523 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

You're both wrong. Gaider confirmed Dawn of the Seeker happens six years before the start of DAO. That Divine was Beatrix, not Justinia, and the trouble in Kirkwall she was referring to was the Viscount's assassination of the Knight Commander.

As I recall David Gaider only said "The Kirkwall reference is in regards to the Threnhold Uprising" but never once claimed when the actual movie itself takes place

[MisterJB]

http://r2smuse.tumbl...n-of-the-seeker

Eight years, actually. Not six.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Right or wrong, intelligent or not is beside the point. Mages rebelled en masse, strongly implying that they didn't find their living conditions acceptable, education, clothing, food and shelter be damned.

Once an Archon outlawed slavery. He was promptly assassinated by all other Magisters. Clearly, they didn’t find the freedom of their fellow man satisfying.
People are greedy; people are selfish, people are stupid. The sole fact that some people want something is not the ultimate determinant factor when analyzing the validity or worthiness of the request.

Perhaps not, but I wasn't analyzing the validity or worthiness of the request, just pointing out that when a great number of people rebel en masse, that's a pretty reliable indicator that they were distinctly NOT happy with their lot, which means that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand that perhaps that lot wasn't so great as a person NOT living under it would claim.

Mister JB wrote...]

Silfren wrote...A year-long sentence of solitary confinement is not a reasonable punishment under any circumstance. Unless driving a person literally insane is actually your goal. Indeed it would be far more humane to just kill someone outright.

The point here is not whether the security measures taken by the Chantry are acceptable or not; I’m sure we’ll reach that point eventually, no need to start pilling topics up; or whether a year long sentence of solitary confinement is an appropriated punishment.
The point here is that these so called abuses visited upon Anders are largely, if not entirely, self inflicted. He flaunted the rules of the Circle six times. And we’re not talking about minor transgressions like hiding erotic novels under your pillow but becoming an Apostate. Six times. Some were killed for far less.
Was the punishment cruel? Perhaps. But the Templars were not bored and decided to ruin a mage’s… year to amuse themselves. Anders gave them reasons.

Read up a bit on the psychological effects that solitary confinement can induce...and think about its implications, given the road that Anders ultimately went down, because it could legitimately be said that the blame for his terrorism lies the Templars who thought that sentence was a good idea.  That punishment was incontrovertibly cruel, there's no "perhaps" to it.  Yes, the Templars were bored, there's no justifiable reason to do that to someone.  Just kill them and be done with it, seriously.  But don't pretend that a year long sentence of solitary confinement is in any sense humane, such that it's somehow a "nicer" punishment than execution.

Back to the actual point of this bit of discussion, I repeat that this is victim-blaming, and I reject it as having any validity.  I notice you didn't address my point that you might as well argue that slaves who try to escape from their masters only to be caught, are to blame for subsequent punishments inflicted on them merely because they knew it was a potential consequence.  I don't buy this, because the person responsible for the punishment is the person inflicting it.  They are certainly NOT forced to carry it out.  I'm not going to reduce this matter to a math equation of cause-and-effect literalness, because we're talking about human beings here, and inhumane punishment for a person wanting to be liberated from inhumane incarceration.  Once you claim that Anders is to blame for his punishments, you have to also claim that real world slaves are to blame for being whipped or mutilated or killed after being caught trying to escape, because the reasoning is identical, and that's a reprehensible way to think.

Mister JB wrote...Truthfully, Anders has done more to restrict the freedoms of mages than any blood mage I’ve seen.
Tower in Ferelden, templars allow mages outside for exercise. Anders take advantage of this, no more exercise.
White Spire, templars allow mages to visit Val-Royeaux and even buy personal property. Anders commits acts of terrorism, curfew in Orlais.
This is evidently a case of “Stop Helping Me!”

I've heard this argument before, and I reject it just as soundly.  You're saying that no person enslaved to a brutal and unjust institution should ever try to escape, because doing so might make life harder for their fellow prisoners.  It's just another way of telling a person to accept their lot, no matter how terrible it is or how badly they want to be free of it.

 Mister JB wrote...I actually made a thread about this very issue. I feel that Hawke is unnecessarily restricted to mentioning Tevinter or demons if s/he wishes to defend the position of the templars when there are many more things to fear about magic.
Thankfully, DAI might be different since this argument was used by Ser Evangeline in “Asunder”. She calls Adrian a “foolish girl who should be grateful she has the luxury to wonder just how free she is, who has no idea how much worse things can be in the real world and who believes that mages are the only people in the world who suffer.”
I agree with Evangeline on this, of course. I readily admit that Thedas is not, exactly Medieval Europe despite the fact it is strongly inspired by; try to turn the map of Thedas upside down, it’s almost identical to a map of Europe, true story.

 
This is another argument I really despise. "You really should just stop your whining, other people have it just as bad/worse than you do!"  is not an appropriate response to one group being unhappy with their own lot.  That other people in the world may have it worse, or have it just as bad in a different way, hardly means that the first group's suffering is invalid or should not be improved.  The ONLY reason to make this argument is to shut that first group up and try to dismiss or invalidate their suffering.  Think about it.  I suffer extreme migraines that periodically hurt so bad I spend an entire week whining and ****ing.  One of my co-workers suffers from debilitating trigeminal neuralgia. Without an objective way to measure, if I were to guess I'd argue her pain is worse than mine, and as a double-whammy, her pain doesn't respond to medication.  But the fact she has it worse doesn't mean that the pain I have to deal with is somehow mitigated, or that I don't have a right to be unhappy about my own troubles.

Mister JB wrote...
Housing is another factor where we can see the contrast between mages and most free mundanes. Circles are, more often than not, luxurious towers with much better living conditions than, say, Lowtown; never mind Darktown; or even Redcliff.
And what about medical conditions? In the Circle, should a mage be injured or sick, there are healers available down the corridor. But as far as non-magical medicine goes, we don’t see much evidence of it beyond apothecaries with salves and the such.

This is the second time I've seen you say that "Circles are, more often than not, luxurious towers."  What exactly are you basing this on? We've seen exactly TWO towers that mages live in, the Ferelden Circle and the one in Orlais.  Two, out of what, fourteen Circles, total?  Two towers out of fourteen doesn't qualify as "more often than not," and between these two, I would hardly call Ferelden's tower luxurious.  Also, the luxuriousness of a tower doesn't change the fact that a peasant in, say, Redcliffe, can walk about freely for the most part.  Their limitations are put in place by their financial standing and such life choices as what kind of work they are involved in, etc.  Not quite the same thing as being forced to stay within the walls of a tower not by your own choice but because big men with swords guard the exit.

Mister JB wrote...Bandits and Darkspawn raids and wars are other things normal people are subject to and mages are not.
And then there is the hard manual labor which should be the norm given the lack of technological advancement.
The World of Thedas also establishes how the Nevarran Circle is quite wealthy and influential and we know that a presence of a mage in a court is common.

This is another pointless version of "Sure you have it bad, but you don't have to worry about X like I do!"  Peasants have to deal with certain everyday troubles that mages don't...how exactly does this make the infringement on mages' personal freedoms okay? 
 
Where is it said that the Nevarran Circle is quite wealthy and influential? For that matter, does that mean that the individual mages within the Circle are wealthy? And what the HELL does it have to do with the personal liberties of mages there? Does the wealth and influence of this Circle mean that the average mages within it have more liberties than mages of other Circles? 

Mister JB wrote...The lot of most city elves is actually far more dire than that of the mages given both their terrible living conditions as well as; unlike the mages who are a valuable resource and quite capable of defending themselves; a distinct lack of interest from most human lieges to keeping elves alive.
In the Circle, there is equality between human and elven mages; mages elect their own representatives in the form of the Enchanters and the living conditions are simply much better. While it seems logical that some elven parents would grief over the loss of their child, I expect if given the option to move from the alienage to the Circle, they’d jump on it.

I agree that the lot of city elves is dire, though I won't argue that it's MORESO than that of mages.  Nor will I argue that this somehow means that mages should be happy as larks about their own situation.  That's ludicrous, just like the notion of equality between elves and humans within the Circle, which isn't true in the least.  Certain individuals may see humans and elves as equal, but some ain't all, and there's plenty of evidence within the game to show that racism doesn't cease to exist at the door to a Circle's walls. 

Your assertion that alienage elves would jump at the chance to move to the Circle...given that the Circle only takes the mage child, not the whole family, I'm not sure what you mean here.  I'm sure a few elves might think their child would be getting a chance at a better life, but more than a few would focus only on the fact that their child is being taken away from them permanently.  And alienage elves DON'T actually have any reason to know just what life is like within Circle walls, so there's no reason to assume that they'd automatically think of it as a better option.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 février 2013 - 12:06 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

http://r2smuse.tumbl...n-of-the-seeker

Eight years, actually. Not six.

Ah.  I'm not even remotely familiar with Dawn of the Seeker.  I thought the post in question referred to events in Asunder.

[w0lfam0da1s]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

You're both wrong. Gaider confirmed Dawn of the Seeker happens six years before the start of DAO. That Divine was Beatrix, not Justinia, and the trouble in Kirkwall she was referring to was the Viscount's assassination of the Knight Commander.

As I recall David Gaider only said "The Kirkwall reference is in regards to the Threnhold Uprising" but never once claimed when the actual movie itself takes place

Ah, thank you my good man. I didn't know that. I must have missed that tidbit somewhere. I was under the impresion that it was a statement about the Qunari uprising.

So for anyone I have offended I am deeply sorry.

Anyways goodday.

[Helios969]

Plaintiff wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Plenty of blame to go around. While Elthina was ineffectual, if we blew up every building with inept people present the human race would be extinct.

Well, that's a pretty obvious strawman. Whether or not you agree with what Anders did, there's no reason to believe that he plans to go around murdering every one who sucks at their job. His target is and was always Elthina secifically, and for more reasons than her incompetence.

Not much sense of humor, huh?

She was his target not because of competance (or lack of) but because he wanted to create a scenario in which neither side could compromise.  If not for the intervention of our characters siding with the mages every last one of them would have been slaughtered by the Templars...'thanks Anders for delivering us our freedom at the Makers side.'  The issue is here whether Elthina bears the greatest responsibility...I'm simply playing devil's advocate and arguing from the standpoint that no matter how Elthina had been written...(yes she's a character in a story), Meredith and Petrice would have done what they'd done regardless...they're radicals.  If Elthina had been competant, do you think Meredith or Petrice could have applied their twisted logic and found justification to assassinate her?  I certainly do.  And Anders was gonna do what he did for anything short of mages having freedom outside the circle and Templar/Chantry influence.  (After DA2 not sure that's a good idea.)

Pretty much everyone is to blame: The Templars, the Chantry, the mages...the whole frickin' system in place...but mostly the radicals...that's Meredith, Petrice, Anders, the bad Templars, the bad mages...any who fostered dissent for their own hateful agendas or allowed paranoia to win out over reason.  Ultimately the moderates are the ones most responsible for keeping the radical elements in check as they represent the largest percentage of population (although seem to be the most ineffectual.)  Whether noble, commoner, merchant, or whor* everyone bears some responsibility in a society when things fall apart.  I certainly do not excuse Elthina, but neither do I excuse the society as a whole.  Complacency might be the greatest evil of all.

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis - Dante Alighieri

[w0lfam0da1s]

For the love of it.

Here is a quote we could consider.

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts"

Have a good day

[Silfren]

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

For the love of it.

Here is a quote we could consider.

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts"

Have a good day

It'd be nice for you to say something beyond just leaving a drive-by quote, since there's no way to know what your point is otherwise.

Modifié par Silfren, 01 mars 2013 - 01:51 .

[w0lfam0da1s]

Silfren wrote...

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

For the love of it.

Here is a quote we could consider.

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts"

Have a good day

It'd be nice for you to say something beyond just leaving a drive-by quote, since there's no way to know what your point is otherwise.

First of all you could read into it what you will

My point is this...
However we look at what was done and who is to blame is how we see it.
The truth of it is...(besides the writers of course) She is the only one who knows why she did or didn't do things that we as the watchers of the "play" believe she should of done or not done.
Just like the end of the quote says.
One man in his time plays many parts.
So what that says if you will....
Whatever we do in our lives only we know how and why we respond to what happens. We all respond to things diffrently and never quite the same way twice.
So example....
The way you smell one flower compared to another. We may smell them but we react to them diffrently.
That's the best I can do to give you a glimps into why I used that quote.

Good day

[MisterJB]

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Perhaps not, but I wasn't analyzing the validity or worthiness of the request, just pointing out that when a great number of people rebel en masse, that's a pretty reliable indicator that they were distinctly NOT happy with their lot, which means that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand that perhaps that lot wasn't so great as a person NOT living under it would claim.[/quote]
People can't be trusted to analyze their lives with any objectivity. An outsider looking in on Thedas will likely offer a more fair and impartial judgement.
If a great number of templars decide that guarding the mages is too much trouble and they should just be Tranquilized on birth, should we take this wish into consideration?
That's how I feel about this rebellion in...nicer words.

[quote]
Read up a bit on the psychological effects that solitary confinement can induce...and think about its implications, given the road that Anders ultimately went down, because it could legitimately be said that the blame for his terrorism lies the Templars who thought that sentence was a good idea.  That punishment was incontrovertibly cruel, there's no "perhaps" to it.  Yes, the Templars were bored, there's no justifiable reason to do that to someone.  Just kill them and be done with it, seriously.  But don't pretend that a year long sentence of solitary confinement is in any sense humane, such that it's somehow a "nicer" punishment than execution.[/quote]
Anders exhibits no adverse side effects from his punishment. Since his change of personality coincided with his demonic possession, I'd say the demon living in his head is more responsible for Anders' criminal actions than the templars.

The punishment for running six times needs to be harsh or there is nothing discouraging the mages from attempting it. And yes, it's preferable to an execution. There is nothing worse than death.

[quote]Back to the actual point of this bit of discussion, I repeat that this is victim-blaming, and I reject it as having any validity.  I notice you didn't address my point that you might as well argue that slaves who try to escape from their masters only to be caught, are to blame for subsequent punishments inflicted on them merely because they knew it was a potential consequence.  I don't buy this, because the person responsible for the punishment is the person inflicting it.  They are certainly NOT forced to carry it out.  I'm not going to reduce this matter to a math equation of cause-and-effect literalness, because we're talking about human beings here, and inhumane punishment for a person wanting to be liberated from inhumane incarceration.  Once you claim that Anders is to blame for his punishments, you have to also claim that real world slaves are to blame for being whipped or mutilated or killed after being caught trying to escape, because the reasoning is identical, and that's a reprehensible way to think.[/quote]
One of the key differences between us that will always prevent us from agreeing is that while you see the Circle system as inhumane and slave-like, I see it as a reasonable, just and necessary precaution meant to contain society's most dangerous elements while still granting them a confortable life.
Therefore, you see Anders as a freedomg figther while I see him as a dangerous criminal.

We should be able to, however, agree that mages are not slaves. Unlike actual slaves, mages have rights and freedoms that must be respected by law.

[quote]
I've heard this argument before, and I reject it just as soundly.  You're saying that no person enslaved to a brutal and unjust institution should ever try to escape, because doing so might make life harder for their fellow prisoners.  It's just another way of telling a person to accept their lot, no matter how terrible it is or how badly they want to be free of it.[/quote]
I'm saying that people shouldn't break the law. That if the templars show leniency, don't simply take advantage of it for your own ends.
All he's proving is that mages can't be trusted. Give them some freedom and they demand more and more until they're the ones in charge.

[quote]
 This is another argument I really despise. "You really should just stop your whining, other people have it just as bad/worse than you do!"  is not an appropriate response to one group being unhappy with their own lot.  That other people in the world may have it worse, or have it just as bad in a different way, hardly means that the first group's suffering is invalid or should not be improved.  The ONLY reason to make this argument is to shut that first group up and try to dismiss or invalidate their suffering.  Think about it.  I suffer extreme migraines that periodically hurt so bad I spend an entire week whining and ****ing.  One of my co-workers suffers from debilitating trigeminal neuralgia. Without an objective way to measure, if I were to guess I'd argue her pain is worse than mine, and as a double-whammy, her pain doesn't respond to medication.  But the fact she has it worse doesn't mean that the pain I have to deal with is somehow mitigated, or that I don't have a right to be unhappy about my own troubles.[/quote]
Your pain and that of your co-worker's are unrelated matters, healing one would have no effect on the other and neither would prolongue one's suffering ease the other. If you were demanding a time off from your job while she comes to work during her worst periods, then I'd say "that a look at her". No offense.

Mages demand freedom. And yet, if closely analyzed, we can see that their lives are, in many ways, preferable to that of the supposedly "free men". Therefore, pro-templars such as myself have a basis to wonder if it's worth it to endager the well being of normal people to grant mages an even better quality of life when it is already, in many ways, well above the norm.

[quote]
This is the second time I've seen you say that "Circles are, more often than not, luxurious towers."  What exactly are you basing this on? We've seen exactly TWO towers that mages live in, the Ferelden Circle and the one in Orlais.  Two, out of what, fourteen Circles, total?  Two towers out of fourteen doesn't qualify as "more often than not," and between these two, I would hardly call Ferelden's tower luxurious.[/quote]
We've seen or read about three Circles. Two of which; Ferelden and Orlais; were luxurious when compared to the average living conditions in Thedas. Even the Gallows were far more sumptuous than Lowtown.
We also know the nevarran mages are wealthy and hold influence therefore, it's reasonable to assume they don't live in shacks.
So, that's three our of four Circles where living conditions far surpass that of a peasant's home. That is "more often than not." We might see other Circles where this isn't the true but for now, the norm is "the Circle is a luxurious tower."

[quote]Also, the luxuriousness of a tower doesn't change the fact that a peasant in, say, Redcliffe, can walk about freely for the most part.  Their limitations are put in place by their financial standing and such life choices as what kind of work they are involved in, etc.  Not quite the same thing as being forced to stay within the walls of a tower not by your own choice but because big men with swords guard the exit.[/quote]
People like to proudly declare "Give me freedom or give me death" but all that quickly wanes in the face of hunger. The truth is that most human beings who have known hunger would gladly go to a place where they are promised three meals a day.

[quote]
This is another pointless version of "Sure you have it bad, but you don't have to worry about X like I do!"  Peasants have to deal with certain everyday troubles that mages don't...how exactly does this make the infringement on mages' personal freedoms okay? [/quote]
See above.
 
[quote]Where is it said that the Nevarran Circle is quite wealthy and influential?[/quote]
I said it. "World of Thedas." The upcoming encyclopedia. I can post the preview here if you wish, you can read for yourself.

[quote]For that matter, does that mean that the individual mages within the Circle are wealthy?[/quote]
If nothing else, it means the community is.

[quote]And what the HELL does it have to do with the personal liberties of mages there? Does the wealth and influence of this Circle mean that the average mages within it have more liberties than mages of other Circles?[/quote]
Riches and influence usually translate into greater personal freedoms, yes. 

[quote]
I agree that the lot of city elves is dire, though I won't argue that it's MORESO than that of mages.  Nor will I argue that this somehow means that mages should be happy as larks about their own situation.  That's ludicrous, just like the notion of equality between elves and humans within the Circle, which isn't true in the least.  Certain individuals may see humans and elves as equal, but some ain't all, and there's plenty of evidence within the game to show that racism doesn't cease to exist at the door to a Circle's walls.[/quote]
The current Grand Enchanter is an elven woman. The First Enchanter of Kirkwall was an elf.
Sure, there might a racist mage or templar here and there but in general, since mages are classified as such not because of their race but because of their magic and are feared equally by mundanes, they have learned to unite under this shared ability.
Mages have enough enemies without dividing into factions because of their race.

[quote]Your assertion that alienage elves would jump at the chance to move to the Circle...given that the Circle only takes the mage child, not the whole family, I'm not sure what you mean here.  I'm sure a few elves might think their child would be getting a chance at a better life, but more than a few would focus only on the fact that their child is being taken away from them permanently.  And alienage elves DON'T actually have any reason to know just what life is like within Circle walls, so there's no reason to assume that they'd automatically think of it as a better option.[/quote]
Strong walls to keep peopkle like Vaughan out, equality between humans and elves, confortable beds, light work, three meals a day and guards who actually have an interest in keeping them alive because they are a valuable resource if nothing else.
I mantain that most city elves would jump at the opportunity to join a Circle if they could and knew the truth about it.

[Silfren]

Silfren wrote...

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

It'd be nice for you to say something beyond just leaving a drive-by quote, since there's no way to know what your point is otherwise.

First of all you could read into it what you will

Which was my entire point.  Quotes like that are utterly useless for discussion without context.

w0lfam0da1s wrote...
My point is this...
However we look at what was done and who is to blame is how we see it.
The truth of it is...(besides the writers of course) She is the only one who knows why she did or didn't do things that we as the watchers of the "play" believe she should of done or not done.

Firstly, grammar maven moment, you're mistaking the contraction "should've" to mean "should OF," but actually it's "should HAVE."  Sorry, couldn't restrain myself this particular morning.

I rather dislike this kind of reasoning, and I've heard it several times in regards to Elthina.  "Only SHE can know what she REALLY meant/was trying to do."  I really don't get what the purpose is of expressing it other than to basically be telling people that you're tired of their arguments and speculations, and you want to give them a clichéd one-liner to try and shut them up. 

Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? That players shouldn't or aren't allowed to speculate over her intentions or ability?  It's a no-brainer concept, as it applies to EVERYONE, real or imagined.  Only the person actually living inside their own head can ever TRULY know what it is they are trying to accomplish, obviously.  But it doesn't follow that the rest of us can't pretty well figure things out by looking at the available evidence, including the actions and words of the person in question.

Nor do I think that the evidence can be neatly summed up as being interpreted according to the eyes of the beholder.  The evidence, as far as I'm concerned, paints a very damning picture, and personally I see counter-claims to this interpretation as completely unconsidered and illogical.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 mars 2013 - 06:11 .

[Silfren]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Perhaps not, but I wasn't analyzing the validity or worthiness of the request, just pointing out that when a great number of people rebel en masse, that's a pretty reliable indicator that they were distinctly NOT happy with their lot, which means that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand that perhaps that lot wasn't so great as a person NOT living under it would claim.[/quote]
People can't be trusted to analyze their lives with any objectivity. An outsider looking in on Thedas will likely offer a more fair and impartial judgement.
If a great number of templars decide that guarding the mages is too much trouble and they should just be Tranquilized on birth, should we take this wish into consideration?
That's how I feel about this rebellion in...nicer words.[/quote]

Holy crap, you've got a very negative opinion of people.  There is NO better analyst of a person's life than that person.  Objectivity is not the point here.  An outsider doesn't get to be the judge on the quality of another person's life.  Only the person actually walking around in their own shoes knows what the hell those shoes are like.

Outsiders to a realm are not nearly so fair and impartial as you apparently prefer to believe.  The people actually LIVING in a given situation are going to have a much greater understanding of it.  Again, objectivity is not really the point.  At least not in terms of judging the quality of an individual's life.  That's a...very libertarian viewpoint, I must say.

[quote] MisterJB wrote...
[quote] Silfren wrote...
Read up a bit on the psychological effects that solitary confinement can induce...and think about its implications, given the road that Anders ultimately went down, because it could legitimately be said that the blame for his terrorism lies the Templars who thought that sentence was a good idea.  That punishment was incontrovertibly cruel, there's no "perhaps" to it.  Yes, the Templars were bored, there's no justifiable reason to do that to someone.  Just kill them and be done with it, seriously.  But don't pretend that a year long sentence of solitary confinement is in any sense humane, such that it's somehow a "nicer" punishment than execution.[/quote]
Anders exhibits no adverse side effects from his punishment. Since his change of personality coincided with his demonic possession, I'd say the demon living in his head is more responsible for Anders' criminal actions than the templars.[/quote]

I find the idea that Anders has suffered no adverse effects to be laughable, but in any case, it doesn't do anything to refute my point that solitary confinement is inexcusably inhumane.  I do agree that it's a shame that any ill effects on Anders can be hand-waved away with the spirit possession mechanic, rather than having an opportunity to explore the damage inflicted by his incarceration.  However, I maintain that solitary confinement is a harmful practice, and whether or not Anders did or didn't experience mental deterioration as a result doesn't change that it carries enough potential for devastating psychological injury that it is not humane.  Certainly a year-long sentence is not justifiable.
[quote] MisterJB wrote...
The punishment for running six times needs to be harsh or there is nothing discouraging the mages from attempting it. And yes, it's preferable to an execution. There is nothing worse than death.[/quote]

Says who?  You? That may be the case for YOU, but it isn't for everyone.  I certainly DO think that death would be preferable to potentially being driven insane by confinement, and certainly a better option than being made Tranquil.

[quote] MisterJB wrote...
One of the key differences between us that will always prevent us from agreeing is that while you see the Circle system as inhumane and slave-like, I see it as a reasonable, just and necessary precaution meant to contain society's most dangerous elements while still granting them a confortable life.
Therefore, you see Anders as a freedomg figther while I see him as a dangerous criminal.

We should be able to, however, agree that mages are not slaves. Unlike actual slaves, mages have rights and freedoms that must be respected by law.[/quote]
No, I do not agree that mages are not slaves.  They ARE.  As far as I'm concerned this is irrefutable.  Having (limited) rights does not invalidate this.  Especially when the exercise of those rights depends on the whim of the individual Knight Commander and any Templars under their command.

You DO realize, I hope, that in the real world there have been cultures which extended certain limited rights to slaves?  Slavery isn't defined as having zero rights at all.  So if that's your yardstick for determining whether mages are slaves, you need to reconsider it.  On the same subject, by the way, in certain societies slaves even had the opportunity to *gasp* earn money.  Again, though, this doesn't mean they weren't slaves.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
I've heard this argument before, and I reject it just as soundly.  You're saying that no person enslaved to a brutal and unjust institution should ever try to escape, because doing so might make life harder for their fellow prisoners.  It's just another way of telling a person to accept their lot, no matter how terrible it is or how badly they want to be free of it.[/quote]
I'm saying that people shouldn't break the law. That if the templars show leniency, don't simply take advantage of it for your own ends.
All he's proving is that mages can't be trusted. Give them some freedom and they demand more and more until they're the ones in charge.[/quote]

Gee.  Can't POSSIBLY be proving simply that some people just dislike being held prisoner and will take any opportunity to escape.  Can't POSSIBLY indicate just that the system is inherently cruel the way it expects people to accept unjust incarceration and constant supervision.

In saying that people shouldn't break the law, you've completely avoided addressing the question of whether the law is just.  Getting away from this particular situation, if there WERE a situation that you believed involved unfair and unjust imprisonment, would you still think that the people adversely affected by it would somehow be obligated NOT to rebel against it?

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
 This is another argument I really despise. "You really should just stop your whining, other people have it just as bad/worse than you do!"  is not an appropriate response to one group being unhappy with their own lot.  That other people in the world may have it worse, or have it just as bad in a different way, hardly means that the first group's suffering is invalid or should not be improved.  The ONLY reason to make this argument is to shut that first group up and try to dismiss or invalidate their suffering.  Think about it.  I suffer extreme migraines that periodically hurt so bad I spend an entire week whining and ****ing.  One of my co-workers suffers from debilitating trigeminal neuralgia. Without an objective way to measure, if I were to guess I'd argue her pain is worse than mine, and as a double-whammy, her pain doesn't respond to medication.  But the fact she has it worse doesn't mean that the pain I have to deal with is somehow mitigated, or that I don't have a right to be unhappy about my own troubles.[/quote]
Your pain and that of your co-worker's are unrelated matters, healing one would have no effect on the other and neither would prolongue one's suffering ease the other. If you were demanding a time off from your job while she comes to work during her worst periods, then I'd say "that a look at her". No offense.[/quote]

You've managed to totally miss my point, which is that one person's pain cannot be used as a way to measure the validity of another's.  Nor, it should be said, should one person's ability to HANDLE their pain be used as a method of determining whether someone else should be able to do the same.  If you actually do think that one person being able to tolerate pain means you get to say to another person "Take a look at them," then that's just a really sh!tty way to think and to treat people.  Congratulations, if you actually think that way it tells me all I need to know about your mindset.




[quote]Mages demand freedom. And yet, if closely analyzed, we can see that their lives are, in many ways, preferable to that of the supposedly "free men". Therefore, pro-templars such as myself have a basis to wonder if it's worth it to endager the well being of normal people to grant mages an even better quality of life when it is already, in many ways, well above the norm.[/quote]Thing is, you cannot adequately claim to understand what life is like for a mage if you have not lived their lifestyle and known first hand their daily experience of being under constant suspicion.  You are completely dismissing this as having any bearing at all on their living situation, and you can't do that and expect to be taken seriously as an objective analyst.  The alleged privileges that mages have over others are NOT the only factor to consider; the reality of being under constant guard and never being allowed to do practically ANYTHING without permission is not so trivial a thing that it can be disregarded. 

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
This is the second time I've seen you say that "Circles are, more often than not, luxurious towers."  What exactly are you basing this on? We've seen exactly TWO towers that mages live in, the Ferelden Circle and the one in Orlais.  Two, out of what, fourteen Circles, total?  Two towers out of fourteen doesn't qualify as "more often than not," and between these two, I would hardly call Ferelden's tower luxurious.[/quote]
We've seen or read about three Circles. Two of which; Ferelden and Orlais; were luxurious when compared to the average living conditions in Thedas. Even the Gallows were far more sumptuous than Lowtown.
We also know the nevarran mages are wealthy and hold influence therefore, it's reasonable to assume they don't live in shacks.
So, that's three our of four Circles where living conditions far surpass that of a peasant's home. That is "more often than not." We might see other Circles where this isn't the true but for now, the norm is "the Circle is a luxurious tower."[/quote]

I knew what you meant, but I was being a bit facetious and literalistic, though I can see I missed the mark by using "tower" interchangeably with Circle" myself.  Oops.  Anyway, we've seen two TOWERS.  A Circle is not synonymous with Tower.  Going forward, I still maintain that there was NOTHING luxurious about Ferelden's Circle.  But part of the conflict here is that I don't think a gilded cage is anything more than...a gilded cage.  I don't give a rat's ass about the luxuriousness of a place I'm living in if the price of living there means that I can't go outside without permission, and have to walk about under guard if I do get permission.  Nor do I care about it if it means I'm not allowed to have a private conversation without skulking about like a wanted criminal just to find a hidden corner.

Three out of FOURTEEN is not more often than not, we have to remember that there are fourteen Circles in all, not just those we've seen (not counting Tevinter).  I don't accept using the Circles we've seen as a rule for all, especially when three is far from a majority of fourteen, I do not agree that two of those Circles we saw were as luxurious as you claim, and it has been stated within the lore that conditions at each Circle differ considerably. 



[quote]MisterJB wrote...People like to proudly declare "Give me freedom or give me death" but all that quickly wanes in the face of hunger. The truth is that most human beings who have known hunger would gladly go to a place where they are promised three meals a day.[/quote]Yet I have the experience of having traded freedom for security, without knowing what I was getting into, and I didn't much like it.  I also know a few other individuals with the same experience.  We liked having food, yes, but we did NOT like the accompaniment of loss of freedom or autonomy.  And while I do think that anyone accustomed to irregular meals would INITIALLY appreciate the security of three guaranteed meals, I don't think it follows that they would be okay with the loss of freedom, especially after a given period of time. 

Security is a good thing.  But freedom also is a good thing, and it is no small thing either.  You insist that people would gladly give up ALL freedom in exchange for security, and I disagree.  Maybe initially, again, but I don't believe anyone would accept the lot mages are subjected to on a permanent basis.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
I agree that the lot of city elves is dire, though I won't argue that it's MORESO than that of mages.  Nor will I argue that this somehow means that mages should be happy as larks about their own situation.  That's ludicrous, just like the notion of equality between elves and humans within the Circle, which isn't true in the least.  Certain individuals may see humans and elves as equal, but some ain't all, and there's plenty of evidence within the game to show that racism doesn't cease to exist at the door to a Circle's walls.[/quote]
The current Grand Enchanter is an elven woman. The First Enchanter of Kirkwall was an elf.
Sure, there might a racist mage or templar here and there but in general, since mages are classified as such not because of their race but because of their magic and are feared equally by mundanes, they have learned to unite under this shared ability.
Mages have enough enemies without dividing into factions because of their race.[/quote]

*eyeroll*  And Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, President Obama.  Point being, to avoid getting too real-worldy, is that individual success stories don't invalidate the general racism of the day.  Need I remind you that the Hero of Ferelden could potentially be an Elf, and could also potentially be an adviser to the monarch or have a place at the Landsmeet, or be both Arlessa of Amaranthine and Teyrnir of Gwaren?  You're not about to claim that racism against elves evaporated in that climate, I hope.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Your assertion that alienage elves would jump at the chance to move to the Circle...given that the Circle only takes the mage child, not the whole family, I'm not sure what you mean here.  I'm sure a few elves might think their child would be getting a chance at a better life, but more than a few would focus only on the fact that their child is being taken away from them permanently.  And alienage elves DON'T actually have any reason to know just what life is like within Circle walls, so there's no reason to assume that they'd automatically think of it as a better option.[/quote]

Strong walls to keep peopkle like Vaughan out, equality between humans and elves, confortable beds, light work, three meals a day and guards who actually have an interest in keeping them alive because they are a valuable resource if nothing else.
I mantain that most city elves would jump at the opportunity to join a Circle if they could and knew the truth about it.[/quote]

"And knew the truth about it."  Key phrase, there.  

With zero way of knowing ahead of time whether the Circle walls have people like Vaughn within them, whether elves are more equitably treated, etc.  Alienage elves HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.  What basis do they have to assume that life is better within the Circle?  Last I checked, the Chantry didn't allow visitor's passes to the Circle for day trips.  Certainly not for the average citizens, and absolutely not for alienage elves.

Your assertion requires elves to believe that things are different, but I don't believe that they would have any reason whatsoever NOT to think that elves living within the Circle are treated EXACTLY the same as they are elsewhere.  People who are treated abysmally at all levels of society are going to generally be made too cynical to believe there is such a Happy Magical Place of Equality...especially when the HMPoE is, er, operated by the very institution that led to the elves' sad state of existence in the first place.  Honestly, this is a ludicrous way to think.  But I also don't believe that an alienage elf would necessarily be okay with being under constant guard and supervision.  They face constant suspicion as it is within their alienage walls, and that's WITH some degree of basic freedom to come and go.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 mars 2013 - 10:46 .

[TEWR]

Anders exhibits no adverse side effects from his punishment.

Ehh.... I wouldn't say that. He's got a very negative opinion of the Circle and Templars that's pretty strong as far as we had seen in DAO and kinda struck me as the type who used jokes to mask his inner demons.

Figuratively, of course.

Anyway, solitary confinement for even a few days on end can be dangerous to one's mental health. A year is just... not right.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Anders exhibits no adverse side effects from his punishment.

Ehh.... I wouldn't say that. He's got a very negative opinion of the Circle and Templars that's pretty strong as far as we had seen in DAO and kinda struck me as the type who used jokes to mask his inner demons.

Figuratively, of course.

Anyway, solitary confinement for even a few days on end can be dangerous to one's mental health. A year is just... not right.

Note also that, on the argument that a punishment needs to be severe after six escape attempts in order to discourage more escape attempts...

Yet a year's worth of solitary confinement was NOT persuasive enough to convince Anders that freedom wasn't worth it, given his seventh escape, the one that finally took.  I'd say that speaks volumes. 

(It also speaks volumes that Anders seemed quite satisfied to accept all the downsides to being a Warden in exchange for the greater freedom it provides him).

And wasn't Anders from a peasant farm?  I don't recall for certain, but he was taken away at the age of twelve, assuming any part of his short story can be taken as canon.  That's old enough to recognize hardship.  Yet there's nary a word from Anders about finding life in the Circle preferable to the horrid life of being a peasant.  Neither is there any indication in the game lore that peasant citizens are totally thrilled to have their children taken away on the grounds said child will have a better, more secure life.

I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that if that was a valid argument within the game lore, it would be an actual part of the dynamic.  The question of mages is supposed to be morally ambiguous after all, and if we were expected to consider the alleged higher standard of living as compared with the average Thedosian as balancing out the loss of freedom, I'd expect to hear this argument far more often from within the world itself.  It would definitely provide some balance, if we were shown that Thedas is such a brutal place for the average peasant that mages have it great by comparison.  But so far we've seen no such thing. 

I wonder if we should probably get this back to the subject of Elthina.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 mars 2013 - 10:59 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
And wasn't Anders from a peasant farm?  I don't recall for certain, but he was taken away at the age of twelve, assuming any part of his short story can be taken as canon.  That's old enough to recognize hardship.  Yet there's nary a word from Anders about finding life in the Circle preferable to the horrid life of being a peasant

Anders is someone who deals with ideals rather than reality. He asks that mages police themselves without acknowledging the fact that many such polices would ignore crimes commited by other mages against mundanes.
He claims that templars force mages to resort to forbidden magic without acknowledging that life is not meant to be easy and that there will always be a source of suffering or other that will force a mage to abuse his powers.
It doesn't suprise me he wouldn't acknowledge the hardships mundanes go through everyday

Ultimately, Anders is a dreamer with an idealized fantasy of how the world should be rather than how it is. He goes so far as to commit an act of terrorism to provoke change despite having no plan whatsoever how to achieve said change, meanwhile forcing every mage in Kirkwall to become a martyr against their wills.
Because "things can't stay as they are." Maker, I utterly despise this fictional character.

Neither is there any indication in the game lore that peasant citizens are totally thrilled to have their children taken away on the grounds said child will have a better, more secure life.

Likely because most parents, upon learning their child is a mage, look on him or her as being a demonspawn and want the kid as far away from them as possible. We have several cases.
Families like Meredith's or Isolde are the exception rather than the rule. And they pay the price eventually.

I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that if that was a valid argument within the game lore, it would be an actual part of the dynamic.  The question of mages is supposed to be morally ambiguous after all, and if we were expected to consider the alleged higher standard of living as compared with the average Thedosian as balancing out the loss of freedom, I'd expect to hear this argument far more often from within the world itself.  It would definitely provide some balance, if we were shown that Thedas is such a brutal place for the average peasant that mages have it great by comparison.  But so far we've seen no such thing. 

In DA2, Anders compared magic to a bow or a sword. Unfortunately, Hawke did not have the option to affirm that simply because two tools serve the same purpose; kill; that doesn't make them identical and worthy of equal treatment. Both a 9mm and a nuclear bomb kill, but you wouldn't claim they should be regulated in the same manner, correct?
Is the absence of this argument evidence of its weakness or simply a gap from Bioware?

If DAI allows us to use more arguments, all the better. But we shouldn't forget that DA is written by people like us who can make mistakes.
Thankfully, Evangeline uses this argument in Asunder. Perhaps the Inquisitor will do the same in DAI.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...
Likely because most parents, upon learning their child is a mage, look on him or her as being a demonspawn and want the kid as far away from them as possible. We have several cases.
Families like Meredith's or Isolde are the exception rather than the rule. And they pay the price eventually.

You don't actually know if they are the exception or not.  There's no way of knowing how many parents hide their children from the Chantry.  I also don't believe for one second that most children look upon their children as demonspawn.  I've no doubt that some, perhaps many, do, but this is as MUCH because of the Chantry's anti-mage rhetoric as it is actual cause for fear.  Yes, Virginia, it is possible to recognize the potential danger your child poses WITHOUT hating them for merely existing. 

Isolde is a shining example of how the Chantry's practice of vilifying magic beyond reason is more detrimental than beneficient.

I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that if that was a valid argument within the game lore, it would be an actual part of the dynamic.  The question of mages is supposed to be morally ambiguous after all, and if we were expected to consider the alleged higher standard of living as compared with the average Thedosian as balancing out the loss of freedom, I'd expect to hear this argument far more often from within the world itself.  It would definitely provide some balance, if we were shown that Thedas is such a brutal place for the average peasant that mages have it great by comparison.  But so far we've seen no such thing. 

In DA2, Anders compared magic to a bow or a sword. Unfortunately, Hawke did not have the option to affirm that simply because two tools serve the same purpose; kill; that doesn't make them identical and worthy of equal treatment. Both a 9mm and a nuclear bomb kill, but you wouldn't claim they should be regulated in the same manner, correct?
Is the absence of this argument evidence of its weakness or simply a gap from Bioware?

Actually I would.  I am totally, positively, in favor of a near-total ban on guns, if that's the question I'm being asked.  I see the difference between a 9mm gun and a nuclear bomb as merely one of scale.  Both are intended solely for killing people, and on that basis should be completely banned.  But let us not have THAT argument.

As far as the question of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, I do concede that possible point, but as far as what Bioware puts in the game or leaves out...a gap may be an unintentional oversight on the part of the Devs, but it becomes part of the game's lore nevertheless.  

If DAI allows us to use more arguments, all the better. But we shouldn't forget that DA is written by people like us who can make mistakes.
Thankfully, Evangeline uses this argument in Asunder. Perhaps the Inquisitor will do the same in DAI.

That remains to be seen.  One of the most compelling arguments, for me, is that for all its insistence that mages are dangerous and always subject to corruption and possession, no matter how nobly-minded a mage is, or how strong-willed, that the risk of possession is always too great no matter those circumstances.  If that's true, then it makes ZERO sense that any mage could buy or earn their way to living freely, but several mages do just that.  Sorry, but either all mages are are constant risk of possession by virtue merely of existing, or they are not.  If the risk is really THAT great, then there's no excuse for permitting the wealthier and more connected, or more influential, mages loose.  Again, however, this happens.  Likewise, I personally would expect the Chantry to be a tad more proactive in bringing its collective might down on Rivain and other nations that permit mages significant or total freedom.  That this is not happening lends credence, in my view, to the theory that it's primarily a power struggle with the Chantry, who takes existing danger and blows it out of all proportion, especially by taking advantage of the occasional mage-oriented tragedy.  I've never denied that sh!t happens, obviously.  But the case of the abomination that went on the loose and killed about 70 people in the course of a year before being put down?  Is not an everyday, common occurrence, and should not be used as such to justify mage imprisonment.  In real world terms, I roll my eyes for the same reason when people in, say, the (U.S.) Midwest, freak out over news of a sniper in the Northeast, and start behaving as if snipers are a problem of epidemic proportions in this nation, rather than a rare event.  In other words, perspective is a good thing.

[CrimsonZephyr]

"The punishment for running six times needs to be harsh or there is nothing discouraging the mages from attempting it. And yes, it's preferable to an execution. There is nothing worse than death."

Eh, what's life when all the rest is gone? Living life as a lobotomite would not be preferable to death.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 04 mars 2013 - 08:23 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Silfren wrote...

I find the idea that Anders has suffered no adverse effects to be laughable, but in any case, it doesn't do anything to refute my point that solitary confinement is inexcusably inhumane. [/quote]

Bollocks.
Everything is inhumane to you people. You think you can solve all the problem by siting down and talking.


[quote]
I do agree that it's a shame that any ill effects on Anders can be hand-waved away with the spirit possession mechanic, rather than having an opportunity to explore the damage inflicted by his incarceration.

 However, I maintain that solitary confinement is a harmful practice, and whether or not Anders did or didn't experience mental deterioration as a result doesn't change that it carries enough potential for devastating psychological injury that it is not humane.  Certainly a year-long sentence is not justifiable.[/quote]

In the case of psycho-Anders? Lifetime would be justifiable.



[quote]
Says who?  You? That may be the case for YOU, but it isn't for everyone.  I certainly DO think that death would be preferable to potentially being driven insane by confinement, and certainly a better option than being made Tranquil.[/quote]

Death is irreversable.
Tranquility apprently is not.


[quote]
[quote] MisterJB wrote...
One of the key differences between us that will always prevent us from agreeing is that while you see the Circle system as inhumane and slave-like, I see it as a reasonable, just and necessary precaution meant to contain society's most dangerous elements while still granting them a confortable life.
Therefore, you see Anders as a freedomg figther while I see him as a dangerous criminal.

We should be able to, however, agree that mages are not slaves. Unlike actual slaves, mages have rights and freedoms that must be respected by law.[/quote]

No, I do not agree that mages are not slaves.  They ARE.  As far as I'm concerned this is irrefutable.  Having (limited) rights does not invalidate this.  Especially when the exercise of those rights depends on the whim of the individual Knight Commander and any Templars under their command.[/quote]

Mages are not slaves. Period.
Not by any valid definition of the word. Even the devs think so.


[quote]
[quote]MisterJB wrote...
Gee.  Can't POSSIBLY be proving simply that some people just dislike being held prisoner and will take any opportunity to escape.  Can't POSSIBLY indicate just that the system is inherently cruel the way it expects people to accept unjust incarceration and constant supervision.

In saying that people shouldn't break the law, you've completely avoided addressing the question of whether the law is just.  Getting away from this particular situation, if there WERE a situation that you believed involved unfair and unjust imprisonment, would you still think that the people adversely affected by it would somehow be obligated NOT to rebel against it?[/quote]


Geez and can't templars POSSIBLY be proving that dangerous people HAVE to be locked away, even if they don't want it?

Mages liking their lot or not is not really relevant, because they will NEVER completely like it. Unless they are in charge that is...

Tempalrs and common folk are OBLIGATED to lock mages up. And if mages are OBLIGATED to try and rebel then the common folk is OBLIGATED to friggin put them down.



[quote]
Thing is, you cannot adequately claim to understand what life is like
for a mage if you have not lived their lifestyle and known first hand
their daily experience of being under constant suspicion.[/quote]

And have you lived a life of an average Thedosian? A mundane fellow that lost his entire village to an abomination? No?
Mages should be glad to be left alive at all.

Circels are utterly, completely and totally reasonable and justified.



[quote]
Security is a good thing.  But freedom also is a good thing, and it is no small thing either.  You insist that people would gladly give up ALL freedom in exchange for security, and I disagree.  Maybe initially, again, but I don't believe anyone would accept the lot mages are subjected to on a permanent basis.[/qutoe]

SOME Freedom... And guess what - you do give up some of it already.
You are beholden to the state in many ways. Total freedom is an illusion.

Mages are really not given a choice about joining the Circles and neither should they be given one.
Yes they should accept their lot and live in practical reality, like everyone else does.


[quote]
*eyeroll*  And Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, President Obama.  Point being, to avoid getting too real-worldy, is that individual success stories don't invalidate the general racism of the day.  Need I remind you that the Hero of Ferelden could potentially be an Elf, and could also potentially be an adviser to the monarch or have a place at the Landsmeet, or be both Arlessa of Amaranthine and Teyrnir of Gwaren?  You're not about to claim that racism against elves evaporated in that climate, I hope.[/quote]

It is factual that the Circles are the least racist places in Thedas.
IIRC; the devs confirmed it.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 04 mars 2013 - 09:11 .

[w0lfam0da1s]

Silfren wrote...

Silfren wrote...

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

It'd be nice for you to say something beyond just leaving a drive-by quote, since there's no way to know what your point is otherwise.

First of all you could read into it what you will

Which was my entire point.  Quotes like that are utterly useless for discussion without context.

w0lfam0da1s wrote...
My point is this...
However we look at what was done and who is to blame is how we see it.
The truth of it is...(besides the writers of course) She is the only one who knows why she did or didn't do things that we as the watchers of the "play" believe she should of done or not done.

Firstly, grammar maven moment, you're mistaking the contraction "should've" to mean "should OF," but actually it's "should HAVE."  Sorry, couldn't restrain myself this particular morning.

I rather dislike this kind of reasoning, and I've heard it several times in regards to Elthina.  "Only SHE can know what she REALLY meant/was trying to do."  I really don't get what the purpose is of expressing it other than to basically be telling people that you're tired of their arguments and speculations, and you want to give them a clichéd one-liner to try and shut them up. 

Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? That players shouldn't or aren't allowed to speculate over her intentions or ability?  It's a no-brainer concept, as it applies to EVERYONE, real or imagined.  Only the person actually living inside their own head can ever TRULY know what it is they are trying to accomplish, obviously.  But it doesn't follow that the rest of us can't pretty well figure things out by looking at the available evidence, including the actions and words of the person in question.

Nor do I think that the evidence can be neatly summed up as being interpreted according to the eyes of the beholder.  The evidence, as far as I'm concerned, paints a very damning picture, and personally I see counter-claims to this interpretation as completely unconsidered and illogical.

We believe what we want to believe.
That isn't true all together but it holds water. so to speak.

I'll give you a real life example from my own life.

People see how I treat my mother. How I talk to my mother. Its all loveing and caring. That's how I show it to the world.

However I truly can't stand the woman. I wish I was never born of her egg. That is putting it nicely.

But for the ones watching and lisening to how it plays out they don't know the truth.
And I'm talking about people like my brothers and sister and the ones in the close nit family circle.

The people who I've told the truth don't believe. I'm just saying what I say about not loving my mother is just for show. Because they see how I act around her and all. They can't or will not believe that it is all for her benifit not mine. That  what I show to her and the world is the real me but its not. Not when it comes to my mother.

So much of waht we see is specilation on our parts. Even when we hear the words and see the action or inaction with our own eyes and ears.

Not every thing it black and white. Life is more gray then we want it to be.

There are wolves in the world and sometimes they can be the good guys.

Take that for what you will

Good day

Modifié par w0lfam0da1s, 04 mars 2013 - 07:00 .

[w0lfam0da1s]

Silfren

You are like the people who believe the sky is blue and the grass is green.
When that is not completly true.

Example is
Kentucky blue grass. No not the music.
Kentucky blue grass is call blue grass because it gives off a blue color not green. Its something natural in its genitic makeup that allows it to be that way.

So take that for what you will

Good day

Modifié par w0lfam0da1s, 04 mars 2013 - 07:09 .

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I find the idea that Anders has suffered no adverse effects to be laughable, but in any case, it doesn't do anything to refute my point that solitary confinement is inexcusably inhumane.

Bollocks.
Everything is inhumane to you people. You think you can solve all the problem by siting down and talking.

No, it isn't bollocks.  A little research on the psychological effects of solitary confinement makes this abundantly clear.  Dismissing it out of hand with "bollocks" won't change it. 

By the way, following your one-word dismissal of the inhumaneness of solitary confinement with "everything is inhumane to you people," is a pitiful attempt for a counter-argument.  The question of whether or not I consider ANYTHING to be inhumane or not--which is untrue, I don't--has no bearing on whether solitary confinement itself is inhumane.  Keep your writing coherent, please, and stop trying to mash things up.  It's an obvious attempt to discredit my point by muddling the subject, something you're good at, and I'm here for actual debate and argumentation, like I've gotten thus far from MisterJB, not your disingenuous, dishonest nonsense.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Says who?  You? That may be the case for YOU, but it isn't for everyone.  I certainly DO think that death would be preferable to potentially being driven insane by confinement, and certainly a better option than being made Tranquil.

Death is irreversable.
Tranquility apprently is not.

Neither of which anything to do with the price of tea in China, so what's your point, exactly?

Mages are not slaves. Period.
Not by any valid definition of the word. Even the devs think so.

Yes, they are.  I daresay I'd like to know just what your "valid" definition of slavery is, but I already know for a fact that mages fit the role quite well.  I suspect that your assertion, incorrect as it is, stems from the assumption that the model of American slavery prior to the 1860s is the only model of slavery which has ever existed, even though this assumption is factually wrong, but I don't know for certain so I'll leave it at that. 

The only reference I know of a Dev's opinion is Gaider saying something about not personally agreeing that the mages are slaves and thinking that that is an extremist opinion (just from memory), but I think that his opinion relies on a very limited understanding of slavery.  Me, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'd prefer to call it a duck instead of trying to whitewash it into a swan.

Mages within Circles have to get permission to leave their walls.  Permission is not something freely given, and when it is given, it's usually provided with at least one guard, if not a small contingent.  Check.

Circle Mages are heavily discouraged from having sexual relationships, and any children that occur when said relations happen anyway, in ALL cases the children are taken away, becoming the de factor property of the Chantry.

Mages are supervised at all times, watched over so thoroughly that many mages feel they have to look for an opportunity to hide just to have a private conversation.  Check.

it is deemed illegal to be a mage living outside the auspices of the Circle, period, unless this permission is granted due to an individual mage's exceptional circumstances, involving fame or wealth.  All other mages are automatically considered criminals under the law.  When found, they are expected to go into the Circle, voluntarily or by force, the alternative being summary execution.  Check.

All these factors, and more, point toward the condition of slavery.  For that matter, several points o f the Circle system fall under the definition of genocide according to the U.N., and no, you don't get to dismiss this point as invalid on the claim of it being a modern concept inapplicable to the DA setting.  The concept is explicitly named in Dragon Age, which makes it quite valid, and that was deliberate on the part of the Devs, so clearly they DO intend for the comparison to be made.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Circels are utterly, completely and totally reasonable and justified.

They MAY be necessary.  I clearly don't think they are, but necessary they MIGHT be.  But being necessary doesn't make them reasonable or just, and in their current form they most certainly are neither.

SOME Freedom... And guess what - you do give up some of it already.
You are beholden to the state in many ways. Total freedom is an illusion.

I'm well aware that I give up some freedom already.  I'm also aware that total freedom is an illusion.  At NO point have I said otherwise, so this is just another strawman argument from you.  I have also NEVER said that mages should be so totally free that they have no restrictions whatsoever. 

Mages are really not given a choice about joining the Circles and neither should they be given one.
Yes they should accept their lot and live in practical reality, like everyone else does.

....If people were in the habit of accepting sh!t lots in life, within the civilized world slavery would still be legal, women would still be property, we'd have no workers' protection laws, etc. 

To bring this back to Thedas, I suppose Andraste should just have accepted her lot and not rebelled against the Tevinter Imperium.  

It is factual that the Circles are the least racist places in Thedas.
IIRC; the devs confirmed it.

Depends on how they confirmed it.  I'm not going to simply take "The Devs confirmed it" without reading what the Devs actually said in context.  Besides that, there's a huge chasm between "no racism at all," and "least racist island in a sea of racism."  

Modifié par Silfren, 05 mars 2013 - 12:36 .

[Silfren]

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

*snipping all the personal stuff about your family*

Not every thing it black and white. Life is more gray then we want it to be.

There are wolves in the world and sometimes they can be the good guys.

I don't see much of a comparison between Elthina's situation and your attempt at an analogy.  If the Devs wanted us to consider the possibility that Elthina was doing something all the while she was whining that she could not do anything, we'd have been fed that information in some way.  Best as I can recall, we were given no such thing.  This is how writing works: Every scrap of information we see is intended to provoke speculation of some kind.  I recall no instance of anything, anywhere, to suggest that Elthina was trying to work behind the scenes while keeping up the façade of weakness and the attempt to maintain neutrality. 

I DO see evidence that she was quite possibly manipulating several characters.

I'm aware that not everything is black and white.  I'm not sure why you feel I need this announcement, because my belief that Elthina was at best useless and incompetent, and at worst a manipulator has nothing to do with that question.  People CAN be ambiguously gray, but sometimes they can also be pretty blatantly black or white.

[Lazy Jer]

Silfren wrote...

I recall no instance of anything, anywhere, to suggest that Elthina was trying to work behind the scenes while keeping up the façade of weakness and the attempt to maintain neutrality.

Work behind the scenes to do what?  Because the statement that she was meeting with Meredith and Orsino does suggest she was doing something.   

I DO see evidence that she was quite possibly manipulating several characters.

What evidence?

I'm aware that not everything is black and white.  I'm not sure why you feel I need this announcement, because my belief that Elthina was at best useless and incompetent, and at worst a manipulator has nothing to do with that question.  People CAN be ambiguously gray, but sometimes they can also be pretty blatantly black or white.

I don't see how Elthina is black and white, frankly.  Yes, she could have done more, but she could have done less as well.  She doesn't allow the Tranquil Solution or the Rite of Annulment, both of which had the potential to make her life easier, either by making all the mages in the Circle tranquil and thus easier to control and the other would have placated Meredith enough to get her out of her hair.  She could have told Meredith and Orsino to F off and solve their problems for themselves, but she meets with them in an attempt to solve their problems peacefully.  She didn't know Meredith was possessed and thus completely beyond reason, no one did except for Bartam and he wasn't exactly a roadmap of information either.

You see someone who was black and white useless and incompetent.  I see someone who was incompetent, yes, but with a desire to solve the problems peacefully rather then simply calling Orlais to send the skull-bashers in.

[Silfren]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I recall no instance of anything, anywhere, to suggest that Elthina was trying to work behind the scenes while keeping up the façade of weakness and the attempt to maintain neutrality.

Work behind the scenes to do what?  Because the statement that she was meeting with Meredith and Orsino does suggest she was doing something.

Anything, really.  I was responding to the other poster's thing about not knowing Elthina's true intentions. 

Where is it said that Elthina was meeting with Meredith and Orsino?  I don't recall ever getting this.  Did she meet with them separately or together?  I'd love some details, if there are any. 

Even so, this says nothing about Elthina's failure to sanction Meredith's abuses or her overreach of political power.

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I DO see evidence that she was quite possibly manipulating several characters

What evidence?

I see it in the way Elthina played Sebastian, especially in his short story.  I see it in the fact that Elthina is directly responsible for Meredith's position.  I see it in the fact that Elthina permitted Meredith to block the instatement of a new viscount. 

I also see it in the way Elthina handled Sister Petrice.  Especially the way Elthina gives absolutely none of the f!cks when/if Petrice is murdered right in her own Chantry. 

How about the fact that you can shove the fact of Alrik's crimes in her face and get...nothing.

There's only two options that I can see. Elthina is either the single most incompetent woman on the planet, or she's up to something and doing a damn good job of hiding her manipulation behind the façade of a sweet but weak and helplessly old lady. 

I don't see how Elthina is black and white, frankly.  Yes, she could have done more, but she could have done less as well.  She doesn't allow the Tranquil Solution or the Rite of Annulment, both of which had the potential to make her life easier, either by making all the mages in the Circle tranquil and thus easier to control and the other would have placated Meredith enough to get her out of her hair.  She could have told Meredith and Orsino to F off and solve their problems for themselves, but she meets with them in an attempt to solve their problems peacefully.  She didn't know Meredith was possessed and thus completely beyond reason, no one did except for Bartam and he wasn't exactly a roadmap of information either.

You see someone who was black and white useless and incompetent.  I see someone who was incompetent, yes, but with a desire to solve the problems peacefully rather then simply calling Orlais to send the skull-bashers in.

Elthina was the person of authority in Kirkwall.  Literally the only person higher up the chain is the Divine.  She COULD have done even less, but I'm not sure that that justifies the fact that she did not do more.  And she SAID she wanted a peaceful solution, but her actions..and even the things she said, indicate something quite different.  Most of all, the fact is you can't be neutral on a moving train, as the saying goes, and by claiming neutrality, Elthina was effectively siding with the side who had all the power. 

Modifié par Silfren, 05 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

Where is it said that Elthina was meeting with Meredith and Orsino? I don't recall ever getting this. Did she meet with them separately or together? I'd love some details, if there are any.

Even so, this says nothing about Elthina's failure to sanction Meredith's abuses or her overreach of political power.

Elthina herself says it, I believe. IIRC, it was talking in the sense of meeting with them together. Certainly not enough -- your last sentence in your post sums it up perfectly -- but she was doing something as opposed to nothing.