1082 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Do we have that written out or heavily implied in the Codex? That mages freely mingled? And that the populace wasn't constantly afraid of being massacred in groups of 70-100 at a time by abominations before the other mages put it down? If you can demonstrate all of that, it would be a pretty good argument for your point.[/quote]

You know perfectly well that this is an unreasonable demand.[/quote]

Says the pot. How does it feel?
[/quote]

The fact you resorted to an ad hominem shows just how weak your argument is.  The point is that the burden of proof is on the system that requires you to treat a group inhumanely.  Not the other way around.  I also pointed out a LOT of suggestive evidence that indicates that I am in fact correct.[/quote]

That was more a joke at your expense than anything else. The main point was below. (I apologize for not making that clearer.)
[/quote]

I did not take it as a joke.  I also think it reflects a weakness in your position.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
The obvious ad hominem aside, my point was that in the absence of what I wanted you to show, all you can show is that its been done. You can't show thats a remotely good idea.
[/quote]

The difference is that you have the burden of proof.  Not me.[/quote]

You cited evidence you claimed helps your case. I am noting a major weakness in it. Burden of proof limitedly shifts to you for the purpose of that sub-topic.
[/quote]

I cited evidence that I said was suggestive.  I never said it was declarative so the burden does not shift.  What I am saying is that you need to prove a morally problematic system is the best way to solve a problem.  That burden of proof hasn't shifted.  I suggest that it's probably wrong anyway and I cite a lot of compelling evidence that backs this (making my guess an educated one), but I never claimed it was proof.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
We do know from the History of the Circle, Codex Entry that the Andrastian Circle system was the first time in the history of Thedas ANYWEHRE that mages were seperated from non-mages in society.  We also know that the Ancient Tevinters tracked the bloodline for magic of almost every family in the Imperium.  That being so, it sure strongly suggests that in Ancient Tevinter mages and non-mages did freely intermingle (although in ancient Tevinter being a mage tended to make you part of the upper class...a point I don't dispute for Tevinter).[/quote]

And which is half the point the Circle system's defenders raise.
[/quote]

Fallaciously raise.  Tevinter is it's own culture that has always put a high premium on magic.  This is not a universal condition. [/quote]

I would argue special pleading, since that's where this discussion seems to have shifted. The mages got away with a takeover in Tevinter. But for the Circle system, or at least just the Templars, what stops them from managing it elsewhere? They might not even need force: if it weren't for the abomination thing, Connor would have been the Arl of Redcliffe. Maybe he wouldn't start favoring mages, maybe his son and grandson wouldn't. If this happens enough times, though, the odds of an aristocracy becoming a mageocracy goes up.
[/quote]

I reject your special pleading.  You seem to be engaging in a slippery slope fallacy here (and I note a lot of Templar supporters do) when the argue that a magocracy is 'inevitable'.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
As for the fear of abominations, apparently they weren't that afraid.  Otherwise Minrathus during the Height of the Ancient Imperium couldn't have been a true Metropolis (ie have a population of nearly a million people or more).   IF abominations were really that big a danger, there is no way a city of that size should have been able to form at all and that can be shown by fairly simple statistics.

-Polaris[/quote]

The argument that if abominations were overly dangerous Minrathous wouldn't have formed is a reasonably well thought out argument, but the problem is that the existence of Kirkwall tends to dispove it. They go on rampages in Kirkwall with enough frequency to be worthy of note by scholars, with Meredith's sister apparently killing 70 people, and yet there's still a city there.[/quote]

70 people in a year once every few generations is not a lot, and I note that Meredith's sister's incident happened BECAUSE of the circle system (and her family was afraid of sending her to the circles). [/quote]

Who said once every few generations? We don't know the rate, just that its noticeably higher than it ought to be. Besides, at a certain point, even a number of deaths insufficient to destroy a city is enough to merit keeping a relatively small minority under lock and key. It is not enough to merit the abuses Meredith's parents might have been scared of, but if all they were thinking of was that they didn't want their child removed from their house, then they were wrong, not society.
[/quote]

We don't know the exact rate, but we can make some inferences based on the Enigma Codex entries.  I also note that the very fact that parents fear losing their children at all is not a good place to start, and that too I lay on the feet of the Chantry.

I am not saying that the circle system was the sole reason for any of those incidents, but it's very existance and nature sure played a leading role at the very least.

[quote]
[quote]
I also note that Kirkwall was a slave center and it's veil was artificially lowered by the Tevinters long ago.  If you read the Enigma codecies, you find that the death rate in Kirkwall was always horrifically high, but the Tevinters kept sending in more replacement slaves.

So no, Kirkwall is not a valid counterexample to my argument.  Kirkwall was not formed under the conditions it now has.  Minrathus was.

-Polaris[/quote]

My main point was that if your logic here, while well thought out, applied to Thedas, Kirkwall would probably have dwindled a lot in population. For that matter, fires were for a long time a relatively dangerous problem in cities compared to in other areas. They still formed.[/quote]

Actually from what I can gather the population of Kirkwall has dwindled (at least from Ancient Tevinter days).  I also note that even in Kirkwall the abomination rate doesn't seem to be all that high.  It wasn't until Act III when Meredith started losing it that we were awash with loads of evil abominations and bloodmages.  They happened, but in smaller numbers until then.  I also note that Kirkwall also is still a forced labour centre and tends to get a lot of 'immigration' which helps balance out the death rate.

Finally Kirkwall was constructed after the fact by the Tevinters for a particular reason.  That means the normal rules about how cities organically grow simply don't apply to Kirkwall.

Frankly on a meta-level, this is one reason (and this gets back a bit to the original topic) I really dislike DA2.  It seems that the entire Kirkwall setting was designed to be an exception to almost all the other known rules and lore in Thedas, and it was designed to make the Mages look as bad as possible....and it was done without really telling the player just how abnormal Kirkwall really is.

-Polaris

[Insaner Robot]

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Polaris, David Gaider himself stated (in a reply to you actually) that the tranquil are not automotons and would refuse an order if they saw a reason to.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6901812&lf=8

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
For the whole of Thedas that is probably true. But the Dalish seem to embody this concept to some degree already. It certainly doesn't seem that the Dalish resent their Keepers for the station they hold by birthright, nor do the Keepers oppress the mundanes in their charge.

The Keepers are autocrats. The Dalish are reverent of them, but that's not very different from how minor nobles and peasants owe fealty to their liege lords. Marethari didn't give a flying **** about the lives of her elves when she kept them in Kirkwall for the sake of Merrill, and Zathrian was perfectly willing to let his people die in a mess that he started. 

I might agree with you on the resent part, from what we've seen, but the Keepers are certainly autocrats. 

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Ahem, as per Gaider, tranquil have free will.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6901812#6910050

Um, even DG admitted that 'free will' without the emotional cotext to use it was problematic very best, and in DA2 the Tranquil always do exactly what they are told.  This is a place where I don't think DG fully understands his own lore.  This is an old arguement between us.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Ahem, as per Gaider, tranquil have free will.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6901812#6910050

Um, even DG admitted that 'free will' without the emotional cotext to use it was problematic very best, and in DA2 the Tranquil always do exactly what they are told.  This is a place where I don't think DG fully understands his own lore.  This is an old arguement between us.

-Polaris

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

[IanPolaris]

Insaner Robot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Polaris, David Gaider himself stated (in a reply to you actually) that the tranquil are not automotons and would refuse an order if they saw a reason to.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6901812&lf=8

But DG also admitted that they would lack the emotional context with which to do so.  DG doesn't understand that emotional context is a crticial part of free will.  It's an old argument but the DA2 Tranquil (unlike the DAO ones) do act exactly as they are told.  Ser Alrik even gloats as much.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

Um, even DG admitted that 'free will' without the emotional cotext to use it was problematic very best, and in DA2 the Tranquil always do exactly what they are told.  This is a place where I don't think DG fully understands his own lore.  This is an old arguement between us.

-Polaris

Tranquil are more akin to Vulcans than slaves. They maintain their freewill, but are governed completely by logic rather than emotion.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

Player choice doesn't effect the nature of Tranquility. Therefore, that is canon.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Um, even DG admitted that 'free will' without the emotional cotext to use it was problematic very best, and in DA2 the Tranquil always do exactly what they are told.  This is a place where I don't think DG fully understands his own lore.  This is an old arguement between us.

-Polaris

Tranquil are more akin to Vulcans than slaves. They maintain their freewill, but are governed completely by logic rather than emotion.

No.  If you must make the comparison, Tranquil would be more like LCdr Data.  Vulcans have emotions.  They severely control them, but Vulcans have and understand (and can even appreciate from a distance) emotional context. 

Tranquil are closer to automatons than people which makes the ability to make a decision from freewill problematic.

-Poalris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

But that's still an example of a tranquil having free will. Even if the events of Asunder aren't canon, that doesn't affect a depiction of the nature of tranquil. Even if some characters aren't alive in it's story that's what would happen if they were.

Also, Data most certainly does have free will.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 02 juin 2013 - 09:19 .

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

Player choice doesn't effect the nature of Tranquility. Therefore, that is canon.

That coversation may not have happened depending on player choice.  THerefore it's NOT canon.  Now if the devs want to redefine Tranquility in DA:I to include this, then it will be, but right now it's not.  Right now we only have DAO and DA2 to go on, and in DA2 it is clear (and the Karl even says this when he briefly regains himself) that Tranquil do what they are told because they can't conceive not doing so.  Go watch that scene with Karl again in DA2 and try to tell me that Tranquil have free will.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

But that's still an example of a tranquil having free will. Even if the events of Asunder aren't canon, that doesn't affect a depiction of the nature of tranquil. Even if some characters aren't alive in it's story that's what would happen if they were.

And Karl which we see in DIrect Game play that ALL players must experience explicitly tells you that Tranquil don't have free will.  He says specifically that being tranquil means you never consider the possibility of not obeying an order.  That trumps anything in Asunder at least right now I think.

-Polaris

[Lulupab]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

Player choice doesn't effect the nature of Tranquility. Therefore, that is canon.

That coversation may not have happened depending on player choice.  THerefore it's NOT canon.  Now if the devs want to redefine Tranquility in DA:I to include this, then it will be, but right now it's not.  Right now we only have DAO and DA2 to go on, and in DA2 it is clear (and the Karl even says this when he briefly regains himself) that Tranquil do what they are told because they can't conceive not doing so.  Go watch that scene with Karl again in DA2 and try to tell me that Tranquil have free will.

-Polaris

Also this means Anders is immune to tranquility. A traquil's mind is cut off from fade but when a spitit is imbued with your very self you can't be cut off from the fade therefore Anders cured Karl's tanquility briefly by just calling Justice and Karl says he feels The fade itself burning like a sun inside Anders.

[IanPolaris]

Rassler wrote...

Also this means Anders is immune to tranquility. A traquil's mind is cut off from fade but when a spitit is imbued with your very self you can't be cut off from the fade therefore Anders cured Karl's tanquility briefly by just calling Justice and Karl says he feels The fade itself burning like a sun inside Anders.

I believe this is correct.  Anders or for that matter any "possessed" mage can't be made tranqiil assuming we understand the process correctly. 

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

But you do accept what some dude on the internet says that Felcia Day told him about the Dalish as proof of whether there are non-mage Keepers? Lol. 

Modifié par In Exile, 02 juin 2013 - 09:25 .

[Hazegurl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Ahem, as per Gaider, tranquil have free will.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6901812#6910050

Um, even DG admitted that 'free will' without the emotional cotext to use it was problematic very best, and in DA2 the Tranquil always do exactly what they are told.  This is a place where I don't think DG fully understands his own lore.  This is an old arguement between us.

-Polaris

You've heard it here first people! Polaris understands DA lore better than the man who wrote it. LOL!!

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

That coversation may not have happened depending on player choice.  THerefore it's NOT canon.  Now if the devs want to redefine Tranquility in DA:I to include this, then it will be, but right now it's not.  Right now we only have DAO and DA2 to go on, and in DA2 it is clear (and the Karl even says this when he briefly regains himself) that Tranquil do what they are told because they can't conceive not doing so.  Go watch that scene with Karl again in DA2 and try to tell me that Tranquil have free will.

-Polaris

Tranquil obey orders because there is no logical reason not to. If there is a logical reason not to obey, then they won't obey. If you told a Tranquil to kill himself, he wouldn't just do it because there is no reason to follow that order.

[Mr.House]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

Only two characters that are in Asunder can be dead, not "many".

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...


That coversation may not have happened depending on player choice.  THerefore it's NOT canon.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a fallacy.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Says the pot. How does it feel?
[/quote]

The fact you resorted to an ad hominem shows just how weak your argument is.  The point is that the burden of proof is on the system that requires you to treat a group inhumanely.  Not the other way around.  I also pointed out a LOT of suggestive evidence that indicates that I am in fact correct.[/quote]

That was more a joke at your expense than anything else. The main point was below. (I apologize for not making that clearer.)
[/quote]

I did not take it as a joke.  I also think it reflects a weakness in your position.[/quote]

My apologies, then. That said, I also think that devaluing my argument based on this has its own weakness.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
The obvious ad hominem aside, my point was that in the absence of what I wanted you to show, all you can show is that its been done. You can't show thats a remotely good idea.
[/quote]

The difference is that you have the burden of proof.  Not me.[/quote]

You cited evidence you claimed helps your case. I am noting a major weakness in it. Burden of proof limitedly shifts to you for the purpose of that sub-topic.
[/quote]

I cited evidence that I said was suggestive.  I never said it was declarative so the burden does not shift.  What I am saying is that you need to prove a morally problematic system is the best way to solve a problem.  That burden of proof hasn't shifted.  I suggest that it's probably wrong anyway and I cite a lot of compelling evidence that backs this (making my guess an educated one), but I never claimed it was proof. [/quote]

Except that it doesn't strongly suggest that its safe to follow this example, except if you have the evidence I ask for. Besides which, I've mostly given up defending the Circles, in favor of "Neither of us has proof, so we'll wait and see." At this point I'm just hanging around and contributing corrections to others' logic. (You might note that I corrected a pro-Circle argument that I believed to be flawed.)

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
And which is half the point the Circle system's defenders raise.
[/quote]

Fallaciously raise.  Tevinter is it's own culture that has always put a high premium on magic.  This is not a universal condition. [/quote]

I would argue special pleading, since that's where this discussion seems to have shifted. The mages got away with a takeover in Tevinter. But for the Circle system, or at least just the Templars, what stops them from managing it elsewhere? They might not even need force: if it weren't for the abomination thing, Connor would have been the Arl of Redcliffe. Maybe he wouldn't start favoring mages, maybe his son and grandson wouldn't. If this happens enough times, though, the odds of an aristocracy becoming a mageocracy goes up.
[/quote]

I reject your special pleading.  You seem to be engaging in a slippery slope fallacy here (and I note a lot of Templar supporters do) when the argue that a magocracy is 'inevitable'.[/quote]

I didn't say its inevitable. I said that if we want to stop it from happening rather than trusting it won't, this is how we do so. If you say its morally better to trust, fine. Just know that it might raise problems later, and that that's something to take into account now.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]

The argument that if abominations were overly dangerous Minrathous wouldn't have formed is a reasonably well thought out argument, but the problem is that the existence of Kirkwall tends to dispove it. They go on rampages in Kirkwall with enough frequency to be worthy of note by scholars, with Meredith's sister apparently killing 70 people, and yet there's still a city there.[/quote]

70 people in a year once every few generations is not a lot, and I note that Meredith's sister's incident happened BECAUSE of the circle system (and her family was afraid of sending her to the circles). [/quote]

Who said once every few generations? We don't know the rate, just that its noticeably higher than it ought to be. Besides, at a certain point, even a number of deaths insufficient to destroy a city is enough to merit keeping a relatively small minority under lock and key. It is not enough to merit the abuses Meredith's parents might have been scared of, but if all they were thinking of was that they didn't want their child removed from their house, then they were wrong, not society.
[/quote]

We don't know the exact rate, but we can make some inferences based on the Enigma Codex entries.  I also note that the very fact that parents fear losing their children at all is not a good place to start, and that too I lay on the feet of the Chantry.

I am not saying that the circle system was the sole reason for any of those incidents, but it's very existance and nature sure played a leading role at the very least.[/quote]

A lot of the problem with Isolde was that she found it embarassing that Connor was a mage, maybe with the added problem that the Circle is run by the Chantry, in a lot of ways abusively. That's probably a lot of the problem under Meredith as well. Take the stigma and the abuse out of the equation, and things might be different. If not, then it reaches the point where you have to wonder if maybe the parents are the ones in the wrong.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
I also note that Kirkwall was a slave center and it's veil was artificially lowered by the Tevinters long ago.  If you read the Enigma codecies, you find that the death rate in Kirkwall was always horrifically high, but the Tevinters kept sending in more replacement slaves.

So no, Kirkwall is not a valid counterexample to my argument.  Kirkwall was not formed under the conditions it now has.  Minrathus was.

-Polaris[/quote]

My main point was that if your logic here, while well thought out, applied to Thedas, Kirkwall would probably have dwindled a lot in population. For that matter, fires were for a long time a relatively dangerous problem in cities compared to in other areas. They still formed.[/quote]

Actually from what I can gather the population of Kirkwall has dwindled (at least from Ancient Tevinter days).  I also note that even in Kirkwall the abomination rate doesn't seem to be all that high.  It wasn't until Act III when Meredith started losing it that we were awash with loads of evil abominations and bloodmages.  They happened, but in smaller numbers until then.  I also note that Kirkwall also is still a forced labour centre and tends to get a lot of 'immigration' which helps balance out the death rate.[/quote]

Since I've never played DA2, does anyone note that anyone with half an ounce of sense is elsewhere by this point? Because while I would be somewhere in Nevarra in response to Meredith really cracking down, whether or not I was a mage, your original logic is somewhat weakened unless a lot of Kirkwall's citizens agree. (Or unless Meredith prevents them from leaving, which I'll concede right now helps your case.)

[quote]
Finally Kirkwall was constructed after the fact by the Tevinters for a particular reason.  That means the normal rules about how cities organically grow simply don't apply to Kirkwall.[/quote]

I'll concede that, but it should nonetheless depopulate when reason is shown for it to do so.

[quote]
Frankly on a meta-level, this is one reason (and this gets back a bit to the original topic) I really dislike DA2.  It seems that the entire Kirkwall setting was designed to be an exception to almost all the other known rules and lore in Thedas, and it was designed to make the Mages look as bad as possible....and it was done without really telling the player just how abnormal Kirkwall really is.

-Polaris[/quote]

Now that we can agree on.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 09:51 .

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
In the real world, yes. In Thedas, maybe?

Yeah, I meant IRL.

I don't know if there could be none. The Confucian ideal of social harmony actively discourages people from moving beyond their station.

Well, I'm not sure anyone would accept that the solution to the mage-templar war is a revised version of the Qun where the parts about mages being bad are struck out.

Of course, where is that ideal today... but there may have been some period of time where it did work to some extent.

I think the comfortable life part is probably more key than hope of climbing the social ladder, though. The cutthroat nature that the latter can breed can be disharmonious in itself.

But the social ladder is pretty well rewarding from an early point if you're really smart. If you're in a professional program, and capable enough to come out of school near its upper echelon, you're realistically in a position to have lots of status and comfort. 

My point is just that you can't have a society that values social movement and is harminous if it's rigidly classist. The Qun enforces classes via religion. But if we did that, we'd just be creating a different kind of theocratic exploitation.

They are autocrats, yes. I dunno if you can say Marethari and Zathrian "don't care" though except as a reflexive distrust of autocrats.

Marethari kept her people near Kirkwall so long they were getting convert or die demands. And all of her decisions were based on what she believed Merrill's best interest was - she didn't give a fig about her people, in comparison, or their best interests.

And the same with Zathrian. Beyond the fact that he propagated a lie about his own immortality and made a mockery of his people's beliefs, he let the werewolves hunt and transform his people just to continue sating his need for revenge. 

[Stella-Arc]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And yet it apparently happens in Asunder. A Tranquil sees a reason not to report Rhys, and decides instead to warn him to be out of there, giving him a timetable in which it'd be best to be gone by. When Evangeline notes surprise the Tranquil says "I make a habit of obeying because I'm not stupid. That's not the same as not having free will."

Asunder isn't canon.  At least not yet.  Some events in Asunder are canon (like the breakup of the Chantry and the cure for Tranquility), but many of the characters in Asunder aren't even alive in all playthoughts.  So I don't accept this as a valid counter-source.  At least not yet.

-Polaris

I usually agree with your points (sometimes) but the events in Asunder are canon except for a few things. The Tranquil disobeying an order did happen becuase it doesn't jeopardize player choice in the games. At this point, your are nitpicking. The Tranquil sees the logic of not reporting Rhy's and no emotion is needed to make the decision. If you ever watched I Robot, you will know that it was logical for the Robot to save Del but a human wouldn't see it that way. Because the child was young, it is (usually) universally accepted to save the child first if given the chance. Del was closer to the surface, the girl wasn't (Del had a higher chance of living probability-wise). So logically, Del was saved but the time it took to take him out of the car, the girl sunk. But logic in of itself is subjective so I doubt a consensus can be struck whether a Tranquil has free-will or not. I believe they do but their decisions can be seen as abnormal.

On the whole topic on hand...I don't care any more about the mages and the templars. DAII made sure of that.  

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

Tranquil no longer have any self-will.  That means they are incapable of making a choice of their own volition, and that makes them slaves (unless they volunteer in which case they are indentured servents).  In either case, they have no ability to make a freewilled choice.

-Polaris

Given the lack of humanity with the tranquil, that's why Alrik turned female mages tranquil to use them as sex slaves, and why Owain was so dehumanized that he worked in a storeroom instead of asking Wynne to lower the barrier for his own protection. Even Karl referred to his tranquility as being a "templar puppet".