647 réponses à ce sujet

[Lianaar]

cglasgow wrote...
'Society' doesn't have a satisfaction; its not alive, its not a person, its not even anything except an emergent phenomenon of the interaction of a large # of individuals.  You might as well talk about the 'satisfaction' of a corporation(*), or a cloud.

Oh yeah it does. Society, corporal life, work environmnet. It all has a satisfaction.
Every unit is the mass of its element ripped from their stray features. (I wish I knew the proper terms in English )
Satisfaction: if plans and realisation match.
Goal of society: to prevail, to be strong and resist those who wish to harm us.
Satisfaction of the society: we are prevailing and getting strong.

It is merely a matter of definition of the word satisfaction.
However if there is a corporal satisfaction (the general goals of the company you work at are being accomplished), you'll be happier working there too.

[Lianaar]

Hrm, I'll pay attention next time if there is any reference to "I" or "ME" in the conversations of the Qunary. In most cases they do not refer to themselves (though there was this one guy, you stole the duty of, I think he did say, you stole my duty).

Where you would say me, or I, they would say us, ours. That's the base thought pattern difference.
It is not my happiness, my future, my goal. It is our hapiness, future and goals

[Porenferser]

Well, Sten has said *I* for a few times at least.....

Modifié par Porenferser, 22 mars 2011 - 10:38 .

[Gavinthelocust]

They are now a walking shirtless scene.
What's not to like?

[cglasgow]

Lianaar wrote...

Satisfaction: if plans and realisation match.
Goal of society: to prevail, to be strong and resist those who wish to harm us.
Satisfaction of the society: we are prevailing and getting strong.

It is merely a matter of definition of the word satisfaction.

All right, that's comprehensible.  By that definition an institutional body can have a satisfaction.

Of course, that definition also assumes I am an expendable part... not in the sense of 'my country values my life, but there are things it must sometimes value more', but instead 'my country sees the only value of my life as what I can do for it'.   The first is me living in the real world; the second is me getting the shaft bigtime.

[Weltenschlange]

Lianaar wrote...

@Weltenschlange
There are rules that tell you what is right and wrong. It doesn't matter how elaborately written those rules are or if they are written at all. It can be religion, law or even morality, ethics.
They all tell you how to live your life.
How am I to behave? The rule/norm/ettiquette/tradition/custom/faith/religion tells me to behave this way.

True, but:

What I'm trying to say is that in a "normal" society I'm allowed at least some degree of autonomy. There are choices I can make, specific rule sets I can chose to follow out of my own desire or conviction and others that I can reject.

In a total belief system like the Qun I do not have a real choice. If I'm a Qunari I can submit ot the Qun or I can refuse and be punished for my refusal. Because the Qun doesn't just want my faith like the Chantry, the Qun wants everything. The Qun tells what to do, when to do it and how to do it. And if I as a Qunari (whether I'm grayskin, human, elf or dwarf) am born into this TBS and then raised in it, how would I know any better/different?

That is the crucial difference between the Qun and all other ideologies in Thedas.

[cglasgow]

Porenferser wrote...

Well, Sten has said *I* for a few times at least.....

After DA2, I've gotten the impression that Sten is apparently the biggest raving granola Zen hippie dude of the entire qunari species.

[Magicman10893]

The Qun supports the idea of benefiting society more than benefiting the individual. Some people like that idealism, others don't. I like that they all work together equally to benefit society as a whole, but the lack of individualism and free will is why I would never want to live under Qunari rule.

Throughout the game the Chantry is basically being the bad guy when it comes to dealing with Qunari (Sister Petrice and her bodyguard for example) so I and many others wanted to support the Qunari. However when they decided to take over Kirkwall by force is when I stopped feeling any sympathy for them and challenged the Arishok to a duel and killed him without mercy.

[Lithuasil]

Magicman10893 wrote...

The Qun supports the idea of benefiting society more than benefiting the individual. Some people like that idealism, others don't. I like that they all work together equally to benefit society as a whole, but the lack of individualism and free will is why I would never want to live under Qunari rule.

Throughout the game the Chantry is basically being the bad guy when it comes to dealing with Qunari (Sister Petrice and her bodyguard for example) so I and many others wanted to support the Qunari. However when they decided to take over Kirkwall by force is when I stopped feeling any sympathy for them and challenged the Arishok to a duel and killed him without mercy.

Personally, when dealing with these chantry fanatics, I pretty much had the same feeling I had during "best served cold" - guys, I'm kind of on your side, if you weren't too busy attacking me to actually talk two words, I'd totally support you guys" :|

[Beerfish]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

The Viscount died for his incompetence.
Well, I admit that he didn't had to be killed, but at least be discontinued.

I don't say that they are pure good.
But they act comprehensible.

So according to the Arishok and the qunari that because the viscout was incompetant and didn't get the desired results he was killed?

Gee the Arishok sitting on his fat ass in his compound for 10 years doing nothing to look for his book and Hawke comes up with it quickly, now there is flat out incompetance.

We don't know how much work the Arishok did for getting the book, since he had no desire to share that information with us. For all we know he spent every waking hour, baring a few minutes of conversations with delegates, devoted to finding the book. Being 8 feet tall, being horned and in a foreign country can however make it hard to get contacts. And the Qun was also demanding of him, not to simply burn Kirkwall to the ground, and search through the rubble.

Even worse then eh?  If he was looking for it every day 10 hours a day then he's even more incompetant to let some pirate chick avoid him.  Hey, it is results that count though right?  Typical that Qunari would have all sorts of excuses why they failed but demand results from other beings.

[Seerezaro]

Weltenschlange wrote...

Lianaar wrote...

@Weltenschlange
There are rules that tell you what is right and wrong. It doesn't matter how elaborately written those rules are or if they are written at all. It can be religion, law or even morality, ethics.
They all tell you how to live your life.
How am I to behave? The rule/norm/ettiquette/tradition/custom/faith/religion tells me to behave this way.

True, but:

What I'm trying to say is that in a "normal" society I'm allowed at least some degree of autonomy. There are choices I can make, specific rule sets I can chose to follow out of my own desire or conviction and others that I can reject.

In a total belief system like the Qun I do not have a real choice. If I'm a Qunari I can submit ot the Qun or I can refuse and be punished for my refusal. Because the Qun doesn't just want my faith like the Chantry, the Qun wants everything. The Qun tells what to do, when to do it and how to do it. And if I as a Qunari (whether I'm grayskin, human, elf or dwarf) am born into this TBS and then raised in it, how would I know any better/different?

That is the crucial difference between the Qun and all other ideologies in Thedas.

I skipped over several pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.  But the Qun isn't that simple.  In DA:2 because the qunari are intended to be a major bad guy, they are not presented in the most favored light and you quickly forget all the things the Aristhok(sp?) forgave or turned a blind eye to and you never really sympathize with his story.  This is more the way its presented.

As far as how the Qun goes, their are religions now that tell you what to do, how to do, and when to do it.  The Qun is more forgivable.  The Qun based on what your skills are will direct you to the best field in which you would operate.  Once in that field you can choose how you go about doing your business.

You cannot choose to be a carpenter or a warrior(although if you feel that you would serve a better carpenter than a warrior their are ways to go about proving yourself).    However, they will not tell you that you must master a bow or a sword, you choose which weapon you wish to wield and how you would wield it.  As a carpenter you choose if you prefer building furniture or houses.  The how to do it is more of a code of honour than it is anything else.

The Arishtok lost the relic under his command and it is his duty, bound by the Qun, to retrieve it.  The reason he overthrew the city wasn't because his people were attacked, discriminated against, and outright murdered.  He overthrew the city because the guards were taking advantage of the very people they were sent to protect.  The nobles cared more about their status and wealth then they did for the people in their charge.

One Major appeal of the Qun is the absolute equality, a diplomat is no more important a person in the Qun then the person working the docks.   Its other great appeal is that it is a system of duty above all else.  This is also one of the reasons a great deal of people join the military.

Neither of those two things are really expressed, however.

Modifié par Seerezaro, 22 mars 2011 - 11:21 .

[RubiconI7]

Lithuasil wrote...

So throughout various threads in this forum I've seen people uphold the misconception that the Qunari would be cool, or badass, and several people have voiced outright incentive to join them.
How can anyone? The basic Idea of the Qun is that thinking is hard, responsibility makes the brain hurt, so why not just do what you're told. As interesting antagonists as they are, how can anyone support them? Those willfully submitting to the Qun are the most spineless, most pathetic individuals possibly imaginable - worse then any servant, worse then any slave because they willfully give themselves into slavery to avoid having to find purpose themselves. They neglect the very basis of what makes any conscious individual. Even the most shoddy beggar or cutthroat in darktown, even the most weak-willed bloodmage displays more backbone then the arishok does - at some point or another, those all at least tried, where the Arishok just goes "well the qun demands, and I'm too stupid to think or care on my own". How can anyone honestly praise and support those people, seriously? 

Basic idea of the Qun is taking responsibility and knowing your place. The social structure is akin to an ultra-left, close to communism government.

Simply put, they value group mentality much higher than individualism. Their sense of respect, responsibility and dedication is unmatched.

[Magicman10893]

Lithuasil wrote...

Magicman10893 wrote...

The Qun supports the idea of benefiting society more than benefiting the individual. Some people like that idealism, others don't. I like that they all work together equally to benefit society as a whole, but the lack of individualism and free will is why I would never want to live under Qunari rule.

Throughout the game the Chantry is basically being the bad guy when it comes to dealing with Qunari (Sister Petrice and her bodyguard for example) so I and many others wanted to support the Qunari. However when they decided to take over Kirkwall by force is when I stopped feeling any sympathy for them and challenged the Arishok to a duel and killed him without mercy.

Personally, when dealing with these chantry fanatics, I pretty much had the same feeling I had during "best served cold" - guys, I'm kind of on your side, if you weren't too busy attacking me to actually talk two words, I'd totally support you guys" :|

I also forgot to mention the other reason why I don't like the Qunari: they're barbaric. When asked about free will, the Arishok says, "They have a choice. They can accept their role and bow down and choose like and the Qun. Or they can choose to die." That I don't accept.

If there was a middle ground somewhere, like you being able to live as an independant person with a family and everything, but you do the work that the ruling power dictates you are best at and serve society, I'd be glad to live there.

But in reality, they kill those that don't accept their ways, they take children away from their parents to be raised by "government" (can't really remember what exactly Sten says in Origins) and they strip all identity away from you, even your name (Sten is his title, as is the Arishok's).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Beerfish wrote...
Even worse then eh?  If he was looking for it every day 10 hours a day then he's even more incompetant to let some pirate chick avoid him.  Hey, it is results that count though right?  Typical that Qunari would have all sorts of excuses why they failed but demand results from other beings.

Except the Viscount's incompetence was threatening the Arishok's people (and his own). The Arishok's "incompetence" in finding the book does not harm anyone except the dogmatic fanatics who can't stand to have heathens nearby and how they attract "weak-willed pitiful people".

As for the qunari having the advantage in the battle. If the Qunari really wanted to destroy the city, they would have used their gas and explosives to cause a lot of damage. They didn't, fortunately for us. Most likely, they were planing to take the nobles hostage and pressure for the return of the tome. For all he knows, the tome was taken by Chantry fanatics.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2011 - 11:33 .

[Legbiter]

They're appealing in the dread sense of the word, like being captivated in watching a natural disaster unfold on the TV.

[Beerfish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Except the Viscount's incompetence was threatening the Arishok's people (and his own). The Arishok's "incompetence" in finding the book does not harm anyone except the dogmatic fanatics who can't stand to have heathens nearby and how they attract "weak-willed pitiful people".

This is my big point though.  I don't begrudge the Arishok or the Qunari feeling any way they wish, but they are simply hypocrites that over look their own incompetance and their own actions that are negative on a foreign land they are in by choice and yet they totally condemn similar actions by others.  They break deals but because they didn't mean it it's okay but others cannot break deals.  They feel others are not doing enough to keep them happy and yet they do their share of antagonizing. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Beerfish wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Except the Viscount's incompetence was threatening the Arishok's people (and his own). The Arishok's "incompetence" in finding the book does not harm anyone except the dogmatic fanatics who can't stand to have heathens nearby and how they attract "weak-willed pitiful people".

This is my big point though.  I don't begrudge the Arishok or the Qunari feeling any way they wish, but they are simply hypocrites that over look their own incompetance and their own actions that are negative on a foreign land they are in by choice and yet they totally condemn similar actions by others.  They break deals but because they didn't mean it it's okay but others cannot break deals.  They feel others are not doing enough to keep them happy and yet they do their share of antagonizing. 

Except they are not in Kirkwall by choice, they shipwrecked. They didn't threaten anyone in Kirkwall until they were systematically provoked. They kept to the compound and didn't harm anyone. And when did they break deals? They only fought Kirkwall when the fanatics crossed the red line several times and when it became clear that the authorites in Kirkwall could not protect them (or mostly anyone, including elves and seeing how many thugs were there they were doing a ****** poor job).

For the most part, they were not antagonising anyone, except dogmatic fanatics who can't stand the idea of people converting to the Qun. What was the Arishok supposed to do? Kick the converts out and tell them they have no place in the Qun, to please the fanatics? And the Arishok was not asking anyone to keep him happy. He was asking them to keep the fanatics in line and stop them from harming his people or else he will intervene. And for the longest time, he sought a peaceful solution.

[cglasgow]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And when did they break deals?

Treaty of Llomerryn, anyone?

[Lithuasil]

cglasgow wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And when did they break deals?

Treaty of Llomerryn, anyone?

They crossed their fingers when signing so it's not a lie!

[KnightofPhoenix]

cglasgow wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And when did they break deals?

Treaty of Llomerryn, anyone?

The Qunari could argue that Kirkwall broke it first, with higher members of the Chantry echelons, and Templars, delivering not one, but several blows.

Accords have been broken for much much smaller reasons historically.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mars 2011 - 12:15 .

[Gabey5]

they are imposing and badass. i am an arishok fanboy

[cglasgow]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Qunari could argue that Kirkwall broke it first, with higher members of the Chantry echelons, and Templars, delivering not one, but several blows.

Aaand, they would be talking out their ass if they tried that.

Terrorists attacking you is a valid case for war against a nation-state only if the nation-state is harboring the terrorists.  'Harboring' means 'the legitimate government is giving them sanctuary and/or aid', or it means 'the government has them, and is refusing to either put them on trial themselves or turn them over to you'.

You will remember that before the US attacked Afghanistan, it first politely asked the Afghani government to extradite Bin Laden to them.   It was only after the then-ruler of Afghanistan answered back 'Hell no, I'm on his side!' that the US went 'Well in that case, it is officially on.'  If he'd said 'OK, I'm sending my own army out to attack the guy, I'll let you know when he's dead', and then he actually did send his army out (instead of just pretending and stalling)... well, the most the US could have done then is politely ask him if he wanted any help.

Seeing as how the Viscount was paying Hawke to hunt the fanatics' asses down and end them, he really can't be accused of harboring them, can he?

Oh, and note: 'not killing them fast enough' is not the same thing as 'sheltering'.  He was fighting those terrorists too; they were a common enemy of him and the Arishok.   So the Arishok claiming that those terrorists are a casus belli to declare war on the Viscount of Kirkwall is the Arishok being full of little red ants.

Modifié par cglasgow, 23 mars 2011 - 12:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

cglasgow wrote...
Aaand, they would be talking out their ass if they tried that.

Terrorists attacking you is a valid case for war against a nation-state only if the nation-state is harboring the terrorists.

'Harboring' means 'the legitimate government is giving them sanctuary and/or aid'.

Seeing as how the Viscount was paying Hawke to hunt their asses down and end them, he really can't be accused of harboring them, can he?

Oh, and note: 'not killing them fast enough' is not the same thing as 'sheltering'.  He was fighting those terrorists too; they were a common enemy of him and the Arishok.   So the Arishok claiming that those terrorists are a casus belli to declare war on the Viscount of Kirkwall is the Arishok being full of little red ants.

Except everyone knows that the Viscount, for all intents and purposes, is a puppet put in place by Meredith. The fanatics who provoked the Qunari are a high ranking Chantry sister and a Templar. The Arishok could have come to the conclusion that Meredith was supportive of this. We don't know since we don't see her until the end (which is stupid, but that's another topic).  But it would be a reasonable justification.

Besides, it's Real politik. Most accords are signed to be broken. What did the humans expect when they didn't even chip the Qunari armed forces and only managed to make them withdraw by massacring civilians? 

If anything, the Qunari should be criticized for lacking subtely and for saying quite explicitly that they are coming back. That's as much warning as one could give. A warning I would not give were I in their position.

EDIT: And I am not saying that what the Arishok did was a stroke of diplomatic and military genius. Nor was it completely reasonable. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[cglasgow]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except everyone knows that [...]

Oh please.  Are you seriously going to pretend that Sister Petrice had official Chantry backing?  When Elthina did what she did?   This isn't just reaching, this is desperation.

The Arishok knew damn well what was really going on, he just didn't care.  He was looking for excuses.  He was no victim; he was just an aggressor who was waiting for the opportune moment.

Besides, it's Real politik. Most accords are signed to be broken.

So, after adamantly claiming that the qunari didn't do it, once its finally become obvious that they actually did do it, the goalposts suddenly move to 'But everybody else does it too its not really wrong!'

Desperate qunari apologism.  Feh.

Modifié par cglasgow, 23 mars 2011 - 12:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

cglasgow wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except everyone knows that [...]

Oh please.  Are you seriously going to pretend that Sister Petrice had official Chantry backing?  When Elthina did what she did?   This isn't just reaching, this is desperation.

I am not going to. The Arishok can come to the conclusion. If not official Chantry backing, then backing from Meredith, the real power in the city. Why didn't she stop one of her Templars rallying a mass of thugs who want to murder Qunari on sight? Meredith has the strongest armed force in the city.