is abdomination or is possessed by a demon the relationship between guardian and the mage does not matter.

Also the mage could escape when the guardian is sleeping or pooping.

[GreyArea]

Riona45 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
Heh, firstly, I have experimental evidence of the fact, if you want to get into that...

Are you going to draw a real-life parallel after suggesting (borderline lecturing) that isn't a good idea because it results in an incomplete understanding?  Maybe you're right.  But no, I don't think we should "get into that."  The history of threads like this suggests that that would not be the best idea.

Indeed.

This is actually very simple. The problem has been intended to be "grey area" meaning there is no right or wrong. So we just do some basic math. First ask "is something useful?" If it is not, then it can be killed. No harm done. Now ask are mages useful? Mages can be useful in war. So mages should be saved for war. Now, in case we want to spare mages for war, we just invent some way to preserve them untill a war comes.

I think you are thinking too much into it if you begin to think anything more complicated. The current circle however is not working because there are mages and demons on the lose. So we just need some better circle. Now remember that Mages could be useful in war even if they are blind. If Qunari has cut tongues away, we can certainly poke with some needle mage's eyes. A blind mage can't cause much destruction but it could still be used in war as a healer or area of effect caster.

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 06:11 .

[obsessedwjpn]

Just my two cents: I love mages and the idea of their existence.



A book I am reading now made a very interesting comment of: "Magic is dangerous, but love can be even more dangerous."



Human emotions, in my opinion, are very dangerous compared with anything. They make people do the worst and the best of things. They are very unpredictable. Magic, at least, is a source from which people can attempt to comprehend what is going on, especially if one understands the Fade and its workings. It is always a gamble as to whether a mage will become an abomination or not but I still look on mages positively. This is not to say I don't understand and accept what the templars do.



Each side has their own right and wrong.

[GreyArea]

obsessedwjpn wrote...

Just my two cents: I love mages and the idea of their existence.

A book I am reading now made a very interesting comment of: "Magic is dangerous, but love can be even more dangerous."

Human emotions, in my opinion, are very dangerous compared with anything. They make people do the worst and the best of things. They are very unpredictable. Magic, at least, is a source from which people can attempt to comprehend what is going on, especially if one understands the Fade and its workings. It is always a gamble as to whether a mage will become an abomination or not but I still look on mages positively. This is not to say I don't understand and accept what the templars do.

Each side has their own right and wrong.

Er..I am sorry miss, but there is no right or wrong. It is grey area. So you can do whatever with them mages.

[obsessedwjpn]

GreyArea wrote...

obsessedwjpn wrote...

Just my two cents: I love mages and the idea of their existence.

A book I am reading now made a very interesting comment of: "Magic is dangerous, but love can be even more dangerous."

Human emotions, in my opinion, are very dangerous compared with anything. They make people do the worst and the best of things. They are very unpredictable. Magic, at least, is a source from which people can attempt to comprehend what is going on, especially if one understands the Fade and its workings. It is always a gamble as to whether a mage will become an abomination or not but I still look on mages positively. This is not to say I don't understand and accept what the templars do.

Each side has their own right and wrong.

Er..I am sorry miss, but there is no right or wrong. It is grey area. So you can do whatever with them mages.

I agree there is a grey area. What I meant by right and wrong is that everyone can see their way of life and the way they think as right and wrong, meaning that the templars feel they are doing the right thing while some mages disagree with this. Everyone has the right to judge accordingly their actions as to what they perceive as in the best interest of their own view of good and evil (because most human beings don't see grey and are rather presumptious). That is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

Modifié par obsessedwjpn, 07 février 2011 - 06:22 .

[GreyArea]

obsessedwjpn wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

obsessedwjpn wrote...

Just my two cents: I love mages and the idea of their existence.

A book I am reading now made a very interesting comment of: "Magic is dangerous, but love can be even more dangerous."

Human emotions, in my opinion, are very dangerous compared with anything. They make people do the worst and the best of things. They are very unpredictable. Magic, at least, is a source from which people can attempt to comprehend what is going on, especially if one understands the Fade and its workings. It is always a gamble as to whether a mage will become an abomination or not but I still look on mages positively. This is not to say I don't understand and accept what the templars do.

Each side has their own right and wrong.

Er..I am sorry miss, but there is no right or wrong. It is grey area. So you can do whatever with them mages.

I agree there is a grey area. What I meant by right and wrong is that everyone can see their way of life and the way they think as right and wrong, meaning that the templars feel they are doing the right thing while some mages disagree with this. Everyone has the right to judge accordingly their actions as to what they perceive as in the best interest of their own view of good and evil (because most human beings don't see grey and are rather presumptious). That is what I meant, sorry for the confusion.

Heh, well, you are right. Everyone can make that decision himself. Templars feel they are doing the right thing and that is what matters. If you or me or mages disagree, it doesn't matter. There is no right or wrong, just opinions. I am very glad you understood this. *chuckles warmly*


Edit: All I wrote was just nonsense. And I stop writing that nonsense because I am not able to corrupt anymore.

You can begin to calculate that mages can kill people like anyone else can, and then slay them or do whatever you fancy is "beneficial" to the society. But even by then the fact does not change: you are doing wrong in the name of greater good. However if you don't kill an innocent mage, then you are doing the right thing even if someone would try to say you should kill the mage in the name of greater good.

If you ignore facts and want to just use math to calculate what is right or wrong, then that is your thing. You can do that, but it is only math. As a result you can get different numbers and based on what you want to achieve you can compare the numbers and say "this is the right answer, I should do it like this". This is your gray area. There the right answer depends on what you want to achieve.

(I haven't yet seen how this subjectivity problem in ethics can be solved. Even very hard thinking did not help. It is a little bit complicated thing. And if it is subjective, so be it, and I still certainly know what is my point of view.)

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 08:28 .

[the_one_54321]

Consider that the phrase "all men are created equal" is only applicable when it is reasonably demonstrable that all men are indeed created equal.

In the real world it is demonstrable that all men are indeed created with relative equality. In Thedas it is demonstrable, rather, that mages are not created equal to other men.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

SkyWard20 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...
If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

Indeed. The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

lol, never thought the lead writer of bioware games would be so pessimistic.

Yeah, tell me about it.  IMHO it ranks as one of the worst Dev quotes I've ever read anywhere.  Not only is it pessimistic, but IMHO I find it at least borderline condescending.

-Polaris

Meh..Personally,  any of your quotes works far better as the "worst quote ever".

[Lotion Soronarr]

I go away for two days and you move ahead several pages....sheesh.

And now reading over them, it's the same old...
Well, I won't bother adressing Lob's posts (because he jsut repeats himself).

Polaris, let me remind you that your "social footprint" theroy has been debunked (I offered 3 plausible explanations before), so using it again and again as any sort of evidence is silly.



And what's with some people directly attacking DG now?
Not liking what he said?

[GreyArea]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Consider that the phrase "all men are created equal" is only applicable when it is reasonably demonstrable that all men are indeed created equal.
In the real world it is demonstrable that all men are indeed created with relative equality. In Thedas it is demonstrable, rather, that mages are not created equal to other men.

Yes, but that's why I call them people. As people they are equal, and it is not wrong to call them people. You can't be less or more people.

[LobselVith8]

GreyArea wrote...
Interesting, but how you think a guardian helps when a mage suddenly turns into powerful abdomination and casts crushing prison on the guardian? Not to speak of all other spells including mind control. If the mage is abdomination or is possessed by a demon the relationship between guardian and the mage does not matter.
Also the mage could escape when the guardian is sleeping or pooping.

Anyone can be possessed, which is why I think Ian's suggestion of a law enforcement group of mages and non-mages would make more sense than the current system the Chantry forces throughout Thedas. The fact that a kitten possessed by a Rage Demon was able to kill three templars or that dead trees can become possessed makes me wonder why people are always so eager to bring this issue up. If the threat of abominations could be defeated long before the Order of Templars ever came into existance, I don't see it as a valid excuse for imprisoning mages, especially when we're never given any evidence that imprisoning the mages is warranted - a peaceful protest in Orlais doesn't constitute a legitament reason to imprison innocent people under armed drug addicts.  I believe Malanek999 said it best when saying that putting mages under an order that hates them isn't a good idea.

GreyArea wrote...
Indeed.
This is actually very simple. The problem has been intended to be "grey area" meaning there is no right or wrong. So we just do some basic math. First ask "is something useful?" If it is not, then it can be killed. No harm done. Now ask are mages useful? Mages can be useful in war. So mages should be saved for war. Now, in case we want to spare mages for war, we just invent some way to preserve them untill a war comes.
I think you are thinking too much into it if you begin to think anything more complicated. The current circle however is not working because there are mages and demons on the lose. So we just need some better circle. Now remember that Mages could be useful in war even if they are blind. If Qunari has cut tongues away, we can certainly poke with some needle mage's eyes. A blind mage can't cause much destruction but it could still be used in war as a healer or area of effect caster.

There is right and wrong; you can argue it's an issue of interpretation. I know Sir JK is on the side of the Chantry in these issues, and I take the opposing side. Ignoring the facts and brushing it all aside to say that "it's a gray issue" doesn't make much sense when it's the lives of human beings we're discussing. The problem with the current system is that mages are under the control of a religious order that preaches that they nearly ended the world and keeps them under their thumb. I find DG's attack on fans who take the other side of the issue incredibly insulting when we see that the templars can put an apprentice through the Rite of Tranquility without showing any of the "evidence" in question to the First Enchanter. Are we supposed to leave our modern values behind in a setting that clearly takes modern values into account when we see women being treated as equals to men?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And now reading over them, it's the same old...
Well, I won't bother adressing Lob's posts (because he jsut repeats himself).

Yeah, I repeatedly ask you not to personally attack people or troll them. You keep failing to heed this advice by calling people stupid and insulting them.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Polaris, let me remind you that your "social footprint" theroy has been debunked (I offered 3 plausible explanations before), so using it again and again as any sort of evidence is silly.

Actually, you failed to debunk anything. Ian countered every one of your "claims." You either fan fic abominations handing out quests for the Mages Collective or you ignore the canon of the Chantry being forced to accept the Right of Conscription because you dislike the fact that they have to accept it. In fact, you claimed nobody could argue your pro-Chantry side because it was all "morally grey."

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And what's with some people directly attacking DG now?
Not liking what he said

Regarding the quote, people took offensive to a condescending remark DG made about them. Not quite as "odd" as comparing the Qunari to Islam, but that's not a discussion I'm looking to have. I don't understand the point of DG attacking people for taking a stand on the issue - are we not allowed to form our own opinion on the issue of whether imprisoning innocent people for what they may do is correct or incorrect? I especially don't understand this when he wrote Fiona (in The Calling) seeing the Circle as no better than her life as the sex save to an Orlesian noble.

[Ziggeh]

Riona45 wrote...

Are you going to draw a real-life parallel after suggesting (borderline lecturing) that isn't a good idea because it results in an incomplete understanding? 

I was suggesting it was problematic to draw a real life parallel of a concept with no comparable counterpart (or rather the moral position of such). This does have a real life parallel. Assuming they're human, of course.

Riona45 wrote...
"...any group placed to guard another will develop animosity on both sides."  And you just left it at that, like there's nothing else to say.  "It's going to be bad no matter what," by itself implies that there's no real reason to change.  Maybe you didn't intend to be dismissive, but that's why I thought you were.

In fairness it was more a counterpoint to the statement you quoted than your own, I just felt that yours added something useful to the dialogue and didn't want to skip it, so I guess I can see how you saw me as arguing the more general point.

That said, I do indeed believe that there is no "good" solution to the problem, that it has been written carefully with that intent. I don't think that's a reason not to change, and especially not to discuss one, but it does change the discussion somewhat.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ignoring the facts and brushing it all aside to say that "it's a gray issue" doesn't make much sense when it's the lives of human beings we're discussing.

As far as I can tell "Gray Area", who is the same guy who was posting (and banned) yesterday as Molami, is roleplaying or something. He's essentially just trolling.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I find DG's attack on fans who take the other side of the issue incredibly insulting when we see that the templars can put an apprentice through the Rite of Tranquility without showing any of the "evidence" in question to the First Enchanter. Are we supposed to leave our modern values behind in a setting that clearly takes modern values into account when we see women being treated as equals to men?

Nono, that's not what he was saying, or indeed attacking people. He's saying that simplifying, removing from the moral equation all of the fantasy elements upon which the question is based, diminishes it and would leave you with incomplete reasoning. He's not saying that's true of all anti chantry arguments, because that would be doing the exact thing he's warning against from the opposite direction, he's just saying there's quite a lot of it about. Which is true.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 07 février 2011 - 02:36 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Ziggeh wrote...
Nono, that's not what he was saying, or indeed attacking people. He's saying that simplifying, removing from the moral equation all of the fantasy elements upon which the question is based, diminishes it and would leave you with incomplete reasoning. He's not saying that's true of all anti chantry arguments, because that would be doing the exact thing he's warning against from the opposite direction, he's just saying there's quite a lot of it about. Which is true.

And let's not forget that Gaider will often play devil's advocate to an alternate point of view when people try to claim their POV is some sort of fact. He has, after all, gone over both arguments in his head well before any of us started debating the subject.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 07 février 2011 - 03:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I find DG's attack on fans who take the other side of the issue incredibly insulting when we see that the templars can put an apprentice through the Rite of Tranquility without showing any of the "evidence" in question to the First Enchanter. Are we supposed to leave our modern values behind in a setting that clearly takes modern values into account when we see women being treated as equals to men?

What "attack" are you talking about? 
DG debunking some of your theories and exposing your lack of perspective?
If that's what you consider an attack, I'm wondering why you havn't declared war on 99% of the world...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Polaris, let me remind you that your "social footprint" theroy has been debunked (I offered 3 plausible explanations before), so using it again and again as any sort of evidence is silly.

Actually, you failed to debunk anything. Ian countered every one of your "claims."

He didn't coutner anything. He pretty much ignored them.
And you sure as hell haven't.
And effectively, you CAN'T. They are impossible to conunter really, given that theys are plausible explanations of the so-called "missing phenomenom".

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What "attack" are you talking about? 
DG debunking some of your theories and exposing your lack of perspective?
If that's what you consider an attack, I'm wondering why you havn't declared war on 99% of the world...

Debunking theories? Let's look at the quote from David Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

Indeed. The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one should treat mages is how fair that treatment is.

Gaider is making an assessment about the fans, not about the validity of the Chantry controlled Circles. That's my issue with the quote - he's making a judgement about the fans and why they take the stance that they do. It reads like ridicule to me, but it doesn't support your stand that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary - especially when you ignore that the current system appears to be leading to an all-out war between the Order of Templars and the mages of Thedas.

Furthermore:

David Gaider wrote...
Of course, we don't have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

Besides being condescending to fans, I don't see anything in the statement that even suggests that he's even supporting your argument, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

He didn't coutner anything. He pretty much ignored them.
And you sure as hell haven't.
And effectively, you CAN'T. They are impossible to conunter really, given that theys are plausible explanations of the so-called "missing phenomenom".

Ian didn't ignore anything, he addressed all of your points, and you changed your stance about the Chantry into claiming that nobody could disagree with you because it was "morally grey." So far we have the fact that Emperor Kordillus Drakon I created the Circle of Magi to place mages under the control of the Chantry, and Divine Ambrosia II segregating the mages because of a peaceful protest they held. No evidence that imprisoning mages is necessary.