1305 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

So would assuming that a system that's biased against a group can't be a middle-ground.

 

Well, not the Golden Mean obviously, but there is no logical reason a 'middle' position can't reflect bias- it is  virtually impossible to avoid bias, after all. Even the idea of mage freedom as an unbiased position reflects personal bias.

[Wulfram]

Someone whose views accord with mine

[Vulpe]

As I see it, in real life as in Thedas there are 2 types of moderates.

 

1) The lawful/true/chaotic neutral type that simply doesn't really care about how things go and just enjoys the show or that is willing to join the cause of 2) if 2) proves to be capable.

 

2) The ones that are getting tired of all the extremists and zealots from all sides and take action to silence the fanatics (of all sides), to prevent the damage they can do and to repair the one that was already made with the goal of stabilizing things and prevent the atrocities/bad things a side can do to others. Basically a force of balance that seeks the good of everyone, regardles of their sex, skin colour, sexual orentation, ideology, beliefs, religion, goals etc.

[Lillian]

I think a person who doesn't care for the cause at hand would be a neutral, as in, keep me out of this.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

taking no sides was impossible in da2, i wish there was no mage/templar conflict in da:i or PC could tell them all to sod off at the very least. sort things out like you know, adults, w/o threatening every living civilian in the city.

 

moderate character, imho is the person who either doesn't care or has the ability to keep open mind and see reason on both sides (or lack of it).

[Dean_the_Young]

I think a person who doesn't care for the cause at hand would be a neutral, as in, keep me out of this.

 

Yes and no. While that is true in terms of principle and intent, it can be completely biased in terms of practical effect. People who are apathetic about an issue effectively support the status quo, whatever it is: tolerance is a form of support and acceptance, which favors the person who can exercise their will. The fact that you don't want to be involved in the costs of a struggle doesn't mean you yourself are effectively supporting one side more than another, and that can make you a part of the conflict.

 

Basic example: 'neutrality' in a conflict between police and organized crime. Organized crime rests on the fact that people who are aware will not report it. Police rely on assumed and respected status as a legitimate authority figure: that you will not obstruct them, and will cooperate honestly. Once you do know something of value to either faction, you can not be be truly neutral in effect: hiding or releasing the information to either side will demonstrate a non-neutral effect whether you are an active or passive participant.

 

 

'If you aren't with me, you are against me' is paranoid, but not always wrong.

[Lillian]

Yes and no. While that is true in terms of principle and intent, it can be completely biased in terms of practical effect. People who are apathetic about an issue effectively support the status quo, whatever it is: tolerance is a form of support and acceptance, which favors the person who can exercise their will. The fact that you don't want to be involved in the costs of a struggle doesn't mean you yourself are effectively supporting one side more than another, and that can make you a part of the conflict.

 

Basic example: 'neutrality' in a conflict between police and organized crime. Organized crime rests on the fact that people who are aware will not report it. Police rely on assumed and respected status as a legitimate authority figure: that you will not obstruct them, and will cooperate honestly. Once you do know something of value to either faction, you can not be be truly neutral in effect: hiding or releasing the information to either side will demonstrate a non-neutral effect whether you are an active or passive participant.

 

 

'If you aren't with me, you are against me' is paranoid, but not always wrong.

Well... In those terms, yes, that's support of the status quo... But, I more or less had displacement from an issue in mind. That would be more true neutrality, if you simply allowed things to resolve themselves and accepting anything that came of the conflict. Like with your example, if you simply left the information on the ground for anyone to pick up and leaving, then you'd be rather neutral, letting things take their natural outcome under those conditions.

[wcholcombe]

A moderate is somewhat capable of seeing both sides of an argument. They seek to build a concensus that both please and angers both sides.

[Mockingword]

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.
 

 

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.
 

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.

Maybe I'm tired, but it reads more like a demonstration of gibberish. Like, I know all the words, but they don't make any sense in that order, and I can't tell what order they're supposed to be in.

 

As for the rest, like, okay, I guess? I never said anything about supporting mage autonomy or independence either way, so I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.

 

But for what it's worth, I don't think mages should be autonomous. At least, not any more autonomous than any other citizen of Thedas. Although I'm not happy with the level of autonomy that most people in Thedas have currently.

[Maria Caliban]

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.

 

What is moderate depends on how you frame the debate. For example:

 

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

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of mage freedom is enslavement (qunari system) or turning them all into mindlessTranquils. Chantry domination, the position that advocates the mages be governed by a neutral party but retain control of their mind and body, is, in fact, the moderate position.

[Mockingword]

What is moderate depends on how you frame the debate. For example:

 

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

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of mage freedom is enslavement (qunari) or turning them all to tranquils. Chantry domination, the position that advocates the mages be governed by a neutral party but retain control of their mind and body, is, in fact, the moderate position.

Well, it's intellectually dishonest to frame the Chantry as a "neutral party" when their own doctrine makes it clear that they aren't.

 

But yes, point taken.

[Xilizhra]

What is moderate depends on how you frame the debate. For example:

 

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

 

That's not how it really is though. The opposite of mage freedom is enslavement (qunari system) or turning them all into mindlessTranquils. Chantry domination, the position that advocates the mages be governed by a neutral party but retain control of their mind and body, is, in fact, the moderate position.

That would be the Golden Mean fallacy, in addition to creating some kind of arbitrary standard wherein only one pair of opposing concepts could be considered "opposites." Better middle grounds can be found in positions other than that.

[AresKeith]

It's hard to find the moderate because of the bias view of some

[LobselVith8]

The Chantry really is the middle ground. It's the Templars, the Chantry's own sub-order, which is nearly growing more powerful than the Chantry itself, that despises any amount of Mage freedom.

No, the Chantry institution controlled the templars and the mages for nearly a thousand years; it's why Alistair was bitter over the lyrium situation for templar soldiers. Justina and Lambert's irreconcilable differences now doesn't change that the Chantry controlled things for centuries.

[GVulture]

The only reason I am not completely Mage Freedom is because the narrative of the games seem to hammer home how dangerous and quick to lose themselves these mages are. I will admit that SOME of that is because of what the current system is. So, while mage freedom/autonomy is a lofty goal, I don't think many people have thought about what NO Templar support means for mages. Pull the Chantry and the Dogma out of the system and you have an organization that is meant to protect and serve the mages as much as the mages are meant to protect and serve man. (Well... that sounded a bit more Chantry than I meant, but the message is there).

 

I know a lot of people are hung up on the mage children being taken from their family's, but Wynne says she was setting barns on fire when she was angry and Connor is an example of how ONE mage carrying for another isn't always enough (though that example is skewed because a different mage may not have had demon summoning books laying around for the charges to read)... So... the separation... I think is a necessary evil because there HAS to be a place where mages and/or Templar trained individuals help with their care or... what? What is the other solution? There can't be a mage in every town, ready to take in and train bby mages. At least, not until common people's view of mages DRASTICALLY changes... considering that magelings get blamed for bad things happening in towns, imagine how they would react to a full trained mage constantly there. They can't all be heroes who served King Maric like Wilhelm and his golem where the entire town just tolerates them.

[GVulture]

No, the Chantry institution controlled the templars and the mages for nearly a thousand years; it's why Alistair was bitter over the lyrium situation for templar soldiers. Justina and Lambert's irreconcilable differences now doesn't change that the Chantry controlled things for centuries.

Agreed, I personally think that the Chantry is the problem with the current system. It's the chantry dogma that makes the mages think they're cursed and it is the chantry dogma that abusive templars use to justify their behaviors.

[Potato Cat]

Agreed, I personally think that the Chantry is the problem with the current system. It's the chantry dogma that makes the mages think they're cursed and it is the chantry dogma that abusive templars use to justify their behaviors.

Yes, but I also think it's the more moderate influence of Justinia (is she the fifth?) that has now caused the tension between the templars, who have been radicalised under Lambert and pressure from the Circles, after years of Chantry dogma that had previously been supportive of them. Basically, I think if we had the Divine I-Hate-Mages III, the Templars would still be under Chantry control.

[wcholcombe]

Agreed, I personally think that the Chantry is the problem with the current system. It's the chantry dogma that makes the mages think they're cursed and it is the chantry dogma that abusive templars use to justify their behaviors.

Hmmm, no not really.  Nothing in the Dogma of the Chantry espouses literal abuse of the mages.  The chantry dogma teaches that magic is a gift from the maker. The fact that some templars abuse mages is no different then some magisters using elves or slaves as blood banks for blood magic.  The abusive templars who decide to focus on one very small part of the teachings of the chantry would be abusive if they were templars or not.  The abusive nature of a human/elf/dwarf/qunari nature isn't the fault of the Chantry anymore then Arl Howe murdering the Couslands is the fault of King Cailain.  Both could be blamed for the system that allowed it to happen, but neither caused it.

 

"Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him. Foul and corrupt are they Who have taken His gift And turned it against His children. They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones. They shall find no rest in this world Or beyond."      

[Xilizhra]

 

Hmmm, no not really.  Nothing in the Dogma of the Chantry espouses literal abuse of the mages.  The chantry dogma teaches that magic is a gift from the maker. The fact that some templars abuse mages is no different then some magisters using elves or slaves as blood banks for blood magic.  The abusive templars who decide to focus on one very small part of the teachings of the chantry would be abusive if they were templars or not.  The abusive nature of a human/elf/dwarf/qunari nature isn't the fault of the Chantry anymore then Arl Howe murdering the Couslands is the fault of King Cailain.  Both could be blamed for the system that allowed it to happen, but neither caused it.

 

"Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him. Foul and corrupt are they Who have taken His gift And turned it against His children. They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones. They shall find no rest in this world Or beyond."      

 

The strict literalist interpretation of the Chant of Light, no. The way the Chantry's set up the system and the way that templars choose their recruits and organize their training? Yes.

[wcholcombe]

The strict literalist interpretation of the Chant of Light, no. The way the Chantry's set up the system and the way that templars choose their recruits and organize their training? Yes.

Nothing in the way the Chantry has setup the system supports physical abuses.  We have met quite a few revered mothers and even a few Grand Clerics-DA2 and Stolen throne come to mind.  Elthina in no way espoused abuse of mages-you could be critical of her giving Meredith a free hand, and I will agree with you, but it is outlined that it is the Seekers who are responsible for policing the templars. It is possible Elthina reported the abuses and Lambert set on them we don't know. Even the grand cleric in Stolen throne who I despise on several levels never espoused the abuse of mages.

 

The templars are another story, as I have on multiple occassions accused them of being over run by hardliners who encourage the abuses that we see in DA2.

[Xilizhra]

Nothing in the way the Chantry has setup the system supports physical abuses.  We have met quite a few revered mothers and even a few Grand Clerics-DA2 and Stolen throne come to mind.  Elthina in no way espoused abuse of mages-you could be critical of her giving Meredith a free hand, and I will agree with you, but it is outlined that it is the Seekers who are responsible for policing the templars. It is possible Elthina reported the abuses and Lambert set on them we don't know. Even the grand cleric in Stolen throne who I despise on several levels never espoused the abuse of mages.

 

The templars are another story, as I have on multiple occassions accused them of being over run by hardliners who encourage the abuses that we see in DA2.

Everything does. Annulment and Tranquility are the most blatant, of course, which are fully supported by the Chantry.

[wcholcombe]

Everything does. Annulment and Tranquility are the most blatant, of course, which are fully supported by the Chantry.

lol if all you are going to throw at me are tranquility/harrowing/annulment are bad then fine.  It proves that morally you consider the chantry as physical abusers.  All of those so far have been shown to be necessary and needed. 

 

Tranquility is preferred to possession. And ROA is only used when circles are lost to abominations or malificar or when an idiot storyline revolves around a mage blowing up the only voice of reason in the entire game and the story railroads to a really head banging against the wall conclusion.

 

There is a reason it is setup where templars can't do it on their own.  But you can't argue that ROA aren't necessary.  The very reason the right exists is because a single--thats 1- abomination slaughtered all the mages and templars in the Nevarren Circle at one time.

[Xilizhra]

lol if all you are going to throw at me are tranquility/harrowing/annulment are bad then fine.  It proves that morally you consider the chantry as physical abusers.  All of those so far have been shown to be necessary and needed. 

 

Tranquility is preferred to possession. And ROA is only used when circles are lost to abominations or malificar or when an idiot storyline revolves around a mage blowing up the only voice of reason in the entire game and the story railroads to a really head banging against the wall conclusion.

 

There is a reason it is setup where templars can't do it on their own.  But you can't argue that ROA aren't necessary.  The very reason the right exists is because a single--thats 1- abomination slaughtered all the mages and templars in the Nevarren Circle at one time.

Possession can be avoided by other means that don't require such torture, and Annulment is unnecessary when all you have to do is kill demons. Also, the actual codex entry for that Nevarran incident says that the abomination killed "mages and templars alike," but not necessarily all of them.