2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

I'm not up to snuff on my history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the Reign of Terror Robespierre? 

If so, I am amused.

Not everything someone says is wrong just because they were evil. Hitler's lines "How fortunate it is for leaders that men do not think" and "the people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one" were fairly accurate as well.

[Shadow Fox]

Xilizhra wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What the letter of the law is here doesn't matter. It's corrupt and it will die.

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

Put better. Thank you.

Also, I'm not really sure I want the war to end just like this. Not out of hand, at any rate. We need to ensure, first and foremost, that nothing like the Chantry's current oppression will ever happen again.

Oh don't worry it'll probably be replaced by a worse one.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

I'm not up to snuff on my history, so correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the Reign of Terror Robespierre? 

If so, I am amused.

Not everything someone says is wrong just because they were evil. Hitler's lines "How fortunate it is for leaders that men do not think" and "the people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one" were fairly accurate as well.

Oh, I agree with you. But I doubt that Robespierre was the only person of note to have ever expressed the sentiment in that quote, so I thought the choice to use him, of all people, was amusing.

[Eyeshield21]

I let Anders live on one of my playthroughs, I let him die in pretty much the rest( though the one i'm on he will live)

[Monica21]

OldMan91 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What the letter of the law is here doesn't matter. It's corrupt and it will die.

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

Not only is this amusing, but am I the only one who has a problem throwing out Robespierre in a discussion about a world where Robespierre never existed? Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

[Xilizhra]

Monica21 wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What the letter of the law is here doesn't matter. It's corrupt and it will die.

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

Not only is this amusing, but am I the only one who has a problem throwing out Robespierre in a discussion about a world where Robespierre never existed? Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

Good, then we can be pioneers. Hawke can have her own manifesto.

[Dave of Canada]

OldMan91 wrote...

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

 

This is amusing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 20 septembre 2011 - 01:35 .

[Dave of Canada]

Monica21 wrote...

Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

Somehow, the Warden and Hawke for some people are the only people on Thedas who've somehow gained the knowledge of the real world concepts of "freedom". Must be the lyrium in the water.

[ChaplainTappman]

Quething wrote...

Disregarding the example of Connor, mostly because the game lore itself seems quite eager to do so, I still don't see where the Harrowing as necessity follows. As far as we've seen from both mage Warden playthroughs and Bethany's reports when Circle'd, the Harrowing is pretty much teaching-by-test. They dump you in the Fade out of absolutely nowhere when you're still half-asleep and confused, with no preparation whatsoever.

This is inane. And obviously ineffective; Uldred and all of his minions were Harrowed, Anders was Harrowed, Grace was Harrowed, any Warden mage who takes the deal with Connor's demon was Harrowed. Didn't stop any of them from shacking up with dangerous Fade spirits. It's pretty much like waking up a sixteen-year-old in the middle of the night, putting him in a manual, and dumping him on the freeway, all "if you can survive this without crashing, you'll be a safe driver for life!"

It's basically setting people up for failure. It doesn't really prove anything, and it certianly doesn't create the needed skill. And one test can't select for it, either. What if you got a lazy demon, or had a bad day? There's too many uncontrolled variables for a single test to ever be indicative of anything. You want mages to not fall to demons? You have experienced mages regularly summon demons into controlled environments to teach young mages what to expect from them. You have young mages take supervised jaunts into the Fade alongside powerful enchanters, who teach them the lay of the land and what to look out for and help them face its dangers until they're experienced and confident enough to handle them alone.

The Dalish don't, as far as we know, Harrow their Keepers, but they seem to have a much lower rate of abomination than Andrastean nations. I can't see a Tevinter magister consenting to let a favorite be Harrowed by a bunch of uppity templars, yet we hear nothing of Tevinter abominations, not even from Fenris (who'd hardly miss the chance to boast about it to Anders), despite that they have the highest concentration of mages anywhere in Thedas and mere statistics should make them prone to it. Morrigan, who was flat-out raised by an abomination, is sneeringly contemptuous of deals with demons and utterly immune to their persuasion herself. Qunari don't seem to have any trouble keeping Saaerebas from dealing with demons through sheer ingrained cultural oppression - I'm not suggesting that as a solution, mind, I'm just saying, it's clear that Harrowing is not the only effective option. In fact it's not clear to me that Harrowing particularly is an effective option.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. This is all 100% right.

I think a big problem for the Andrastians is the notion of demons and spirits being distinct and separate entities. This leads mages to trust "good spirits," which Anders/Justice demonstrates is a poor idea. The Dalish don't delineate; there are just spirits, and they will tempt you. I imagine, and I have nothing to back this up, that Tevinter abominations are about as common as non-Tevinter Andrastian abominations. That is to say, they aren't very common. I think we (as both the Warden and Hawke) are just unlucky enough to find ourselves in situations lousy with abominations.

[The Baconer]

Monica21 wrote...
Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

To think, so many pointless debates on this site could have been prevented if the mundanes hadn't subscribed to the naive idea that they're anything more than livestock.

[phaonica]

Monica21 wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all. -Maximilien Robespierre

Not only is this amusing, but am I the only one who has a problem throwing out Robespierre in a discussion about a world where Robespierre never existed? Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

Yeah, I thought that, too, heh. I was thinking "From what part of Thedas is Robespierre?" I don't know if the concept of "inalienable rights" is in an idea with which the people of Thedas have had much exposure. That could change, though, with the help of Hawke's and/or future PC's otherworldly enlightenment.

[addiction21]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

Somehow, the Warden and Hawke for some people are the only people on Thedas who've somehow gained the knowledge of the real world concepts of "freedom". Must be the lyrium in the water.

Or the evil dragon blood they drank.... It has allowed them to percieve worlds not their own!!!

[Quething]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

I think a big problem for the Andrastians is the notion of demons and spirits being distinct and separate entities. This leads mages to trust "good spirits," which Anders/Justice demonstrates is a poor idea. The Dalish don't delineate; there are just spirits, and they will tempt you. I imagine, and I have nothing to back this up, that Tevinter abominations are about as common as non-Tevinter Andrastian abominations. That is to say, they aren't very common. I think we (as both the Warden and Hawke) are just unlucky enough to find ourselves in situations lousy with abominations.

Fair point about the selection bias of Hawke and the Warden. I always find it hard in these conversations to figure out where to draw the line with the story/gameplay segregation; you've got the lore, where they're epic final bosses that wipe out whole villages, but that's hard to completely credit when Hawke is killing them in swarms as trash mobs.

As far as the trust of spirits go, I think maybe the root is even deeper. I'm thinking of that one codex about the Fade, where the writer is going on about how foolish the widespread Andrastean perception of it as another world is, and that it's actually a part of this one. If you think something is alien, other, and has no place in your waking existence, you're more likely to dismiss it and prefer driving it away from you to understanding it. If you think of it as part of your own world you're more likely to look deeper and accept the need to research and navigate its dangers.

(Not that I can blame them; direct study of demons doesn't tend to end well for the mages involved.)

[Nimrodell]

I just want to know who actually gave the term 'abomination'? Did it come from Andrastians since tis regarded as 'unholy' union and codex entry on spirits and demons is called Maker's First Children... and when Hawke speaks to Merril, they use word possess, not can elvish Keeper become an abomination. In whose eyes such union with spirit is actually regarded as abominable (both for demon and spirit possessed mages)? Fenris states that he's seen abominations in Tevinter, but Tevinter's official religion now is Andrastian. Just wonder if it has been always regarded like that. Tis like with sexuality and religions - pagan religions were seeing sex as potent mean of creation (even ancient Hebrew myths had Asherah and Jahveh - female and male God), something that makes this world be and continue being and yet again it has change both for Judaism and then for Christianity (especially during medieval final church interest for the marriage and monogamy).

Somehow it seems that term 'abomination' is Andrastian one, thus making view on all such unions pretty exclusive and we know that spirit healers are actually benevolent hybrids.

[ChaplainTappman]

Quething wrote...

Fair point about the selection bias of Hawke and the Warden. I always find it hard in these conversations to figure out where to draw the line with the story/gameplay segregation; you've got the lore, where they're epic final bosses that wipe out whole villages, but that's hard to completely credit when Hawke is killing them in swarms as trash mobs.

I prefer to think of the templars in lore as laughably incompetent. "Oh, no, one abomination! We're doomed!" Cue a Scooby-Doo chase sequence, or alternatively the Benny Hill theme. Meanwhile, Hawke killed ten just so s/he could go downstairs to eat breakfast.

As far as the trust of spirits go, I think maybe the root is even deeper. I'm thinking of that one codex about the Fade, where the writer is going on about how foolish the widespread Andrastean perception of it as another world is, and that it's actually a part of this one. If you think something is alien, other, and has no place in your waking existence, you're more likely to dismiss it and prefer driving it away from you to understanding it. If you think of it as part of your own world you're more likely to look deeper and accept the need to research and navigate its dangers.

(Not that I can blame them; direct study of demons doesn't tend to end well for the mages involved.)

This.

[ChaplainTappman]

Nimrodell wrote...

I just want to know who actually gave the term 'abomination'? Did it come from Andrastians since tis regarded as 'unholy' union and codex entry on spirits and demons is called Maker's First Children... and when Hawke speaks to Merril, they use word possess, not can elvish Keeper become an abomination. In whose eyes such union with spirit is actually regarded as abominable (both for demon and spirit possessed mages)? Fenris states that he's seen abominations in Tevinter, but Tevinter's official religion now is Andrastian. Just wonder if it has been always regarded like that. Tis like with sexuality and religions - pagan religions were seeing sex as potent mean of creation (even ancient Hebrew myths had Asherah and Jahveh - female and male God), something that makes this world be and continue being and yet again it has change both for Judaism and then for Christianity (especially during medieval final church interest for the marriage and monogamy).

Somehow it seems that term 'abomination' is Andrastian one, thus making view on all such unions pretty exclusive and we know that spirit healers are actually benevolent hybrids.

You could be right. "Abomination" could be an Andrastian term. But there (to my knowledge) hasn't been a merging of mortal and spirit that's worked out well for mortals, save possibly Wynne. Spirit healers consort with spirits, but as a rule don't merge with them. The "benevolent" spirits don't seek mortals out, and certainly don't seek to merge with them. I don't think this is a case of religious language causing a prejudice, but rather a rightful fear and disgust causing the language.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Not only that, but the mere concepts of freedom you're so casually flinging about have never been touched on in Thedas.

Somehow, the Warden and Hawke for some people are the only people on Thedas who've somehow gained the knowledge of the real world concepts of "freedom". Must be the lyrium in the water.

The concept of freedom does exist in Thedas. In fact, Calenhad's ally Aldenon (the mage who helped him forge the warring teyrnirs into Ferelden) said: "A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break — if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!"

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The concept of freedom does exist in Thedas. In fact, Calenhad's ally Aldenon (the mage who helped him forge the warring teyrnirs into Ferelden) said: "A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break — if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!"

That is a concept of non-slavery, not a concept of inalienable rights. Not the same thing. Nobody in Thedas is free to live, love, and die as they choose. The concept of inalienable rights of man does not exist. The concept of divine right, whether it be from the Orlesian empress or the Templar control of mages, is what exists. Ferelden is one of the most free countries we've seen, but farmers don't get to decide who the monarch is. That's determined by nobles at the landsmeet. My F!Cousland who had a mad crush on Ser Gilmore would never have been able to marry him because he was beneath her station. Farmers don't get to determine their tax rates. They're not ever going to be Banns or Arls, except for the oddity of Loghain. Farmers might change their station and become rich merchants, but they will never have a say in how they are governed unless they are titled.

Modifié par Monica21, 20 septembre 2011 - 02:31 .

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The concept of freedom does exist in Thedas. In fact, Calenhad's ally Aldenon (the mage who helped him forge the warring teyrnirs into Ferelden) said: "A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break — if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!"

That is a concept of non-slavery, not a concept of inalienable rights. Not the same thing. Nobody in Thedas is free to live, love, and die as they choose. The concept of inalienable rights of man does not exist. The concept of divine right, whether it be from the Orlesian empress or the Templar control of mages, is what exists. Ferelden is one of the most free countries we've seen, but farmers don't get to decide who the monarch is. That's determined by nobles at the landsmeet. My F!Cousland who had a mad crush on Ser Gilmore would never have been able to marry him because he was beneath her station. Farmers don't get to determine their tax rates. They're not ever going to be Banns or Arls, except for the oddity of Loghain. Farmers might change their station and become rich merchants, but they will never have a say in how they are governed unless they are titled.

It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

[SerraAdvocate]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The concept of freedom does exist in Thedas. In fact, Calenhad's ally Aldenon (the mage who helped him forge the warring teyrnirs into Ferelden) said: "A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break — if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!"

That is a concept of non-slavery, not a concept of inalienable rights. Not the same thing. Nobody in Thedas is free to live, love, and die as they choose. The concept of inalienable rights of man does not exist. The concept of divine right, whether it be from the Orlesian empress or the Templar control of mages, is what exists. Ferelden is one of the most free countries we've seen, but farmers don't get to decide who the monarch is. That's determined by nobles at the landsmeet. My F!Cousland who had a mad crush on Ser Gilmore would never have been able to marry him because he was beneath her station. Farmers don't get to determine their tax rates. They're not ever going to be Banns or Arls, except for the oddity of Loghain. Farmers might change their station and become rich merchants, but they will never have a say in how they are governed unless they are titled.

It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

The word "freedom" does not automatically carry the same connotations that it does in modern Western society. The first two sentences are explicitly about slavery. The argument you're making is that the modern concept of freedom rests upon the third sentence: freedom in opposition to tyranny. The problem with that is that is it is dependent on a specific definition of tyranny to result in the definition of freedom that you're seeking. That's a mistake: monarchs are not automatically tyrants in Thedan political philosophy, nor is a class system that includes nobility and peasantry automatically a tyrannical one. Tyrants - in almost every early political philosophical text, and particularly those like Aquinas and Augustine, whose writings are probably the most applicable to the era Thedas is inhabiting - are specifically those who abuse their powers, not those that have them. 

Modifié par Helm505, 20 septembre 2011 - 03:46 .

[LobselVith8]

Helm505 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

The word "freedom" does not automatically carry the same connotations that it does in modern Western society. The first two sentences are explicitly about slavery. The argument you're making is that the modern concept of freedom rests upon the third sentence: freedom in opposition to tyranny. The problem with that is that is it is dependent on a specific definition of tyranny to result in the definition of freedom that you're seeking. That's a mistake: monarchs are not automatically tyrants in Thedan political philosophy, nor is a class system that includes nobility and peasantry automatically a tyrannical one. Tyrants - in almost every early political philosophical text, and particularly those like Aquinas and Augustine, whose writings are probably the most applicable to the era Thedas is inhabiting - are specifically those who abuse their powers, not those that have them. 

If the concept wasn't meant to mean freedom, another word would have been used. Ferelden is based on Western society - England, to be precise. I don't see why the people who kept claiming that freedom doesn't actually have a concept in Thedas are now unable to admit they were wrong when provided with a historical account of an individual who wanted a nation of free people. All I see is attempts by people to ignore that freedom is clearly addressed in the canon of Thedas, and that freedom is sought by individuals other than The Warden who asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence and pro-mage Hawke.

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

Well, Aldenon is specifically talking about mages and he is specifically talking about slavery. That is not in the same sphere of thought of having inalienable rights, which is what Robespierre said in his quote. That does not translate to citizens of Thedas having a broader concept of an ideal of freedom and justice for all. It is a concept of freedom, but one for a specific group of people for a specific reason.

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

Well, Aldenon is specifically talking about mages and he is specifically talking about slavery. That is not in the same sphere of thought of having inalienable rights, which is what Robespierre said in his quote. That does not translate to citizens of Thedas having a broader concept of an ideal of freedom and justice for all. It is a concept of freedom, but one for a specific group of people for a specific reason.

You're mistaken, because Aldenon begins by addressing that a civilization cannot be civil if it condones slavery, and he addresses the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery. He doesn't talk about mages to the exclusion of all other people - he addresses the downtrodden who seek freedom and topple tyrants. That's a basic concept of freedom for the oppressed. That translates to freedom being a concept that isn't alien to Thedas if a man can envision a nation of free people.

[SerraAdvocate]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

The word "freedom" does not automatically carry the same connotations that it does in modern Western society. The first two sentences are explicitly about slavery. The argument you're making is that the modern concept of freedom rests upon the third sentence: freedom in opposition to tyranny. The problem with that is that is it is dependent on a specific definition of tyranny to result in the definition of freedom that you're seeking. That's a mistake: monarchs are not automatically tyrants in Thedan political philosophy, nor is a class system that includes nobility and peasantry automatically a tyrannical one. Tyrants - in almost every early political philosophical text, and particularly those like Aquinas and Augustine, whose writings are probably the most applicable to the era Thedas is inhabiting - are specifically those who abuse their powers, not those that have them. 

If the concept wasn't meant to mean freedom, another word would have been used. Ferelden is based on Western society - England, to be precise. I don't see why the people who kept claiming that freedom doesn't actually have a concept in Thedas are now unable to admit they were wrong when provided with a historical account of an individual who wanted a nation of free people. All I see is attempts by people to ignore that freedom is clearly addressed in the canon of Thedas, and that freedom is sought by individuals other than The Warden who asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence and pro-mage Hawke.

Based on England when, though? The Magna Carta may have become a foundational document for democratic societies, but that certainly wasn't what it was intended to be. It was meant to protect the rights and freedoms of the nobility from tyranny, but it certainly was not intended to give any such protections to the peasantry. Not at the time. And the Magna Carta explicitly uses the word "freedom." 

[Monica21]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Helm505 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a concept of freedom, which is why Aldenon specifically says freedom in his speech to Calenhad. He doesn't say "non-slavery," he says "freedom." Freedom. Aldenon doesn't simply address mages, he addresses the downtrodden who live under tyrants. Clearly, freedom is a concept that is understood by the denizens of Thedas.

The word "freedom" does not automatically carry the same connotations that it does in modern Western society. The first two sentences are explicitly about slavery. The argument you're making is that the modern concept of freedom rests upon the third sentence: freedom in opposition to tyranny. The problem with that is that is it is dependent on a specific definition of tyranny to result in the definition of freedom that you're seeking. That's a mistake: monarchs are not automatically tyrants in Thedan political philosophy, nor is a class system that includes nobility and peasantry automatically a tyrannical one. Tyrants - in almost every early political philosophical text, and particularly those like Aquinas and Augustine, whose writings are probably the most applicable to the era Thedas is inhabiting - are specifically those who abuse their powers, not those that have them. 

If the concept wasn't meant to mean freedom, another word would have been used. Ferelden is based on Western society - England, to be precise. I don't see why the people who kept claiming that freedom doesn't actually have a concept in Thedas are now unable to admit they were wrong when provided with a historical account of an individual who wanted a nation of free people. All I see is attempts by people to ignore that freedom is clearly addressed in the canon of Thedas, and that freedom is sought by individuals other than The Warden who asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence and pro-mage Hawke.

No, he wouldn't. Freedom means different things to different people and certainly means different things in historical context. He means mage freedom. That is all.

And yes, Ferelden is loosely based on Western society. So? Show me some political thought from Fereldan. Show me some philosophy that addresses all of Thedas and not just mages. I don't argue that freedom is addressed. I argue that just because you say "freedom" you do not mean "inalienable right of man."