508 réponses à ce sujet

[Dermain]

Sharn01 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

This is not actually true, your race and gender limit what roles are available to fill regardless of your capabilities. The kossith qunari, I will use that name for a lack of a better term, do not actually consider non kossith qunari as true qunari, they give them a different name and they are not seen as full members of their society.

This is false.

Its true, only kossith qunari are allowed in the army as an example, and only male ones at that. 

The kossith qunari do not refer to non kossith qunari as qunari, this was stated by David Gaider here on the forums, it was brought up during the debate in how to refer to kossith qunari, and was one of his main argument as to why they should just be referred to as qunari.

Nope, you're wrong.

David Gaider wrote...
If there's a need to separate the Qunari who aren't members of their race, and "viddathari" isn't considered useful, an adjective is added (like "elven Qunari"). For members of their race which aren't followers of the Qun, it's "Tal-Vashoth".

Is this confusing? To some people who like having a handy identifier it is, but the Qunari aren't really interested in arranging their names to make things convenient for other cultures. Their names are exact classifications, and are incredibly important to them-- even Sten doesn't tell you the name that he uses among the Qunari. If you'll recall, he says that Sten is the name you may use because it'll be easier for you.

Bolded the specific relevant sentence and underlined the emphasis. If there is a need to seperate, which there usually isn't, the Qunari will use "viddathari". If "viddathari" is not sufficient they will further clarify, but again there is no need for it. There is also no supporting information for not letting other races that follow the Qun into the military.

Xilizhra wrote...

Even if it were from birth that'd make it no different than Dwarf society and people seem to love them.

I don't know anyone who doesn't think that dwarf society completely sucks.

I'm sure Harrowmont supporters disagree with your statement.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...


It's stifling, to put it lightly. Qunari society crushes or hollows out the individual in favour of the collective. Deviation from your pre-determined path is valid grounds for execution or a one way ticket to pariah status. I might be wrong ofc, the Qunari could have a lively and vibrant art scene and then my views would need some serious revision.

But assuming I'm not I see the Qunari as less of a society of living people and more like a machine. Effective because its paradigms are rigid and well defined and thus really, really scary from a humanistic perspective.

There are societies in the world where the people place an emphasis on the collective, and less emphasis on individuality. Shockingly, there are many in more individualistic societies that almost revere said culture, and  want to be a part of it.

If the premise of individuality is not present in one culture, but it is in another does this make collective societies morally wrong? Is it wrong for the individualistic society to impose individuality amongst cultures that do not want it? Clearly the Qunari impose collectivism amonst those they conquer, but maybe it's an allegory for individualistic cultures that do/have done the same. If we as individuals see nothing wrong by imposing that same individuality on other cultures, can we truly judge the Qunari harshly for doing the same? If we do then we are being hypocrites.

Modifié par Myrkale, 07 octobre 2013 - 09:53 .

[Xilizhra]

I'm sure Harrowmont supporters disagree with your statement.

I don't know any of them either, aside from people who don't like his policies but think that Bhelen is worse and would never keep any of his promises.

There are societies in the world where the people place an emphasis on the collective, and less emphasis on individuality. Shockingly, there are many in more individualistic societies that almost revere said culture, and want to be a part of it.

Tellingly, they're not actually in it. This strikes me as being a "grass-is-greener" thing.

If the premise of individuality is not present in one culture, but it is in another does this make collective societies morally wrong? Is it wrong for the individualistic society to impose individuality amongst cultures that do not want it? Clearly the Qunari impose collectivism amonst those they conquer, but maybe it's an allegory for individualistic cultures that do/have done the same. If we as individuals see nothing wrong by imposing that same individuality on other cultures, can we truly judge the Qunari harshly for doing the same? If we do then we are being hypocrites.

It's morally wrong for a society to impose collectivism on those who don't want it. And I know of no individualistic cultures that impose individualism on places they conquer; pretty much every conqueror imposes collectivism because it makes conquest and the governing thereafter easier, to my knowledge (with the exception of a few points of modern society where the collectivism itself was deemed to be the problem, but even then, conquering a place to make it more free is very, very rare).

[copernickers]

Not sure how many people are still keen (and I'm a little fuzzy on the rules for bringing non-fiction references into a thread), but for anybody interested in the phenomenon of trading individual freedoms for better economic and/or social outcomes (which seems to be the main redeeming feature of the Qun) I'd recommend John Kampfner's book "Freedom for Sale". It does a pretty good job of examining various societies around the world and what they demand or get in return for trading away varying degrees of individual liberty.

[Dermain]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's morally wrong for a society to impose collectivism on those who don't want it. And I know of no individualistic cultures that impose individualism on places they conquer; pretty much every conqueror imposes collectivism because it makes conquest and the governing thereafter easier, to my knowledge (with the exception of a few points of modern society where the collectivism itself was deemed to be the problem, but even then, conquering a place to make it more free is very, very rare).

Then let us look at the lives of indigenous people of the Americas. For all intensive purposes they had a collectivist society before the Europeans came over. Each person in the society worked to make sure that they would survive. As an example Family A would provide food for Family B if family B had a food shortage. In turn Family B would help out Family A when Family A needed the help. This of course is a reciprocal relationship as both families would expect that the other would help them when it was needed to. Then the Europeans invade bringing concepts of individuality, and money with them. Previously, Family A would help out Family B with the expectation that they would be helped in return, but now Family A would only help Family B if Family B provided money. Instead of collectively helping each other the society became more self centered and poverty became common place, but at least they have comfort in knowing that they are now "individuals". 

If you wish a more detailed example I suggest you study the aftermath of the conquering of the Aztec/Incan empires, and the social difficulties that were face by the native people. For them "individuality" wiped out their previous way of life entirely, but at least they can take comfort in the fact that now they are "individuals".

If we were to take an evolutionary perspective, collectivism is far more beneficial. If everyone works to better their community instead of themselves then the rate of survival for the entire community goes up. If everyone works to better only themselves instead of the community then the individual rate of survival goes up. A group of thirty people all working together to help each other is far more productive than three people out of thirty surviving. 

Either way, there are pros/cons for bother colelctivisist societies and individualistic societies. They both excell at different things, and they both fail at different things. Neither is inherently better than the other unless you have been sucessfully brainwashed into believing so, and that would make you the very thing that you are arguing againt. The Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that their way of life is better for everyone. The majority of people that dislike the Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that since they are not an individualistic society the Qunari are repressive, and that individuality is better than everyone. 

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Aren't you a moral relativist?

[Wulfram]

Myrkale wrote...

Either way, there are pros/cons for bother colelctivisist societies and individualistic societies. They both excell at different things, and they both fail at different things. Neither is inherently better than the other unless you have been sucessfully brainwashed into believing so, and that would make you the very thing that you are arguing againt. The Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that their way of life is better for everyone. The majority of people that dislike the Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that since they are not an individualistic society the Qunari are repressive, and that individuality is better than everyone. 

But no one is sending around any goons around to make people chant "yes, we're all individuals" along with the rest of us.  While we're obviously influenced in childhood, we're free to challenge that view.  We could even start up our own commune if we wanted.

So I'm confident in our moral superiority to the Qunari, thank you.

edit:  Of course the Chantry probably will send round goons to make you chant along with them if you make too much noise.  But at least they're less effective about it.  But I wouldn't cite them as a model of individualism, even if Andraste did free the slaves

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 octobre 2013 - 08:27 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

Myrkale wrote...

Either way, there are pros/cons for bother colelctivisist societies and individualistic societies. They both excell at different things, and they both fail at different things. Neither is inherently better than the other unless you have been sucessfully brainwashed into believing so, and that would make you the very thing that you are arguing againt. The Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that their way of life is better for everyone. The majority of people that dislike the Qunari have been "brainwashed" into thinking that since they are not an individualistic society the Qunari are repressive, and that individuality is better than everyone. 

But no one is sending around any goons around to make people chant "yes, we're all individuals" along with the rest of us.  While we're obviously influenced in childhood, we're free to challenge that view.  We could even start up our own commune if we wanted.

So I'm confident in our moral superiority to the Qunari, thank you.

edit:  Of course the Chantry probably will send round goons to make you chant along with them if you make too much noise.  But at least they're less effective about it.  But I wouldn't cite them as a model of individualism, even if Andraste did free the slaves

You are also free to leave the Qun any time you want. You just can't continue living in Qunari lands. Kinda like how you are free to stop paying taxes, but if you do, you are kicked off the nation's land (or more likely in prison but the point remains the same). The Qun ask for all inhabitants of the Qunari lands, to participate in the society, if you don't want to be part of it, don't try and leech of the society.

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You are also free to leave the Qun any time you want. You just can't continue living in Qunari lands. Kinda like how you are free to stop paying taxes, but if you do, you are kicked off the nation's land (or more likely in prison but the point remains the same). The Qun ask for all inhabitants of the Qunari lands, to participate in the society, if you don't want to be part of it, don't try and leech of the society.

Firstly, could you tell me your basis for saying that.  They seem to want the Tal-Vashoth living in the wilds outside Kirkwall dead.

Secondly, it's not much of comfort when they intend to conquer all of Thedas.  They aren't OK with Fereldan or Kirkwall not living under Qunari rules, apparently.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 octobre 2013 - 09:07 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You are also free to leave the Qun any time you want. You just can't continue living in Qunari lands. Kinda like how you are free to stop paying taxes, but if you do, you are kicked off the nation's land (or more likely in prison but the point remains the same). The Qun ask for all inhabitants of the Qunari lands, to participate in the society, if you don't want to be part of it, don't try and leech of the society.

Firstly, could you tell me your basis for saying that.  They seem to want the Tal-Vashoth living in the wilds outside Kirkwall dead.

Secondly, it's not much of comfort when they intend to conquer all of Thedas.  They aren't OK with Fereldan or Kirkwall not living under Qunari rules, apparently.

Ofc they do. The Tal-Vasoth outside Kirkwall are deserters. Derserting is often punishable by death. They are also causing trouble for kirkwall, and with humans often being unable to make the proper distinction between Qunari and Tal-Vasoth, it was probably causing some diplomatic friction with the humans aswell.
The Roman Empire also wanted to conquer the entire world, so did the Mongol Empire, pretty much all Empires try to extend as far as they can percieve. None has ever succeeded. Why would the Qunari fare any better? The fact is that all nations goes through a time of expansionism, they either pass through it, or they get torn asunder by it. I have no particular fear, that the Qunari would succeeded where all others have failed.

[Wulfram]

Surely anyone leaving the Qun is going to be guilty of "desertion".  I don't see why they'd distinguish between soldiers and everyone else.  And it's not much of a comfort for the people who were selected to be soldiers at age 12.

[Bionuts]

Lol "individuals".

Not sure if you people have bad ears and eye sight, but people are just copies of someone else.

There are also many laws that exist. These laws no doubt keep people in check.

For if laws didn't exist, I'd be somewhere else.

[Vit246]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You are also free to leave the Qun any time you want.

I realize that you're such a pro-Qunari but at least try to maintain consistency and stop completely making up stuff just to make them look good.
If you try to resist the Qun, you are either marked for re-education, mindless labor, or if all else fails, death.
That is the canon Qunari that you support.
The Qunari Wars were not fought once in the past only to have it turn out you're free to leave the Qun any time you want.

Modifié par Vit246, 08 octobre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Plaintiff]

LOL.

You're free to leave the Qun anytime you want, but not to be born outside of it.

"Yeah, our main dictate is to conquer and forcibly convert all non-Qunari. But you can still totally leave if you decide it's not for you!"

Wut.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 octobre 2013 - 12:26 .

[Plaintiff]

Myrkale wrote...
Is it wrong for the individualistic society to impose individuality amongst cultures that do not want it?

Yes. It's wrong to impose your personal ideals on others, always.

If the Qunari were peaceful collectivists who minded their own freaking business, there wouldn't be a problem. And if the Chantry tried to march against peaceful collectivists, I would oppose them.

[Dermain]

Wulfram wrote...
But no one is sending around any goons around to make people chant "yes, we're all individuals" along with the rest of us.  While we're obviously influenced in childhood, we're free to challenge that view.  We could even start up our own commune if we wanted.

So I'm confident in our moral superiority to the Qunari, thank you.

edit:  Of course the Chantry probably will send round goons to make you chant along with them if you make too much noise.  But at least they're less effective about it.  But I wouldn't cite them as a model of individualism, even if Andraste did free the slaves

I'm quite sure that if you went to start your own commune you'd have some people condeming you for destroying individuality. You can't really have a commune with people having individuality in the first place. 

The Qunari sacrifice individuaity in order to create a more harmonious society. Everyone has their role, everyone does their role, and the society works perfectly. The key to it all is why the Tal Vashoth actually rebel against the Qun. There are few instances where their motivations for it are clearly explained. The only one that comes to my mind is the Tal Vashoth in Awakening who states his intent is to make as much money as he can, and does not seem to really care how he goes about that. If we wish to proclaim his new found individuality we also have to take into account that he is assisting the Darkspawn kill non-darkspawn for money. What a great example of individualism that is.

Again, the Qunari seem more of an analogue to conquers from our own history. When members of a certain religion conquered a region that did not believe in said religion the inhabits were given a choice. Convert (and be viewed suspiciously for the conversion) or die. Again I will point out the history of the Spanish conquest of the Americas as an example. 

I would also suggest that where we would see individuality the Qunari see pride, lust, and greed. Those three have symbolically been presented as evil/maladaptive qualities. In order to eradicate pride/lust/greed the Qunari created a society where none of those would be present, and in their minds created the perfect society. Those that defect from society are seen as criminals very much in the same way as we view criminals in our society. The only difference being the way a person goes about their criminality. In an individualistic society a criminal can be seen (though not always) as a person who intentionally tries to harm/steal from others. A criminal to the Qunari would be an individual that rebels against the Qun for whatever reason and is then re-eduacted or forcibly re-educated. 

Morocco Mole wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Aren't you a moral relativist?

My friend, we all know if it weren't for the mages Xilizhra would be all over the qunari like white on rice

Amusing.

Wulfram wrote...

Firstly, could you tell me your basis for saying that.  They seem to want the Tal-Vashoth living in the wilds outside Kirkwall dead.

Secondly, it's not much of comfort when they intend to conquer all of Thedas.  They aren't OK with Fereldan or Kirkwall not living under Qunari rules, apparently.

The Arishok states that he wants the Tal Vashoth dead, but he will not actively seek them out and kill them as Tal Vashoth usually have a way of getting killed (Hawke). 

They intend to conquer the rest of the world, but they do not seem to mind waiting before the conquest begins. 

Morocco Mole wrote...

And to be fair, the chantry is not content with them not living under the chantry rules. Even in the qunari were peaceful, I wouldn't doubt it for a second that they wouldn't try an exalted march on them.

They already have, two I believe.

Wulfram wrote...

Surely anyone leaving the Qun is going to be guilty of "desertion".  I don't see why they'd distinguish between soldiers and everyone else.  And it's not much of a comfort for the people who were selected to be soldiers at age 12.

How is it uncomforting? 

Modifié par Myrkale, 08 octobre 2013 - 02:12 .

[Xilizhra]

I'm quite sure that if you went to start your own commune you'd have some people condeming you for destroying individuality. You can't really have a commune with people having individuality in the first place.

It depends on what you do. If you take total control of them a la Charles Manson, then yes, you would be, and rightfully so.

The Qunari sacrifice individuaity in order to create a more harmonious society. Everyone has their role, everyone does their role, and the society works perfectly. The key to it all is why the Tal Vashoth actually rebel against the Qun. There are few instances where their motivations for it are clearly explained. The only one that comes to my mind is the Tal Vashoth in Awakening who states his intent is to make as much money as he can, and does not seem to really care how he goes about that. If we wish to proclaim his new found individuality we also have to take into account that he is assisting the Darkspawn kill non-darkspawn for money. What a great example of individualism that is.

It can be rather difficult to move into productive examples of individualism without any decent examples. I suspect he'll come around.

Again, the Qunari seem more of an analogue to conquers from our own history. When members of a certain religion conquered a region that did not believe in said religion the inhabits were given a choice. Convert (and be viewed suspiciously for the conversion) or die. Again I will point out the history of the Spanish conquest of the Americas as an example.

The Spanish were evil then, as the qunari are evil now.

They already have, two I believe.

Both were purely self-defensive, note.

[Dabrikishaw]

Vit246 wrote...

Yes please.

[Dermain]

Xilizhra wrote...
It can be rather difficult to move into productive examples of individualism without any decent examples. I suspect he'll come around.

You seem to have more of an optimistic view of humanity then. What a paradox

Xilizhra wrote...
The Spanish were evil then, as the qunari are evil now.

Are they? Both believed that they were improving the lives of those they conquered. There seems to be a trend of Western powers interfering in other countries to try to make them more "Western". To the best of my knowledge it does not appear to be working. Sometimes bringing individuality to cultures that do not have such a concept is just as disasterous as a collective culture trying to impose collectivism on an individualistic culture. 

Is individuality a good thing if it leads to an increase in greed and poverty? Collectivism at least tries to eliminate both, but the only problem is that having everyone in the culture follow the collectivism the same way. The Soviet Union tried collectivism, but failed epically when the leaders led more indiviualistic lives. A more perfect example of collectivism would be the tribal groups of Sub-Saran Africa, and that also shows the horrors imposing individuality can cause. 

Xilizhra wrote...
Both were purely self-defensive, note.

Yet the Chantry eventually wanted to conquer the Qunari to convert them to Andrastrianism. Which side is more moral when the goals are the same?

Modifié par Myrkale, 08 octobre 2013 - 02:58 .

[Xilizhra]

Are they?

Yes.

Is individuality a good thing if it leads to an increase in greed and poverty? Collectivism at least tries to eliminate both, but the only problem is that having everyone in the culture follow the collectivism the same way. The Soviet Union tried collectivism, but failed epically when the leaders led more indiviualistic lives. A more perfect example of collectivism would be the tribal groups of Sub-Saran Africa, and that also shows the horrors imposing individuality can cause.

This isn't about collectivism, this is about qunari mass murder of foreigners and mutilation and enslavement of minorities in their own society.

Yet the Chantry eventually wanted to conquer the Qunari to convert them to Andrastrianism. Which side is more moral when the goals are the same?

The Chantry sucks, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't the aggressor in this case.

[Dermain]

Xilizhra wrote...

This isn't about collectivism, this is about qunari mass murder of foreigners and mutilation and enslavement of minorities in their own society.

Then you're going to have to remain disappointed in the moral bankruptcy in Thedas. You've described every culture in Thedas.

[Plaintiff]

Myrkale wrote...
Yet the Chantry eventually wanted to conquer the Qunari to convert them to Andrastrianism. Which side is more moral when the goals are the same?

The one that lets you choose your own career path, obviously.

[Mox Ruuga]

The best defense of Qun that its fans seem to be able to muster is "but the other guys are nasty too!".

Reminds me of the hard core commie defense of the USSR that got trotted out whenever some Westerner dared to criticise the Prison of Nations; "But the Americans slaughtered Indians / lynched blacks, so shut up about the GULAG / show trials! Besides, those traitors had it coming..."

[Star fury]

Myrkale wrote...
Then you're going to have to remain disappointed in the moral bankruptcy in Thedas. You've described every culture in Thedas.

Examples of Thedas cultures who "mass murder foreigners and mutilate and enslave minorities in their own society"?