297 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Joy Divison wrote...

In your OP, you clearly inferred the Arishock was a militant mass murderer.  How many people did he murder?  Two?  The Viscount and an accomplice since he allowed one of his soldiers to break the neck of a whiney noble.

I would say any deaths from the Qunari terrorising Kirkwall can be laid at his feet. Remember we had to fight our way across Kirkwall.

Joy Divison wrote...

I also wouldn't characterize the Arishock as militant; he says as much and I agree with that assessment.  I am not saying he is someone I would invite to dinner, but to suggest he was not provoked to act as he did does not strike me as being fair or observant.

A general riot in kirkwall and killing the viscount who had done nothing to the Qunari isn't militant? The fact that his actions stem from their code of honour in no way absolves him of any responsibility. And the provocation came largely from 1 source who was punished not the general populace of Kirkwall or Dumar.

[sassperella]

From your title - there's no excuse for murder....

Hawke is also a mass murderer. You can kill people who are only guilty on the assurance of others and you kill a lot of people. Any death however justified you think it is is murder.
Thedas isn't our world, there's a lot of death there and the PC contributes to a lot of it. Nothing in this game is black and white and at the end of the day it's all a matter of opinion and people's opinion will vary.

Oh and as for Isabela - yes she is indirectly responsible for everything the Qunari do - she brought them there without her they would not have arrived and she could have prevented a lot of problems by handing the book over as soon as she got it. While you cannot say she is as directly responsible as other people, she does bear a certain amount of the responsibility and is not an innocent party.

[Nimrodell]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Nimrodell wrote...

As Kreya or Meredith or Anders in Awakening would say - Apathy is death. That's all I can say about Elthina.

Elthina isn't apathetic ... she does care and tries to actively talk people down.   The GC's great failing is taking those beliefs to the extreme and not taking the level of action that is required -- I.E. "talking" doesn't work on everyone.

Hehe, I'll just say - what happens when you tell Elthina about misuse of her seal? Don't tell me she acts as she should. Before even confronting Varnell you can inform her about misuse of her seal and she says - path to righteousness is never straight one; I hoped it wouldn't go that far: I'll step in when it's time... and time for her steppping in is after Saemus' death... I was joking about apathy, especially 'cause those words came from Meredith when witty Hawke is defending her/his stand about not doing the dirty job for templars, but tis silly to condone Elthina's inaction which leads to even more bad deeds from her own very flock. That's just condoning double standards and anyone claiming otherwise is selling something. She's a nice lady, but not innocent in the matter, simple as that.

[Rifneno]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

LOL! I'm glad you made it out alive! I think maaaybe we could see Par Vollen if they went back to a more DA:O style of traveling from place to place. I mean, granted, we never left Ferelden, but we did get to see Haven and Orzammar, which were pretty different culturally than the rest of the land. Maybe Par Vollen could just be a stop on the Northern Tour?

Hrm.  Maybe, if the game was set in Rivain or Antiva.  They're close enough that it'd be reasonable.  Ferelden, Free Marches, and especially Orlais are too far away.  Pretty much the opposite side of the known world.  We don't know exactly how big the Thedas map is.  It's definitely on the southern hemisphere of their world judging by the climates described in the various countries.  Alistair says that Weisshaupt in the Anderfels is... hmm, I can't remember if he say "thousand" or "thousands" of miles away.  That's a big difference I guess.  Either way, Par Vollen actually looks a little further away than Weisshaupt.  So unless the qunari invent airplanes next, it looks too far for the southern countries.

And word, the Primordial Thaig was so gorgeous. It made me even madder at the rest of the game!

Oh lord, tell me about it!    That thing was utterly fascinating.  It provided us with some great hints at things too.  The hunger demon says the Profane are eating lyrium.  The Profane's codex mentions a cryptic scrawling on a wall where "The Profane" basically says they "feasted upon the gods" in desperation.  Then the lyrium idol was telling Bartrand to worship it?  The dwarves who lived there must have thought of lyrium as a god.  And perhaps they were right judging by the apparently sentient idol.  If we just had more content on that Thaig, maybe we could find out where this is leading...

Oh, I'm not buying the Golden City line, either, but that's mostly because I apply my same beliefs about religion in the real world to the religions of Thedas: they're all trying to articulate some common Thing in very, very different languages. The darkspawn creep me out because they look like zombies and have rape camps to make themselves. Creeeeeeepy!

<shudder>  Broodmothers...  there's something I'm not sure I want to learn more about.  What we do know already would give Steven King trouble sleeping.  One thing I've always wondered though.  Sigrun was scared out of her mind because she knew they were planning to broodmother her.  So if the dwarves, or at least the legion of the dead, knows about broodmothers... why the holy hell do they think it's a good idea to let women anywhere near the Deep Roads?!  Even setting aside what a horrific fate that is, it does them no good if they kill 100 darkspawn but add another broodmother to the pile, who makes 150 more darkspawn in turn.  Stupid dorfs.

Though dude, I can't say how much money I'd pay to see Sten of the Beresaad and the Arishok in an episode of Glee. I don't even like Glee, or musicals, and I'm saying. I'd pay to see it. !!!

I don't know.  I heard Zevran talking about it.  He said elcor Hamlet was far better.

stobie wrote...

Ignoring all the other stuff, I was *not* 'complaining because a character did something violent.'  I'm saying I that I think Anders wanted a war. (maybe because he says he wants a war)   I don't find that sympathetic - he's removing choice from as many people as he possibly can - stuffing his world view onto the Wynnes & other such mages who might not want this - and who might very probably have an MLK solution in the works.  It's really rather offensive to have someone reinvent what I said, though.  So let's not.

You can get all offended if you want, but I maintain that it was a valid point.  One you're still proving when you compare the situation to MLK's.  The situations are nothing alike.  Anders isn't trying to get the right to drink from the same fountain or sit anywhere on a bus, he's trying to get the right to not be imprisoned by paranoid zealots who often shoot first, shoot second, and never ask questions, who use even the men as sex slaves, and who never seem to have to answer for their crimes.  I'm not condoning segregation but comparing the situations is asinine.  The Chantry has been preaching their mage hate for ages.  MLK was a great man who did tremendous work for the civil rights, but it didn't start with him.  Racial descimination in voting, for instance, was abolished 59 years before he was born.  So my question is this:  What civil rights have mages gotten in the 1,000 years since the Chantry's founding?  Exactly.  MLK sped up a process that was already started.  And it was started by what?  That's right.  The Civil War.

(though I keep feeling sorry for Justice, who I rather liked in Awakening.)

You're aware that they heavily imply it is Justice that was behind the act you find so vile, right? 

[Yellopranda]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Oh, come on. "Violence, war, subjugation, and forceful conversion"? That sounds a whole lot like the Chantry to me - except the Qun don't try to cover it up with the "loving mother" tripe that the Chantry tries to feed you. The Qunari are honest, and I respect that, too. You really don't know anything about the Arishok other than what you assume about him, and what you project onto him, and the same goes for your knowledge of the Qun - we're given very little information about the Qun and the Qunari, and you appear to have decided to fill in all the blanks with your own opinions and biases. Which is cool, and your right. I'm starting to think that not too much more will be accomplished by continuing this thread of conversation.

Yes, the chantry is guilty of that too, and i can't remember saying otherwise. I find it strange that you say "oh, come on", like i'm being totally hopeless, then go on to, it seems, to agree with what i say about the qunari, then say that: but so does the chantry, which isn't really a defense, but more of a condemnation (in my opinion) as the chantry are misguided religious zealots as well.

You say that the qunari are at least honest about it. I don't see how that helps. At least not for the victims.

You claim i know nothing about the qunari or the qun, and i'll readily admit that there's a lot i don't know. I do know something though, and what i've seen, i don't like. Still, i'd be willing to consider an argument that i should reserve judgement until i know more.

What's strange is that if we know nothing about the qunari and the qun, as you say, then you wouldn't have any basis for your respect of them either, which would make you just as biased as you say i am. Unless, of course, you claim to know more about them than i do.

Lastly, when it comes to the point of continuing this thread of conversation it may be best it we didn't. If i'm going to be accused of forming ill-informed opinions and being biased then this is no longer a healthy conversation. When people can't stand being disagreed with to such an extent that the personal attacks start, it's best to call it a day.

I am sorry for the undue snark in my tone, but it has seemed in your posts that you've missed the point of what I was saying several times; this may be because I wasn't clear or succinct enough. Either way, it wasn't my intention to personally attack you, I just find certain modes of debate to be kind of exasperating. I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I think, and in fact, I enjoy a good discussion. And I will admit that I tend to get touchy about topics related to culture because I think a lot of the time, people do tend to be very ethnocentric without even realizing they're doing it. It's not a matter of personal attack, it's just a matter of approach.

To say you know nothing about the Qunari and the Qun is a misstatement - however, both of us have highly limited knowledge of the subject, and we each have chosen to interpret that knowledge in different ways. At this point, if you want, we can leave it at that. Either way, again, I am sorry if you felt I personally attacked you, because that really wasn't my intent.

Okidok. I've been thinking for a while now that we actually agree on many things and if i had used softer rethoric it would've been apparent not only to me. Don't get me wrong, there are still things i disagree with  but probabIy fewer than it might seem like.

On the whole i think that trying to understand a foreign culture from the inside rather than the outside is the best approach. That being said, i'm one of those people who think that the world is actually moving forward. That socially as well as technologically the world is gradually becoming a better place (i know many disagree with me). Notions like personal freedom, universal suffrage, sanctity of life, human rights and so on are largely modern ideas. If one agrees with this contention then, there is such a thing as one culture being more socially advanced than another. For instance, i find myself unable to accept the treatment and subjugation of women in some conservative muslim countries. I think this is a holdover from a more primitive time. To me then, the qunari represent a step backwards, even compared to Kirkwall. Mind you, i'm not saying Kirkwall is a good place, it's still a festering pit of corruption.

On another matter, i enjoy a good discussion too, especially with people who express themselves intelligently and who disagree with me

I've been wondering for a while now btw. What kind of rock?

[Yellopranda]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...
Elthina; what can possibly be wrong with her? She's such a wise and gentle soul, always kind and caring. seemingly standing above the chaos and destruction in her own little part of heaven, untouched by the world's corruption. An angel watching over us. Except she doesn't do that, does she? She doesn't watch over anyone, she simply observes. She's someone with the power and influence to, possibly, prevent all that follows, yet she does nothing. That suggests to me one of three things, either she likes the way events are transpiring, she doesn't care or she's spineless. We should judge by actions, but remember that inaction is also a choice. While not stopping the falling axe isn't as bad as actually holding it, it's still bad.

In terms of Elthina I get the feeling that she is trying to do a lot behind the scenes but isn't getting anywhere.  I recently got to Act 3 again and she breaks up the initial confrontation nicely and even tells Meredith "to go back to her office like a good little girl".   Note Elthina indicates that she's going to meet with both of them later.  This isn't the action of someone that doesn't care, is spineless, etc. ....

My interpretation is that she is the right person but in the wrong position.  She believes at her core that she needs to get people to understand each other and not to "force" them to live with each other.   Her problem is that she holds this belief so closely that she is BLINDED by that fact that this situation NEEDS someone to use force to get this resolved with a minimum of bloodshed.  [Note caps used for emphasis .. not shouting]

Now while the GC may not be directly responsible she is the one person that could have and should have nipped this in the bud before things got this bad.  In terms of blame she still has tons of it ....

I see your point. Elthina doesn't strike as a bad person exactly and it seems her intentions are good, but as they say; the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I guess my main problem with Elthina is that she isn't doing her job, which is what you're saying too if i understand you correctly.

[Yellopranda]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

You say we should not judge the Arishok according to traditional western values, but then go on to judge the other characters discussed in this thread, by those same values. I wonder what special status you accord the Arishok that he should be the exception.

The same reason I try not to judge the actions of people who lived in ancient Rome or Greece or China by the same standards that I live by today - because removing something from its cultural and historical context will inevitably lead it to be deemed unworthy. By judging Qunari cullture and the Arishok from a Westernized ethnocentric purview will inevitably leave them wanting, because the Qun values different things than the West, particularly America. Whereas American culture - the one from which I think the writers of the game come, if I'm not mistaken - is a culture that values the individual above all else, there are other cultures that see that as selfish and corrupt. So if you're going to judge the Qun by the standard of how much individual freedom its followers have, it's going to fall short. If you judge the Qun by how happy its followers are, or how much good it does (how safe its followers are, how much peace its followers enjoy within their own lands, how content the populace is in general) you may find something quite different.

That's all fine and good, but that wasn't what i was asking. I wondered why the Arishok should not be judged according to western values, then go on (in your first post on this thread) to judge Meredith and Anders by what seems to me, at least, to be western values. I was curious about this inconsistency.

But I just said it - I think that the Arishok should be judged in the context of his own culture, or one like it, as opposed to Meredith and Anders, who are being judged in the context of their own culture, and one like it.

Ok. I'll let this point rest if you will :happy: Either i'm not understanding you or the other way around and i'm not sure which.

[Joy Divison]

Morroian wrote...

I would say any deaths from the Qunari terrorising Kirkwall can be laid at his feet. Remember we had to fight our way across Kirkwall.

And I would say the responsibility for those deaths has to be distributed amongst many many people such as Sister Petrice, Ser Varnell, Aveline, Isabella, random Kirkwall fantatic #6745, bribed guardsmen #4, the elf fanatic, etc.

A general riot in kirkwall and killing the viscount who had done nothing to the Qunari isn't militant? The fact that his actions stem from their code of honour in no way absolves him of any responsibility. And the provocation came largely from 1 source who was punished not the general populace of Kirkwall or Dumar.

See above. 

[Yellopranda]

Joy Divison wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

I guess it's always good to properly define the terms and in what meaning they were used in any discussion so as to avoid confusion.

I used defend to mean support in the face of critisism.

Sympathize was used to describe an intellectual accord with the characters in question. (I guess i may have confused that by using the word sympathy in another meaning in my previous post. I used it then to describe a state where one shares the feelings of another person.)

Agree was used as in agreeing with an opinion/opinions.

I'd like to point out that i said mass-murderers, religious fanatics, dictators OR (not and) terrorists. I'm not saying all the characters i mentioned are all these things.

OK.

I don't think support  = defending X in the face of criticism.  It's easy to criticize the Germans for bad stuff in the First World War.  I find most of the critcisms overstated, a rehashment of British propaganda, or baseless when compared with their opponents and say so.  This does not mean I support the Germans, it means I am challenging simpisitic thinking. 

I also don't think an intellectual accord (an ambiguous phrase to begin with) is necessarily the same as sympathize (it also sounds like you mean empathize which is a much stronger term.  I've read the Communist Manifesto.  I understand its arguments.  I understand the logic of its arguments.  I understand why these arguments were made and what they were purported to solve.  That to me sounds a lot like an intellectual accord.  I also think the Communist Manifesto is a bunch on nonsense.

In your OP, you clearly inferred the Arishock was a militant mass murderer.  How many people did he murder?  Two?  The Viscount and an accomplice since he allowed one of his soldiers to break the neck of a whiney noble.  I also wouldn't characterize the Arishock as militant; he says as much and I agree with that assessment.  I am not saying he is someone I would invite to dinner, but to suggest he was not provoked to act as he did does not strike me as being fair or observant.

While I do not necessarily agree or condone the actions of the people you listed, I do believe a logical argument/defense can be made for all of them. 

Kirkwall very much had a blood mage problem, mages who were conspiring to overthrow the Knight-Commander which is clear treason, a First Enchanter who practiced blood magic, and a mage who blew up the chantry (undoubtedly an unprecedented occurrence).  If there ever was a place and time for the Rtie of Anullment to be implemented, it was right there and then.

The Arishock made no miltiary, cultural, or economic advances or even threats for 4 years but was repaid in kind with Kirkwall fanatics who stole their technology, murder his people, incite hatred, and were complicit in stealing a holy artifact.  Wars have started over fewer and lesser offenses.

Anders has a typical revolutionary profile.  Educated, membership or storng identification with a group that feels itself wrongfully oppressed, belief that dynamic action has power to alter history, and an uncompromising agenda.  Aside from the fact he is an abomination, there really isn't anything unusual about him that I don't see when reading about France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.  To deny there is a coherence and logic to his actions is to ignore the many people in history who have believed as he does.

Elthina is a weak leader who believes she can play both sides of the fence and assuage radicals and prevent violence.  Again, her profile is a dime a dozen in history, whether Catherine de' Medici in 16th century France or Neville Chamberlain in 1938.  Peace and the attempt to relax tensions is an admirable goal; it just that it is not always possible.  And it's not easy to know when exactly a line in the sand has been crossed.

You seem to say, and please correct me if i'm wrong, that a word or concept can only have one distinct meaning, and that i should be using your definition. Sadly, language is such an imperfect tool that words, phrases and sentences can have many differing interpretations, depending on prevailing language norms, the characteristics of users and the situation in which they occured.

Defend, for instance, can be used to mean several things. In the famous debate between Bertrand Russell and Father Copelston in 1948 on the existence of God a significant portion of the debate was dedicated to arriving at definitions of the concepts discussed that both could agree on. The aim was not to establish definite definitions of these concepts, but rather to ensure a productive debate and that they would be discussing the same things so as to avoid pseudoagreement or pseudodisagreement.

As such, my definition of, say, defend, was not meant to be  an absolute definition of the word, but rather an explanation of the way in which i used it, so as to better help you understand my meaning. Defend, after all, can mean many things, such as defend against an attack, to act as an attorney, or defend a title in a sport. I guess i could have included definitions of all the words i used in my OP, but then it would have become more of a doctoral thesis than a post in a game forum. If i am to write a doctoral thesis i'd like it to be something a little more worthwhile.

Now on to some other points you made. I think our definitions of accord must be different, and if so, we're arguing at cross purposes. To me an accord is being in agreement. You may be thinking of the verb, which can mean something else entirely. Intellectual accord is to me not ambiguous at all. If you like me to explain my definition of intellectual accord you can take it to mean "to agree with, intellectually". I hope that is less ambiguous to you.

I think you may have meant that i implied that the Arishok was a militant mass murderer, not inferred, unless our understanding of those words are different as well, but that's beside the point i guess. As for the Arishok killing people, i hold him responsible for all the deaths he caused during the war, not just those he personally killed, as he was the commander of the qunari. When it comes to calling him militant, one could say he is militant in two meanings of the word, warlike or engaged in warfare and having an aggressive, combative attitude.

The Arishok was provoked, but by people like Isabela and rogue elements within the Chantry. To punish an entire city for the actions of a few is not only cruel and unusual, but illogical. To say that wars have started over fewer and lesser offences is not really a defense. That says more about those wars than it is a justification for this one.

Sure. Anders is not unique from a historical perspective. I'm not sure how that defends his actions however. Because other people have done things just as bad doesn't make Anders' actions any better. It's interesting that you should bring up the french and russian revolutions. The first one turned into the Reign of Terror until a totalitarian general proclaimed himself emperor and brought much of Europe into a very destructive war, while the second one wasn't exactly bloodless, and in the years that followed millions of people would die in the siberian gulags. If what Anders did sets off something that follows these historical patterns then one could argue that he has caused untold violence and suffering, but that remains to see of course.

I find the comparison of Elthina to Neville Chamberlain to be an apt one.

[Yellopranda]

Joy Divison wrote...

I also don't think an intellectual accord (an ambiguous phrase to begin with) is necessarily the same as sympathize (it also sounds like you mean empathize which is a much stronger term.

One more thing i noticed. No i don't mean empathize, but obviously we have a different interpretation of this word as well. I don't have an issue with anyone empathizing with the aforementioned characters, but i do have an issue with people sympathizing with them. Sympathize isn't necessarily the same as an intellectual accord, as it can be used to mean other things as well, but it is one of the ways in which it can be used, and it was in this way i used it.

Anyway, as i touched upon in my previous post, if we are to have a productive discussion it's more important for us to arrive at definitions we both agree on than to endlessly bicker over the "correct" definition certain terms. Unless the goal is "to win teh internetZ".

[Girl on a Rock]

Rifneno wrote...

Hrm.  Maybe, if the game was set in Rivain or Antiva.  They're close enough that it'd be reasonable.  Ferelden, Free Marches, and especially Orlais are too far away.  Pretty much the opposite side of the known world.  We don't know exactly how big the Thedas map is.  It's definitely on the southern hemisphere of their world judging by the climates described in the various countries.  Alistair says that Weisshaupt in the Anderfels is... hmm, I can't remember if he say "thousand" or "thousands" of miles away.  That's a big difference I guess.  Either way, Par Vollen actually looks a little further away than Weisshaupt.  So unless the qunari invent airplanes next, it looks too far for the southern countries.

Oh no, definitely not a Southern thing - but we seem to be moving north game-wise anyway, right? I mean hell, they stuck three years between acts in DA2 - we could probably stand a little travel time lapse in DA3! Eh? Eh? 

Oh lord, tell me about it!    That thing was utterly fascinating.  It provided us with some great hints at things too.  The hunger demon says the Profane are eating lyrium.  The Profane's codex mentions a cryptic scrawling on a wall where "The Profane" basically says they "feasted upon the gods" in desperation.  Then the lyrium idol was telling Bartrand to worship it?  The dwarves who lived there must have thought of lyrium as a god.  And perhaps they were right judging by the apparently sentient idol.  If we just had more content on that Thaig, maybe we could find out where this is leading...

I do wonder about that idol! I mean, I know there's a thread about it, so I won't go on too long, but it does seem like there's a definite link between the red lyrium and the old gods. The blue lyrium seems to function a little differently, but I'm not sure. Also, the Profane were eating lyrium, Bartrand was making his servants eat lyrium... creeeeeplicious!

<shudder>  Broodmothers...  there's something I'm not sure I want to learn more about.  What we do know already would give Steven King trouble sleeping.  One thing I've always wondered though.  Sigrun was scared out of her mind because she knew they were planning to broodmother her.  So if the dwarves, or at least the legion of the dead, knows about broodmothers... why the holy hell do they think it's a good idea to let women anywhere near the Deep Roads?!  Even setting aside what a horrific fate that is, it does them no good if they kill 100 darkspawn but add another broodmother to the pile, who makes 150 more darkspawn in turn.  Stupid dorfs.

This is a problem - before Sigrun, we could have said, hey, maybe nobody ever encountered (or survived an encounter with) a Broodmother before, or couldn't figure out the origins of the damn thing. But if Sigrun knew about them, ostensibly other dwarves might have known about them, and I promise I would never ever ever ever ever go anywhere NEAR the Deep Doads if there were even the slightest chance I'd be made into a broodmother. EUUUUGH. 

I don't know.  I heard Zevran talking about it.  He said elcor Hamlet was far better.

BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Best. Double. Feature. EVARR

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Okidok. I've been thinking for a while now that we actually agree on many things and if i had used softer rethoric it would've been apparent not only to me. Don't get me wrong, there are still things i disagree with  but probabIy fewer than it might seem like.

:grin: I strongly suspect this is true.

On the whole i think that trying to understand a foreign culture from the inside rather than the outside is the best approach. That being said, i'm one of those people who think that the world is actually moving forward. That socially as well as technologically the world is gradually becoming a better place (i know many disagree with me). Notions like personal freedom, universal suffrage, sanctity of life, human rights and so on are largely modern ideas. If one agrees with this contention then, there is such a thing as one culture being more socially advanced than another. For instance, i find myself unable to accept the treatment and subjugation of women in some conservative muslim countries. I think this is a holdover from a more primitive time. To me then, the qunari represent a step backwards, even compared to Kirkwall. Mind you, i'm not saying Kirkwall is a good place, it's still a festering pit of corruption.

Now this is an interesting point. I generally agree with you, but I recently got into a really long discussion with a good friend that spilled over into another relatively long discussion about personal freedom versus the good of the community. It was her argument that advocating for the individual above all else - personal freedom - undermines the larger goals of equality and social justice for the community/state/nation at large, because the individual will inevitably put his or her own goals above and ahead of the good of the many. Now, I definitely took the opposite tack, but she made some really thoughtful and interesting points. I'm not entirely clear that the Qunari don't value human rights - we haven't heard any stories of Qunari using torture or wantonly raping/pillaging. I'm not clear on the role of women in their society other than that they can't be warriors, which is not that cool, but I can't really gauge much else.

I wouldn't want to live the way the Qunari do, but they apparently don't have issues with racism or classism because everybody has their place? I don't know. I find it fascinating.

On another matter, i enjoy a good discussion too, especially with people who express themselves intelligently and who disagree with me

 Agreed! 

I've been wondering for a while now btw. What kind of rock?

 The third rock from the sun.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Ok. I'll let this point rest if you will :happy: Either i'm not understanding you or the other way around and i'm not sure which.

Done and done!

[Alamar2078]

Nimrodell wrote...
Hehe, I'll just say - what happens when you tell Elthina about misuse of her seal? Don't tell me she acts as she should. Before even confronting Varnell you can inform her about misuse of her seal and she says - path to righteousness is never straight one; I hoped it wouldn't go that far: I'll step in when it's time... and time for her steppping in is after Saemus' death... I was joking about apathy, especially 'cause those words came from Meredith when witty Hawke is defending her/his stand about not doing the dirty job for templars, but tis silly to condone Elthina's inaction which leads to even more bad deeds from her own very flock. That's just condoning double standards and anyone claiming otherwise is selling something. She's a nice lady, but not innocent in the matter, simple as that.

I'm not saying that she acts "properly" ... heck I'm not sure anyone in power in the game acts "properly" ...  I'm just saying she's not apathetic ... she does care ...   Her beliefs are good for a GC but she is blinded so much by those beliefs that they don't allow her to act YEARS before when it would have been relatively painless to do so.

IIRC in the Faith quest it seems like she doesn't mind being a martyr IF the right people can survive.   ... And she doesn't even get this right because she's probably a martyr for a side that now may want genocide.

EDIT:  To correct a dumb thing I said.  It's "nice" for a GC to have beliefs but they still have to do their job which may involve "force" to avoid a worse fate later on.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 13 avril 2011 - 08:07 .

[Yellopranda]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

 The third rock from the sun.

Ah, that one. I've been there.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

 The third rock from the sun.

Ah, that one. I've been there.

It's aight.

[Yellopranda]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Now this is an interesting point. I generally agree with you, but I recently got into a really long discussion with a good friend that spilled over into another relatively long discussion about personal freedom versus the good of the community. It was her argument that advocating for the individual above all else - personal freedom - undermines the larger goals of equality and social justice for the community/state/nation at large, because the individual will inevitably put his or her own goals above and ahead of the good of the many. Now, I definitely took the opposite tack, but she made some really thoughtful and interesting points. I'm not entirely clear that the Qunari don't value human rights - we haven't heard any stories of Qunari using torture or wantonly raping/pillaging. I'm not clear on the role of women in their society other than that they can't be warriors, which is not that cool, but I can't really gauge much else.

I wouldn't want to live the way the Qunari do, but they apparently don't have issues with racism or classism because everybody has their place? I don't know. I find it fascinating.

The discussion of personal freedom vs. the well-being of the state is a long an intricate one and has many forms. like libertarianism vs. socialism or liberty vs. security to name a few. It's one i would be willing to discuss, but i guess it's a little beyond the scope of this thread.

I didn't really bring up human rights specifically against the qunari. More as part of my reasoning to arrive at my point., but since you brought it up it made me curious and so i had to check (since it's hard to remember all thirty articles).

www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Seems to me the qunari are in violation of some, but follow others admirably. At least from our limited understanding, as you pointed out.

And feel free to find them fascinating. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. If they did you'd be justified in telling them to **** off.

[Yellopranda]

Damn. I deliberately misspelled a certain four-letter word starting with f, thinking i had beat the system, but it was censored anyway! *cry*

[Rifneno]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Oh no, definitely not a Southern thing - but we seem to be moving north game-wise anyway, right? I mean hell, they stuck three years between acts in DA2 - we could probably stand a little travel time lapse in DA3! Eh? Eh?

Very true.  Though I can't imagine what the purpose would be unless there was war with the qunari and the PC is taking it to their homeland.  Then again I can't imagine how Orsino goes harvester for no particular reason, so what do I know?

I do wonder about that idol! I mean, I know there's a thread about it, so I won't go on too long, but it does seem like there's a definite link between the red lyrium and the old gods. The blue lyrium seems to function a little differently, but I'm not sure. Also, the Profane were eating lyrium, Bartrand was making his servants eat lyrium... creeeeeplicious!

I bet it tastes like chicken.  ...  I haven't the slightest idea what the red and blue lyrium is about.  The bits we saw in DAO were always red (well the raw lyrium, not potions) but now...  Then again it's possible one of those isn't lyrium at all.  We're just assuming that's what those veins on the walls are.

Ahh, I do love overanalyzing these things.  That's one nice thing DA2 gives us.  DAO left us woefully short on puzzles we can't complete, had to go to ME for some reaper speculation for that.  Now we've got dozens of loose ends.  

This is a problem - before Sigrun, we could have said, hey, maybe nobody ever encountered (or survived an encounter with) a Broodmother before, or couldn't figure out the origins of the damn thing. But if Sigrun knew about them, ostensibly other dwarves might have known about them, and I promise I would never ever ever ever ever go anywhere NEAR the Deep Doads if there were even the slightest chance I'd be made into a broodmother. EUUUUGH. 

It really doesn't make any sense all-round.  If the Wardens were the only ones who knew, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot (with a MIRV missile I might add) if they didn't warn at least the dwarves about it.  Stopping women from getting abducted should be the absolute top priority.  

BAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Best. Double. Feature. EVARR

Tentatively, the qunaris may not take well to meeting something bigger and uglier than they are.

Now this is an interesting point. I generally agree with you, but I recently got into a really long discussion with a good friend that spilled over into another relatively long discussion about personal freedom versus the good of the community. It was her argument that advocating for the individual above all else - personal freedom - undermines the larger goals of equality and social justice for the community/state/nation at large, because the individual will inevitably put his or her own goals above and ahead of the good of the many. Now, I definitely took the opposite tack, but she made some really thoughtful and interesting points.

It begins a slippery slope though.  When one group of people loses some of their freedoms it sets a precedent which almost inevitably will be used to restrict others.  ....  I don't know why I'm adding to this.  I can't help myself.  

I'm not entirely clear that the Qunari don't value human rights - we haven't heard any stories of Qunari using torture or wantonly raping/pillaging. I'm not clear on the role of women in their society other than that they can't be warriors, which is not that cool, but I can't really gauge much else.

It's possible that qunari women are more different from men that they simply aren't viable as warriors.  With humans the variance between the sexes isn't all that much but with a few species it is.  For example, bald eagles.  Those massive majestic ones you always see pictures of?  All females.  The male of the species is a scrawny little thing by comparison.  Though I doubt this is the case with qunari since Sten's list of which gender gets which job doesn't indicate a significant physical difference.  Women can be blacksmiths or farmers, very physically demanding jobs.

As for wanton raping and pillaging, the Tal-Vashoth do their share of pillaging.  And humans are an exception that proves the rule when it comes to sex.  Very few species do it for anything other than reproduction.  Though psychologists often say rape is about power, but even if that's true (I take pretty much everything psychologists say with a grain of salt) then I doubt a qunari in human lands needs to resort to... that to feel power over another.

Yellopranda wrote...

Damn. I deliberately misspelled a certain four-letter word starting with f, thinking i had beat the system, but it was censored anyway! *cry*

I wouldn't voice much complaint over that.  I haven't met the mods around here (not that I'm in a hurry to hehe) but most forum mods don't have much of a sense of humor about that kind of thing.  

Edit:  Man, I gotta start proofreading.

Modifié par Rifneno, 13 avril 2011 - 07:45 .

[OldMan91]

like libertarianism vs. socialism

Wrong dichotomy.

[Yellopranda]

Rifneno wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

Damn. I deliberately misspelled a certain four-letter word starting with f, thinking i had beat the system, but it was censored anyway! *cry*

I wouldn't voice much complaint over that.  I haven't met the mods around here (not that I'm in a hurry to hehe) but most forum mods don't have much of a sense of humor about that kind of thing.  

Edit:  Man, I gotta start proofreading.

Ah. kinda like airport security. In that case the word i was trying to write was flab and it somehow, inexplicably got censored.

[Yellopranda]

OldMan91 wrote...

like libertarianism vs. socialism

Wrong dichotomy.

Yeah, i guess. Though that was much of the political discussion during the cold war, but then again, during the cold war they often used socialism to be synonymous with soviet-style communism.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Damn. I deliberately misspelled a certain four-letter word starting with f, thinking i had beat the system, but it was censored anyway! *cry*

Clever censors!!! Boo!

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...


The discussion of personal freedom vs. the well-being of the state is a long an intricate one and has many forms. like libertarianism vs. socialism or liberty vs. security to name a few. It's one i would be willing to discuss, but i guess it's a little beyond the scope of this thread.

Lawd, that needs its own thread and a half! 

I didn't really bring up human rights specifically against the qunari. More as part of my reasoning to arrive at my point., but since you brought it up it made me curious and so i had to check (since it's hard to remember all thirty articles).

www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Seems to me the qunari are in violation of some, but follow others admirably. At least from our limited understanding, as you pointed out.

I think that's true. I mean, they value life as long as it submits to the Qun? LOLOL. No, idk. I mean, Sten of the Beresaad did feel guilty about killing that family, right? In his strange, stoic way.

And feel free to find them fascinating. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. If they did you'd be justified in telling them to **** off.

Heee!