1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Lazy Jer]

Nizaris1 wrote...

As you point out, in comparison, not all Muslims agree with "jihadists" point of view. Not all Muslims are Al Qaeda member (if Al Qaeda really existed anyway), not all Muslims are in the same sect. There is two major sect, and these two have many smaller sects/schools. Some are extreme, some moderate, some liberal, some conservative, some peace loving sect, some harsh and strict rule sect...

But because of some who do such thing like bombing, beating women, ect ect ect ALL muslims being labelled such...terrorist, backward people, women beater, suicide bomber ect ect ect

The less said about this the better, since it brings real-world politics into a forum discussion about a game.  But I have to point out that you're making it seem like all non-Muslims are assuming that all Muslims are terrorists.  This, in my experience, is not the case.

Compare with Mages, not all mages are the same in DA universe. within the Circle there are loyalists, aquetrien, libertian..and so on. Outside the Circle there are Maleficar, Elven mage, free mage, mage collective... Morrigan is a free mage

But the Chantry just labbeled every mage outside the Circle as APOSTATE, the public enemy, enemy of the state, enemy of the Maker, enemy of the Chantry. Chantry say apostates maybe a maleficar, blood mages who commune with demons. Templar hunt all mages outside the Circle, kill if must.

That's the common theory, but in practice...not so much.  From what I've seen of the Templars they more or less leave the Daleish Keepers alone.  Even Meredith didn't mess with the Daleish camp.  Secondly mages are brought to the Circle not for your narrow descriptions of being enemies of the maker and blah blah blah, but because mages are susceptible to demonic possession and have the power to cause massive damage and widespread destruction, a power...and this is why it differs vastly from your real-world comparisons....it's a power that cannot be turned off.  It can't be searched for when entering an air plane, there's no off-switch.  Mages have the ability to be walking bags of damage.

I believe the Circle in it's current incarnation fails in it's duties and needs to reform, but that doesn't change the fact that the Chantry is right when it says that magic is dangerous.  It's unfortunate, but true.

Similar to real world...Muslims that are not USA allies are "terrorist", "extremists", "tyrant" whatever USA president want to label. But Muslims who are USA allies they are "true Muslims", "moderate", "peace loving Muslims", "modern Muslim"..and so on...

Free mages like Morrigan and mage Collective love to be f®ee, don't want to be under the Chantry, but have no grudge against the Chantry. But They all are "apostates". Similar like Muslims, some Muslims love to be free, not being under UN/USA, but have no offense against UN/USA. But they all are "terrorists".

No.  It's not similar.  And the real-world politics are a heck of a lot more complicated they you attempt to make them seem.  That being said, I'm done talking about real-world politics.

[dragonflight288]

That being said, I'm done talking about real-world politics.

I am too. I haven't responded for a bit because I wanted to avoid it. I go to video games and and discuss them as a way to escape reality.

[Dave of Canada]

Mages are incomparable to anything in reality, as are Templar. Bringing up real-world comparison brings offense to those who might be involved or brings mockery as the comparison might be completely biased and leaning onto one side over another.

Thus, it's best to keep the discussion in the realm of the fictional because you can't argue semantics (as much) and can actually apply proper terms to the "victims" and the "oppressors" which cannot be applied to real life. Such as raising the dead, cancelling magic, mind control and possession.

[TJX2045]

I don't think they are incomparable to anything. They are still a classic example of the oppressed being subjugated by the oppressors (Templars). That's what I think most people here are focusing on.

[Dave of Canada]

That'd be oversimplification, you'd be dismissing the why / who / when.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 31 mai 2012 - 11:09 .

[robertthebard]

Dave of Canada wrote...

That'd be oversimplification, you'd be dismissing the why / who / when.

Reform is/was needed.  Now the situation in Kirkwall was worse than what Ferelden was, but you could still see it there.  "We will trust no lives to your spells, mage".  It started out with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Power corrupts, this is why the Chantry wants, feels the need to keep mages in the Circle, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I know I'm not the first to say this here.  It becomes too easy to see the relationship as slave/master than guard/charge.  Which is essentially what they were intended to do.  Andraste didn't teach that magic was evil, the Chant says, roughly paraphrased:  Magic exists to serve man, not rule over him.

This is a direct response to Tevinter, and is why a mage can't hold political power in most of Thedas.  Noting that they still can in what's left of the Imperium.  This does not mean that mages should be rounded up and made Tranquil on the whim of one Templar, such as the Tranquil Solution.  However, this is the logical conclusion to absolute power, and how it can be abused.  We see some of this, and there is no justification for it.  Making somebody a slave because they might become a monster does not justify being a monster.

[Lazy Jer]

Nizaris1 wrote...

you guys just cannot face it, it is common, when someone pointed it out you guys escape saying "it is video games", but you guys talking about real things anyway.

It is a comparison, to understand what really happen, we makes comparison, so i compare with real world and so i hope everybody can see what really is

It is not bad or wrong compare it with reality, because DA universe is a mirror to real world. To understand DA universe, you must look into the mirror.

The reason I'm not comparing it to real-world situations is because there is no comparison.  The comparison you came up with doesn't hold up.  What's more when things start getting into real-world politics then the tendency is to get on a tangent arguing about the real world politics in question.  I myself disagreed on several points about your Muslim comparison.  But bringing up the points I had contention with would be getting into an argument that had nothing to do with Dragon Age.

So again...there is no real-world comparison.  Especially not the one you brought up.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 31 mai 2012 - 05:32 .

[dragonflight288]

Reform is/was needed. Now the situation in Kirkwall was worse than what Ferelden was, but you could still see it there. "We will trust no lives to your spells, mage". It started out with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Power corrupts, this is why the Chantry wants, feels the need to keep mages in the Circle, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I know I'm not the first to say this here. It becomes too easy to see the relationship as slave/master than guard/charge. Which is essentially what they were intended to do. Andraste didn't teach that magic was evil, the Chant says, roughly paraphrased: Magic exists to serve man, not rule over him.

This is a direct response to Tevinter, and is why a mage can't hold political power in most of Thedas. Noting that they still can in what's left of the Imperium. This does not mean that mages should be rounded up and made Tranquil on the whim of one Templar, such as the Tranquil Solution. However, this is the logical conclusion to absolute power, and how it can be abused. We see some of this, and there is no justification for it. Making somebody a slave because they might become a monster does not justify being a monster.

It may have started out as such, and I agree that power does corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the reverse has also proven to be true because the templars now have, or at least had, absolute power over mages. Cullen said it himself. They had divine right over mages.

That isn't in the Chant of Light. The templars didn't exist during Andraste's Exalted March against Tevinter.

Then we have examples like Alrik and Kerras who abuse their power, or Meredith who ends up with far more political power than she ought have (defacto viscount and attempts to remove the City guard so the templars can solidify power, denying the city the right to rule itself and elect a new viscount, etc.)

No one wants the rise of a second tevinter, but the Chantry has become a prettied up one without being controlled by magic.

[robertthebard]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Reform is/was needed. Now the situation in Kirkwall was worse than what Ferelden was, but you could still see it there. "We will trust no lives to your spells, mage". It started out with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Power corrupts, this is why the Chantry wants, feels the need to keep mages in the Circle, but absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I know I'm not the first to say this here. It becomes too easy to see the relationship as slave/master than guard/charge. Which is essentially what they were intended to do. Andraste didn't teach that magic was evil, the Chant says, roughly paraphrased: Magic exists to serve man, not rule over him.

This is a direct response to Tevinter, and is why a mage can't hold political power in most of Thedas. Noting that they still can in what's left of the Imperium. This does not mean that mages should be rounded up and made Tranquil on the whim of one Templar, such as the Tranquil Solution. However, this is the logical conclusion to absolute power, and how it can be abused. We see some of this, and there is no justification for it. Making somebody a slave because they might become a monster does not justify being a monster.

It may have started out as such, and I agree that power does corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the reverse has also proven to be true because the templars now have, or at least had, absolute power over mages. Cullen said it himself. They had divine right over mages.

That isn't in the Chant of Light. The templars didn't exist during Andraste's Exalted March against Tevinter.

Then we have examples like Alrik and Kerras who abuse their power, or Meredith who ends up with far more political power than she ought have (defacto viscount and attempts to remove the City guard so the templars can solidify power, denying the city the right to rule itself and elect a new viscount, etc.)

No one wants the rise of a second tevinter, but the Chantry has become a prettied up one without being controlled by magic.

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly, which is what my post was supposed to demonstrate.  They had been abusing their power right up until the Chantry gets destroyed, now, it's open revolt, and we will have to wait and see what happens next.

[dragonflight288]

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly, which is what my post was supposed to demonstrate. They had been abusing their power right up until the Chantry gets destroyed, now, it's open revolt, and we will have to wait and see what happens next.

Ah. Okay. We'll find out more in the next game, I'm sure. Until then, we the fans can argue and debate to heart's content.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Nizaris1 wrote...

you guys just cannot face it, it is common, when someone pointed it out you guys escape saying "it is video games", but you guys talking about real things anyway.

It is a sensitive matter. Of course there is going to be some amount of hyporcrisy. Some people may not even be willing to debate certain things; it's up to them. At least I'm not willing to debate what you're bringing up, for reasons of my own.

It is a comparison, to understand what really happen, we makes comparison, so i compare with real world and so i hope everybody can see what really is

It is not bad or wrong compare it with reality, because DA universe is a mirror to real world. To understand DA universe, you must look into the mirror.

That may be how you see it. However there is no real reason to think that the events of DA were actually inspired by such-and-such events in real life, unless a DA writer steps in and declares it as such. The events probably fit into a broad template that may have recurred several times in our own history - the template in the case of DA being a classic case of the minority being oppressed by the majority, as somebody very rightly noted above.

[MichaelFinnegan]

TJX2045 wrote...

I don't think they are incomparable to anything. They are still a classic example of the oppressed being subjugated by the oppressors (Templars). That's what I think most people here are focusing on.

I very much agree with you.

[TJX2045]

Dave of Canada wrote...

That'd be oversimplification, you'd be dismissing the why / who / when.

I'm not oversimplifying it, I'm pointing out that it IS comparable to a common real life scenario/template.  The why/who/when is not necessary.  Get rid of those details and you still see a classic case of oppression for fear that they will all do something horrible or threaten your life regardless of those who actually will never do such a thing.  This is the scenario, and this is what you see in Dragon Age with Templars vs Mages, specifically in DA2 more than DAO where most Fereldan Templars did what they had to in compliance with the Chantry's laws instead of being radical.

Modifié par TJX2045, 01 juin 2012 - 06:16 .

[DPSSOC]

TJX2045 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
That'd be oversimplification, you'd be dismissing the why / who / when.

I'm not oversimplifying it, I'm pointing out that it IS comparable to a common real life scenario/template.  The why/who/when is not necessary.

 

But they are necessary.  By ignoring the details you can completely invalidate any position.  Strip away the specifics and gun control is no different than telling someone they can't own/operate a musical instrument.  The reality though is that the two are very different, they need to be considered differently, and as such are not a legitimate comparison. 

TJX2045 wrote...
Get rid of those details and you still see a classic case of oppression for fear that they will all do something horrible or threaten your life regardless of those who actually will never do such a thing.

 

There is no such guarantee though.  It's been stated before but mages are not locked up solely because of what they might choose to do but because of what they could do by accident or out of distress.  I'm not allowed to build explosives in my home, in very small part because of what I might do with those explosives, but mainly because of the danger to other people should something go wrong.  Mages are explosives, what they might do out of malice is the lowest concern when you consider what could happen when/if a mage makes a mistake or gets sufficiently upset.  Anger, grief, desperation, or a simple lack of focus on the part of a mage can have horrible consequences for those around them so they need to keep the risk contained.

[MichaelFinnegan]

DPSSOC wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
That'd be oversimplification, you'd be dismissing the why / who / when.

I'm not oversimplifying it, I'm pointing out that it IS comparable to a common real life scenario/template.  The why/who/when is not necessary.

 

But they are necessary.  By ignoring the details you can completely invalidate any position.

Good point. I also try to think in terms of specifics.

Strip away the specifics and gun control is no different than telling someone they can't own/operate a musical instrument.  The reality though is that the two are very different, they need to be considered differently, and as such are not a legitimate comparison.

Well, in every aspect, comparing a gun to a musical instrument may not be legitimate. But to say that there is no possible comparison at all would not hold. Which, by the way, was the main point - the mage situation in Thedas is not incomparable to anything in reality.

Besides, you are just bringing up one aspect of the comparison - specifically, the "right" to ownership of a gun and and that of a musical instrument - and based on your one perception of that "right" are invalidating the comparison. For instance, if I perceive a neighbor owning a very loud musical instrument, and I see him operating it a good deal, I might take measures to deprive him of that right of ownership, or at least stifle him in the way he is using it. Plus, there are others who think that owning a gun ought to be within the rights of everyone.

TJX2045 wrote...
Get rid of those details and you still see a classic case of oppression for fear that they will all do something horrible or threaten your life regardless of those who actually will never do such a thing.

 

There is no such guarantee though.  It's been stated before but mages are not locked up solely because of what they might choose to do but because of what they could do by accident or out of distress.  I'm not allowed to build explosives in my home, in very small part because of what I might do with those explosives, but mainly because of the danger to other people should something go wrong.  Mages are explosives, what they might do out of malice is the lowest concern when you consider what could happen when/if a mage makes a mistake or gets sufficiently upset.  Anger, grief, desperation, or a simple lack of focus on the part of a mage can have horrible consequences for those around them so they need to keep the risk contained.

There could be arguments such as the ones you're advancing for holding mages in what are essentially prisons. But there are equally good arguments for thinking those prisons as oppressive - not holding on to their original purpose, or if I may say, their right intentions. That way, one could very well look at what all templars do as unjustified, or in other words "oppressive."

Briefly, then, the gist of the matter is that, yes, what the mages have - magic and being susceptible to demons - are not comparable to anything in reality, because we don't have magic or demons. But... what the mages are subjected to because of that may very well be oppressive to them, meaning going beyond what are justifiable as defensive measures taken by others. If such accounts of oppression exists, then they become comparable to oppressive situations we have in real life. The concept of oppression isn't really alien to us.

[Plaintiff]

Lazy Jer wrote...

From what I've seen of the Templars they more or less leave the Daleish Keepers alone.  Even Meredith didn't mess with the Daleish camp.

Except that she totally did.

If you sent Feynriel to the Dalish Camp in Act 1, you can go to Sundermount during Act 2 and see a group of Templars harrassing the Dalish hunters to hand him over.

The Dalish hunters will accuse the templars of capturing and torturing their children for information, the Templar leading the group does not even attempt to deny these accusations, deeming them as "necessary action".

[robertthebard]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

From what I've seen of the Templars they more or less leave the Daleish Keepers alone.  Even Meredith didn't mess with the Daleish camp.

Except that she totally did.

If you sent Feynriel to the Dalish Camp in Act 1, you can go to Sundermount during Act 2 and see a group of Templars harrassing the Dalish hunters to hand him over.

The Dalish hunters will accuse the templars of capturing and torturing their children for information, the Templar leading the group does not even attempt to deny these accusations, deeming them as "necessary action".

I actually had this happen yesterday, for the first time, since I was pursuing side quests I'd skipped in previous play throughs.

[Lazy Jer]

Plaintiff wrote...

Except that she totally did.

If you sent Feynriel to the Dalish Camp in Act 1, you can go to Sundermount during Act 2 and see a group of Templars harrassing the Dalish hunters to hand him over.

The Dalish hunters will accuse the templars of capturing and torturing their children for information, the Templar leading the group does not even attempt to deny these accusations, deeming them as "necessary action".

I stand corrected.  I saw that graphic for the first time the other day, I usually just walk past those people.  Still that was a case of a specific mage that was specifically reported to the Kirkwall Templars.  The Templar Order seems to leave the Keeper more or less to themselves.  Admittedly that's a mater of priorities (i.e. Daleish are harder to find then city-based mages).

[dragonflight288]

You see, what/who mage? Not all mages, it was TEVINTER Mages, But all mages out there are treated as ENEMY. It is a generalization. You guys as a player are also being driven into that sentiment, because you guys failed to see the word "Tevinter Mages", but instead "Mages...mages...mages..." all the time. Even though it was Tevinter doing, but all mages carry the guilt, the one who did it have being long dead, but the one who is no relation at all got punished.

....wow. Do you honestly believe the rest of us are ignoring Tevinter entirely? Heck no. We don't differentiate between mages and tevinter mages, because the Chantry doesn't. To the Chantry, it's all mages, irregardless of culture (Dalish and Chasind, Rivaini, Tevinter, or even Andrastian.) As for mages being related to Tevinter. That's both true and false.

The Imperium did rule all of Thedas at one point and they did try to breed magic as much as possible before being driven back 1000 years earlier. But the point is, it's been 1000 years. The Circle system was set up to prevent the rise of another Tevinter and as a compromise to keep the Divine from slaughtering mages who were peacefully protesting in her cathedral.

And since it's been 1000 years, the culture, ideas, integral beliefs, have all changed and its no longer Tevinter. They as a country can't operate without slaves, and they enslave mages just as readily as non mages. They don't know how to work without slavery, Fenris says that one Archon made it illegal and he was swiftly assassinated because of it. Outside Tevinter, no one practices slavery (to my knowledge.) Or openly practices blood magic.

The mages of Orlais are vastly different than the mages of Tevinter, but as far as the templars are concerned, every mage is a risk. No matter their culture or ability. It's not nitpicking, which you seem to accuse us of. It's how the world is set up and the lore says the same thing. Mages may have fraternities, but to the Chantry, all they see is a potential bomb about to explode irregardless of the control or history of the mage in question.

[TEWR]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Except that she totally did.

If you sent Feynriel to the Dalish Camp in Act 1, you can go to Sundermount during Act 2 and see a group of Templars harrassing the Dalish hunters to hand him over.

The Dalish hunters will accuse the templars of capturing and torturing their children for information, the Templar leading the group does not even attempt to deny these accusations, deeming them as "necessary action".

I stand corrected.  I saw that graphic for the first time the other day, I usually just walk past those people.  Still that was a case of a specific mage that was specifically reported to the Kirkwall Templars.  The Templar Order seems to leave the Keeper more or less to themselves.  Admittedly that's a mater of priorities (i.e. Daleish are harder to find then city-based mages).

Feynriel isn't the only case. By Act III, the Templars and Chantry priests were going up to the Dalish telling them to "convert or die".

dragonflight288 wrote...

Outside Tevinter, no one practices slavery (to my knowledge.

Orlais. They sold Ferelden's Elven citizens like they were cattle during the Orlesian Occupation and carefully avoid being called out on openly practicing it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 01 juin 2012 - 07:52 .

[dragonflight288]

So both Orlais, home of the Chantry, and Tevinter, founder of the Imperium, practice slavery.