1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: See, I see a conflict of Man Vs. Nature in the idea.

If magic - which provides every reason to succumb to it - also tries to coerce us toward the negative. Only a man's better nature could use it and overcome - but the struggle would be endless.

These people are born with it - they can't deny it (except through Tranquility or Death).  It's compelling to me.

It doesn't change the debate on how such a person should be treated. Templar oppression is still just that.

Happy magic land where magic is "just a tool" - I've got plenty of those worlds and even Harry Potter comes to some very condemning realizations about magic in his world (and he doesn't have demons clawing at his soul).

I'm not so fond of this "demonic temptation" scenario. Too much religious conceits in it I don't agree with. Magic provides enough temptation by the power it gives mages, we don't need to externalize it by using demonic possession, and I think that externalizing it is intellectualy dishonest in the first place. 

I would rather have magic be something like the fae power in Celia S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy - a natural force that reacts to human desires and dreams, gives them shape in form of magical life forms and bestows special powers under specific conditions, so whatever "demonic" (or beneficial) shape it takes exists only because it echoes human desires. I If you interpret the Fade that way, then we are creating the demons and other spirits out of a "psychic substance" which reacts to our desires. This scenario is every bit as dangerous, and in fact what we have on Thedas can be explained with such a mechanism, only without referral to things like "intrinsically evil spirits".     

[LobselVith8]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I thought that was very well-written, Dragonflight! Two interesting and different perspectives from a mage and a dwarven Warden.

Thanks! I had a lot of fun writing them.

De nada. It seemed evident you put a lot of thought into it.

I haven't written any 'manifesto' of sorts for my character, but I was toying around with an idea for my character (that Xil actually came up with), where his writings inspired the Resolutionists - the off-shoot of the Libertarians who seem vaguely defined, at the moment, aside from the fact that they are at war with the Chantry of Andraste because of their grip over the Circles of Magi.

Since there didn't seem to be much follow up to the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Circle of Ferelden to be emancipated (except for the brief implication that it rifled up all the Circles per Meredith), the idea that the Resolutionists were birthed by the ideas of the Hero of Ferelden is an interesting concept (that is owed to the imagination of Xil, but one I happily pursue for my own Warden).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'm not so fond of this "demonic temptation" scenario. Too much religious conceits in it I don't agree with. Magic provides enough temptation by the power it gives mages, we don't need to externalize it by using demonic possession, and I think that externalizing it is intellectualy dishonest in the first place.

A fictional world is intelectually dishonest because it's not built the way you want it to?

That's a new one....

[Ieldra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I thought that was very well-written, Dragonflight! Two interesting and different perspectives from a mage and a dwarven Warden.

Thanks! I had a lot of fun writing them.

De nada. It seemed evident you put a lot of thought into it.

I haven't written any 'manifesto' of sorts for my character, but I was toying around with an idea for my character (that Xil actually came up with), where his writings inspired the Resolutionists - the off-shoot of the Libertarians who seem vaguely defined, at the moment, aside from the fact that they are at war with the Chantry of Andraste because of their grip over the Circles of Magi.

Since there didn't seem to be much follow up to the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Circle of Ferelden to be emancipated (except for the brief implication that it rifled up all the Circles per Meredith), the idea that the Resolutionists were birthed by the ideas of the Hero of Ferelden is an interesting concept (that is owed to the imagination of Xil, but one I happily pursue for my own Warden).

I can't but imagine that a surviving mage Warden is hugely influential. The list of possible influences:
(1) Gave the Circle of Ferelden autonomy.
(2) Chose the king of Orzammar.
(3) Was involved in the etablishment of a Circle at Orzammar
(4) Ruled an arling of Ferelden (against the Chantry's stricture)
I wrote my manifesto assuming that mages would use him for inspiration anyway, whether he wanted it or not, and if that's how things are, it's better to state his stance on things openly than to be used as an inspiration by people he wouldn't support. There is little more annoying than having served as an inspiration for the wrong sort of people.

@Lotion Soronnar:
A fictional world can do what it wants, but in reality, temptation exists within ourselves, not externalized as separate entities. Externalizing it - as has been done in history and is still done by some cultures, so it's not just a conceit for fictional worlds - leads to the delusion that whatever we might call evil is a separate force instead of existing as an aspect of ourselves, and that humans are its potential victims instead of its primary perpetrators. *That*, not the fiction, I find intellectually dishonest. Using the concept of externalized temptation in fiction is something I don't like because it feeds the delusion. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 juin 2013 - 10:01 .

[LobselVith8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

De nada. It seemed evident you put a lot of thought into it.

I haven't written any 'manifesto' of sorts for my character, but I was toying around with an idea for my character (that Xil actually came up with), where his writings inspired the Resolutionists - the off-shoot of the Libertarians who seem vaguely defined, at the moment, aside from the fact that they are at war with the Chantry of Andraste because of their grip over the Circles of Magi.

Since there didn't seem to be much follow up to the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Circle of Ferelden to be emancipated (except for the brief implication that it rifled up all the Circles per Meredith), the idea that the Resolutionists were birthed by the ideas of the Hero of Ferelden is an interesting concept (that is owed to the imagination of Xil, but one I happily pursue for my own Warden).

I can't but imagine that a surviving mage Warden is hugely influential. The list of possible influences:
(1) Gave the Circle of Ferelden autonomy.
(2) Chose the king of Orzammar.
(3) Was involved in the etablishment of a Circle at Orzammar
(4) Ruled an arling of Ferelden (against the Chantry's stricture)
I wrote my manifesto assuming that mages would use him for inspiration anyway, whether he wanted it or not, and if that's how things are, it's better to state his stance on things openly than to be used as an inspiration by people he wouldn't support. There is little more annoying than having served as an inspiration for the wrong sort of people. 

@Lotion Soronnar:
A fictional world can do what it wants, but in reality, temptation exists within ourselves, not externalized as separate entities. Externalizing it leads to the delusion that whatever we might call evil is a separate force instead of existing as an aspect of ourselves, and that humans are its potential victims instead of its primary perpetrators. *That*, not the fiction, I find intellectually dishonest. Using the concept of externalized temptation in fiction is something I don't like because it feeds the delusion.  

True, I imagine there would be serious ramifications for a mage turned international hero, especially one who advocated mage autonomy and presided as a high noble over Amaranthine, her people, and her army, with lesser nobles swearing fealty to this mage noble. I can see mages across Thedas flocking to Amaranthine, looking for safety, and possibly even a leader. That doesn't even factor into account how elves would respond to an elven mage being the leader of a human arling!

As for inspiration, that's certainly true. I figure that the Resolutionists are currently so poorly defined that they could be heroic or malevolent, depending on how they're written in the future. Or as ambiguous as Battlestar Galactica's Season 3 human resistance, fighting the Cylon leadership by any means necessary.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ieldra2 wrote...
A fictional world can do what it wants, but in reality, temptation exists within ourselves, not externalized as separate entities. Externalizing it - as has been done in history and is still done by some cultures, so it's not just a conceit for fictional worlds - leads to the delusion that whatever we might call evil is a separate force instead of existing as an aspect of ourselves, and that humans are its potential victims instead of its primary perpetrators. *That*, not the fiction, I find intellectually dishonest. Using the concept of externalized temptation in fiction is something I don't like because it feeds the delusion. 

Except they are not externalized.

The existance of TheDas demons/spirits does nothing to change human nature.
Not to mention that the very nature of the Fade is so ill-defined it leaves everything up in the air.

[Silfren]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@dragonflight288: And if that were true of the Dragon Age universe. If someone confirmed that as a valid comparison - how would you feel?

People projecting their own pet minority in place of mages is equally as invalid.

No, it's not invalid.  It's pretty clear that Bioware DIRECTLY INTENDED people to be able to look at mages and draw direct parallels to real world issues.  Nowhere is this clearly than DA2's "Tranquil Solution."  That and other references are not accidental, they are deliberate.  We're not allowed to discuss real world historical events in the forums, but it is an irrefutable fact that we are intended, by design, to make those comparisons.

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

No, it's not invalid.  It's pretty clear that Bioware DIRECTLY INTENDED people to be able to look at mages and draw direct parallels to real world issues.  Nowhere is this clearly than DA2's "Tranquil Solution."  That and other references are not accidental, they are deliberate.  We're not allowed to discuss real world historical events in the forums, but it is an irrefutable fact that we are intended, by design, to make those comparisons. 

True. There's even Sebastian's reference to a hypothetical mage 'holocaust' in his dialogue with Anders.

[Medhia Nox]

So - if there's a war on Thedas - it's clearly talking about which real world war?

Yes - that one Templar "might" represent The **** Holocaust of the Jews... except, it wasn't just one group of people. It was several groups of minorities (and some didn't classify on a level of minority/majority - like, say... Poles?) imprisoned and exterminated as policy to unite an economically disillusioned people into a military force...

Wait - so how's this like Thedas?

More projection to try to win an argument that can't be won.

You guys didn't make Thedas - you don't have all the information.  You've decided what you do have is "enough".  Fine - I'll accept that, but then you go on to preach how you're "absolutely right".  Not only is it incorrect - it's a touch preposterous to make this claim about something you only know a tiny bit about (as opposed to say - David Gaider.)

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

So - if there's a war on Thedas - it's clearly talking about which real world war?

Strawman. It doesn't have to draw direct parallels to any particular "real world" war. It can take inspiration from all of them or none of them. Bigotry and scapegoating have been fuel for many major wars. 

Yes - that one Templar "might" represent The **** Holocaust of the Jews... except, it wasn't just one group of people. It was several groups of minorities (and some didn't classify on a level of minority/majority - like, say... Poles?) imprisoned and exterminated as policy to unite an economically disillusioned people into a military force...

Subjugation and genocide of one group in a fictional work can easily stand as a metaphor for all forms of subjugation and genocide. Even if Dragon Age had not specifically referenced the Holocaust, the comparison would be no less valid.

Wait - so how's this like Thedas?

How is bigotry like bigotry? Because it's bigotry.

More projection to try to win an argument that can't be won.

Oh jeez.

You guys didn't make Thedas - you don't have all the information.  You've decided what you do have is "enough".  Fine - I'll accept that, but then you go on to preach how you're "absolutely right".  Not only is it incorrect - it's a touch preposterous to make this claim about something you only know a tiny bit about (as opposed to say - David Gaider.)

Authorial intent is irrelevent. There is no meaning in any piece of fiction but what individuals find for themselves. Audiences can extract morals and meaning from a work that the author did not intend, but that does not mean those morals and meanings are not present.

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: Just has to draw enough parallels for you to convince yourself you're right I suppose.

Authorial intent is more relevant to me than your opinion.

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: Just has to draw enough parallels for you to convince yourself you're right I suppose. 

Authorial intent is more relevant to me than your opinion.

Oooh, looks like I need to go to the burn ward.

You don't take a lot of lit. studies classes, do you.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2013 - 01:44 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: You're in them right now aren't you?

I'm glad you study literary "theory" - I hope you learn there's more than one.

That you regurgitated the definition of one type - holds no relevance to me.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 juin 2013 - 01:49 .

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox wrote...

So - if there's a war on Thedas - it's clearly talking about which real world war?

Yes - that one Templar "might" represent The **** Holocaust of the Jews... except, it wasn't just one group of people. It was several groups of minorities (and some didn't classify on a level of minority/majority - like, say... Poles?) imprisoned and exterminated as policy to unite an economically disillusioned people into a military force...

Wait - so how's this like Thedas?

More projection to try to win an argument that can't be won.

You guys didn't make Thedas - you don't have all the information.  You've decided what you do have is "enough".  Fine - I'll accept that, but then you go on to preach how you're "absolutely right".  Not only is it incorrect - it's a touch preposterous to make this claim about something you only know a tiny bit about (as opposed to say - David Gaider.)

The templars "might" represnt the **** Holocaust of the Jews, they do. Yes it was more then the Jews who were imprisioned and killed but other minorities groups. But the templars are going to go after from more then just mages, the will go after the Dalish for not being in the Alienages where they can keep an eye on the, they will go after the Chasin for their shamen and the fact they don't worship the Maker, along with dozens of other groups who either allow mages to be free or don't worship the Maker. 

You didn't make Thedas either nor do you not have all the information either. You have decided that thinly veiled slavery is okay, that kiddnaping, rape, torture, and murder are okay as long as it's mages who are suffering it. This is all in game and in the lore. You also preach about how "absolutely right" too. 

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: You're in them right now aren't you?

Nope

I'm glad you study literary "theory" - I hope you learn there's more than one.

I have learned that, and I support them all equally. I myself will often employ multiple theories in the interpretation of a single text.

That you regurgitated the definition of one type - holds no relevance to me.

It's relevant because you are rejecting interpretations out of hand for not adhering to the same theoretical approach as you.

You apparently support authorial intent as the only valid basis for interpretation of texts, because you are demanding that interpretations that oppose yours bolster their argument with supporting quotes direct from the creator/s of the text (in this case, David Gaider and co).

You don't seem to be applying this standard to yourself, however.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2013 - 01:56 .

[dragonflight288]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: Just has to draw enough parallels for you to convince yourself you're right I suppose.

Authorial intent is more relevant to me than your opinion.

And yet author intent is lost in transition all the time. When one person reads the Harry Potter series, they come away with their own unique perspective about what happened, but try looking up the interpretations of the series, and people will be disagreeing or go into flame wars. You especially see this among the shippers in fanfiction.

Take an advanced fiction class, write a story and present it to a classroom to be workshopped, and you're not allowed to give any feedback or talk about what your wrote until after everyone else discusses it, and see how much your intentions or what you thought was obvious to disappear or get lost in transition. You'll be surprised.

Does that make anyone's own interpretations any less valid if they took something from it?

The devs may or may not intend something, but what we take away from the game is just as valid whether or not the developers knew of it. Heck, oftentimes people will bring up something and how they interpret it that the writer never even considered. Gaider himself said the mages weren't slaves because they aren't put in forced labor, but historically and scholarly definitions put the mages in a position that fits slavery's definitions, regardless of author intent.

Our opinions may not mean much to you, as our experiences in the game or the books grant us a different perspective than you possess yourself, but does that make our opinions or take on the games or books less valid than yours?

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Yes, I am very interested in what a work was intended to do because I can make it "mean" anything I want. I'm more interested in the point the author (or painter, of filmmaker, etc) was trying to make.

How don't I apply this to my statements? Is it because I'm so terribly Pro-Templar?

If you've read anything I've written - you know I'm not, but I suppose the intent of my words are secondary to what you want them to mean?

@dragonflight288:  Want the honest truth?  Mostly yes - I only care about Bioware's intent and my own. 

While I find arguments on here interesting - I feel that most of them are just projections of what people want Dragon Age to mean for them - not the facts that are presented.

People of both factions fairly clearly think it's black and white - from their perspective. 

While the author has expressed his intent is that it is more complex than that.

I try to step back and see why the author is suggesting that neither Pro-Templar or Pro-Mage are correct.

This is extremely evident in the amount of people who think I'm Pro-Templar SOLELY because I don't say: "Free mages!  FREE MAGES NOW!" 

Shows most people simply aren't interested in looking at anyone elses perspective (not even the authors) and only supporting their own projected psyche onto the work.

And no - I don't hold much interest in a fan's psyche.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 juin 2013 - 02:03 .

[vpacheco1984]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Yes, I am very interested in what a work was intended to do because I can make it "mean" anything I want. I'm more interested in the point the author (or painter, of filmmaker, etc) was trying to make.

How don't I apply this to my statements? Is it because I'm so terribly Pro-Templar?

If you've read anything I've written - you know I'm not, but I suppose the intent of my words are secondary to what you want them to mean?

@dragonflight288:  Want the honest truth?  Mostly yes - I only care about Bioware's intent and my own. 

While I find arguments on here interesting - I feel that most of them are just projections of what people want Dragon Age to mean for them - not the facts that are presented.

People of both factions fairly clearly think it's black and white - from their perspective. 

While the author has expressed his intent is that it is more complex than that.

I try to step back and see why the author is suggesting that neither Pro-Templar or Pro-Mage are correct.

This is extremely evident in the amount of people who think I'm Pro-Templar SOLELY because I don't say: "Free mages!  FREE MAGES NOW!" 

Shows most people simply aren't interested in looking at anyone elses perspective (not even the authors) and only supporting their own projected psyche onto the work.

And no - I don't hold much interest in a fan's psyche.

Remember when you said this:

Note: I'll be playing a mage in Inquisition and happily crushing the revolution if it's an option.

What would call that? It isn't nutreal. It's sound pro-templar. Please corret me if I'm wrong.

Modifié par vpacheco1984, 30 juin 2013 - 02:12 .

[Gilbert Salarian]

Medhia Nox wrote...

*snip*

People of both factions fairly clearly think it's black and white - from their perspective. 

*snip*

Shows most people simply aren't interested in looking at anyone elses perspective (not even the authors) and only supporting their own projected psyche onto the work.

And no - I don't hold much interest in a fan's psyche.

Well said!

Of course, while the fans' psyche man muddle the facts of the author's intent, it still shouldn't be dismissed outright.  It's important to know why the audience feels/thinks/reacts the way they do, but ultimately the author's intent should be the guidepost.

Modifié par Gilbert Salarian, 30 juin 2013 - 02:19 .

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Neither does the author's, for that matter, even they have no control over what a text "means".

Yes, I am very interested in what a work was intended to do because I can make it "mean" anything I want. I'm more interested in the point the author (or painter, of filmmaker, etc) was trying to make.

I am also interested in authorial intent, but only in so far as I can judge whether or not I personally feel the author failed or succeeded in their goal, and where/when that failure or success occured in the text.

How don't I apply this to my statements? Is it because I'm so terribly Pro-Templar?

No, it's because you're demanding that people back up their arguments with quotes from Gaider, whereas I've yet to see you provide any quotes from Gaider to back up your own argument.

If you've read anything I've written - you know I'm not, but I suppose the intent of my words are secondary to what you want them to mean?

I know that you claim not to be pro-Templar, but that doesn't mean anything.

If I claim to not be racist, only to then go on and talk about how I can't wait to gleefully crush those uppity blacks, what conclusion would you draw?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2013 - 02:16 .

[vpacheco1984]

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Neither does the author's, for that matter, even they have no control over what a text "means".

Yes, I am very interested in what a work was intended to do because I can make it "mean" anything I want. I'm more interested in the point the author (or painter, of filmmaker, etc) was trying to make.

I am also interested in authorial intent, but only in so far as I can judge whether or not I personally feel the author failed or succeeded in their goal, and where/when that failure or success occured in the text.

How don't I apply this to my statements? Is it because I'm so terribly Pro-Templar?

No, it's because you're demanding that people back up their arguments with quotes from Gaider, whereas I've yet to see you provide any quotes from Gaider to back up your own argument.

If you've read anything I've written - you know I'm not, but I suppose the intent of my words are secondary to what you want them to mean?

I know that you claim not to be pro-Templar, but that doesn't mean anything.

If I claim to not be racist, only to then go on and talk about how I can't wait to gleefully crush those uppity blacks, what conclusion would you draw?

Modifié par vpacheco1984, 30 juin 2013 - 02:21 .

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Neither does the author's, for that matter, even they have no control over what a text "means"

Pretty much. An author forfeits any claims to The One True meaning of their creation the moment they release it for public consumption.  That's...kind of the way literature of any kind works. 

I still maintain that Gaider damn well knew that by including specific words like "genocide," "holocaust" and "Tranquil Solution" that obvious parallels would be drawn.  He's no idiot--he's a good enough writer to know that those terms will conjure very specific images in people's imaginations, which means it was a deliberate choice on his part to have the DA audience do just that.

[Gilbert Salarian]

Silfren wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Neither does the author's, for that matter, even they have no control over what a text "means"

Pretty much. An author forfeits any claims to The One True meaning of their creation the moment they release it for public consumption.  That's...kind of the way literature of any kind works. 

I still maintain that Gaider damn well knew that by including specific words like "genocide," "holocaust" and "Tranquil Solution" that obvious parallels would be drawn.  He's no idiot--he's a good enough writer to know that those terms will conjure very specific images in people's imaginations, which means it was a deliberate choice on his part to have the DA audience do just that.

The author never relinquishes the "One True Meaning" of what they wrote; it's their words, their ideas, their meaning.  If the audience takes a different interpretation of those words, that is "An Alternate Meaning".  If enough people cling to the "Alternate Meaning", it'll be a "Generally Accepted Meaning", but still not the "One True Meaning".

That's just a matter of semantics, but I understand your point.

[Silfren]

Gilbert Salarian wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Plaintiff: I support authorial intent because I already know what I "feel" about a work - and I while I might be interested in someone's opinion about a work, their opinion holds no real authority of any kind.

Neither does the author's, for that matter, even they have no control over what a text "means"

Pretty much. An author forfeits any claims to The One True meaning of their creation the moment they release it for public consumption.  That's...kind of the way literature of any kind works. 

I still maintain that Gaider damn well knew that by including specific words like "genocide," "holocaust" and "Tranquil Solution" that obvious parallels would be drawn.  He's no idiot--he's a good enough writer to know that those terms will conjure very specific images in people's imaginations, which means it was a deliberate choice on his part to have the DA audience do just that.

The author never relinquishes the "One True Meaning" of what they wrote; it's their words, their ideas, their meaning.  If the audience takes a different interpretation of those words, that is "An Alternate Meaning".  If enough people cling to the "Alternate Meaning", it'll be a "Generally Accepted Meaning", but still not the "One True Meaning".

That's just a matter of semantics, but I understand your point.

There is no One True Meaning, period.  Once an author provides their work to the world, it is only ever the Author's Meaning. 

[IceHawk-181]

Of course an author’s text always matches his intent.

I mean if authors are not infallible in their ability to translate intent perfectly into text that would mean the whole Authorial Intent argument is little more than a semantic rhetorical trope that is little more than a poorly disguised Appeal to Authority.