1927 réponses à ce sujet

[ticklefist]

Maker, no. He nuked the sweet old church lady.

[LobselVith8]

Shared wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The mages aren't slaves.

Some people might refer to them as such-- Anders, for one, though I don't know if he's the sort of supporting argument you want to use-- but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that not being free and being a slave are different things.

They are definitely not free. In Kirkwall, they are tantamount to prisoners. According to the law of the Circle of Magi, they have a certain amount of rights if very limited personal freedom. How much those laws are respected will vary from tower to tower. Either way, however, they are not owned by the Chantry, nor are they forced into servitude (meaning they are not forced to perform work or any other service on the Chantry's behalf).

If someone wishes to see the Chantry as heartless oppressors, by all means-- there are many ways to interpret the situation, and that's intentional. If someone tries to argue that there are absolutes involved, or that anything we've written suggests there are, they're quite simply deluded-- not to put too fine a point on it.

Not being free is the same as beeing a slave. As a mage in the circle you cannot pursue the life you want yourself, and this is enforced with often violence or imprisonment. Or even worse, beeing made tranquill, which basically kills you (if you cannot feel you are not human anymore) but your not really dead either. The comparison to the slaves in the US is pretty obvious. The mages gets their freedom taken away because of what they are born as. Just as the afro americans/africans where. You could argue their slavery is "better" then what the slaves in "real life" where subject to, but its still slavery. Slavery does not equal being forced to work for someone. Its beeing denied your freedom.

There's also the issue that Aldenon the Great refers to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, a pro-mage Hawke calls the Chantry controlled Circle slavery, neither Fenris nor Sebastian ever contradict the claim that the Chantry controlled Circle is slavery (and Fenris can even be persuaded to side against the templars when Hawke addresses that the Chantry controlled Circle is slavery), and a number of codex entries also refer to mages being "controlled" by the templars or using language that makes it clear that mages are beholden to the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, such as the codex about Adain of Starkhaven escaping from the Circle of Magi because he "decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry."

[LobselVith8]

Shared wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

If you wish. You're the one who claimed they were forced to stay-- I'm simply telling you they're not. They're free to go, and some in fact do if there's a logical place for them elsewhere (which is rare). They're certainly not blind to the fact that the world would not welcome them. I'm also not sure how you equate the loss of emotion with the loss of free will. If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so. They are not automotons.

Hmm, gotta reiterate my 2 cents on this. It can be argued mages are not slaves per ce. Just doomed to eternal imprisonemnt becuase they are born as mages.

I suppose it could be argued, but would it be accurate? Knight-Captain Cullen argues that Grand Cleric Elthina "is bound by faith and duty to support the Templars. We have dominance over mages by divine right."

Shared wrote...

However any argument about the tranquil, and especially those that do not want to be made tranquil is mute. It is a horrific prosess. When you can no longer feel you are no longer human. They are put to a fate worse then slavery, they are "killed" yet still alive. A fate i would argue is worse then death. Maybe the loss of emotion is not the loss of free will. But it is the loss of your "humanity". It actually makes little sense how they are portrayed in DA, in real life people that have this condition almost withouth exception ends upp as murderers as they cannot feel, cannot relate and haven o emphaty. It seems like they are both lobotomized/pasified and their emotions are removed. Because of what we know actual humans do when they cannot feel.

How i see the tranquill is also the reason i always in all my playthroughs made Anders kill the mage in his quest. Because the way i see it, its better to die then to exist but not live.

Considering that the narrative of Dragon Age II explicitly has characters telling us that tranquil will do anything they are told - from the templar Alrik to one of the tranquil mages who says she will do anything Alrik tells her to - I don't see how there is any ambiguity about the nature of the Rite of Tranquility or what little will tranquil mages even have. In fact, Owan states he can't tell the mage protagonist what happened during the Rite of Tranquility because he was ordered not to. Given the fact that tranquil mages who have reverted back to their normal selves have pleaded that they would prefer death to returning to their state of tranquility should demonstrate that it's a monstrous process.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering that the narrative of Dragon Age II explicitly has characters telling us that tranquil will do anything they are told - from the templar Alrik to one of the tranquil mages who says she will do anything Alrik tells her to - I don't see how there is any ambiguity about the nature of the Rite of Tranquility or what little will tranquil mages even have.

These characters would be wrong, then. David Gaider has clarified this aspect. Tranquility doesn't turn people into mindless puppets - it "only" turns them into different people by virtue of shutting down their emotions. It's like a more precise form of lobotomy (which I believe was the writers' inspiration for the Rite).

The Tranquil will have the aforementioned tendency to follow orders - but they can still make independent decisions or flat-out say "no" when said orders collide with the convictions they achieve in a non-emotional analysis of the situation.

I'm not sure whether the characters in DA2 were simply wrong or if this is a disconnect between Gaider and whoever wrote those dialogues. Stuff like that tends to happen in any project where you have several people working on different aspects of a greater picture. And in that case, would Gaider in his position as lead writer override the game content, or is it the other way around?

Modifié par Lynata, 13 avril 2012 - 07:27 .

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that the narrative of Dragon Age II explicitly has characters telling us that tranquil will do anything they are told - from the templar Alrik to one of the tranquil mages who says she will do anything Alrik tells her to - I don't see how there is any ambiguity about the nature of the Rite of Tranquility or what little will tranquil mages even have.

These characters would be wrong, then. David Gaider has clarified this aspect.

The problem is that the narrative has a templar and a tranquil mage providing this information.

Lynata wrote...

Tranquility doesn't turn people into mindless puppets - it "only" turns them into different people by virtue of shutting down their emotions. It's like a more precise form of lobotomy (which I believe was the writers' inspiration for the Rite).

The Tranquil will have the aforementioned tendency to follow orders - but they can still make independent decisions or flat-out say "no" when said orders collide with the convictions they achieve in a non-emotional analysis of the situation.

Alrik used the Rite of Tranquility to rape mages, as he indicated he was going to do to Ella (and as the female tranquil mage insinuated when she told her former lover she does whatever Alrik commands), so that isn't the information that the storyline is conveying to us. Even Origins had Owain cleaning during an abomination outbreak, so it's clear that tranquil have been irrevocably altered by the process. He couldn't even be bothered to notify Wynne that he was on the other side when he originally encountered the barrier that she put up.

The fact that even Gaider's novel Asunder has a mage begging for death over tranquility informs me that it's a monstrous process.

Lynata wrote...

I'm not sure whether the characters in DA2 were simply wrong or if this is a disconnect between Gaider and whoever wrote those dialogues. Stuff like that tends to happen in any project where you have several people working on different aspects of a greater picture. And in that case, would Gaider in his position as lead writer override the game content, or is it the other way around?

It involves all the participants, not simply Gaider; the Architect, for example, was revised from how Gaider originally described him in The Calling. Basically, there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen. If there was other content to contradict these claims, then I would agree with you, but there isn't. Owan's behavior especially gives the impression that he's little more than a puppet. Removing a person's emotions from them is going to fundamentally change that person.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The problem is that the narrative has a templar and a tranquil mage providing this information.

Who aren't actually providing any information but simply acting in a scene, leaving it to us to interpret it.

Trying to avoid a conflict between sources (or one source retconning the other) would leave two options: either said interpretation is simply wrong and it wasn't what it looked like (example: Alrik could have simply been an ass who likes to scare girls with grisly lies), or engaging in sexual intercourse does not violate a Tranquil's non-emotional free will.

LobselVith8 wrote... 
If there was other content to contradict these claims, then I would agree with you, but there isn't.

Well, Asunder is the most recent source - it stands to reason future products will follow its example, given that it is information from the lead writer himself. Unless they purposely choose to disregard it for whatever reason, but we can only speculate.

LobselVith8 wrote...  
Removing a person's emotions from them is going to fundamentally change that person.

Undoubtedly. But the question is "does the removal of emotions strip you of free will, or does it merely affect the way you take to reach a decision?"

Modifié par Lynata, 13 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[LobselVith8]

The tranquil mage says she can't continue her romance with the mage she was involved with, and specifically states that she will do anything Alrik commands. How does that sound like she has kept her free will? In addition to Alrik's claim that Ella with do anything he wants once she is made tranquil, I don't see how this is "up to interpretation."

It's not like the conflict between the Chantry codex and the Dalish codex on the Exalted March, it's a templar and a tranquil mage giving the same information.

Also, Awakening contradicted The Calling, which was written by David Gaider, so it depends on how everyone else is willing to handle it. Gaider is part of a team. So far, we have tranquil acting like little more than "automotons." From Owain's actions during the outbreak of abominations to Karl's information about being tranquil, to Alrik and the tranquil female mage, I don't see how this is "open to interpretation."

The fact that the two tranquil mages we have seen reverted back wanted to die over returning to their tranquil state should inform us on the fact that they don't have free will. They aren't normal people. Normal people don't clean instead of trying to save themselves, normal people don't become sex slaves simply because a templar commands them - the tranquil mages are little more than thralls.

[Rjames112]

I like to think he was justified in how he felt but not necessarily in the destruction of the Chantey.

As a plot device it was amazing, really gave a punch to end.

[LPPrince]

David Gaider wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

I'm sorry-- what?

I've waited ONE WHOLE YEAR for an answer.

Come on...

[Zalitara]

I can't find any justification for what Anders did. He says there can be no compromise, but compromise is all we have. Standing your ground, never giving an inch against an enemy like the templars will go nowhere good.

Also the killing of innocent people leave a really bitter taste in my mouth, if you are fighting for your life and you acidentally kill an innocent bystander that's one thing, but bombing a civilian target is never okay, and it's pretty much as low as you can possibly go in a war scenario. There were people praying in that chantry, maybe some of them even prayed for the mages, and then they get blown to bits by some rightous **** with an agenda that only a few mages support him in anyway,

What Anders did was pretty much just him forcing his point of view on all the mages in Kirkwall, almost none of the circle mages would have agreed to take such an action no matter what was going on.

After Anders, and after reading Asunder the mages in general just ****** me off though. If I get a chance in DA3 I am taking them all down. Mages need the circle, there is simply no way around it. Sure it doesn't have to be as strict as it is, but it's needed none the less.

[Sinuphro]

Anders did the right thing killing that stupid Elthina. Mages getting r@ped, harrowed mages being forced tranquil, people under her using her authority to commit atrocities; oh and lets not forget...she is the one that also led to the viscount's son getting killed and if that wasnt bad enough...the viscount's son was killed in the chantry by the people that were supposed to protect him. She refused to use her authority to strighten out the templars so it serves her right.

lol those templars are lucky Anders di not let me in on his plan; hell if i had the opportunity, I would plant a bomb where all those templars were sleeping

[yetiawesome]

No. Call me old fashioned but killing an old woman in cold blood is profoundly distasteful. And I think from Anders' reactions he kind of knew this.

Elthina was being criminally incompetent but that does not in my mind justify killing her and other church people.

Mind you I am biased, seeing as I believe very much in a reformed circle structure.

[TEWR]

LPPrince wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

I'm sorry-- what?

I've waited ONE WHOLE YEAR for an answer.

Come on...

I remember first seeing that post.

Your reply to Gaider made me lol. His reply made me lol even harder.

I second the motion to receive an answer.

[jbrand2002uk]

TEWR maybe Gaider will answer if you ride naked and drunk on the back of a gorilla lol XD

[TEWR]

Undoubtedly. But the question is "does the removal of emotions strip you of free will, or does it merely affect the way you take to reach a decision?"

The former.

To think that a Mage is going to have a relationship with the Templar that illegally made her Tranquil over the Mage she was originally having a relationship with of her own free will is absurd.

That woman no longer has her free will.

I've already discussed this. With you in fact.

What I wrote...

And I think Gaider's wrong.

Emotions are a critical aspect of free will. Tranquility is essentially mind-rape, just like blood magic's mind control is.

Emotions are tied to logic. They operate based off of one another. They're not opposites, but they do come into conflict with one another. To remove emotions removes

Emotion is a fuel in the pursuit of logic, or so I believe. Removing emotion destroys much of what makes one act logically.

Even the Dalish see what happens to the Tranquil as destroying their soul, which houses free will.

So that means that the Tranquil are slaves, because they have no soul. No free will. They're a husk, and even Karl -- who was illegally made Tranquil -- despises what happened to him.

Additionally, if that Tranquil could've said "No" then she would've, because she was in love with the elven mage apprentice. Her love of the apprentice was ripped away from her. If she had free will, she'd still be able to love, because she would've said no to Alrik and stayed with the man she loved.

But she didn't. She says that "only Alrik can command her now". She has no free will and is thus a slave, tantamount to being a carefully made construct.

Templars aren't allowed to be with mages just as much as mages aren't allowed to be with other mages. She was in love with the apprentice, but she didn't say no. Reason being: she couldn't. Her free will was stripped from her, despite what Gaider would like us to believe.

Gaider claims they think logically. That means that they'd adhere to the laws of the Circle as well regarding fraternizing between Mages and Templars. They would logically not allow such a thing and would say no. But they don't, because they're slaves with no sense of free will.

And yes, a Tranquil is still a Mage.

Silfren even agreed with me and further proved my point by making some very strong supporting arguments.

Silfren wrote...

I remember when Gaider wrote that, and its one of the most mind-boggling things I've seen come from him. It suggests an extreme misunderstanding of the vital role emotions play in decision making. It's as if he is attempting to make the Tranquils out to be Vulcans, while ignoring a key difference: Vulcans do not LACK emotions, but exert absolute control over them. Tranquils very pointedly do not have emotions to control; on this point the lore has been explicitly clear. Hell, presumably he had a significant part in the writing of DA2, and we see in the example of Ser Alrik and Ella that the lack of emotion plainly turns Tranquil into slaves. So one has to wonder if Gaider simply doesn't understand the role that emotional capacity plays in decision-making, or if he feels a need to attempt to ret-con what the Tranquils are and uses a flimsy argument to make the case.

He also denies that the mage condition of being locked away in a Circle can be classified as a form of slavery, but that argument only works if you restrict the institution of slavery to one model, which ignores that there are multiple forms of slavery and that mage imprisonment and isolation absolutely fits the bill.

So yes, Mages lack free will once made Tranquil. David Gaider's counterargument on the matter holds no water.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 avril 2012 - 03:27 .

[LPPrince]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

I'm sorry-- what?

I've waited ONE WHOLE YEAR for an answer.

Come on...

I remember first seeing that post.

Your reply to Gaider made me lol. His reply made me lol even harder.

I second the motion to receive an answer.

I'd say I've been patient enough.

[LPPrince]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Logic Bomb:

His reply was "I'm sorry - what?"  He responded to your post with a request for clarification regarding your statement.  If you do not provide him with the clarification he requests then he cannot provide you with the information you are requesting.

Actually, his response was "I'm sorry-- what?"

Italics implying he knew what I was talking about.

()

Mr. Gaider...qunari birthing process...come on now...

[LPPrince]

You're not actually serious about this, right?

[LPPrince]

Heh, good.

[Lazy Jer]

LPPrince wrote...

Actually, his response was "I'm sorry-- what?"

Italics implying he knew what I was talking about.

()

Mr. Gaider...qunari birthing process...come on now...

Just researched the orignial statement.  I'm with Gaider on this one.

[Promethus2112]

Justified or not, Anders blowing up the Chantry was probably the most spontaneous and awesome thing that has ever happened in a game. Morrigan would have loved it.

[paul165]

Promethus2112 wrote...

Justified or not, Anders blowing up the Chantry was probably the most spontaneous and awesome thing that has ever happened in a game. Morrigan would have loved it.

I think Morrigan would have thought it was the stupidest thing she'd ever seen followed by making a snarky remark about no point in freeing sheep but hey that's just me.