8640 réponses à ce sujet

[renfrees]

Freedom is always a good notion. But since its mages we are talking about and potentially dangerous when free that's the part chaotic comes to play. 

I'm sure many villains would agree with you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Because its godawful?

 

Anyhow in the story its pretty much self defense really. They were going to kill Anders in cold blood so he killed them first.

 

 

More like "Because it portrays Anders in a bad light".

 

And the templar and wardens too acted in self-defense. Anders broke every law under the sun and KNOWINGLY committed a crime punishable by death.

[Lulupab]

More like "Because it portrays Anders in a bad light".
 
And the templar and wardens too acted in self-defense. Anders broke every law under the sun and KNOWINGLY committed a crime punishable by death.

No he did not. He is a grey warden therefore completely over any law the chantry or templars enforce. Only one grey warden thought that way who betrayed the order and Anders. The wardens would have put Anders to good use, he obliterated a full squad of Templars with a single spell, people who train for years to counter his kind, what are some puny darkspawn? They have used far worse against darkspawn. Anders did NOTHING punishable by death. 

 

I'm sure many villains would agree with you.

 
So all mages are villains? Good to know.

 
To make things clear lets choose one person from each side and see how it goes. I will pick those who acted as leaders to better represent each side
 
Fiona
 
Description of chaotic good: A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of alignment with the rest of society. They may create conflict in a team if they feel they are being pushed around, and often view extensive organization and planning as pointless, preferring to improvise.

 

Other examples of chaotic good: Robin Hood, Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, and Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly are examples of Chaotic Good individuals.

 

Result: Exact match, Fiona is as chaotic good as chaotic good can be.

 

Lambert

 

Description of lawful evil: A Lawful Evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor.

 

Other examples of lawful evil: Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil

 

Result: Exact match, Lambert is Lawful evil.

[Dean_the_Young]

I did not claim liberty is pure good. Its just good and can also represent chaos which is not good. Hence the term Chaotic Good?

 

Security is lawful but also represents evil in many cases as the law itself demands it hence the term Lawful Evil. 

 

The alignments are quite clear in DD if mages and templars from DA were present in DD they would get the said alignments without any question. I suggest you check exact description of those alignments in DD wiki.

 

Chaotic evil would also be heavily invested in liberty and freedom to do whatever they want, and security can be lawful good. You don't get to pick and choose what broad, general categories fit on a moral scale because you enjoy your perception of one more than another.

 

'Mages' would not be anything, because mages are a collective without a prescribed ideology. There would be mages who are chaotic, who are lawful, who are good, who are evil, and any category between that. The Circle system encloses all mages regardless of alignment, so trying to paint them all with the same brush ignores what the organization actually does.

 

Templars are an institution with a systemic disinclination to reject/avoid chaotic members- but it isn't pure lawful either. The Templars are more of a military order than a religious one, and while they do enforce discipline there is also significant leeway in how they would go across. Thrask, for example, is quite good, but also quite comfortable breaking the rules as necessary to meet those rules. Alrik was far more evil, and also willing to ignore the laws for his priorities. Templars have rules, but they are not consumed and prioritizing the rules above all else: there are some who would, but there are some who will make compromises as necessary or appropriate to the context, a distinctly neutral approach to law/order. The Templars can easily vary from lawful-good to neutral-evil: Dragon Age Templars are by no means synonymous with D&D Templars.

 

 

Your argument rests on stereotyping diverse groups and arbitrarily slapping on labels of what they represent. That certainly is a way to make an argument with which there can be no argument... not least because it's so arbitrary, fallacious, and divorced from reality that there can indeed be no arguing with it on its own grounds.

[renfrees]

So all mages are villains? Good to know.

You said freedom is always good, and i objected it. Do you have problems with my objection? Or shall i dig into my examples of many villains who were set loose far longer, than they deserved?

[Lulupab]

Your argument rests on stereotyping diverse groups and arbitrarily slapping on labels of what they represent. That certainly is a way to make an argument with which there can be no argument... not least because it's so arbitrary, fallacious, and divorced from reality that there can indeed be no arguing with it on its own grounds.

 

Which is why I used leaders of each side on my next argument. Two factions.

 

 

You said freedom is always good, and i objected it. Do you have problems with my objection? Or shall i dig into my examples of many villains who were set loose far longer, than they deserved?

 

I said freedom is always a good notion. People who fight and struggle to gain freedom that was taken from them without doing anything are being discussed here. Felons had that freedom but have done something to lose it. They are irrelevant in this conversation.

[DKJaigen]

applying DD morals is not valid. in the DD universe you will get rewarded by your god if you perform chatotic stupid actions. same cannot be said for the DA universe. Freedom is a noble notion but i can easily lead to total anarchy.

 

That said the templars and chantry have the most idiotic ideology i ever seen and they simply ignore world endangering threats and this makes them 100 times more dangerous then the mages. The current demon invasion is something the templars are completely unable to handle.  and yet this is faction people look to for protection for such threats

[renfrees]

I said freedom is always a good notion. People who fight and struggle to gain freedom that was taken from them without doing anything are being discussed here. Felons had that freedom but have done something to lose it. They are irrelevant in this conversation.

Hah, you have me there, i missed the word "notion". However, it still too simplistic to portray the whole group with personal trait, it doesn't work like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Which is why I used leaders of each side on my next argument. Two factions.

 

 

The leaders are not the factions, nor are they representative of all the people in the factions. You are still placing labels over diverse groups of individuals. It is still a fallacy and prejudice.

 

 

I said freedom is always a good notion. People who fight and struggle to gain freedom that was taken from them without doing anything are being discussed here. Felons had that freedom but have done something to lose it. They are irrelevant in this conversation.

 

 

They are completely relevant. Freedom is a value that varies in importance and definition from group to group: there is not a universal interpretation, nor is it uniformly valued. The fact that you consider them irrelevant is in and of itself relevant for pointing out how your view is distinct from others.

 

The idea that freedom is always a good notion is a welcome sign of western liberalism, but hardly an objective statement. What 'freedom' means, after all, is itself a concept that western liberalism doesn't have a monopoly on. Other cultures have other, greater priorities, and when freedom comes into conflict with them it becomes an immoral thing. To take a very practical if frequently misunderstood example: the religion of Islam, where 'Islam' itself can be translated as 'Submission' (to God). Submitting to God is righteous: demanding freedom from that is not (though other aspects/concepts of freedom can be found through that submission). Other cultures take their own slants on what freedom means, without embracing on others, and can have their own views change over time. To take a fictional extreme, even 1984's dystopian oppression keeps the word 'freedom' around: it just doesn't mean to them what it means to you.

 

Thedas is not a society of the Enlightenment period. It does not have an ideological or philosophical foundation of universal rights and equality: the closest equivalents are the Qun (which is antithetical to western liberalism in many respects) and the Andrastian religion (in which are all equal in the sight of the Maker). The idea that all people are created equal does not exist, nor is there a compelling reason for it to. 'Freedom' in Thedas can simply mean 'unrestricted': a far from inherently virtuous ideal when the rational behind the restrictions on mages is to prevent them from harming others. When Anders says 'I want freedom', much of the rest of Thedas will hear 'I want to be unrestricted, and do whatever I want.' Which, to people afraid of the abuses of magics or the whims of mages, is a selfish and self-centric desire.

[Lulupab]

The leaders are not the factions, nor are they representative of all the people in the factions. You are still placing labels over diverse groups of individuals. It is still a fallacy and prejudice.

The leaders are representing what each factions wants. Its them who have chosen them. Sure this means majority agree with them and that ranges from 51% to 99%.

 

They are completely relevant. Freedom is a value that varies in importance and definition from group to group: there is not a universal interpretation, nor is it uniformly valued. The fact that you consider them irrelevant is in and of itself relevant for pointing out how your view is distinct from others.
 
The idea that freedom is always a good notion is a welcome sign of western liberalism, but hardly an objective statement. What 'freedom' means, after all, is itself a concept that western liberalism doesn't have a monopoly on. Other cultures have other, greater priorities, and when freedom comes into conflict with them it becomes an immoral thing. To take a very practical if frequently misunderstood example: the religion of Islam, where 'Islam' itself can be translated as 'Submission' (to God). Submitting to God is righteous: demanding freedom from that is not (though other aspects/concepts of freedom can be found through that submission). Other cultures take their own slants on what freedom means, without embracing on others, and can have their own views change over time. To take a fictional extreme, even 1984's dystopian oppression keeps the word 'freedom' around: it just doesn't mean to them what it means to you.
 
Thedas is not a society of the Enlightenment period. It does not have an ideological or philosophical foundation of universal rights and equality: the closest equivalents are the Qun (which is antithetical to western liberalism in many respects) and the Andrastian religion (in which are all equal in the sight of the Maker). The idea that all people are created equal does not exist, nor is there a compelling reason for it to. 'Freedom' in Thedas can simply mean 'unrestricted': a far from inherently virtuous ideal when the rational behind the restrictions on mages is to prevent them from harming others. When Anders says 'I want freedom', much of the rest of Thedas will hear 'I want to be unrestricted, and do whatever I want.' Which, to people afraid of the abuses of magics or the whims of mages, is a selfish and self-centric desire.

But the mages want a restricted freedom, an autonomous circle. They want to be rid of Templar scrutiny and only have them interfere on their life when there is a disaster not on every single daily life event. As Anders puts it "decent means, pretty girls and the right to shoot lightning at fools". Its a witty comment but it represent what the extent of freedom is. Mages cannot have a normal life, maybe you argue they shouldn't but I say they must have the closest alternative to it. That alternative is an autonomous cirlce which is what majority of mages want and Fiona is representing that majority.

[Xilizhra]

Thedas is not a society of the Enlightenment period. It does not have an ideological or philosophical foundation of universal rights and equality: the closest equivalents are the Qun (which is antithetical to western liberalism in many respects) and the Andrastian religion (in which are all equal in the sight of the Maker). The idea that all people are created equal does not exist, nor is there a compelling reason for it to. 'Freedom' in Thedas can simply mean 'unrestricted': a far from inherently virtuous ideal when the rational behind the restrictions on mages is to prevent them from harming others. When Anders says 'I want freedom', much of the rest of Thedas will hear 'I want to be unrestricted, and do whatever I want.' Which, to people afraid of the abuses of magics or the whims of mages, is a selfish and self-centric desire.

To be frank, it's a travesty that we never got to actually read Anders' manifesto, as it clearly would have made its case based on whatever philosophical concepts already existed in Thedas, and was presumably intended for a nonmage audience as well as a mage one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

No he did not. He is a grey warden therefore completely over any law the chantry or templars enforce. Only one grey warden thought that way who betrayed the order and Anders. The wardens would have put Anders to good use, he obliterated a full squad of Templars with a single spell, people who train for years to counter his kind, what are some puny darkspawn? They have used far worse against darkspawn. Anders did NOTHING punishable by death.

 

Wardens are NOT above the law. I don't get where you get that rediculeous fallacy.

 

The Warden mages are exempt from having to be in the Circle, but they are not above the law - as evident given that being a Warden doesn't prevent you from being executed by a king or lord.

 

And even if that were the case by some miracle, the Warden have laws and rules of their own and "become an abomination and eat your fellow Wardens" would be pretty high up the "don't do" list, right below "starting a Blight".

The Wardens don't have a friendly relationship with abominations, so them being OK with it is just your fannon theory. Given that they called in the templars and THEY agreed to execute Anders, I'd say their stance was clear.

 

Furthermore, there were mostly Wardens in the tent, so Anders killed a whole bunch of them.

 

So yes, Anders did EVERYTHING wrong.

 

 

Result: Exact match, Fiona is as chaotic good as chaotic good can be.

 

So you say. Her greater good is not great or good.

 

 

Lambert

Description of lawful evil: A Lawful Evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor.

 

Other examples of lawful evil: Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men's Magneto are cited examples of Lawful Evil

 

Result: Exact match, Lambert is Lawful evil.

 

Not even close.

Lambert (and templars) don't look at the system as something to exploit for their own gains - they look at it as something that is worth preserving and has to be enforced, for the greater good.

Don't care for the rights and freedoms of others? Sez who?

[Dean_the_Young]

The leaders are representing what each factions wants. Its them who have chosen them. Sure this means majority agree with them and that ranges from 51% to 99%.
 

 

Democracies don't have that level of correlation between their leaders and their constituents, and Thedas doesn't even practice the system. And the reasons are the same: leaders rise through their own abilities, connections, reputations, and opportunity. Followers, when they get a voice at all (and Asunder and DA2 makes a point that non-representative extremists have gained power on all sides) do so on the basis of the alternatives.

 

Leaders don't represent what factions want. Leaders lead factions by their own wants, and are tolerated and supported so long as they maintain legitimacy and respect the core interests of their followers. Lambert was a hardliner, but was dedicated to keeping the Circles intact: Templars who don't follow hardline views can still respect that. Fiona was an agitator who helped put the mages into a situation in which they saw little other choice other than to follow her lead.

 

Appealing to a democratic representation is fatally flawed considering the Templars don't even practice it, and the Mage Conclave was assembled and selected for one purpose (mage reform) before Fiona and other agitators hijacked it and put it into extreme circumstances that it was never intended to face.

 

 

But the mages want a restricted freedom, an autonomous circle. They want to be rid of Templar scrutiny and only have them interfere on their life when there is a disaster not on every single daily life event. As Anders puts it "decent means, pretty girls and the right to shoot lightning at fools". Its a witty comment but it represent what the extent of freedom is. Mages cannot have a normal life, maybe you argue they shouldn't but I say they must have the closest alternative to it. That alternative is an autonomous cirlce which is what majority of mages want and Fiona is representing that majority.

 

 

'The mages' don't want anything- they don't have a coherent strategy, goal, or objective, because they are a collective of different groups and people with different priorities. Some do want unrestricted freedom. Some simply want autonomy with minimal oversight. And many (such as the loyalists- you know, the largest group before this all began) simply don't want to die, which is the freedom Anders and Fiona and other agitators have tried to push on them by deliberately provoking the Templars.

 

Fiona doesn't represent the majority- Fiona created a majority of 'we don't want to die' out of one that didn't want to rebel in the first place.

[Xilizhra]

'The mages' don't want anything- they don't have a coherent strategy, goal, or objective, because they are a collective of different groups and people with different priorities. Some do want unrestricted freedom. Some simply want autonomy with minimal oversight. And many (such as the loyalists- you know, the largest group before this all began) simply don't want to die, which is the freedom Anders and Fiona and other agitators have tried to push on them by deliberately provoking the Templars.

I think that the Loyalists were only ever the third-largest group, behind the Libertarians and Aequitarians, who aren't really "loyalists" so much as pragmatists... who were already shifting over to the Libertarian side even in DAO.

[The Elder King]

The Loyalists were never the largest group. The Aequitarians were.

[The Elder King]

I think that the Loyalists were only ever the third-largest group, behind the Libertarians and Aequitarians, who aren't really "loyalists" so much as pragmatists... who were already shifting over to the Libertarian side even in DAO.

Where was the shift implied in DAO, exactly?

[Dean_the_Young]

To be frank, it's a travesty that we never got to actually read Anders' manifesto, as it clearly would have made its case based on whatever philosophical concepts already existed in Thedas, and was presumably intended for a nonmage audience as well as a mage one.

 

You can ask him to read you parts of it. What we get is trash, and doesn't actually rebut the points he tries to address.

 

Concern: Magic is dangerous.

Rebuttal: Well why did the Maker let us keep our magic?

Pre-existing answer: The Maker doesn't interfere with anything anymore.

Logical answer: The Maker's inaction is irrelevant to the concern that magic is dangerous.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Loyalists were never the largest group. The Aequitarians were.

Thank you for the correction- seemed to remember differently from DAO.

[Mistic]

Where was the shift implied in DAO, exactly?

 

I think it's from the codex "The Fraternity of Enchanters". In it, First Enchanter Josephus says that "an alliance between the Loyalists and Aequitarians has prevented the Libertarians from gaining much headway, but there are signs that the Aequitarians may throw their support in with the Libertarians".

 

Makes me wonder which fraternity Vivinenne belongs to.

[Lulupab]

Wardens are NOT above the law. I don't get where you get that rediculeous fallacy.

 

The Warden mages are exempt from having to be in the Circle, but they are not above the law - as evident given that being a Warden doesn't prevent you from being executed by a king or lord.

 

And even if that were the case by some miracle, the Warden have laws and rules of their own and "become an abomination and eat your fellow Wardens" would be pretty high up the "don't do" list, right below "starting a Blight".

The Wardens don't have a friendly relationship with abominations, so them being OK with it is just your fannon theory. Given that they called in the templars and THEY agreed to execute Anders, I'd say their stance was clear.

 

Furthermore, there were mostly Wardens in the tent, so Anders killed a whole bunch of them.

 

So yes, Anders did EVERYTHING wrong.

 

 

 

So you say. Her greater good is not great or good.

 

 

 

 

Not even close.

Lambert (and templars) don't look at the system as something to exploit for their own gains - they look at it as something that is worth preserving and has to be enforced, for the greater good.

Don't care for the rights and freedoms of others? Sez who?

 

There was only one grey warden who thought that way and it was because of his actions that Anders killed the other wardens. They provoked Anders. Also calling Anders an abomination is oversimplification. He can think, have strategies etc... The way the story described it he could dance with Archdemon and tame it like a mabari then kill it. It depends on who the leader of wardens is but as I said they have done much worse. If Anders was not betrayed by a fellow warden to be given to Templars then the wardens would totally appreciate Anders's talents. 

 

Also you just denied a greater good and put yours as the real greater good. Good to know who I will ignore on radical arguments.

[wcholcombe]

Adrian herself says at the end of Asunder that Wynne would have succeeded in convincing the enchanters to vote against independence.

Even after all the events in Asunder it came down to a toss up vote decided by Rhyss.

As for the good evil debate. I can go with the templars being lawful and the mages being chaotic. I don't see either side as evil at this juncture. Both are probably more neutral than anything.

Good or evil in the end is all about perspective anyway.

By your definition Lul the dirt bags who flew the planes on 9/11 were good because they were fighting against their perception of western oppression.

[Lulupab]

Adrian herself says at the end of Asunder that Wynne would have succeeded in convincing the enchanters to vote against independence.

Even after all the events in Asunder it came down to a toss up vote decided by Rhyss.

As for the good evil debate. I can go with the templars being lawful and the mages being chaotic. I don't see either side as evil at this juncture. Both are probably more neutral than anything.

Good or evil in the end is all about perspective anyway.

By your definition Lul the dirt bags who flew the planes on 9/11 were good because they were fighting against their perception of western oppression.

 

Templars killed many enchanters and disbanded the college of Enchanters. Wynne would have succeeded if these events didn't happen. 

 

9/11 was results of war not freedom being taken away. 

 

Also do not compare what Anders did with examples of social reforms in the past century cause there is no analogy. Rather consider any instances of actual social reform taking place peacefully in the Dark Ages.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Templars killed many enchanters and disbanded the college of Enchanters. Wynne would have succeeded if these events didn't happen. 

 

Which never would have happened if Fiona and her ilk weren't riling up the mages.

Lambert didn't walk in with an intent to kill mages - he walked in with intent to arrest a mage killer and detain everyone untill the investigation was over.

Of course, trying to ursurp the meeting wasn't helping the mages.
 

 

 

Also do not compare what Anders did with examples of social reforms in the past century cause there is no analogy. Rather consider any instances of actual social reform taking place peacefully in the Dark Ages.

 

And you don't compare mages with any group in our world.

Because they are not like them.

 

 

And Anders said it nicely.

 

He wants a good meal (which he had in the Circle), a pretty woman (which he could also have in the Circle, especially a Ferelden one) and the right to shoot lighting at fools (the one thing he can't have).

Thing is, he would be the one deciding who the fools are. He wants to use his magic whenever he wants, on whomever he wants, any way he wants. As a right. For all mages.

[Lulupab]

Which never would have happened if Fiona and her ilk weren't riling up the mages.

Lambert didn't walk in with an intent to kill mages - he walked in with intent to arrest a mage killer and detain everyone untill the investigation was over.

Of course, trying to ursurp the meeting wasn't helping the mages.
 

 

 

[quote]

Also do not compare what Anders did with examples of social reforms in the past century cause there is no analogy. Rather consider any instances of actual social reform taking place peacefully in the Dark Ages.[/qutoe]

 

And you don't compare mages with any group in our world.

Because they are not like them.

 

As far as I remember Lambert went on a killing spree when the college suggested the vote to separate the Circle from the Chantry. Before the vote could be taken, the meeting was disrupted by Lord Seeker Lambert, who on presenting news that Pharamond had been murdered and ordered his Templars to attack. There is no reasoning with such people, the only solution is rebellion. They bludgeon mages at the very idea, least of all seeing it happen.

[Cat Lance]

I think the thing is, imagine if you were a mage born into the Circle system. Would you still approve of it?