2340 réponses à ce sujet

[RagingCyclone]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Sylvianus and MichaelFinnegan-if you are going to use Caesar to base arguments on...please study up on history of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. There are differences in the laws and culture before and after the civil war which led to the transition from Republic to Empire. Thank you.

History is definitely not my strong point, but I guess you're right. But, in this context, in what manner would it help to do as you suggest? Do you find fault with either argument as a whole or with certain aspects of it?

In the case of the Republic, the laws and rights pertained to Citizens only with a definite class system in place. One could have been born in the Roman Republic sphere of influence say in Northern Italy, but was not a citizen, but also not a slave. An ingame example of this would be the elven merchant whose daughter was taken by the magister's son.While he had wealth he had no power. So if a Roman citizen so wanted he could claim the possessions of a non citizen. It often did not happen due to maintaining control and power over a region to avoid uprisings, but there were no laws against it either since a Roman citizen had all rights and authority above those beneath them. So in that regard some slaves lived better lives than non citizens.  During the time of the Empire things changed dramatically as the Empire grew with the imposition of regional governers to maintain control over the various territories the Empire controlled. A governor could act authortarily as his own little regional emperor as long as he did not anger Rome. During the Republic this was not the case as the voted Consuls and the Senate held control over all aspects of the Republic including the territories under it's influence.

Edit: I also forgot to add that during the Republic there were few conscriptions in the army. To gain power and rise to become a member of the Senate Romans often joined the army. It was professional. That changed during the Empire due it's expansion and sphere of influence. Conscriptions did then become common in the outlying areas of the Empire especially during it's latter years and before the split into Eastern and Western.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 14 septembre 2011 - 04:09 .

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because the endings make a distinction between "many survivors" if Hawke protects the mages and making no reference to many survivors if Hawke aids the templars. Apparently, "many survivors" only transpires if Hawke is protecting the mages. If only one ending notes that many survived, and the other doesn't, then it's a clear distinction between the two acts.

So there is evidence that something on screen (the additional ending lines about "many survivors") to support the idea that something else seen on-screen (the deaths of only approx 100 mages) was not the entire story ( i.e. just because you only saw 100 mages die, there could have been more because the ending lines evidence it).

My argument is that something on screen (Cullen showing sympathy for the surrendering mages) supports the idea that something else seen on-screen (Cullen only saving 3  mages) is not the entire story ( i.e just because we only saw Cullen save 3 mages, there could have been more because he is shown as being capable of sympathy for mages).

What happens on-screen is that a pro-mage Hawke makes it clear that he's going to protect the mages from the incoming templars who plan on killing them, and he (or she) gets assistance from his moiety crew. We see Hawke killing templars and we see Hawke protecting mages. It's not as though Varric's comment that "many suvivors" were saved from the templars comes out of nowhere.

The fate of the three mages who are spared isn't known - they may be made tranquil, and Cullen makes it clear that he doesn't oppose the Rite of Tranquility, and it can be inferred that he even supports the Tranquil Solution (which is what Hawke and Anders say). We clearly aren't going to agree on Cullen.

[Sylvianus]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Laws against slavery, human'rights they didn't  exist in Caesar's time. How could I say this guy was bad because of human rights and there are laws against that today ? He should have forbidden slaves or  avoid them etc etc.

Well, let's suppose one does judge it in that manner. What is the issue? One doesn't contradict the other, because the standards are different. And, in any case, you're presupposing a few things: that laws then were universal (in the sense that everyone agreed to them), and that laws are a reflection of everyone's morality, in the sense that they were equitable (equally good or equally bad) to all. There were perhaps, even at Caesar's time those who disagreed with or even rebelled against what was happening. Since that apparently ties in with your notion of a "modern" standard, does that invalidate their actions, too?

I don't see your point with what I mean here in this quote. Someone is bad in the old age, because today there are laws against something in our society; That's not like that you learn to study the history. The argument is flawled. That's just what I say here.

From his war victories against the barbarians ( who also love killed the weak people ), he has transformed thousands of people as slaves, including women and children. So he is bad, because of human' rights today. But that was normal at the time.

Well, forcefully spreading "civilizaiton" in this manner is a an extremely debatable and an arguably despicable thing. I suppose that is what we should be arguing about. One group's notion of what is "civil" which is forcefully imposed upon another group, whether those at the receiving end desire it or not - like the Qunari or the Chantry does in Thedas. This is a problem with "group" mentality - our ideas are holier than yours.

But what is not so despicable is judging actions individually and determining that they're right or wrong, according to whatever standards of morality one might take. So the notion of robbery is deplorable now as it was deplorable then. And the actions of Meredith was deplorable there, as it would be certainly deplorable here. (Even Cassandra finds fault with Meredith.) Whether if Meredith had survived she'd have been executed is unknown, but her actions weren't condoned.

But you're commiting an error in judgment when you say that Caesar's conquest was "normal" at that time. Normal by what standard? And you're also equating normal to acceptable. Acceptable for a conquering "hero"? Perhaps. Acceptable for the warriors who perhaps were forcefully conscripted? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. And defintiely not acceptable to those who were enslaved, unless their conditions improved somehow, and they felt it to be so.

But you can say with you modern standard, that he is wrong, you don't like his thoughts, you don't like its personal opinions and, etc etc. I never said otherwise. Did you really read ?  But you can't say someone is " bad " because today there are laws against that, it offers no intelligent concept and no intelligent answer to a reflection on the study of history and men in the past.
.

And yet, Caesar was pretty good with his own slaves.

Even if so, it must have been only to some and only to a degree. As one example, there were still the arenas where barbarians were forced to fight in a circus.

So ? when I say that, that means it's more complicated than the idea of good and evil and that's not how we should study history. Take into account all the factors, social, societal, environmental, etc etc, before giving an opinion. And especially before to say that someone is evil. With my example, we see, that Caesar isn't " evil or necessairly bad " because today there are real laws against slave. He is a man, and we can judge him without morally fall in the  " he was evil because today blah blah blah "

How can I allow myself to judge him with concepts he doesn't know, and in addition concepts appeared only less than 100 years. ( and for many laws we couldn't have them without fight and blood )

Again, how can you not? Are you suggesting that the notion of freedom from slavery sprang forth after the events of Rome? Then why were all those slave rebelling on the Roman Empire? That idea was already there, but it simply wasn't the dominant one. And not being dominant, doesn't automatically make any slave aspiring for freedom, or even feeling bad about it, wrong. And by extention the same applies to anyone, who is neither conquerer nor slave, to have an opinion about it, and who decides to do something about that particular situation.

It is foolish in my opinion to judge men with concepts like evil or bad for something they do not realize it's wrong. It took centuries to reach the point where we are today, think about that. With you modern standard you can think it's wrong, his action is bad,  but be smart enough to realize that society today where you live, where you grew up and where you've blossomed is not the same as that of Caesar.

You can't say, the International Court allows to disobey a wrong order today. So the officer of dragon age ( fantasy world )that is more likely to be tortured or executed because he doesn't obey, is a bad person, who deliberately decided to commit genocide.

Clearly Cullen disobeys a direct order, and in another case expresses his dissent. Does that count for nothing? Clearly then the guy who unquestioningly obeyed the order is an immoral one - one who for his own personal safety decided to do something wrong, a notion definitely not alien there.

So ? I don't disagreee here. I don't see the point with what I mean here again. I don't care Cullen, he desobeys, yes, because he thinks it's wrong, a good guy, but, the thing about international court allows today to disobey wrong order in 2011 is still irrelevant as argument. Again, I don't understand. Please tell me.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 septembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...
What happens on-screen is that a pro-mage Hawke makes it clear that he's going to protect the mages from the incoming templars who plan on killing them, and he (or she) gets assistance from his moiety crew. We see Hawke killing templars and we see Hawke protecting mages. It's not as though Varric's comment that "many suvivors" were saved from the templars comes out of nowhere.

The fate of the three mages who are spared isn't known - they may be made tranquil, and Cullen makes it clear that he doesn't oppose the Rite of Tranquility, and it can be inferred that he even supports the Tranquil Solution (which is what Hawke and Anders say). We clearly aren't going to agree on Cullen.

A pro-Templar Hawke is shown killing blood mages, apostates, abominations and demons, and can request mercy for the group of mages who ask for it. In short, even a pro-Templar Hawke is killing only those who are clearly breaking the law and people who are trying to kill him.  There is absolutely nothing on screen to indicate that Hawke is killing slashing through every single mage. 

As for the three mages, no, we can't know. Despite Cullen's statement that "an argument can be made for using it more widely" (which I'd still like explained but I don't think the devs will give me that) this is a man who is beginning to question Meredith early in Act 3. He opposed the RoA and then relieved Meredith of her command. I feel fairly safe in my assumption that he will not choose tranquility for those mages though, especially if Hawke has anything to say about it.

Edited for clarity.

Modifié par Monica21, 14 septembre 2011 - 04:26 .

[Xilizhra]

In short, even a pro-Templar Hawke is killing only those who are clearly breaking the law and people who are trying to kill him.

This is utterly absurd. Hawke just declared her allegiance to Meredith, being an enemy to all mages in the Circle, who are currently breaking the law by being alive. It's a declaration of war and Hawke is the aggressor. The mages are wholly justified in attacking.

[Sylvianus]

RagingCyclone wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Sylvianus and MichaelFinnegan-if you are going to use Caesar to base arguments on...please study up on history of the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. There are differences in the laws and culture before and after the civil war which led to the transition from Republic to Empire. Thank you.

History is definitely not my strong point, but I guess you're right. But, in this context, in what manner would it help to do as you suggest? Do you find fault with either argument as a whole or with certain aspects of it?

In the case of the Republic, the laws and rights pertained to Citizens only with a definite class system in place. One could have been born in the Roman Republic sphere of influence say in Northern Italy, but was not a citizen, but also not a slave. An ingame example of this would be the elven merchant whose daughter was taken by the magister's son.While he had wealth he had no power. So if a Roman citizen so wanted he could claim the possessions of a non citizen. It often did not happen due to maintaining control and power over a region to avoid uprisings, but there were no laws against it either since a Roman citizen had all rights and authority above those beneath them. So in that regard some slaves lived better lives than non citizens.  During the time of the Empire things changed dramatically as the Empire grew with the imposition of regional governers to maintain control over the various territories the Empire controlled. A governor could act authortarily as his own little regional emperor as long as he did not anger Rome. During the Republic this was not the case as the voted Consuls and the Senate held control over all aspects of the Republic including the territories under it's influence.

Edit: I also forgot to add that during the Republic there were few conscriptions in the army. To gain power and rise to become a member of the Senate Romans often joined the army. It was professional. That changed during the Empire due it's expansion and sphere of influence. Conscriptions did then become common in the outlying areas of the Empire especially during it's latter years and before the split into Eastern and Western.

Which part was false in what I said ?   Caesar, has made thousands of slaves during his Gallic wars under Roman republic. And slavery was tolerated and existed under the roman republic. Spartacus did not rebel for nothing before.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 septembre 2011 - 04:54 .

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

In short, even a pro-Templar Hawke is killing only those who are clearly breaking the law and people who are trying to kill him.

This is utterly absurd. Hawke just declared her allegiance to Meredith, being an enemy to all mages in the Circle, who are currently breaking the law by being alive. It's a declaration of war and Hawke is the aggressor. The mages are wholly justified in attacking.

First, Meredith is the aggressor. Second, Circle mages are not apostates. 

[Xilizhra]

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In short, even a pro-Templar Hawke is killing only those who are clearly breaking the law and people who are trying to kill him.

This is utterly absurd. Hawke just declared her allegiance to Meredith, being an enemy to all mages in the Circle, who are currently breaking the law by being alive. It's a declaration of war and Hawke is the aggressor. The mages are wholly justified in attacking.

First, Meredith is the aggressor. Second, Circle mages are not apostates. 

And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...
And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

Which you can choose not to do...

[Xilizhra]

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

Which you can choose not to do...

Cold comfort to the majority of mages you see that you do execute.
It's funny because Hawke doesn't even have the "orders" excuse.

[OldMan91]

If modern ideals were being applied to Thedas, they aren't being applied that well.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about whether enlightenment ideals are being applied in-universe. I'm saying that, because the setting of Dragon Age was created by developers with modern values, norms, customs, rituals and a modern ideological-philosophical frame, Thedas is going to necessarily have quite a few anachronistic elements, including some modern ideals. Thus it would not be incorrect to judge Thedas by today's standards. You couldn't do otherwise, given that we're all products of modernity and the "lenses" through which we see and judge the world are of course going to be that of a modern human being.

You believe somebody in conspiring against you? Keep their family hostage, kill the hostages if they threaten you!

You've broken your legs and are unable to work? Let's throw you in the back alley over here!

You're placed under arrest for a crime you haven't commit? Oh well, enjoy prison life! Don't worry, torture and starvation isn't all that bad when you're kept company with the others in similar position!

You're poor and you've been raped? Why should we care? You're poor!

You're bored? Let's go burn down elf buildings and kill elves for fun!

You've heard the elves are angry that you've burned down elf homes and killed elves for fun? Let's go wipe them all out again!

... ect.

Considering all the stuff the average Thedosian has to go through, I don't see why mages are complaining since they're not starving and they have shelter given to them.

"Other people have it worse, therefore you cannot complain about not being free". Excellent logic.

Modifié par OldMan91, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:03 .

[Sylvianus]

But what are the modern elements that everyone is talking about in dragon age ?

Kings, tyrants, lords , poor peasants, no court of laws, no universal laws, no declarations of human rights, no equality promoted, no freedom guaranteed by law. No schools allowed free for all. No philosophers, no newspapers (free and uncensored), mixture of state and religion ( really powerful ), no red cross, no international treaty on the treatment of prisoners.

No laws against racism, mistreatment of other people (elves), no concepts of crimes against humanity. etc etc.

So, can someone enlighten me?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:12 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

Which you can choose not to do...

Cold comfort to the majority of mages you see that you do execute.
It's funny because Hawke doesn't even have the "orders" excuse.

You mean I should feel bad for killing blood mages and demons? Nope I don't feel bad.

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

Which you can choose not to do...

Cold comfort to the majority of mages you see that you do execute.
It's funny because Hawke doesn't even have the "orders" excuse.

You mean I should feel bad for killing blood mages and demons? Nope I don't feel bad.

How convenient, I did exactly the same thing in the mage ending. Though if you think being a blood mage is worthy of death, I hope you killed Merrill. And Alain.

[TGiNcRySiS]

Killed him once. Let him live twice. Annoyed the turnout was the same no matter what. Tried not helping him in his personal quest. One part of the game that was very annoying.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And Hawke is siding with the aggressor, thus has become one herself. And since Meredith ordered every mage in the Circle to be executed...

Which you can choose not to do...

Cold comfort to the majority of mages you see that you do execute.
It's funny because Hawke doesn't even have the "orders" excuse.

You mean I should feel bad for killing blood mages and demons? Nope I don't feel bad.

How convenient, I did exactly the same thing in the mage ending. Though if you think being a blood mage is worthy of death, I hope you killed Merrill. And Alain.

Blood mages who attack me or worship demons yes. Merrill does not worship demons or fully trust the demon she contacted. Plus she has never attacked me, so ya you can't really compare.

Modifié par Mr.House, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:17 .

[Xilizhra]

Blood mages who attack me or worship demons yes. Merrill does not worship demons or fully trust the demon she contacted.

You declared war on them. It would be idiotic of them to not attack you.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Blood mages who attack me or worship demons yes. Merrill does not worship demons or fully trust the demon she contacted.

You declared war on them. It would be idiotic of them to not attack you.

Not my fault the circle tower is corrupted and it's first enchanter is a moron. Not to mention this all would have been avoided if Orsino would have let Meredith search the tower, where she would have found more corruption. Or are you that blind that you can't see the corruption in the circlle and that all the Templars in Kirkwall are evil and the mages in the circle are inocent people is false?

Modifié par Mr.House, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:22 .

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Blood mages who attack me or worship demons yes. Merrill does not worship demons or fully trust the demon she contacted.

You declared war on them. It would be idiotic of them to not attack you.

Not my fault the circle tower is corrupted and it's first enchanter is a moron. Not to mention this all would have been avoided if Orsino would have let Meredith search the tower, where she would have found more corruption. Or are you that blind that you can't see the corruption in the circle? That all the Templars in Kirkwall are evil and the mages in the circle are inocent people.

The Circle isn't corrupt and never was (except for elements of the now-demolished mage underground, something Orsino wasn't in on). Meredith is a self-important lunatic and Orsino is only doing his best.

Luckily, Varric's told us that your monstrosity will be long remembered. Apparently even beyond Meredith, which is rather appropriate since she was never in her right mind, but you chose this.

[Satyricon331]

Monica21 wrote...
I'm not a philosopher, but how did Kant come about his beliefs? Did he observe the world around him and base his theory on that? His world was not medieval. I don't even have to use a philosopher, I can use Thomas Jefferson. He believed, as did most of those signing the Declaration of Independence, that humanity has certain basic freedoms. 

I'm not talking about the basics of human rights though. If you ask me if I believe the mages deserve more freedom than they have, I'll say yes. If you ask me that Meredith was wrong, I'll say yes. (And I'll also say it's through a certain amount of metagaming.) But I'll also say that it's irrelevant. Applying modern morals and history and using words like "genocide" and "superior orders", which we have only come about by having a history where we've seen such things and determined that they are not acceptable, is unacceptable. I can't judge a past history, much less a fantasy world, on a concept they have no knowledge of.

No, Kant (who failed spectacularly imo) most definitely did not observe the world around him.  He never left his hometown.  And it does seem I misconstrued you - where I took you to be saying a norm can apply only if the person knows it to be true, you're saying instead it can apply only if the person has heard of it.  

[dragonflight288]

First, Meredith is the aggressor. Second, Circle mages are not apostates.

Actually, if you side with the mages, Orsino outright states before Meredith shows up with reinforcements that every mage in the Circle is now considered an apostate, from the very moment Meredith declared a Right of Annulment. If they throw themselves on the templar's swords, good for them. If they resist, they're apostates. Either way, they die. Irregardless of the crime committed and who did it.

[phaonica]

esper wrote...

That wasn't very clearly formulated  - sorry. I will try again. If a group of people feel they are being mistreated they have a right to rise up against the mistreament - no matter if they are a minority or an majority. If the other group is too ignorant to see the problem then the mistreated group have no other choice than to force their  belief through, and if they win they can simply just hope that they were more in the right than their oppressors. Graudal change is only possible if both sides are willing to listen to reason.   

What constitutes being "too ignorant to see the problem"? The problem that their own morality that doesn't recognize any such mistreatment, or even that a certain level of mistreatment is justified?

Either way, the whole argument seems to pivot around the idea that there are a set of universal, objective, and inherent "rights" that all justifiable moralities must prioritize, and I'm not sure how much I believe that.

Edit: ugh, formatting

Modifié par phaonica, 14 septembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Blood mages who attack me or worship demons yes. Merrill does not worship demons or fully trust the demon she contacted.

You declared war on them. It would be idiotic of them to not attack you.

Not my fault the circle tower is corrupted and it's first enchanter is a moron. Not to mention this all would have been avoided if Orsino would have let Meredith search the tower, where she would have found more corruption. Or are you that blind that you can't see the corruption in the circle? That all the Templars in Kirkwall are evil and the mages in the circle are inocent people.

The Circle isn't corrupt and never was (except for elements of the now-demolished mage underground, something Orsino wasn't in on). Meredith is a self-important lunatic and Orsino is only doing his best.

Luckily, Varric's told us that your monstrosity will be long remembered. Apparently even beyond Meredith, which is rather appropriate since she was never in her right mind, but you chose this.

BS. We know full well there is corruption in the circle when we go in that quest that leads to Thrask and that group. If you really beleive that was the end to that group, then you are simply ignorent, not to mention Orsino is a blood mage and was hiding a criminal. You also seem to think that a Hawke who sides with the Templars will fight with them in the war right after the game ends, killing mages and drinknig there blood, that's not the case.

[Xilizhra]

BS. We know full well there is corruption in the circle when we go in that quest that leads to Thrask and that group. If you really beleive that was the end to that group, then you are simply ignorent, not to mention Orsino is a blood mage and was hiding a criminal. You also seem to think that a Hawke who sides with the Templars will fight with them in the war right after the game ends, killing mages and drinknig there blood, that's not the case.

One instance of genocide too tiring for you? Come now, you can do better than that. There's a whole Alienage full of elves who might be hiding apostates! Paint Lowtown with their blood, o exalted Viscount, you've earned it!

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

We clearly aren't going to agree on Cullen.

No we aren't.