I have been fans of you guys for years. Most of your innovations have been nothing short of brilliant, and I salute you.
But, my thanks offered, there's something I'd like to say that I hope at least one Bioware employee is reading.
I don't approve of the way the storywriters handled the Templar vs. Mage conflict in Dragon Age 2, because it's set up a situation in the upcoming Dragon Age 3 that, in my opinion, has no third options, unlike say the clashes of civilizations in Mass Effect 3.
The people on this board arguing over whether the Mages are right or the Templars are right will ultimately be arguing FOREVER. It ultimately isn't about our beliefs or our conclusions (side
with the mages or the Templars?). The real problem is our
premises/assumptions/starting points by which we use to interpret the
world are radically different. Thought is composed of multiple elements: purposes, questions, assumptions, point of view, information, concepts, inferences/conclusions, and implications/consequences.
You were trying to write a story of conflicting points of view or conclusions. In my opinion, however, what has happened instead is that we are being presented with a clash of radically different ASSUMPTIONS from which to begin, and conflicts like that can't be solved; according to Aristotle, for example, in order to solve disagreements and figure out who's right, if anybody, you have to agree on starting points on which to base the ensuing discussion (for example, if you want to argue with someone over whether the late President Andrew Jackson was a tyrant or a hero, before you even begin you and your opponent have to come to an agreement as to what the definition of "hero" or "tyrant" is. Then you can figure out which one, or both at different times, applies to Jackson).
But this story not only presents people who can't agree on whether or not certain people's actions are ethical or unethical, they can't even agree on what unethical behavior or ethical behavior would look like!
Mostly, this is a clash between three sides rather than two, and the sides are demarcated not by their mage/templar opinions but by the starting point by which they use to judge this issue and all others:
1) people who think individuals have inalienable human rights since birth, and that we're not allowed to be controlled or messed with or harmed unless we have harmed others. These people would usually side with the Mages, since the Templars punish the innocent along with the guilty by robbing the innocent of control over their lives; thus the innocent mages, as individuals, are being treated as though they are part of a guilty collective even though the individuals have done nothing wrong. Furthermore, they are taught since birth that the Maker considers their magic a sin and an abomination, they are worthless as human beings unless they control themselves (in the manner the Chantry asks them to). It goes without saying that if you're beginning from the assumption that people have human rights unless they have actually harmed others, the Templars are in the wrong and the Mages are in the right...but simultaneously, the same people would argue that Anders was not justified in bombing the Chantry, since even if the mages need to be freed, Anders chose a message that robbed innocent people of both their freedom and their lives. In shorthand I could classify this as the classical Founding Father position. Incidentally, full disclosure, this happens to be the camp to which I belong.
2) people who think that noble ends justify foul means, that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and additionally who define "noble ends" as making a world where everyone is as free and/or happy and/or truthful as humanly possible, even if you temporarily have to rob certain people of their rights, for the greater good. This is basically Anders' position, as well as the position of pro-mage fans who additionally approve of Anders' last act. It could also be classified as the "anarchist" position.
3) people who think that noble ends justify foul means, that you can't make
an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and additionally who define
"noble ends" as making a world where everything is as "orderly" or "harmonious" or "secure" as possible, even if to achieve this you dispense with the idea of human rights and classify certain people as unworthy of ethical consideration, so that an even greater amount of people can sleep easily at night. Again, for the greater good. This is basically the Templars' position as well as that of pro-Templar fans. It could also be classified (at various points in history) as China's position, or (at various points in history) Japan's position, or the position of various Utopian (capital because proper name, not adjective) experiments in history, or (at various points in history) Russia's position, etc.
Because of all of that the fans are NEVER going to agree with each other. Furthermore, the implications are also worrying: fans who theoretically belong to a culture based on human rights and individual liberty are arguing in favor of enslaving mages; that's what's worrying if you're on the mages' side. If you're on the templars' side, then fans who theoretically desire world peace and an end to war are arguing in favor of a war Anders started in order to achieve noble ends.
In short, I'm worried that due to the way both Dragon Age 2's story was handled and how Dragon Age 3's story might be handled as a consequence, this could have worrying implications for our collective capacity to empathize with each other.
Thank you very much in advance, esteemed Bioware employees, at least for reading my post and giving it careful consideration, even if you decide I'm just spouting nonsense.
Much luck to you in all future endeavors, and here's hoping for the best when Dragon Age 3 is released.
Modifié par MartialArtsMaster, 27 février 2013 - 08:50 .
Retour en haut
.
