298 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Dorrieb wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Allow me to make it perfectly for you, Dorrieb.
Humans and elves don't like each other, at all. Add a noble to the mix and random Priestess Number 4 could have earnestly pleaded with the guard all day and they wouldn't have done a thing.

Allow me to make it clear to you: she might have tried. That is, if she cared at all. But her exact words indicate that she did not. She said 'My lord, this is a wedding!' and not 'My lord, rape is wrong!' She is only upset that the ceremony is being disturbed, not especially concerned about the victims.

I dunno why you're so keen on defending this particular chantry priestess, but her actions don't speak well of her.

I thought she was afraid of Vaughn, knew he could have easily dismissed her claim, feign being dishonored, and kill her for the supposed insult to his integrity.(lulz)

If the priestess held a higher rank in the Chantry then she most likely could have convinced/threatened him or have the Templars/guards escort him out, without fear of being killed. Plus the only credible witnesses if she was killed by Vaughn are the elves who's claims would be ignored by the authorities, and Vaughn would probably spin the situation accusing them instead.(hypothetical)

Modifié par The Hierophant, 06 décembre 2012 - 04:32 .

[Herr Uhl]

Dorrieb wrote...

Allow me to make it clear to you: she might have tried. That is, if she cared at all. But her exact words indicate that she did not. She said 'My lord, this is a wedding!' and not 'My lord, rape is wrong!' She is only upset that the ceremony is being disturbed, not especially concerned about the victims.

I dunno why you're so keen on defending this particular chantry priestess, but her actions don't speak well of her.

You're reading a lot into this. She kept defending the elves involved throughout the storyline, which suggests that her "My lord, this is a wedding" was her trying to assert her authority. It failed.

Now, what was she supposed to do?

[MisterJB]

"Milord, this is a wedding. Please save the rapes for after the ceremony."

That sounds like something out of a dark comedy.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dorrieb wrote...

And during the Landsmeet, the one point that really sways everyone's vote is that Loghain sold elves into slavery for money. Mention that, and you might not even have to fight him.
 

Actually, that gets you no points. Everyone acts outraged, but it doesn't actually sway any minds.

[Dorrieb]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

And during the Landsmeet, the one point that really sways everyone's vote is that Loghain sold elves into slavery for money. Mention that, and you might not even have to fight him.
 

Actually, that gets you no points. Everyone acts outraged, but it doesn't actually sway any minds.

That's sort of what I'm saying. None of those things happened. Hence, sarcasm.

[Dorrieb]

MisterJB wrote...
You have no evidence, nothing, that indicates that she did not try.

I rather think I do, in the form of a syllogism: If she had tried, someone would know. Since no one knows, it follows that she did not try, q.e.d. Of course in your own head, if you like, you can imagine that she lodged a formal protest, headed a march, and went on to form the Andrastian League for Elvish Reform, but in the game all she does is make a half-hearted objection and go home.

The Hierophant wrote...
I thought she was afraid of Vaughn, knew he could have easily dismissed her claim, feign being dishonored,
and kill her for the supposed insult to his integrity.(lulz)

Don't be silly. Vaughan wouldn't dare lay a finger on a member of the Chantry, and she knows it, and he knows that she knows, and she knows that he knows she knows.

Herr Uhl wrote...
She kept defending the elves involved throughout the storyline

One half-hearted objection does not count as 'kept defending throughout'.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:03 .

[Daerog]

Um, not trying to pick sides anymore, just want to say that we don't know if Vaughn wouldn't dare lay a hand on the priestess or not, he could hire thugs. The nobles have harmed members of the Chantry before. Howe did lock up a Templar. Chantry wasn't banging down his door and the Templar likely would have died if the Warden wasn't around. Just to clarify, low level members of the Chantry don't have much power and in a world where high nobles get murdered, it's not a stretch for people to kill chantry members as well.

[Dorrieb]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...
Um, not trying to pick sides anymore, just want to say that we don't know if Vaughn wouldn't dare lay a hand on the priestess or not, he could hire thugs. The nobles have harmed members of the Chantry before. Howe did lock up a Templar.

Howe locked up a templar in secret, and it was made clear that if it ever came out that he had done that (as it did) both he and Loghain would have the devil to pay. Apparently the Chantry doesn't take kindly to anyone messing with them.

And by all means pick sides  : )

[Felya87]

I have to say one thing in defence of the priestess...(only one,eh!) I remember the father's warden CE say that that priestess is the only one who dare/want go in the alienage to celebrate marriage and so on, because, if I remember correctly, the Elf can't even go to in the churc.
She may have sayd what was happening in the alienage to the other chantry sisters, but she may have been reprimend for not only have gone in the alienage, but accused a noble too, and being punished.

I have to say, I really don't know why, but the City Elf remind me as how the poorer people where treat in medieval time, as where portaited in Fellini's San Francesco. They couldn't even stay inside the church during mass, and where abused in every way.

Even if it would be cool improve the lives of Elves, I don't think we would get a "St Francesco d'Assisi" kind of story to made their life better...

Modifié par Felya87, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:34 .

[Nefla]

Meh, in DA:O I wanted to help the elves but in DA2 they really don't have it bad at all. They live in nice large houses right on the waterfront with their pretty tree and aren't really separated from humans. They live exactly the same as humans who are also in lowtown and better than ones in darktown. The only instance is the pedophile who rapes and kills elf children and the guards wont do anything "because they're elves" though I doubt they would have done anything if it were humans either unless they were nobles since he WAS the magistrate's son. Elves will probably be passed over again in DA2 with a random elf here or there saying "I am oppressed because I'm an elf!" yet you never see it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

And during the Landsmeet, the one point that really sways everyone's vote is that Loghain sold elves into slavery for money. Mention that, and you might not even have to fight him.
 

Actually, that gets you no points. Everyone acts outraged, but it doesn't actually sway any minds.

The wikia page says it does. The guy whose son got kidnapped by Howe will vote for you either on this basis or the basis of that quest, not to mention that you get a point towards the total needed to win just by bringing the argument up. (Which makes sense in my experience. I didn't complete The Tortured Noble on my first playthrough, but I still got the Dragon's Peak vote.)

Edit: On the other hand, fighting Loghain is inevitable. And you don't need to mention this point to avoid the huge brawl.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:25 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
You have no evidence, nothing, that indicates that she did not try.

I rather think I do, in the form of a syllogism: If she had tried, someone would know. Since no one knows, it follows that she did not try, q.e.d. Of course in your own head, if you like, you can imagine that she lodged a formal protest, headed a march, and went on to form the Andrastian League for Elvish Reform, but in the game all she does is make a half-hearted objection and go home.

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, especially since I don't think we meet her again. Edit: Of course, this was kind of the point of the post you tried to answer with this proof.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 décembre 2012 - 12:26 .

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

In real life, no. In a work of fiction, yes it is, because we have the entirety of the work at our disposal and anything not found in it is non-canonical. You do understand that DA is a work of fiction, and the difference between fiction and reality, I hope.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

In real life, no. In a work of fiction, yes it is, because we have the entirety of the work at our disposal and anything not found in it is non-canonical. You do understand that DA is a work of fiction, and the difference between fiction and reality, I hope.

Yes, I do. Do you understand that it's possible to leave information out of a fictional work in order to make the moral issues murkier? And that Gaider does make explanations that are largely accepted as canon by the fandom, even if none of them cover this particular priest?

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Yes, I do. Do you understand that it's possible to leave information out of a fictional work in order to make the moral issues murkier? And that Gaider does make explanations that are largely accepted as canon by the fandom, even if none of them cover this particular priest?

You said it. : )

Edit: On the other hand, all you need to do now is get Gaider to say that Sister Honoria Breadhead worked tirelessly from that day forward to alleviate the plight of elves, and I'll happily agree that she's a trouper, a fantastic lady, and a credit to her oppressive and fanatical religion. : )

Modifié par Dorrieb, 07 décembre 2012 - 10:14 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Yes, I do. Do you understand that it's possible to leave information out of a fictional work in order to make the moral issues murkier? And that Gaider does make explanations that are largely accepted as canon by the fandom, even if none of them cover this particular priest?

You said it. : )

Edit: On the other hand, all you need to do now is get Gaider to say that Sister Honoria Breadhead worked tirelessly from that day forward to alleviate the plight of elves, and I'll happily agree that she's a trouper, a fantastic lady, and a credit to her oppressive and fanatical religion. : )

Italics added to draw attention to the stuff that covers the matter at hand.

(Did you do that on purpose?)

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Italics added to draw attention to the stuff that covers the matter at hand.

(Did you do that on purpose?)

Yes. Good catch! Obviously Occam's Razor would argue against that being the case here, but since a case can be made, however unlikely, I thought it best to try to pull a fast one. I should've gotten away with it too, since you're the one who put in all that extra stuff about David Gaider in the first place.

Anyway, fair point. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence even in a work of fiction. In this particular case though, it is, as Occam's Razor suggests that it is incredibly unlikely that we were meant to ponder the possible involvement or non-involvement of Sister Honoria beyond her brief scene, and the possible ramifications on Fereldan society resulting from her actions or lack thereof. It's much more likely that what we get to see is all there is and all there was ever meant to be.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Italics added to draw attention to the stuff that covers the matter at hand.

(Did you do that on purpose?)

Yes. Good catch! Obviously Occam's Razor would argue against that being the case here, but since a case can be made, however unlikely, I thought it best to try to pull a fast one. I should've gotten away with it too, since you're the one who put in all that extra stuff about David Gaider in the first place.

The main reason I'm getting involved is because I don't think people should be able to get away with pulling a fast one in debates that are merely debating for its own sake.

Anyway, fair point. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence even in a work of fiction. In this particular case though, it is, as Occam's Razor suggests that it is incredibly unlikely that we were meant to ponder the possible involvement or non-involvement of Sister Honoria beyond her brief scene, and the possible ramifications on Fereldan society resulting from her actions or lack thereof. It's much more likely that what we get to see is all there is and all there was ever meant to be.

What I'm saying is that a case for either would ultimately depend on an appeal to ignorance. So, whichever's more likely, the fact remains that we don't know.

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What I'm saying is that a case for either would ultimately depend on an appeal to ignorance.

Then you're committing a fallacy, as you're shifting the burden of proof from the claim that Sister Honoria did report the crime (even though there is no evidence of this), to the interpretation of the game's events at face value. By that logic, nothing that we witness in the game can be taken as given and must ultimately rest on an appeal to ignorance. Nothing is certain, and everything is subject to interpretation. There are works that are ambiguous like that, but do you really think DA is one?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What I'm saying is that a case for either would ultimately depend on an appeal to ignorance.

Then you're committing a fallacy, as you're shifting the burden of proof from the claim that Sister Honoria did report the crime (even though there is no evidence of this), to the interpretation of the game's events at face value. By that logic, nothing that we witness in the game can be taken as given and must ultimately rest on an appeal to ignorance. Nothing is certain, and everything is subject to interpretation. 

And you're committing reductio ad absurdum, or whatever it's called.

As for your argument that we should take the game at face value, or whatever you're saying? She could well have reported the crime, and the end result would look the same when the guards finally showed up to the Alienage. The guards wouldn't have taken an elf's side over a noble's. In light of this, she probably didn't bother, but I don't remember any definite confirmation of that.

There are works that are ambiguous like that, but do you really think DA is one?

That's not what I'm claiming, but in a lot of cases, yes it is. Anyway, the fact remains that while we can speculate and suspect, we don't really know in this case.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 09 décembre 2012 - 06:10 .

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And you're committing reductio ad absurdum, or whatever it's called.

As for your argument that we should take the game at face value, or whatever you're saying? She could well have reported the crime, and the end result would look the same when the guards finally showed up to the Alienage. The guards wouldn't have taken an elf's side over a noble's. In light of this, she probably didn't bother, but I don't remember any definite confirmation of that.

Confirmation isn't needed, because in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the burden of proof rests on demonstrating that she did. Which she didn't. And don't think I didn't notice that you carefully avoided the term 'burden of proof'. Trying to pull a fast one?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And you're committing reductio ad absurdum, or whatever it's called.

As for your argument that we should take the game at face value, or whatever you're saying? She could well have reported the crime, and the end result would look the same when the guards finally showed up to the Alienage. The guards wouldn't have taken an elf's side over a noble's. In light of this, she probably didn't bother, but I don't remember any definite confirmation of that.

Confirmation isn't needed, because in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the burden of proof rests on demonstrating that she did. Which she didn't.

Why do you assume either side can insist the other proof anything, in the absence of confirmation? Not everything needs a definite answer, even in fiction.

And don't think I didn't notice that you carefully avoided the term 'burden of proof'. Trying to pull a fast one?

I'm not you. Please don't accuse me of being you.

[Dorrieb]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Why do you assume either side can insist the other proof anything, in the absence of confirmation? Not everything needs a definite answer, even in fiction.

I say Sister Honoria is complicit in the crime by virtue of her inaction as seen in the game. Someone else says not so, she did try to do something even though we do not get to see it or learn of it in any way. By the rules of reason, it's up to them to demonstrate that she did do something, or else agree that in light of the information we do have, it is reasonable to take it as given that she did not do anything.

The idea seems to be that if they can just prove me wrong with regard to the character of Sister Honoria, then the entire incident of the City Elf's origin can be put down to the actions of one hateful lunatic, and not the systematic abuse and oppression of elves by humans, proving that the elves are to blame for their own condition and that they deserve it anyway, or something. Apparently quite a few people just didn't like the elves.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
I'm not you. Please don't accuse me of being you.

Wow, that seems pretty harsh, and not so much playful. I dunno, I'm sorry that I seem to have made you genuinely angry. You win, okay? I'm wrong and you're absolutely right. Apologies.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 09 décembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Dorrieb wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Why do you assume either side can insist the other proof anything, in the absence of confirmation? Not everything needs a definite answer, even in fiction.

I say Sister Honoria is complicit in the crime by virtue of her inaction as seen in the game. Someone else says not so, she did try to do something even though we do not get to see it or learn of it in any way. By the rules of reason, it's up to them to demonstrate that she did do something, or else agree that in light of the information we do have, it is reasonable to take it as given that she did not do anything.

But what I'm saying is they can't prove their case either. She could well have done something, but we don't know. Of course, they're still the ones making the shakier claim. You're probably right, I'm just saying we don't know for sure, and that Boann might have had reasons to not come forward other than not caring.

The idea seems to be that if they can just prove me wrong with regard to the character of Sister Honoria, then the entire incident of the City Elf's origin can be put down to the actions of one hateful lunatic, and not the systematic abuse and oppression of elves by humans, proving that the elves are to blame for their own condition and that they deserve it anyway, or something. Apparently quite a few people just didn't like the elves.

She's irrelevant, except insofar as she's willing to provide Chantry services to the elves. (The fact that nobody else is kind of torpedos the point they're making, if that's really what they're trying to say.) Whether or not she is willing to offer legal support, it would not have been enough against Vaughn and the legal system. If the Chantry condemned him, it would likely have been enough to get him to change his ways, if only because of the public humiliation for himself and his father. But they wouldn't. Mother Boann (I think that's her actual name) is the only one who cares even slightly.

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
I'm not you. Please don't accuse me of being you.

Wow, that seems pretty harsh, and not so much playful. I dunno, I'm sorry that I seem to have made you genuinely angry. You win, okay? I'm wrong and you're absolutely right. Apologies.

I'm sorry. It's hard to catch sarcasm sometimes in these posts sometimes, especially in the context of there being legitimately dense people on these boards.

Edit: After re-reading a few times, I think I should have caught it anyway.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 09 décembre 2012 - 03:15 .