709 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

Vech24 wrote...

And did you miss the part where Justice became Vengeance?

Which serves to illustrate our point that spirits are all the same. "Demon" is a term applied after-the-fact. They're not inherently different from the Chantry's "good" spirits.

[Sarah1281]

Does the Chantry really preach about good spirits? It seems to me that they would be equally wary of all of them since they're wary of everything else, including any and all forms of magic. I think Anders deciding that there were good spirits and bad spirits, regardless of how common this belief is, is quite independent from the Chantry. The Chantry didn't give spirits like Justice and Valor their names, those were the names they adopted based on the virtues that they themselves sought to uphold.

[Maria Caliban]

Vech24 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

Merrill: "There's no such thing as a good spirit. All spirits are dangerous."

And that one sentence is enough to subvert and disprove what you encounter first-hand in the Fade throughout DA:O and DA II?

Did you miss the part where Anders twists an innocent mage girl's head off?

And did you miss the part where Justice became Vengeance?

Wait, so you mean there's more to spirits than a simple hierarchy of good and evil?

If only Anders had known this prior to taking a spirit into himself. If only someone had said, "There's no such thing as a good spirit. They're all dangerous" to him.

[mesmerizedish]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Does the Chantry really preach about good spirits? It seems to me that they would be equally wary of all of them since they're wary of everything else, including any and all forms of magic. I think Anders deciding that there were good spirits and bad spirits, regardless of how common this belief is, is quite independent from the Chantry. The Chantry didn't give spirits like Justice and Valor their names, those were the names they adopted based on the virtues that they themselves sought to uphold.

Yes. The Chantry teaches that the Fade spirits were the first children of the Maker, but they just sort of sat around and didn't do anything. So, the Maker then made humans, and gave them dominion over the earth and the power to create and stuff. The spirits that were okay with this became the "good spirits." The sprits that resented humanity's place in the Maker's heart became demons.

And then what did humanity do with their gifts? They created evil, which pissed the Maker off some more.

Spirits are angels, basically.

[Saboteur-6]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote... Things...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

[mesmerizedish]

Vech24 wrote...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

And I'll say that if they didn't intend them to be viewed as morally ambiguous, then they wouldn't have written into the story at every opportunity a situation in which they could be viewed as morally ambiguous

[Sarielle]

Vech24 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote... Things...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

Out of curiosity, where does vengeance fall for you? That seems a rather morally ambiguous concept to me, personally. I mean we even in our world have the concept of "avenging angels."

[Saboteur-6]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

Merrill: "There's no such thing as a good spirit. All spirits are dangerous."

And that one sentence is enough to subvert and disprove what you encounter first-hand in the Fade throughout DA:O and DA II?

Did you miss the part where Anders twists an innocent mage girl's head off?

And did you miss the part where Justice became Vengeance?

Wait, so you mean there's more to spirits than a simple hierarchy of good and evil?

If only Anders had known this prior to taking a spirit into himself. If only someone had said, "There's no such thing as a good spirit. They're all dangerous" to him.

It's not my fault BioWare contradicts their own canon in order to establish a fanatical Mage zealot in Anders OR fails to offer substantial explanation as to the how/why.

[Maria Caliban]

Vech24 wrote...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

If BioWare didn't intend spirits to be morally ambiguous, they wouldn't have a guy merge with a spirit of Justice and then immediately slaughter and eat a group of Templars. And then snap an innocent mage girl's neck. And then blow up a chantry.

Vech24 wrote...

It's not my fault BioWare contradicts their own canon in order to establish a fanatical Mage zealot in Anders OR fails to offer substantial explanation as to the how/why.

Or maybe their canon just isn't as simplistic as you'd like it to be.

Do you remember the desire demon in the Circle tower in DA:O? She was morally ambiguous as well. She wasn't running around slaughtering people. She gave a single Templar an illusion of a life he'd love instead of a reality he hated.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 21 mars 2011 - 05:12 .

[termokanden]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

And I'll say that if they didn't intend them to be viewed as morally ambiguous, then they wouldn't have written into the story at every opportunity a situation in which they could be viewed as morally ambiguous

Well. They didn't

I don't see what's morally ambiguous about possessing someone.

Remember the pride demon from DAO? You can kill it or make a deal. If you make the deal, the game tells you that at some point this is going to hurt someone. What's morally ambiguous about that?

[mesmerizedish]

termokanden wrote...

Well. They didn't

I don't see what's morally ambiguous about possessing someone.

Remember the pride demon from DAO? You can kill it or make a deal. If you make the deal, the game tells you that at some point this is going to hurt someone. What's morally ambiguous about that?

Straw man. The point is that the Chantry can say "Justice is good!" all it wants, but it's not true. People embody all of these things, and they all get mixed together. But Fade spirits don't have perspective. They're objective to a fault. All they know is themselve.

It's "Justice" to cut off the hands of a nine-year-old who steals to survive. That's not good. It's "Rage" to lash out against the crimes committed against mages by the Templars. That's not bad.

[MasterSamson88]

Right, Justice isn't inherently good. You can even look at Awakening and then at Justice's actual character. His approval is really hard to deal with at certain points. Because Justice is what he is. He doesn't really believe in second chances nor does he believe in mercy. The only thing Justice seems to believe is an eye for an eye. Even when that would blind the whole world his ideals do not change.

It just reminds me of what Merrill says at one point, that all spirits are generally the same gray area. All are dangerous.

[Killjoy Cutter]

termokanden wrote...

All of this is why I want the game to show us that blood magic doesn't always go wrong. But no such examples are supported by the story. In Merrill's case, the ritual just might have worked if the keeper didn't get involved. We'll never know. The point is that once again the game makes the connection between blood magic and disaster.

They've been given, and you've dismissed them. 

Potentially any or all of Wynne, Morrigan, Anders, mageWarden, and mageHawke. 

(And don't say "gameplay vs story".  There is no segregation, and anything that conflicts between the two is a case of poor design and writing.)

[Maria Caliban]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

(And don't say "gameplay vs story".  There is no segregation, and anything that conflicts between the two is a case of poor design and writing.)

That's (one of the reasons) why they introduced specific specializations for companions. BioWare thought being able to give Wynne a blood mage specialization was poor design.

[Saboteur-6]

Sarielle wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote... Things...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

Out of curiosity, where does vengeance fall for you? That seems a rather morally ambiguous concept to me, personally. I mean we even in our world have the concept of "avenging angels."

Well justice in itself is morally ambiguous so I've thought the spirit Justice was a bit of a stretch from his inception. Anyhow to answer your question, conceptually vengeance implies a desire for retribution often fueled by anger  WITHOUT any concern for law, order, consequences, or any sort of impartial reasoning.

In the game, it makes sense as an exaggerated thematic evolvement of Justice that has become corrupted somehow. However, we aren't really given a lot of information as to why Justice turned to Vengeance.

[Killjoy Cutter]

And it's not as if the demons are tied to things that are inherently evil -- they're tied to things that can lead people to commmit evil when they come to dominate. Without hunger, a creature might starve. Without pride, a person might not do his best work. Without desire, a person might not strive for anything. Anger can drive people to seek justice. "Sloth" is actually the most loaded name, but a person who never rests can easily end up burned up and gone.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

(And don't say "gameplay vs story".  There is no segregation, and anything that conflicts between the two is a case of poor design and writing.)

That's (one of the reasons) why they introduced specific specializations for companions. BioWare thought being able to give Wynne a blood mage specialization was poor design.

And yet, you could  in DA:O. 

Changing that in DA2 might have been a step in the right direction.  (But then they turned around and let you with only one mage who could heal, Anders, after Act 1.)

[termokanden]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Well. They didn't

I don't see what's morally ambiguous about possessing someone.

Remember the pride demon from DAO? You can kill it or make a deal. If you make the deal, the game tells you that at some point this is going to hurt someone. What's morally ambiguous about that?

Straw man. The point is that the Chantry can say "Justice is good!" all it wants, but it's not true.

I don't see how it's a straw man argument.

I never said the Chantry's version is to be believed. I just remember reading in my quest log that someone was going to pay for me making a deal with a pride demon. This isn't the Chantry telling me anything. The game is telling me pretty clearly that I have unleashed an evil upon the world. This supports my claim that the game doesn't use every opportunity it gets to show you moral ambiguity.

People embody all of these things, and they all get mixed together. But Fade spirits don't have perspective. They're objective to a fault. All they know is themselve.

It's "Justice" to cut off the hands of a nine-year-old who steals to survive. That's not good. It's "Rage" to lash out against the crimes committed against mages by the Templars. That's not bad.

We don't disagree about all that. I'm just missing the level of moral ambiguity we're talking about here in the actual game. That was my original point about blood mages.

They've been given, and you've dismissed them. 

Potentially any or all of Wynne, Morrigan, Anders, mageWarden, and mageHawke. 

(And don't say "gameplay vs story".  There is no segregation, and anything that conflicts between the two is a case of poor design and writing.)

I'd say the fact that Wynne rages against blood magic whenever she is given the chance supersedes the fact that you can make her a blood mage as a pure gameplay mechanic that we both agree is a design oversight. Anders is a weird case and I don't know what to make of that. Regarding Hawke and Morrigan, there's nothing in the story that really tells us about them being blood mages. It just isn't a good example.

Modifié par termokanden, 21 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[Medhia Nox]

I guess none of you have ever lived near NYC - those two interesting towers that happened to be targets of people considering themselves oppressed by the West, they weren't civilian buildings by the OPs definition. The towers housed FBI offices at the very least.

And that - is just one out of thousands of terrorists attacks.

Coffee shops - churches - synagogues - ambassadorial buildings... all in the name of freedom from oppression.

You people disturb me, and I'd tell you that to your faces in real life. I don't need internet courage to disagree with you.

[Sarielle]

Vech24 wrote...

Sarielle wrote...

Vech24 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote... Things...

Alright I'm about done here. I'll leave this with the simple fact that if BioWare intended that the spirits be viewed as morally ambiguous or that the Chantry's designations between "good" spirits and "evil" spirits were more open to subjective interpretation then they wouldn't carry game mechanic titles like "Rage" or "Demon".

Out of curiosity, where does vengeance fall for you? That seems a rather morally ambiguous concept to me, personally. I mean we even in our world have the concept of "avenging angels."

Well justice in itself is morally ambiguous so I've thought the spirit Justice was a bit of a stretch from his inception. Anyhow to answer your question, conceptually vengeance implies a desire for retribution often fueled by anger  WITHOUT any concern for law, order, consequences, or any sort of impartial reasoning.

In the game, it makes sense as an exaggerated thematic evolvement of Justice that has become corrupted somehow. However, we aren't really given a lot of information as to why Justice turned to Vengeance.

Hmm, I thought Justice was a rather subjective concept too, but I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with me on that one. Then I get into the whole "can vengeance be justice?" and that's a whole 'nother can of worms.



Anyways, thanks for sating my curiosity.

[mesmerizedish]

termokanden wrote...

I don't see how it's a straw man argument.

I never said that spirits were always morally ambiguous. I said the BioWare never missed an opportunity to point out how they could be.

I never said the Chantry's version is to be believed. I just remember reading in my quest log that someone was going to pay for me making a deal with a pride demon. This isn't the Chantry telling me anything. The game is telling me pretty clearly that I have unleashed an evil upon the world. This supports my claim that the game doesn't use every opportunity it gets to show you moral ambiguity.

Then that wasn't an opportunity to show moral ambiguity. As I said, I never said that every demon presented such an opportunity, just that when they could, they did.

We don't disagree about all that. I'm just missing the level of moral ambiguity we're talking about here in the actual game. That was my original point about blood mages.

Almost every desire demon you encounter. Anders's Justice. Two very prominent examples on both sides of the Chantry's imaginary fence.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 21 mars 2011 - 05:32 .

[Sarielle]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I guess none of you have ever lived near NYC - those two interesting towers that happened to be targets of people considering themselves oppressed by the West, they weren't civilian buildings by the OPs definition. The towers housed FBI offices at the very least.

And that - is just one out of thousands of terrorists attacks.

Coffee shops - churches - synagogues - ambassadorial buildings... all in the name of freedom from oppression.

You people disturb me, and I'd tell you that to your faces in real life. I don't need internet courage to disagree with you.

Wha?

Most people have pretty much agreed that Anders' act was terrorism. Maybe you should actually read more than the OP. :B

[Medhia Nox]

I did read the OP - and several people after that. All whom agree that Anders is awesome and what he did was great. What I didn't seem to read  that it turned into a discussion about Justice as a spirit.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 mars 2011 - 05:34 .

[_Aine_]

Justice to me means getting what is deserved. Equal balance between crime/punishment for example. It is actually difficult to explain in words.

Vengeance is evening the score because it meant something to you and you will make someone pay.

Justice isn't always empathetic and pretty but vengeance is rarely impartial. Just my take.

[mesmerizedish]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I did read the OP - and several people after that. All whom agree that Anders is awesome and what he did was great. What I didn't seem to read was that it turned into a discussion about Justice as a spirit.

Somebody said something somwhere. The OP was boring. This is real grown-up talk we're having now