2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

On Anders you will keep in mind that he was a constant run away. I went to a nice school with good teachers but many students constantly went on about how harsh and terrible the school was. You know the difference between those kids and me? I didn't cause trouble. I'm not going to say Anders was lying, or even that he's exaggerating, I will however say that people who constantly cause trouble within a community inevitably view that community as harsh and terrible. Again not saying he's lying just pointing out that his view of the Fereldan Circle is heavily biased because of his poor behaviour.

Irrelevant. If suicide is that common, it's pretty bloody terrible.

On Uldred, in any community you will find those who desire more. You could build a utopia where everyone has everything they could ever desire and there would still be people who wanted more. Uldred gathered his followers from fellow Libertarians and power hungry children, if he'd managed to sway Aequitarians, Lecrosians, or Isolationists you'd have a case but I don't recall anything to indicate that.

And there will always be people who are content despite deserving more than they have, a mentality the templars seem to be rather good at beating into the mages.

[Kaisla]

he's still cute with my FemHawke

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

On Anders you will keep in mind that he was a constant run away. I went to a nice school with good teachers but many students constantly went on about how harsh and terrible the school was. You know the difference between those kids and me? I didn't cause trouble. I'm not going to say Anders was lying, or even that he's exaggerating, I will however say that people who constantly cause trouble within a community inevitably view that community as harsh and terrible. Again not saying he's lying just pointing out that his view of the Fereldan Circle is heavily biased because of his poor behaviour.

Irrelevant. If suicide is that common, it's pretty bloody terrible.

Or not.  Is suicide the most common because death by demon or Templar or accident are rare, a sign the system works, or are they all numerous and suicides just stand out.

Suicide was the most common cause of death in my school because we had 3 over four years and the only other death in that time was a car accident.  You see what I mean "most common" is useless without reference.

Xilizhra wrote...

On Uldred, in any community you will find those who desire more. You could build a utopia where everyone has everything they could ever desire and there would still be people who wanted more. Uldred gathered his followers from fellow Libertarians and power hungry children, if he'd managed to sway Aequitarians, Lecrosians, or Isolationists you'd have a case but I don't recall anything to indicate that.

And there will always be people who are content despite deserving more than they have, a mentality the templars seem to be rather good at beating into the mages.

1st off nobody deserves anything but what they earn, modern society grants us a number of priveledges we take for granted but we don't "deserve" them anymore than we deserve sunshine.  It's not something we're intrinsically owed by simple nature of breathing.

2nd While true it doesn't really change the validity of my point, Uldred finding supporters for his rebellion is not indicative of poor quality of life in the Ferelden Circle since even in an ideal situation you will find those who want more.  Had Uldred found majority support that would have been indicative of something, but he didn't.

[General User]

Was Anders including death by old age or other natural causes when he made his suicide comment?

[dragonflight288]

He simply said it's what he saw the most of. He never gave much context to how much death he saw in Ferelden's Circle.

Then again, Wynne said the templars called a fourteen year old elven child a maleficar because he ran away from the Circle to join the Dalish. They ran him through simply because he didn't like it there. Cullen in mage origin, before he was tortured by Uldred, said he knew templars who discussed killing mages who failed their Harrowing with glee.

[Ivucci]

DPSSOC wrote...

1st off nobody deserves anything but what they earn, modern society grants us a number of priveledges we take for granted but we don't "deserve" them anymore than we deserve sunshine. It's not something we're intrinsically owed by simple nature of breathing.

Perhaps "privileges" and "deserve" are not the best choice of words.

But:

*Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.* -wikipedia (cited from elsewhere)

So yes, a society can agree to grant basic rights to its members just because they are living, breathing human beings. From then on, they "deserve" them as in "are entitled to them".

Not comparing Thedas to modern societies, and not saying that modern societies always adhere to their codes, just arguing about the impossibility of granting rights to someone on the ground of them simply being a human being.

Modifié par Ivucci, 03 février 2012 - 09:56 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

You never deserve more than you are content with. If you are content you can achieve happiness, and that is basically all you need. Some fool may look from the outside and claim you should have more, but if you are happy, why should you bother? Happiness is intangible, and if you have it, you should hold on to it, not try to claim more, out of some selfish greed.

[esper]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You never deserve more than you are content with. If you are content you can achieve happiness, and that is basically all you need. Some fool may look from the outside and claim you should have more, but if you are happy, why should you bother? Happiness is intangible, and if you have it, you should hold on to it, not try to claim more, out of some selfish greed.

That is all fine if the system allowed to let the people who are not content to just walk away, but it doesn't and as such the point is moot.

[Ivucci]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You never deserve more than you are content with. If you are content you can achieve happiness, and that is basically all you need. Some fool may look from the outside and claim you should have more, but if you are happy, why should you bother? Happiness is intangible, and if you have it, you should hold on to it, not try to claim more, out of some selfish greed.

a) The whole argument is about that part of the society who is *not* content with what they have because they rightfully feel they are being denied some basic rights. Those who are content can stay in the Circle, no one is kicking them out.

I might be relatively happy living my safe life in the Circle, being fooled into thinking that's what life is about... if i decide I want to go out and get to know the world, get married, have kids and raise them as responsible human beings, how the hell is that *a selfish greed*??

[EmperorSahlertz]

Happiness is not relative. Either you are, or you aren't. If end up not being happy anymore, it is because of a selfish desire for more. Despite what that desire is. Some desires are more basic and understandable, but ultimately all of them are selfish.

[Wulfram]

Ivucci wrote...

a) The whole argument is about that part of the society who is *not* content with what they have because they rightfully feel they are being denied some basic rights. Those who are content can stay in the Circle, no one is kicking them out.

Except this thread is about Anders, whose way of dealing with the people who would not join in his revolution is to provoke a massacre to force them to fight.

[Rifneno]

DPSSOC wrote...

On Anders you will keep in mind that he was a constant run away. I went to a nice school with good teachers but many students constantly went on about how harsh and terrible the school was. You know the difference between those kids and me? I didn't cause trouble. I'm not going to say Anders was lying, or even that he's exaggerating, I will however say that people who constantly cause trouble within a community inevitably view that community as harsh and terrible. Again not saying he's lying just pointing out that his view of the Fereldan Circle is heavily biased because of his poor behaviour.

Xilizhra beat me to it. Suicide isn't common unless life sucks. Period. And your reply to her that it's useless without reference because of a comparison to to your school? Did your school house people for life in the middle ages where the best "medicine" was liquor, or were you going to school in a modern era with high standards of living and sanitation and most importantly, where it's only full of the very young? Young people don't drop dead of natural causes much. People like Wynne drop dead constantly. Especially when words like "antibiotic" are just gibberish.

On Uldred, in any community you will find those who desire more. You could build a utopia where everyone has everything they could ever desire and there would still be people who wanted more. Uldred gathered his followers from fellow Libertarians and power hungry children, if he'd managed to sway Aequitarians, Lecrosians, or Isolationists you'd have a case but I don't recall anything to indicate that.

Oh for the love of God. You get to speak with ONE surviving member of the rebellion as I recall, and she clearly stated she just wanted to be free of the templars. There is NOTHING to indicate he only had libertarians in on it. Google "proof by lack of evidence" to see why your argument falls apart. The fact that google will autocomplete the phrase with "fallacy" is hint number one.
And unless you're posting this from a country that'll kill you for speaking out against the government, I'd say you've got no room at all to call people power hungry for wanting a basic right that you never even had to ask for.

Wulfram wrote...

Except this thread is about Anders, whose way of dealing with the people who would not join in his revolution is to provoke a massacre to force them to fight.

And the alternative is what? Never, ever change? Let the tyranny go on for another thousand years? Because every single mage in Thedas is never going to agree on ANYTHING, let alone a war. Likewise the templars will NEVER give up their iron grip just because someone asks nicely.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You of course realize that the Divine was taking the first steps to increase mage freedoms, but the mages just had to go start their little war, and basically put a stick in their own wheel.

[Ivucci]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Happiness is not relative. Either you are, or you aren't. If end up not being happy anymore, it is because of a selfish desire for more. Despite what that desire is. Some desires are more basic and understandable, but ultimately all of them are selfish.

How is this semantic claim relevant to my original point? How is it relevant to the fact that there is a large group of people who are denied freedom to roam the world freely, fall in love, have children, build a family?

Except this thread is about Anders, whose way of dealing with the people who would not join in his revolution is to provoke a massacre to force them to fight.

And this is the inevitable moment when we start going in circles, but that will unfortunatelly always be the case in discussion like this. To answer your objection - some of us (edit: and most were much better at it than me as I often found myself merely agreeing with them) have just devoted a few pages to trying to explain our point that revolution and violence appear to be - unfortunately! - necessary.

Modifié par Ivucci, 03 février 2012 - 01:13 .

[Goneaviking]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

Methinks DA2 wouldn't have kicked off an worldwide mage rebellion if it'd been milk and honey in those mage towers. Takes a whole lot of rage to spark that kind of uprising, and usually it's got to have been building up for a long time.

Wynne and (probably) Irving essentially grew up in he circle, you can bet they would have been hearing propaganda for all of their lives about how it was all for the best and that the alternative was worse and you should just ignore the mage-hating templars patrolling your halls and don't take it too personally if he's looking forward to killing you when you fail the arbitrary test that's forced upon you regardless of your wishes.

Bethany seems to like it, but then again she's always been pretty sheltered by her family and having a bed and regular meals and being surrounded by people with similar interests probably seems like a step up once she's in the door. Given how bitter she becomes if she joins the Wardens and actually has to get a taste of what Carver and (non-mage) Hawke had volunteered for before Ostagar, it began to seem to me like she was a very pampered little princess.

DA2 DIDN'T kick off any rebellion. It increased tensions, but it was the events of Asunder that started the rebellion.

Wynne and Irving both seem to acknowledge the failings and shortcommings of the Circle, but they also both realize that there isn't any viable alternative in the current date of Thedas. And since the Circles allow for Libertarians to speak their minds, I'd wager they've both heard their share of seperatist propaganda aswell.
And Bethany becomes bitter when she joins the Grey Warden because she has a hard time comming to terms with the forever tainted and doomed to an early death part of it. Not because she finds her new job gruesome or anyhting like that. On the other hand, when she joins the Circle, she is for the first time in her life, able to relax and let down her guard (which would be odd, if the Circle is full of dangerous predators, like some of you would have it sound).

Regardless of what the tipping point was the rebellion didn't come out of nowhere. Nor was it an isolated event given what happened in Ferelden during the first game.

Wynne and Irving were essentially raised in an authoritarian cult which preached about the weakness and vulnerability of mages and their potential for wickedness. I would no more expect them to have an unbiased notion of the circle than I would one of the kids from Waco.

The worst problems aren't so much with the circle as they are with the Chantry and the Templars who for all intents and purposes enslave mages within the circle. That there is dissention within the various mage circles is less a sign that the mages are allowed to dissenting views and more a sign that the Chantry's indoctrination is insufficient.

Mages have to face an arbitrary test in the harrowing with precious little preparation, however much magic they might have when they're put into the fade they're also told not to tell un-harrowed mages about the process and so every new mage it thrown into a life-and-death struggle against demons with no idea what to expect. Unless they're lobotomised just in case they don't have what it takes to pass the Templars' test or perhaps might be practicing blood magics.

Given that the Templars are themselves victimised by the Chantry and forced into a life of addiction it seems very inappropriate that the very lives of the mages are placed in the hands of the such an unreliable group.

The notion that there are no viable alternatives to Chantry's institutional slavery is rendered obsolete by the existence of Tevinter. It may be a particularly unpleasant place for non-mages to exist, but it's also not the only alternative possible and is really only the other side of the same coin as the system we've seen in the games.

As for Bethany, she's grown up with horror stories and possesses the inevitable fears a child can be expected to develop while living her entire life in hiding and on the run. When she's brought into the circle she finally finds herself in a situation where she doesn't have to pretend to be something other than what she is and is surrounded by others like herself. That the circle isn't as bad as she was expecting doesn't make up for the fact that the only likely alternative to joining was to die with her older sibling while resisting her incarceration.

It's the non-consentual nature of the circle that makes it so repellant to so many, the rite of annulment and the practice of rendering the inconvenient "tranquil" is only so much icing on the cake.

[dragonflight288]

You of course realize that the Divine was taking the first steps to increase mage freedoms, but the mages just had to go start their little war, and basically put a stick in their own wheel.

I may be misremembering, but didn't the Aequitarians, the largest of the fraternities, vote to punish the Libertarians and stay in the Circle, working with the templars. But it was the Lord High Seeker who was so frustrated that the Divine wasn't hardcore enough that he decided to punish every single mage for the actions of a few libertarians? Kickstarting the war that way.

[Lazy Jer]

General User wrote...

Was Anders including death by old age or other natural causes when he made his suicide comment?

I kinda doubt that.

Regarding Anders' suicide comment, he said "The most common death is suicide." not "Suicide is common."  Obviously there is a problem there, but let's not make it out to seem like the mages are a parade of lemmings jumping off the top of the tower.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 03 février 2012 - 03:29 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Exalted March on the Dales was not to "allow" or "solidify" an Orlesian conquest. It was to SAVE Orlais. Orlais was getting its ass handed to it by the Dalish, and Val Royaux was even sacked before the Exalted March was called, and only the combined might of the Andrastian nations was enough to fight back the Dalish.

"Combined might of Andrastian nations?" Where do we hear this?

General User wrote...

The Dalish started that war?

Notice how the war with the Dales started after the Second Blight. It'd be reasonable to assume that, either the Dales decided to take advantage of an Orlais weakened by the Blight to conquer more lands, or they just thought it a more prudent time to react to something. Regardless of this, it appears the Dales weren't helpful toward Orlais during the time of the Blight itself, so that could have sparked off tensions initially.

General User wrote...

How about: "The Exalted March on the Dales amounted to little more than placing a Chantry imprimature on what was essentially an Orlesian war."?

There is a case to be made for that, sure. But, if that's the case, why would the Chantry hold back till after Val Royeaux itself is sacked, for instance, and why not earlier? We'd need to account for that apparent irregularity.

It'd probably have been because the land of Dales were promised to the elves for their assistence to Andraste herself, when Shartan led the elves alongside Andraste on an assault on the Tevinter Imperium. So perhaps the Chantry needed a "proper" cause. An attack on the Chantry at Val Royeaux (if that happened) could be thought by most humans as an attack on Andraste herself, although it seems clear that the elves probably didn't think along those lines - that although they revered Andraste as a hero, they didn't quite associate Andraste with the Chantry's religion.

And a case could also be made that the Chantry feared that their religion would be threatened if Orlais fell, seeing how the elves persisted with their older Elven religion, after the formation of Dales. I think the strongest indication of the influence of religion in the war on Dales can be seen if one notices how many of the elves, after the fall of the Dales, were forced to forego their own religion, and adopt the Maker as their god, thus perhas giving rise to the formation of elven alienages.

EDIT: Correcting text alignment, and adding some clarity.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 03 février 2012 - 04:03 .

[Rifneno]

Lazy Jer wrote...

I kinda doubt that.

Regarding Anders' suicide comment, he said "The most common death is suicide." not "Suicide is common."  Obviously there is a problem there, but let's not make it out to seem like the mages are a parade of lemmings jumping off the top of the tower.

No, they're certainly not.  Lemmings aren't in terrible suffering before suicide.  Not that they even do it, the whole thing's a myth, but I'll try to stay on topic.  It takes a lot of suffering to overcome a natural self-preservation instinct.  Even when people think they want to die they often find themselves stopping at the last moment.  Forcing themselves to throw up the pills they just took, frantically trying to get oxygen in a strangulation or hanging, just plain not able to pull the trigger, ect.  It's not just "/emo, I sad now, /wrist".  There's got to be something seriously wrong either with their lives or with the neurotransmitters.

The deaths in and of themselves are not the main concern.  Those deaths are a release from suffering.  It's that suffering that led to them that deserves the focus.

[gaurdian9sunshine]

dragonflight288 wrote...

You of course realize that the Divine was taking the first steps to increase mage freedoms, but the mages just had to go start their little war, and basically put a stick in their own wheel.

I may be misremembering, but didn't the Aequitarians, the largest of the fraternities, vote to punish the Libertarians and stay in the Circle, working with the templars. But it was the Lord High Seeker who was so frustrated that the Divine wasn't hardcore enough that he decided to punish every single mage for the actions of a few libertarians? Kickstarting the war that way.

After the events of Awakenings, the fraternities held a conclave at Cumberland College and Wynne voted mages stay in the tower because she feared the alternative: all the mages leave the circles and they would all possible be masacred. She promised at that counsil that she was going to work to improve conditions of the circles. Several years later, they talked again at another conclave and some of the libertarians got mad at Wynne for not doing more for the mages before that time. She was working with the Divine to help the mages. 

I know this thread has taken a totally new direction than what it was at first, but I do not think Anders is the same as Meridith. She is much much worse. 

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You of course realize that the Divine was taking the first steps to increase mage freedoms, but the mages just had to go start their little war, and basically put a stick in their own wheel.

The Divine was taking the first steps and failing utterly against the entrenched fanatacism of the Templars.  Apparently the Seekers and Templars had gotten used to having a senile old lady as Divine and preferred doing whatever they thought best.  I'll give them props for having written a Divne who wasn't just a cardboard villian, but I read the book and never once got the impression Justinia was succeeding.

The Chantry essentially reaped what it sowed in recruiting zealots to be Templars.  A zealot doesn't change their mind just because someone says they should.

And, I still think it is just plain wrong to expect the mages to be patient in any way after 900 years of oppression.

[Lazy Jer]

Rifneno wrote...

No, they're certainly not.  Lemmings aren't in terrible suffering before suicide.  Not that they even do it, the whole thing's a myth, but I'll try to stay on topic.

 

Well I know that, but the lemming thing has become something of an accepted analogy for mindless mass-suicide.

It takes a lot of suffering to overcome a natural self-preservation instinct.  Even when people think they want to die they often find themselves stopping at the last moment.  Forcing themselves to throw up the pills they just took, frantically trying to get oxygen in a strangulation or hanging, just plain not able to pull the trigger, ect.  It's not just "/emo, I sad now, /wrist".  There's got to be something seriously wrong either with their lives or with the neurotransmitters.

The deaths in and of themselves are not the main concern.  Those deaths are a release from suffering.  It's that suffering that led to them that deserves the focus.

My point is, though, that I was witnessing the suicide rate being referred to as "common" in this thread.  I was pointing out that we don't know that it was common just the most common death that Anders witnessed.  That in itself is a problem I'll grant you.

My honest opinion, though is that it has a lot to do with the Chantry's stance on mages.  This is one of the few criticism's I have about the Chantry.  If you take a child from it's developmental stages and tell that child he's cursed.  Well that's going to warp the child's development.  You increase the chances that they're going to grow up saying "Screw it, then.  I'm cursed I may as well act like it." or they'll seek an end to their pain, i.e. the suicides.  The head game is, in my opinion, more likely to cause these suicides then the physical game.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 03 février 2012 - 05:16 .

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...
My honest opinion, though is that it has a lot to do with the Chantry's stance on mages.  This is one of the few criticism's I have about the Chantry.  If you take a child from it's developmental stages and tell that child he's cursed.  Well that's going to warp the child's development.  You increase the chances that they're going to grow up saying "Screw it, then.  I'm cursed I may as well act like it." or they'll seek an end to their pain, i.e. the suicides.  The head game is, in my opinion, more likely to cause these suicides then the physical game.

I've said similar things myself.  If the Chantry was really interested in protecting everyone, it doesn't seem like treating the mages like criminals is a good plan.  They are already locked up and treated like ticking time bombs.  They don't have much to lose.  If the mages had community ties and families, they would actually have more reason to play by the rules.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...
Logically speaking it probably depends a lot on what specific circle they're in.  Finn, Wynne and Irving are all from the circle in Ferelden, and the Knight-Commander there strikes me as a fairly reasonable person, as templars go.  Bethany was facing the Gallows.  The name alone was probably enough to frighten her away, and if that didn't stories about Knight-Commander Meredeth cemented that idea.

It also seems like a generally bad thing when your quality of life depends so much on the arbitrary decision of someone else about where you have to live.

If you think about it, the "quality of life" itself is based on someone else's assessment of it; forget about the arbitrariness of who gets to decide it. The example that Lazy Jer took (sorry for quoting this outside context), points out a "supposed" paradise among the imprisoned: "a ritzy penthouse apartment with free ice cream." Now why should that be okay for Anders?

The issue seems to me that somebody else, other than the person himself, is deciding it, which is the perfect antithesis of freedom. It's another matter if the person is okay with it, but Anders clearly isn't okay with the Ferelden Circle.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The issue seems to me that somebody else, other than the person himself, is deciding it, which is the perfect antithesis of freedom. It's another matter if the person is okay with it, but Anders clearly isn't okay with the Ferelden Circle.

Oh, yes, I agree completely that having someone else choose is the bigger problem.  My statement was trying to nullify the idea that, hey, some circles aren't so bad.  Because the mages don't seem to be able to decide to go live in the less horrible ones.

Another point, is that apparently the Chantry isn't very good at ensuring that the Knights Commander etc all treat the mages bascially well.  If the Chantry were genuinely concerned for the safety of mages, there would be controls in place to prevent what happens in Kirkwall.  As far as I'm concerned, a truly good organization would make it quite plain that pain visited on the mages by Templars would be turned about four-fold onto the abusers.