638 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

They are there to take away his people, and he defends his people. Wether or not they are to be punished under the Qun is irrelevant. No one, but the Qunari, judges a Qunari.

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They are there to take away his people, and he defends his people. Wether or not they are to be punished under the Qun is irrelevant. No one, but the Qunari, judges a Qunari.

They are there to talk to the Arishok, which they do quite respectfully.  Then the Arishok, unprovoked, orders their murder.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why do everyone presume that the elven converts won't be punished? The Arishok won't let the bas punish them because they are now Qunari, or close to anyway, and thus they will find their role within the Qun. The Arishok fully knows that they are murderers, and it is entirely possible that the elves have just jumped from the ashes into the fire.

Just so we're clear, are you telling us you think the Arishok may have them punished for killing a city guard, right before he has his men launch a coordinated surprise attack on pretty much anything with two legs? Because that's just stupid.

Speakeasy13 wrote...

That's a pretty ethnocentric viewpoint. In more ways than one:

1) Totalitarianism is not the dichotomic opposite of democracy. Every society is somewhere in between the spectrum. Hitler may be a totalitarian political leader, but his political rule was based on a highly successful, capitalist economy; Stalin became a totalitarian leader because free-market economy failed for his nation. Labeling something totalitarian alone does not make it bad, as it is a neutural term by itself, nor is it ever a precise and comprehensve description of anything.

2) Such negative connotation about totalitarian states are inherently a capitalist agenda, used to instigate the "blame the victim" mentality. Arguments like "Oh the Middle East is so poor because they have a totalitrian government" is total bull. They are so poor because they've been oppressed by a global market of capitalism, and they are totalitarian precisely because of global capitalism wouldn't allow them to fend for themselves economically otherwise. So pls stop throwing out that term like an insult.

3) The definition of "great" and "compassionate" is highly subjective. Not all totalitarian dictators are inherently evil or equally oppressive to everyone. If you've only lived on the opposing side of those people then of course the will be presented to you as such. Fidel Castro may be a dictator, but he also administered universal healthcare for his citizens decades before America even began to try. So if you're a Cancer patient who will be more compassionate to you, W. Bush or Castro?

The middle east is totalitarian? Uhh. No, it's not. I think you're confusing... well, a lot of things really. Again, we're talking about a form of government that tries to control every aspect of its peoples lives. Authoritarianism =! Totalitarianism. One is fire, the other is the frickin' sun.

And did you honestly think comparing Bush to Castro was going to end well? Seriously?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It was related because Rifneno insist on using totalitarianism as a cause instead of a symptom. He uses it as an insult to decry the failures of certain states. Speakeasy was trying to point out that totalitarianism is not inheritly a bad thing, but that we as westerners with a highly valued personal freedom, may see it as the epitome of evil.

It is inherently a very bad thing. "You just think that because you were brought up in western society" is not a reason, it's an excuse. And a very poor one at that. It works in reverse too: perhaps you only think it's not so bad because you haven't suffered through living under a totalitarian regime.

[Speakeasy13]

Lumikki wrote...

It's not oppressed by global of capitalism without reason. To be part of "capitalism" economy you need to follow rules of capitalism. That's doesn't mean you need to be capitalist, but you aren't allow to abuse it, that's why it's denyed, because they abuse it for they own benefit. Example respect "trade marks and copyrights" and do not create "illegal" copies of the product. Also it's capitalism it self that supports the "richer" economy, because it's based around "money". Meaning some other form of culture based economy doesn't really increase money flow so well, because they own culture design. Don't get me wrong , I don't judge one culture better than other. But I also don't blame other cultures for lack of they own culture accomplishment.

Of course I don't know how this is topic related?

Rules of the free market are not the problem. But rules set by capitalist states to ensure other states disguised as rules of the free market is a problem. I'm referring to the ongoing exploitation of natural resources from the 3rd world in exchange to... pretty much nothing. How is capitalism supposed to work for countries in the Middle East when the rules are working against them? They have no bargaining power opposed to the West. And the West don't want them to become capitalist because it'd mean more expensive oil-rigging labor. Same with S America and coffee and sugar.


Speaking of trademarks and copyrights, how about this scenario: ppl in Africa can't afford AIDs drugs, which are actually very cheap to produce, but copyrights fees kept them expensive in the West. Now how do you justify NATO's decision to reinforce the copyright and forbid copying of AIDs drugs? Hey, rules of capitalism dictates these ppl die.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Middle Eastern countries are not totalitarian. They are authoritarian.

I know the difference. I wasn't arguing FOR totalitarianism or authoritianism, I was arguing AGAINST the ethnocentric preconception that freedom and individual choices are automatically superior over "backward" forms of cultural logic. So I wasn't derailing myself.

Rifneno wrote...
And did you honestly think comparing Bush to Castro was going to end well? Seriously?

Why not? In logic nothing is sacred and everything is up for discussion. And frankly outside of the US many ppl have made that comparison. And mind you not always favorably either.

Modifié par Speakeasy13, 30 mai 2011 - 03:07 .

[lobi]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Lets see. He ambushes and kills a peaceful diplomatic party when he declares war, something honourable civilized beings would not do. He brutally murders the Viscount, despite the Viscount appeasing him ever since he landed in Kirkwall. Then there's the fact that he declares war at all and decides to take over the city where he is a guest just because he hasn't managed to find an unrelated book and he doesn't like the society. There is no logic at all behind such a move, he had no chance of taking over and this would be viewed as a declaration of war, meaning Thedas would go to war with the Qunari again. He didn't consult with the other 2 leaders of his people over this decision and just got blinded by rage and took matters into his own hands, ultimately leading to his humiliating death or withdrawal and no good accomplished whatsoever, though a serious blow to Qunari reputation and morale.

So why do people respect him?

Because he has a deep voice and is very tall, like Kobe Bryant or Darrel Williams.

Modifié par lobi, 30 mai 2011 - 03:24 .

[Speakeasy13]

lobi wrote...

Because he has a deep voice and is very tall, like Kobe Bryant or Darrel Williams.

Or Tom Selleck.

[Speakeasy13]

lobi wrote...

Because he has a deep voice and is very tall, like Kobe Bryant or Darrel Williams.

Or Tom Selleck.

[lobi]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

lobi wrote...

Because he has a deep voice and is very tall, like Kobe Bryant or Darrel Williams.

Or Tom Selleck.

Is Tom Selleck  a Pron star?

[Speakeasy13]

lobi wrote...

Is Tom Selleck  a Pron star?

In my alternate imagined reality yes.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's try and keep the real-world politics out of the discussion, please. Thank you.

[Rifneno]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

I know the difference. I wasn't arguing FOR totalitarianism or authoritianism, I was arguing AGAINST the ethnocentric preconception that freedom and individual choices are automatically superior over "backward" forms of cultural logic. So I wasn't derailing myself.

Except that it is.  By taking away freedoms and rights, you're taking something very valuable away from your people.  There must be a seriously valuable return for that investment.  For example, by making murder illegal you take away people's legal right to get rid of someone they hate.  But conversely, they're protected from being killed themselves because somebody didn't like the color of their shirt.  And, ya know, the whole civilization doesn't implode before it gets started.  So there's a greater return for the freedom that's lost.  This is just plain not the case with the types of governments we're talking about. People fled from, not to, authoritarian governments.

Saying we only think a total lack of freedom is bad because we're brought up in a society that highly values freedom is not a reason why those systems work. You could say that the only reason we think being on fire is bad is because our society places not being in mindshattering amounts of pain as a good thing. Yeah, we are brought up in a society that thinks that. But they think it because it's true.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Let's try and keep the real-world politics out of the discussion, please. Thank you.

Clarification please: are you only referring to the references of current (well, very recent) leaders, or is it also off limits to discuss similarities of the Qun to historical attempts of governments attempting to control every aspect possible of its peoples lives? Thanks.

[Speakeasy13]

Rifneno wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...

I know the difference. I wasn't arguing FOR totalitarianism or authoritianism, I was arguing AGAINST the ethnocentric preconception that freedom and individual choices are automatically superior over "backward" forms of cultural logic. So I wasn't derailing myself.

Except that it is.  By taking away freedoms and rights, you're taking something very valuable away from your people.  There must be a seriously valuable return for that investment.  For example, by making murder illegal you take away people's legal right to get rid of someone they hate.  But conversely, they're protected from being killed themselves because somebody didn't like the color of their shirt.  And, ya know, the whole civilization doesn't implode before it gets started.  So there's a greater return for the freedom that's lost.  This is just plain not the case with the types of governments we're talking about. People fled from, not to, authoritarian governments.

Saying we only think a total lack of freedom is bad because we're brought up in a society that highly values freedom is not a reason why those systems work. You could say that the only reason we think being on fire is bad is because our society places not being in mindshattering amounts of pain as a good thing. Yeah, we are brought up in a society that thinks that. But they think it because it's true.

I'll not name names so as to avoid talking about real life politics per mod request.

I know ppl benefitted more from freedom and individualism. That wasn't what my point at all to say we don't. I was saying the only reason why some societies are free and authoritarian/totalitarian not because some chose the former and some chose the latter. But bcuz the ones the chose freedom forced others to become "backward" to ensure we can stay free and affluent. There's a direct causal effect, and we can't blame them for not being free like we are.

If authoritarian governments were free, their ppl will demand more pay, and we'd have to pay more for our gas, our car, our food... everything, and subsequently we won't be able to stay free. That's why leaders of the free world are not in support of the recent freedom movements within certain authoritarian states.

If you still don't understand, pls read Mannuel Wallerstein's World System Theory. That one deals with economics, I'm talking about culture. But the principle is a direct parrellel.

[WhiteKnyght]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Lets see. He ambushes and kills a peaceful diplomatic party when he declares war, something honourable civilized beings would not do. He brutally murders the Viscount, despite the Viscount appeasing him ever since he landed in Kirkwall. Then there's the fact that he declares war at all and decides to take over the city where he is a guest just because he hasn't managed to find an unrelated book and he doesn't like the society. There is no logic at all behind such a move, he had no chance of taking over and this would be viewed as a declaration of war, meaning Thedas would go to war with the Qunari again. He didn't consult with the other 2 leaders of his people over this decision and just got blinded by rage and took matters into his own hands, ultimately leading to his humiliating death or withdrawal and no good accomplished whatsoever, though a serious blow to Qunari reputation and morale.

So why do people respect him?

Well probably because in everything he says, he is not entirely wrong. he is pretty insightful despite the flaws of his culture. And if you're gonna use his violent streak as an argument, plenty of more respected characters in DA have used gruesome violence and still been respected(Prince/King Maric for instance. he brutally slaughtered the nobles who killed his mother, then threatened the lives of their children if they did not swear fealty. The first part is understandable but the second makes him no better than Mehgren and the Orlesians who gain loyalty through intimidation.)

And a lot of people's respect for Sten probably carries over to the Arishok since it seems like Qunari are made to all think alike.

[Rifneno]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

I'll not name names so as to avoid talking about real life politics per mod request.

I know ppl benefitted more from freedom and individualism. That wasn't what my point at all to say we don't. I was saying the only reason why some societies are free and authoritarian/totalitarian not because some chose the former and some chose the latter. But bcuz the ones the chose freedom forced others to become "backward" to ensure we can stay free and affluent. There's a direct causal effect, and we can't blame them for not being free like we are.

If authoritarian governments were free, their ppl will demand more pay, and we'd have to pay more for our gas, our car, our food... everything, and subsequently we won't be able to stay free. That's why leaders of the free world are not in support of the recent freedom movements within certain authoritarian states.

If you still don't understand, pls read Mannuel Wallerstein's World System Theory. That one deals with economics, I'm talking about culture. But the principle is a direct parrellel.

Hmm. You may have a point in regards to real life authoritarian governments (but not totalitarian), but it's not an accurate point in regards to the Qun. Their system existed before ever even making contact with the rest of Thedas. Whom they promptly tried to conquer with wanton violence.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

And a lot of people's respect for Sten probably carries over to the Arishok since it seems like Qunari are made to all think alike.

You're probably right on that part. I have zero respect for Sten as well. I leave him in his cage for the darkspawn to show him the hospitality he showed the farmers that saved his life. Just like he says I should do, actually. I initially had some respect for him, but when I found out there was literally no way to convince him mages (i.e. my warden, i.e. the guy that saved his life as well as countless others) shouldn't be treated like POWs under an immoral jailer, I stopped caring whether he starved to death in that cage.

[SkittlesKat96]

People sometimes change their view of fantasy and the real world...I don't want to start an argument or massive real world debate but it is true that if someone like the Arishok did what he did in real life I'm sure people wouldn't like it. When people kill a lot of people in the real world for a good/noble reason they might despise it and dislike it in real life but in a game it might be okay and you might consider it differently since it's just a game and you feel less serious about it.

EDIT: I didn't respect Sten too much but I respected him for some of his values and I freed him so he might be of use against the Blight (my 'roleplaying excuse' I suppose to keep him alive even though he did something bad)

Modifié par SkittlesKat96, 31 mai 2011 - 05:40 .

[Nohe]

I haven't played far enough into DAII to have a complete opinion about the Arishok but I wanted to comment on Sten.

I'm a completist so I always free him just to have the full party but there are definite RP reasons that make the choice much easier. In several of the origin stories, you are either forced or given the choice to commit basically cold-blooded murder. As a Dalish, you can kill the shems. As one of the casteless, there is no telling how many people you have killed for Beraht, Oskias being the most recent. As a dwarf noble, ordering Bruntin killed is seen as an act of strength. Certain characters of mine have been profoundly sympathetic-- blind panic/rage is something they know quite well. And Sten didn't hide from judgment or punishment, which I think says a lot about his character as well.

"We're all killers, Alistair."

[jamirflyd2]

Just like in game dialouge: I don't like or hate quanri I mean I loved Sten form DAO he was great, but in DA2 I have to say the quanri come off as real a-holes I mean who are they to attack when all people did for four years was try to make them happy. I mean my Hawke gets his respect in game but still I love killing him over and over!!!

[Speakeasy13]

Rifneno wrote...
Hmm. You may have a point in regards to real life authoritarian governments (but not totalitarian), but it's not an accurate point in regards to the Qun. Their system existed before ever even making contact with the rest of Thedas. Whom they promptly tried to conquer with wanton violence.

Well I kinda realize that too. I shouldn't defend the Qun using real-life political model that doesn't apply; same way you shouldn't criticize the Qun using real-life political model that doesn't apply:p

BTW I'm not retracting my statement nor changing my opinion about totalitarian Cuba. I grew up in China so I know the bad things that can happen to totalitarian states. But ppl were HAPPY on that little island. So I'm not losing faith in cultural relativism.

[Icinix]

Because when he wants a banana - they peel themselves.

[Soul Cool]

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Lets see. He ambushes and kills a peaceful diplomatic party when he declares war, something honourable civilized beings would not do.

The English and Chinese never had a problem with it. The Czech even threw nobles out of windows. Do not give me this marlarky about civilization or honor. The 'good guys' are most often not very nice people when it comes to fighting.

Skilled Seeker wrote...He brutally murders the Viscount, despite the Viscount appeasing him ever since he landed in Kirkwall.

Kill the leader, cut off the chain of command at the top and problems begin to occur as is later evidenced by the conflict between the templars and mages in struggling to see who would take control of the city.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
Then there's the fact that he declares war at all and decides to take over the city where he is a guest just because he hasn't managed to find an unrelated book and he doesn't like the society.

I thought you admired honor? The Arishok was bound by his honor to remain in a place that he despised to find one of, if not the, most holy text of his entire religion. I imagine it would be much like someone stealing the Holy Grail or the original Bible from the Roman Catholic Church of the Dark Ages and then not understanding why they would go to war over getting it back.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
There is no logic at all behind such a move, he had no chance of taking over and this would be viewed as a declaration of war,

He seemed to be doing quite well until the player character got involved.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
meaning Thedas would go to war with the Qunari again. He didn't consult with the other 2 leaders of his people over this decision

Irrelevant. The goal (retrival of his peoples' holy artifact) was obviously worth war.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
and just got blinded by rage and took matters into his own hands, ultimately leading to his humiliating death or withdrawal and no good accomplished whatsoever,

He accomplished his goal in my playthrough. Got his holy relic back.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
though a serious blow to Qunari reputation and morale.

I don't think either of us understands their culture well enough to make that kind of call.

Skilled Seeker wrote...
So why do people respect him?

I respect him because he was unwilling to compromise on the most basic, essential principles of his way of life and existence. I very much agree with that sentiment, whether or not I agree with what those principles are does not factor into whether or not I respect him for holding true to himself.

[Harid]

To answer the OP, because they aren't boring elves or dwarves.

Qunari are the only thing that is not generic about Dragon Age, so I enjoy the characters more than I should for that very reason.

Bioware should expand on them in a playable sense.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
If you still don't understand, pls read Mannuel Wallerstein's World System Theory. That one deals with economics, I'm talking about culture. But the principle is a direct parrellel.

While the Core-periphery model of international relations does explain quite a bit on the systemic level of analysis, it cannot be presented as a monocausal explanation for the rise of authoritarianism anywhere. That's ignoring regional and domestic dynamics, as well as contemporary history and culture. As well as ignoring other dynamics in international relations, such as political context.

Any monoclausal explanation, whether deliberately or not, ends up over-simplifying the issue and creating a scapegoat that absolves all the other players from responsability. As such, it cannot be taken seriously on an academic level.

Long story short, Wallerstein's model of international relations and economics is but one facet of the larger picture.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 31 mai 2011 - 04:57 .

[Droma]

the whole thread here shows something i really liked about the da2 storys. there is no black and white, no good and evil. it's all grey. no one would defend the actions of the darkspawn in da:o because they were written to be the bad guys. the arishok (and therefore the whole qunari in kirkwall) aren't really the bad guys, but they aren't good either. the have there reasons and some can understand them, others don't and that is great in my opinion. it's the same with the whole mage vs templar vs chantry dilemma the game offers. lot of people hate what anders did, others can understand it and so one. imo there is no right or wrong on this topic, because they managed to write it good enough so that people can make their own decissions on who to like and who not.

[Rifneno]

Soul Cool wrote...

He seemed to be doing quite well until the player character got involved.

That was well addressed if you read earlier in the thread. It was an elaborate mass suicide on the part of the qunari, plain and simple. They had zero, absolutely no hope whatsoever of holding control of the city. They were doing "quite well" because they still have the element of surprise, a huge advantage in combat. Once the city guard, templars, and mages rallied and organized a coordinated counteroffensive, the greatly outnumbered qunari would stand little chance. Then even if they did win, they would have to hold the city against the rest of the outraged Free Marches with the few survivors while they reduce their numbers even more by sending word to Par Vollen of what has occurred. Then what? The qunari come in force from Par Vollen, leaving their homeland open to invasion by the Tevinters they were already warring with so they can wind up repeating the history of the Chantry's exalted marches, with help of the mages, beating them back to Par Vollen? The island that, oh by the way, is most likely under control of Tevinter now?

Doing quite well indeed.

I don't think either of us understands their culture well enough to make that kind of call.

One can quite well understand a disease that needs to be cured without pinpointing the exact virus or bacteria causing it. But I sohuld apologize, comparing the Qun to a disease is not fair to the poor diseases.