1305 réponses à ce sujet

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I see a lot of people talking about a lack of "moderates" on the templar/mage issues in the forums. There's also a lot of debate, it seems, on what constitutes a "moderate" character in story. 

 

There are some pretty obvious examples. Meredith certainly isn't a moderate. Grace is obviously not a moderate. Where is the line, though? Is anyone that doesn't advocate wholesale slaughter of the other side a moderate, even if they still regularly show a bias towards one side? Is supporting the status quo the same as being a moderate?

 

Personally, I think it's more complex than that. I think there's a distinction between "moderate character" and "sympathetic character" that people sometimes don't see. Being able to see how a person came to the beliefs they have and sympathizing with that position doesn't mean their position is necessarily moderate. Believing that they are a good person doesn't mean they're necessarily not still driven by their own biases.

 

So, my question is, what do you think it means for a character to be a "moderate" on the templar/mage situation? What exactly is the moderate position, or are there multiple moderate positions?

[renfrees]

I personally view it as a person standing for Circle reforms towards loosening restrictions, but at the same time supporting mages' supervision by neutral (non-mage) party.

[GVulture]

I think willing to work for... a gentler side of what the extremists want might count as moderate? For example, a freedom mage that still calls for some sort of protection for the mages still learning. Like they want help in supporting other mages but they don't want others running their lives. Or a templar that believes that mages should be allowed more autonomy in their lives than what the current system allows.

 

Basically, anyone fed up with how things are working and are seeking a better solution without blowing up and killing the other side is a moderate for me.

 

Because ANY person, mage or Templar that calls for the maiming, death, or bodily injury for anyone that hasn't personally done them harm get boots to the heads in my games. That's how I played my Pro-Circle mage Hawke, at least... Any Templar harming innocent mages? Boot to the head. A mage asking Hawke to kill that Templar standing guard so they can slip away? Boot to the head.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I guess those two responses are kind of the two camps I see people in. To some, moderation is ONLY a give and take that balances the two sides as equally as possible. There's no way, for example, to suggest we completely remove Chantry control and still call ourselves a moderate. For others, it just means taking a mostly diplomatic response, regardless which side you essentially support.

 

It seems like there's basically a scale;

 

-Pro-Templar Extremism

-Pro-Templar Moderates

-Pure Moderates

-Pro-Mage Moderates

-Pro-Mage Extremism

[KainD]

A moderate character is:

a ) A naive individual that doesn't understand how the world works.

b ) A person that doesn't know what they want in life.

[Mockingword]

The way I see it, people are confused about what the extremes are. A lot of people (yes, mostly pro-Templars) see the issue as chantry domination vs. a polar opposite of mage freedom.

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of Chantry domination is mage domination. Mage freedom, the position that advocates equality for all, is, in fact, the moderate position.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Yeah that's the issue here, different here people will have different definitions of what the real moderate position is. Ergo they tend to see their perspectives on any particular issue as moderate and therefore their opponents are not.

 

Chantry domination is not the most extreme end of the continuum in the mage-templar issue. Qunari domination is more extreme.

 

Given the way that bioware frames the issue in the games as Mages wanting freedom and templars wanting security, I tend to consider the moderate position to be something in between.

 

Otherwise being Pro Mage is written to be the only good option, which it isn't.

[Dean_the_Young]

Two ways to consider it: by relative position, or relative approach.

 

In terms of a position, a moderate would be between the extremes of 'mage independence' and 'unchanging status quo plus crackdowns.' Generally a reformist approach to the Circle system- variation exists, but neither unchanging or a radical revolution.

 

In terms of relative approach, a moderate will be more by how they approach the challenges of their position, particularly by encouraging negotiations and a compromise that recognizes the concerns of the other side. A moderate Templar might have a goal of 'restore Circle system', but accept restrictions to Templar powers and an expansion of mage rights and privileges. A moderate Mage might be willing to end the revolt and return to the Circles in exchange for restrictions on the Templars.

 

 

 

Mind you, there are people who won't consider either of these moderate, but such definitions of moderation tend to amount to 'agree with my extremity.'

[Dean_the_Young]

The way I see it, people are confused about what the extremes are. A lot of people (yes, mostly pro-Templars) see the issue as chantry domination vs. a polar opposite of mage freedom.

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of Chantry domination is mage domination. Mage freedom, the position that advocates equality for all, is, in fact, the moderate position.

 

So would mage autonomy without independence- which was the status quo.

 

We can set the relative goal posts wherever we like to make the conclusion fit.

[Shadow Fox]

People who don't blow up buildings or condemn innocents to death to make a point.

[Lillian]

I would say moderates are people who are concerned by an issue, yet seek to find some sort of compromise between the two extremes without being violent about it.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Two ways to consider it: by relative position, or relative approach.

 

In terms of a position, a moderate would be between the extremes of 'mage independence' and 'unchanging status quo plus crackdowns.' Generally a reformist approach to the Circle system- variation exists, but neither unchanging or a radical revolution.

 

In terms of relative approach, a moderate will be more by how they approach the challenges of their position, particularly by encouraging negotiations and a compromise that recognizes the concerns of the other side. A moderate Templar might have a goal of 'restore Circle system', but accept restrictions to Templar powers and an expansion of mage rights and privileges. A moderate Mage might be willing to end the revolt and return to the Circles in exchange for restrictions on the Templars.

 

 

 

Mind you, there are people who won't consider either of these moderate, but such definitions of moderation tend to amount to 'agree with my extremity.'

I'm not wholly convinced that a mage has to accept the Chantry and the Templars (under their control) as the continued powers that be to be moderate in their position. The Chantry is just one religious organization. Siding against them doesn't necessarily mean siding against any provisions for mage security. It doesn't mean a mage wouldn't accept a secular force in some security capacity, or wouldn't advocate at least temporary schooling and evaluation before a mage should be allowed full freedom. It doesn't even mean they necessarily are requesting full freedom. There's no reason this specific organization needs to be involved, since the issue is mage freedom balanced with the security of the many, so I can't see where acceptance of the Chantry is really necessary for a mage to be a moderate overall. 

 

Given what I just said, I think there are also some pretty clear lines that are necessary in approaching that goal before you cross the "extremist" line. Obviously it's still an extremist view if "opposing Chantry control" equates "exterminating the Chantry by force". The proposition doesn't have to be violent, however. It could just as easily be diplomatic, a compromise on the issue of mages against the security of the general populous. 

 

To me, the requirement that the Chantry be involved is just one example of people doing what you're suggesting, and requiring ALL FORMS of moderation adhere to their personal goals. I think Chantry involvement can be a part of some forms of moderation, but I can't see where it needs to be a requirement. 

[Bob from Accounting]

I really hope these are not serious answers.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I really hope these are not serious answers.

Do you have a better one?

[Mockingword]

Chantry domination is not the most extreme end of the continuum in the mage-templar issue. Qunari domination is more extreme.

The Qunari don't have a dog in this fight, though. Their position only has relevance to their own specific culture.

[Mockingword]

So would mage autonomy without independence- which was the status quo.

 

We can set the relative goal posts wherever we like to make the conclusion fit.

I don't see how that first sentence has anything to do with what I said at all. Also, autonomy and independance are the same thing. Both terms refer to the right of self-government.

 

You can set the goalposts anywhere you like, but that is called lying.

[Mockingword]

People who don't blow up buildings or condemn innocents to death to make a point.

You can do those things and still have a moderate political stance.

 

And you can have an extremist political stance without being violent.

 

Really, whether or not one is violent is completely irrelevent to the extremism of their political views.

[ZombieMasterDW]

I think with a volatile, polarizing subject like this most characters seem to lean more towards one side than another, so even determining who a moderate thinking person is can be controversial. I personally always considered Aveline a moderate who leaned more towards the templar side and Wynne a moderate who leaned toward the mage side.

[Bob from Accounting]

If you want the simple definition to the morality of a 'moderate,' I'll give it to you.

 

Since a moderate stance is by definition defined by the stances of others, there's no inherent good or evil ever attached to it.

 

No, moderates are not inherently more peaceful, cooperative, or compassionate than non-moderates. Nor are they inherently more 'naive,' weak, or slow to act. 

 

I would think this is all obvious. How is this even a discussion?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

If you want the simple definition to the morality of a 'moderate,' I'll give it to you.

 

Since a moderate stance is by definition defined by the stances of others, there's no inherent good or evil ever attached to it.

 

No, moderates are not inherently more peaceful, cooperative, or compassionate than non-moderates. Nor are they inherently more 'naive,' weak, or slow to act. 

 

I would think this is all obvious. How is this even a discussion?

Well, it's a discussion because I've never seen a thread where people agree on what it means to be a moderate on the issue.

 

For what it's worth, though, I agree with everything you said. 

[J-Reyno]

For me, it's similar to what others have said.  I view moderate as averaging the two extremes.  My inquisitor would be pro-circle, but would seek to reform the implementation that led to this uproar.   Improving the QOL for mages and what not, but maintaining a degree of restriction.  I consider that a moderate solution.

 

That said, my inquisitor's approach to his solution isn't quite so moderate.  He will do any and everything necessary to reach that goal.  Intimidation, assassination, betrayal or any degree of underhandedness are all on the table.  He'll play any card to win.  Not even because he is evil, but because he has a dogged determination to enforce change.  So anyone who would view his moderate political stance as weakness or naivete would be in for a nasty surprise.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Moderation is about the goals, not necessarily how to achieve them. I think that's the distinction. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

The way I see it, people are confused about what the extremes are. A lot of people (yes, mostly pro-Templars) see the issue as chantry domination vs. a polar opposite of mage freedom.

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of Chantry domination is mage domination. Mage freedom, the position that advocates equality for all, is, in fact, the moderate position.

 

I disagreee
You cannot declare your position moderate just because.

 

 

 

The Qunari don't have a dog in this fight, though. Their position only has relevance to their own specific culture.

 

Wrong. We are talking about a solution to  dealing with mages. In that case every single way counts. You cannot use the current Circle system as the extreme, when it's not.

 

Obviously solutions to the mage problem range from "kill them all", qunari solution, to the circle, all the way to total mage freedom and Tevinter.

 

In that sense, Circle is the closest thing to the middle ground of all system used in TheDas.
 

[Mockingword]

I disagreee

You cannot declare your position moderate just because.

I never said that the moderate position was my position. You're assuming an awful lot.

 

But I'm not declaring it the moderate position "just because". I'm declaring it so because that is what it is.

 

And even if the Chantry was the "middle-ground" (it's not, it's biased against mages), the moderate position is not always the correct one. That would be a golden mean fallacy.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't see how that first sentence has anything to do with what I said at all.

 

It is a demonstration of how there is not simply one moderate position in terms of 'between two points' because the decided upon points are arbitrary.
 

 

Also, autonomy and independance are the same thing. Both terms refer to the right of self-government.

 

 

If you ignore countless counter-examples and thousands of years to the contrary, sure. If we don't, political autonomy is typically far more limited than independence in relevant spheres. Autonomy in local governance, but not in foreign relations- or autonomy in budget policy (making one's own budget) but not fiscal/monetary policy (unable to dictate the currency being used).

 

The archetypical autonomy-vs-independence relationship for many westerners (and especially Americans) is the governmental concept of Federalism. American states are (or at least were) exceptionally autonomous, but not independent from the United States government.
 

 

You can set the goalposts anywhere you like, but that is called lying.

 

Not really. Since the goalposts of comparison are themselves arbitrary, any logically defensible selection would be as legitimate as another. I'll point out that neither of us chose 'systemic genocide against mages/mundanes' as the extreme we were measuring by, even though we very well could.