472 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

It would be if it were part of a larger program to destroy the Andrastian religion.

The RoA is not a part of a larger program to destroy all mages, either, just the ones in the Kirkwall circle. What's the difference?

On the other hand if the clergy is helping out the Templars (who you admit are the immediate aggressors) even if it's as little as enabling them, then they become "legitament" military targets, i.e. not genocide.  Why the clergy is being killed is the important determinant.

What about when the Tempalrs break away from the Chantry? Is the Chantry then no longer a legitimate military target?

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It would be if it were part of a larger program to destroy the Andrastian religion.

The RoA is not a part of a larger program to destroy all mages, either, just the ones in the Kirkwall circle. What's the difference?

It IS an attempt to destroy all mages in a local.  That makes it genocide.  Just because you kill a priest does not make it genocide.  If it were part of a larger attempt to kill all Christians in Acre (for example), then it would be.  In the case of the RoA, you are attempting to kill all mages in a location.  That's genocide.  If you decided to kill a bunch of people of which some might be mages, then it wouldn't be. 

On the other hand if the clergy is helping out the Templars (who you admit are the immediate aggressors) even if it's as little as enabling them, then they become "legitament" military targets, i.e. not genocide.  Why the clergy is being killed is the important determinant.

What about when the Tempalrs break away from the Chantry? Is the Chantry then no longer a legitimate military target?

The chantry still enabled the Templars and still preaches intolerance towards mages. Unless and until the Chantry changes that attitude, they and their preisthood are still targets.  Note I say the CHANTRY not Andrastians in general.  There is a difference.

-Polaris

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...
If the garden of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants, you'll find me a willing gardener.

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

IanPolaris wrote...

GodWood wrote...
We weren't talking about the final mage/templar choice.

I am.

Xil and I

[adneate]

IanPolaris wrote...
That is not true.  Morals can have objective standards without relying on any supreme being.  Indeed the idea that such a supreme being grants moral status in anti-thetical and inconsistant with objective moral realism.  I didn't say that, a wise man named Socrates said that a long time ago. Read the Euthyphro.
-Polaris

And human cultures can AND have different objetive standards of morality, Socrates himself lived in a culture where entire swaths of the human population were considered slaves by nature for not being born Male Greeks. In addition Socrates advocated a dictatorial society where all it's members are brainwashed into a cult like environment by what is essentially a grand lie to control their lives.

[Xilizhra]

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

[IanPolaris]

adneate wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
That is not true.  Morals can have objective standards without relying on any supreme being.  Indeed the idea that such a supreme being grants moral status in anti-thetical and inconsistant with objective moral realism.  I didn't say that, a wise man named Socrates said that a long time ago. Read the Euthyphro.
-Polaris

And human cultures can AND have different objetive standards of morality, Socrates himself lived in a culture where entire swaths of the human population were considered slaves by nature for not being born Male Greeks. In addition Socrates advocated a dictatorial society where all it's members are brainwashed into a cult like environment by what is essentially a grand lie to control their lives.

And when you break it all down, you find there are many basic standards of morality that are in common no matter what culture you come from, and I note that even in Socrates time, there was extreme moral ambivalence about the morality of slavery and I note that slavery didn't take the aweful and dehumanizing version we think of (Southern Antebellum Cotton Slavery) for many centuries to come.  The absolute right to be free is a natural right that always existed but took time to discover...and it's pretty much universally accepted now.

The point is that Natural Rights is a concept that most people agree on and it's well established (even St Aquinus did so in validating much of Socrates work early in the history of Christianity) that moral objective standards are indepedant of any Supreme Being and indeed logically must be (but Aquinus also said that God had perfect knowledge of what these standards were).

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It would be if it were part of a larger program to destroy the Andrastian religion.

The RoA is not a part of a larger program to destroy all mages, either, just the ones in the Kirkwall circle. What's the difference?

It IS an attempt to destroy all mages in a local.  That makes it genocide.  Just because you kill a priest does not make it genocide.  If it were part of a larger attempt to kill all Christians in Acre (for example), then it would be.  In the case of the RoA, you are attempting to kill all mages in a location.  That's genocide.  If you decided to kill a bunch of people of which some might be mages, then it wouldn't be. 

That's fine, but what you said, and what I've bolded up there, is that it was only genocide if you intended to destroy the whole religion.

The chantry still enabled the Templars and still preaches intolerance towards mages.

But they are no longer direct aggressors. One might argue that their words are too dangerous, and that *some* people *might* use their words to harm mages, but one might also argue that *some* mages *might* use their ablities to harm others, and that apparently is not enough justification to be valid targets of aggression.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:59 .

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

True.  You voluntarily join the templars and you do that knowing what it entails.  No templar is 'innocent' in this regard.

-Polaris

[Heather Cline]

To address the original post of this topic. The game is more centered around helping the chantry instead of the mages. Which I find stupid to be honest. Still I've done a play through that has helped the mages and a play through that has helped the templars. Either way the game forces you down a certain path. Unlike DA:O where your choices had far reaching effects, DA2 choices do not with the exception of your surviving sibling. If your sibling was left behind when you went into the deep roads or if you took them along with you and took Anders and they survived there. If they died in the deep roads well there are no far reaching consequences then.

DA2 could have been implemented better, the story better written and the choices having far reaching consequences other than you make a choice but later on you find your choice was made moot because the developers and writers said they didn't want your choices to have an impact at all.

That said DA2 is a good game, but it could have been a lot better. Same goes with ME2. The writing was not the best, the story was choppy because the individual character story arcs overshadowed the actual main story itself. Unlike ME1 where the main story was the focus and all character plots were interwoven into the story itself.

I'm hoping for a better experience with DA3 if there is a DA3. I am also hoping for a better experience with ME3.

Finally, yes you can kill templars, but the majority of templar killing takes place in act 3. There are other places in the game that you can kill templars, won't spoil them for you but they are there. Enjoy the game.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 30 septembre 2011 - 05:02 .

[Xilizhra]

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

True.  You voluntarily join the templars and you do that knowing what it entails.  No templar is 'innocent' in this regard.

-Polaris

Well, not technically. The Kirkwall Order was riddled with dissent. It's too bad so many of them died.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

The chantry still enabled the Templars and still preaches intolerance towards mages.

But they are no longer direct aggressors. One might argue that their words are too dangerous, and that *some* people *might* use their words to harm mages, but one might also argue that *some* mages *might* use their ablities to harm others, and that apparently is not enough justification to be valid targets of aggression.

"valid targets of aggression" is a matter of some dispute.  Unless and until the Chantry changes it's stance against magic, I am of the opinion now that war has broken out that the Chantry is still at least an indirect aggressor and is thus still a valid target.  Regardless, it's still not genocide.  For it to rise to the level of gencide, an attempt must be made to kill/convert/contain all members of "religion X" in "region Y" and not even the most vile Resolutionists have reached that level (which is not to say they aren't vile terrorists because many are).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 05:03 .

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

The point is that Natural Rights is a concept that most people agree on and it's well established (even St Aquinus did so in validating much of Socrates work early in the history of Christianity) that moral objective standards are indepedant of any Supreme Being and indeed logically must be (but Aquinus also said that God had perfect knowledge of what these standards were).

I don't know what "most people" you are referring to, seeing as how in my perception, most of the world doesn't follow any standard set of morals, religious or otherwise, or agree on which "rights" should be protected.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

True.  You voluntarily join the templars and you do that knowing what it entails.  No templar is 'innocent' in this regard.

-Polaris

Well, not technically. The Kirkwall Order was riddled with dissent. It's too bad so many of them died.

Not every templar voluntarily joins, either. Alistair didn't join by choice.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The point is that Natural Rights is a concept that most people agree on and it's well established (even St Aquinus did so in validating much of Socrates work early in the history of Christianity) that moral objective standards are indepedant of any Supreme Being and indeed logically must be (but Aquinus also said that God had perfect knowledge of what these standards were).

I don't know what "most people" you are referring to, seeing as how in my perception, most of the world doesn't follow any standard set of morals, religious or otherwise, or agree on which "rights" should be protected.

Go look at all the constitutions (and most countries have them these days) and they all enshrine natural rights as part of the fundamental law (whether or not the county lives up to them is another matter) and almost all of them are cribbed from both the Bill of Rights (US) or the Declarations of the Rights of Man (France).  That's pretty universal acceptance in my book.

-Polaris

[adneate]

IanPolaris wrote...
The point is that Natural Rights is a concept that most people agree on and it's well established (even St Aquinus did so in validating much of Socrates work early in the history of Christianity) that moral objective standards are indepedant of any Supreme Being and indeed logically must be (but Aquinus also said that God had perfect knowledge of what these standards were).
-Polaris

It's a concept that most people, who live in a society that values human life as a whole, agree on. Mesoamerican society for example didn't value human life in that same Western way and their change was not based on them coming to some sudden realization that killing people to make the sun come up was wrong, it was because Christians invaded their lands, wiped out their culture and nearly their entire race. Natural rights exist because the dominate geo-politcal powers of the world have been Western cultures in recent history, thus valuing that concept because it agreed with their cultural and religious views.

Without the use of war and cultural assimilation one wonders if it would be agreed on, and if the next global superpower isn't Western in nature if the concept would survive.

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You seek power at the expense of the innocent.

None who hold the templar shield against freedom are innocent.

True.  You voluntarily join the templars and you do that knowing what it entails.  No templar is 'innocent' in this regard.

-Polaris

Well, not technically. The Kirkwall Order was riddled with dissent. It's too bad so many of them died.

Not every templar voluntarily joins, either. Alistair didn't join by choice.

One reason why I take my surrender clause very seriously.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

Not every templar voluntarily joins, either. Alistair didn't join by choice.

Alistair was a minor entrusted to the Chantry (as was Sebastian).  Alistair could have left when he became of age.  Of course he would have had no source of livelihood had he done so, but it was an option.  We know you can leave the Chantry even after being sent there as children (again see Sebastian).

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...
Regardless, it's still not genocide.  For it to rise to the level of gencide, an attempt must be made to kill/convert/contain all members of "religion X" in "region Y" and not even the most vile Resolutionists have reached that level (which is not to say they aren't vile terrorists because many are).

Then I stand by my claim that if someone says something like "everyone who is part of the Chantry should die" I will consider that to be genocide.

[IanPolaris]

adneate wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
The point is that Natural Rights is a concept that most people agree on and it's well established (even St Aquinus did so in validating much of Socrates work early in the history of Christianity) that moral objective standards are indepedant of any Supreme Being and indeed logically must be (but Aquinus also said that God had perfect knowledge of what these standards were).
-Polaris

It's a concept that most people, who live in a society that values human life as a whole, agree on. Mesoamerican society for example didn't value human life in that same Western way and their change was not based on them coming to some sudden realization that killing people to make the sun come up was wrong, it was because Christians invaded their lands, wiped out their culture and nearly their entire race. Natural rights exist because the dominate geo-politcal powers of the world have been Western cultures in recent history, thus valuing that concept because it agreed with their cultural and religious views.

Without the use of war and cultural assimilation one wonders if it would be agreed on, and if the next global superpower isn't Western in nature if the concept would survive.

You're wrong even about Mesoamerican societies.  They did value life highly.  What they did not understand was that lives outside of their own nation/culture/state were in fact human lives and subject to human rights.  Within those cultures life was valued greatly...and ironically was the reason that human sacrifice was considered to be so magically potent.

In short, moral relativism doesn't work here.  Natural Rights are something that is pretty much agreed on both in the real world and more importantly for this discussion in Thedas.  Even Sebastian admits and is ashamed a mage-hawke had to remind him of basic human rights and that mages have them as well...not because Hawke said so but because Hawke quoted the Chant of Light saying so (and thus presumbably Andraste).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Regardless, it's still not genocide.  For it to rise to the level of gencide, an attempt must be made to kill/convert/contain all members of "religion X" in "region Y" and not even the most vile Resolutionists have reached that level (which is not to say they aren't vile terrorists because many are).

Then I stand by my claim that if someone says something like "everyone who is part of the Chantry should die" I will consider that to be genocide.

It's not.  It might be wrong and immoral, but it's not genocide.  Followers of Andraste ==/== Chantry, so you are simply wrong.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

You're wrong even about Mesoamerican societies. They did value life highly. What they did not understand was that lives outside of their own nation/culture/state were in fact human lives and subject to human rights. Within those cultures life was valued greatly...and ironically was the reason that human sacrifice was considered to be so magically potent.

Actually, yes. They made sure to sacrifice lives that they considered more valuable; I know that the Aztec tradition was that those who just surrendered to them were considered unworthy of the gods.

[adneate]

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, moral relativism doesn't work here.

And correlation doesn't equal causation, saying natural rights exist because they are the natural conclusion of a human culture doesn't make it so. They could be coming to that conclusion because global superpowers use violence and assimilation to eradicate opposing views and thus these groups are coming to it not because it's the general will but because they have been forced or indoctrinated to the concept by those who created it.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Go look at all the constitutions (and most countries have them these days) and they all enshrine natural rights as part of the fundamental law (whether or not the county lives up to them is another matter) and almost all of them are cribbed from both the Bill of Rights (US) or the Declarations of the Rights of Man (France).  That's pretty universal acceptance in my book.

-Polaris

Except that, iirc, the US Declaration of Independance attributes natural rights as something given to men by a creator, and many of the men who wrote both the Declaration and the Constitution believed in a higher power, not that these rights came inherently from men.

Also, even the constitutions you mention don't protect all the same rights. And how many places in the world don't have government protected rights at all?

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Not every templar voluntarily joins, either. Alistair didn't join by choice.

Alistair was a minor entrusted to the Chantry (as was Sebastian).  Alistair could have left when he became of age.  Of course he would have had no source of livelihood had he done so, but it was an option.  We know you can leave the Chantry even after being sent there as children (again see Sebastian).

-Polaris

Alistair said that he would not have been allowed to leave if Duncan hadn't conscripted him.

Edit: And Sebastian isn't a Templar.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 05:21 .

[IanPolaris]

adneate wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
In short, moral relativism doesn't work here.

And correlation doesn't equal causation, saying natural rights exist because they are the natural conclusion of a human culture doesn't make it so. They could be coming to that conclusion because global superpowers use violence and assimilation to eradicate opposing views and thus these groups are coming to it not because it's the general will but because they have been forced or indoctrinated to the concept by those who created it.

In of itself no, but when you have mutlple groups eventually adopt the same basic moral standards then a powerful case is made for moral concensus.  This wasn't just England or the western colonial powers forcing their morality down everyone else's throat (although this did in fact happen), but it was more of a case that in the market place of ideas the western ideas of natural rights were the ones that were adopted because they were the best ones (and were eventually used AGAINST western colonial powers and many formed the basis for the anti-colonial movement of the mid 20th century...see Ghandi among others). 

Given the actual history of the world, I would have to say that Natural Moral rights is something that the majority (I'd say vast majority) of the people of this world agree on, and thus is a simple "fact".

-Polaris