200 réponses à ce sujet

[LilyasAvalon]

He didn't really get along with Sebastian, I thought

 

Wasn't that more him being just unable to stand Sebastian?

[ManOfSteel]

Some would argue that the certanty of the Qun is even worse.  Plus there is this brainwashing thingy...

I would argue that the Qunari are the lesser of two evils as far as the conflict with Tevinter is concerned. I despise both Blood Mages and Mages who believe themselves to be better than those around them. If It were possible to bring the other nations of Thedas together to knock Tevinter off it's high horse, then I'd naturally take that route instead.

[BabyFratelli]

He didn't really get along with Sebastian, I thought

 

I more got the feeling that Sebastian wasn't his kind of person, rather than he actively disliked him. It's hard to tell with all his teasing though.

[Eleinehmm]

I would argue that the Qunari are the lesser of two evils as far as the conflict with Tevinter is concerned. I despise both Blood Mages and Mages who believe themselves to be better than those around them. If It were possible to bring the other nations of Thedas together to knock Tevinter off it's high horse, then I'd naturally take that route instead.

 

You see, Qun would be ok but if you don’t want to accept the role assigned to you, you are getting brainwashed and then used for whatever, because Qunari don’t waste resources. 

 

I don't think there is a high horse, since they are relatively non-important, being more of a remnant of a powerfull Roman-like empire, then anything really scary (to the outsiders that is).

It's seem like an isolationist "we are cool, and all of the other places are full of barabarians" state and not a "you will convert to our religion or die" kind Qunari seem to have.

[Das Tentakel]

You see, Qun would be ok but if you don’t want to accept the role assigned to you, you are getting brainwashed and then used for whatever, because Qunari don’t waste resources. 
 
I don't think there is a high horse, since they are relatively non-important, being more of a remnant of a powerfull Roman-like empire, then anything really scary (to the outsiders that is).
It's seem like an isolationist "we are cool, and all of the other places are full of barabarians" state and not a "you will convert to our religion or die" kind Qunari seem to have.

That might be a bit of a projection of the popular distorted image of medieval Byzantium on your part. Understandably so because Tevinter borrowed some pseudo-Romano-Byzantine clothes from the tropes & clichés store, but structurally it's an example of the quasi-evil Magocracy template. Evil not in a metaphysical sense, I mean that a lot about it seems destined to push modern western moral buttons, rather than 'just a fantasy empire with a slightly different morality'.

There are plenty of the latter (Tékumel's Empire of Tsolyánu - as well as all other states in that setting; Feist's Empires of Tsuranuanni and Great Kesh; Harnworld's Empire of Azeryan, Witcherverse's Nilfgaard etc.) in fantasy, but Tevinter doesn't resemble them, but seem more akin to Howard's Stygia or in particular D&D's Netheril http://forgottenreal...m/wiki/Netheril ).

 

Having said that, Tevinter is presumably, beyond a sketchy outline, still largely unformed. It's future development, lorewise, will probably depend 1) on DA's survival as a franchise, 2) the franchise goes to Tevinter, and 3) what the main members of the dev team think is cool.

[SomberXIII]

I was a Tevinter hater......until I saw Maevaris and Dorian. 

[Eleinehmm]

That might be a bit of a projection of the popular distorted image of medieval Byzantium on your part. Understandably so because Tevinter borrowed some pseudo-Romano-Byzantine clothes from the tropes & clichés store, but structurally it's an example of the quasi-evil Magocracy template. Evil not in a metaphysical sense, I mean that a lot about it seems destined to push modern western moral buttons, rather than 'just a fantasy empire with a slightly different morality'.

There are plenty of the latter (Tékumel's Empire of Tsolyánu - as well as all other states in that setting; Feist's Empires of Tsuranuanni and Great Kesh; Harnworld's Empire of Azeryan, Witcherverse's Nilfgaard etc.) in fantasy, but Tevinter doesn't resemble them, but seem more akin to Howard's Stygia or in particular D&D's Netheril http://forgottenreal...m/wiki/Netheril ).

 

Having said that, Tevinter is presumably, beyond a sketchy outline, still largely unformed. It's future development, lorewise, will probably depend 1) on DA's survival as a franchise, 2) the franchise goes to Tevinter, and 3) what the main members of the dev team think is cool.

 

I am rather aware of  the medieval Byzantium sources (and not in the pop-cultural way really), even though I have always known more about the late pre-split Imperial period. 

I would agree  with "design to make the modern audience go meh" part, but  really like the idea of Thedas being less "high" and more realistic then say FR.

[Das Tentakel]

I am rather aware of  the medieval Byzantium sources (and not in the pop-cultural way really), even though I have always known more about the late pre-split Imperial period. 

I would agree  with "design to make the modern audience go meh" part, but  really like the idea of Thedas being less "high" and more realistic then say FR.

 

 

Less high certainly, if you mean high-magic. Thedas feels like 'middle fantasy' in that sense.

[leaguer of one]

Ferelden during the blight was in a crisis. Loghain took advantage, and went mad. What happened in Ferelden was abnormal during that period of time. Tervinters are convinced otherwise.

Abnormal.? You act that Loghain was the only noble connected to the slavers market.

[leaguer of one]

I would argue that the Qunari are the lesser of two evils as far as the conflict with Tevinter is concerned. I despise both Blood Mages and Mages who believe themselves to be better than those around them. If It were possible to bring the other nations of Thedas together to knock Tevinter off it's high horse, then I'd naturally take that route instead.

Seriously? Enslavement vs enslavement, social enslavement wins over physical enslavement?

[leaguer of one]

It hasn't to do anything with judging those societies trough a modern prism. Some things are inherently evil and wrong, regardless of cultural circumstances, time periods or point of views. If you lived in a society, where murder was socially acceptable, would that make it less evil? If you lived in a time period, where rape wasn't looked down upon, would that make it less evil? If you lived in a place, where slavery would be seen as normal, would that make it less evil?

 

No. No it won't. Slavery is evil and everyone who enslaves other people is at least rotten on the inside. Even if other Nations have similar systems, that doesn't make tevinter better but them worse.

BS, morality is subjective and changes over time. If you take people from the past to our time, they would be baffle at our morality just as we are to theirs.

[Feybrad]

BS, morality is subjective and changes over time. If you take people from the past to our time, they would be baffle at our morality just as we are to theirs.

 

Tell me, which of my examples is subjective? Are you *seriously* arguing that deliberate Murder or Rape or Slavery or whatnot can be justified by any circumstances? Because they totally can't. They are WRONG, full stop.

 

There may be Things, people from the Past would be baffled about, but there are Things that are wrong and evil in any Circumstances. And Slavery certainly is one of them.

[Das Tentakel]

Tell me, which of my examples is subjective? Are you *seriously* arguing that deliberate Murder or Rape or Slavery or whatnot can be justified by any circumstances? Because they totally can't. They are WRONG, full stop.
 
There may be Things, people from the Past would be baffled about, but there are Things that are wrong and evil in any Circumstances. And Slavery certainly is one of them.

 
'Aengaende de Heydenen of Turcken, die mogen van de Christenen tot slaven gebruyckt worden, mits datse in eene rechtvaerdige Oorloge gevangen: of van hare Ouders, of andere deughdelijcke Meesters, voor eenen rechten prijs gekocht zijn...'
 
'Concerning Pagans or Turks, Christians can use them as slaves, provided they were captured in a just(ified) war, or sold - for a fair price - by their parents or other rightful masters'.

Thus wrote Reverend Godefridus Udemans in the 17th century in the Netherlands. Note the moral caveats: Slavery was okay, provided the slave was 'pagan' and ownership had been gained through 'proper' channels.

However, Christians using Christians as slaves was a big no-no for him, as was the age-old rule in Europe. That posed a bit of a quandary for slave owners with baptized slaves, of course.

 
Luckily, another reverend, Jacobus Capitein, wrote another tract explaining that, really, Christians having Christian slaves was perfectly alright and morally justified.
 
Here's a picture of Reverend Capitein:
 

 
And to illustrate how other the mores of our ancestors could be from age to age, when Reverend Capiteyn, who was thoroughly a Dutch reverend in his training and outlook, faced difficulties in his missionary work in Africa he proposed that he would marry a local African girl. Through her, he would gain the relations and contacts that would make his work easier. 
 
Back in the Netherlands, his sponsors were horrified. A Christian, a Reverend even, marrying a Pagan girl? God forbid! They quickly arranged a white, Dutch bride for him. Try imagine this a couple of centuries later...

[leaguer of one]

Tell me, which of my examples is subjective? Are you *seriously* arguing that deliberate Murder or Rape or Slavery or whatnot can be justified by any circumstances? Because they totally can't. They are WRONG, full stop.

 

There may be Things, people from the Past would be baffled about, but there are Things that are wrong and evil in any Circumstances. And Slavery certainly is one of them.

Morality is not about justification. It's about concept of right and wrong in a society. That differs form society to society. Even in old testament of the bible, for a religion the preaches peace, had wars were the "people of god" committed genocide and enslaved entire people. It does not match up with the messages in the new testament because the people of the old had different moralities then the ones in the new testament.

 

Imagine being part of a society that is build on the idea everyone else is inferior and forms of compassion for other and outsides is morally wrong? Just image how someone who grew up in that can see thing one their own that you morality is right?

[LilyasAvalon]

Let's play the game, "how long until this thread is locked"

[Das Tentakel]

Morality is not about justification. It's about concept of right and wrong in a society. That differs form society to society. Even in old testament of the bible, for a religion the preaches peace, had wars were the "people of god" committed genocide and enslaved entire people. It does not match up with the messages in the new testament because the people of the old had different moralities then the ones in the new testament.

 

Imagine being pare of a society that is build on the idea everyone else is inferior and forms of compassion for other and outsides is morally wrong? Just image how someone who grew up in that can see thing one their own that you morality is right?

 

Having said that, I have no idea what kind of moral system the Tevinter folk live under. Most of the time they appear they seem to be the Evil de jour, but apparently occasionally it seems that in every Tevinter there's a modern Westerner waiting to get out.

[TheLittleTpot]

Let's play the game, "how long until this thread is locked"

I'll give it until page six, tops.

[Augustei]

Your definition of honor isn't the universal definition of it. Honor and Morality vary from culture to culture, nation to nation etc etc. Not saying Tevinter is good or honorable or just or w/e but its all ambiguity really, and I'm not saying this ambiguity is a good thing either because imo its not. But many ancient and even modern civilisations view themselves and their actions as honorable by a vast majority of people, yet modern western civilisation would certainly not classify them thus if holding them to our definitions of the word.

[Das Tentakel]

I'll give it until page six, tops.

 

Depends on when the Moderators wake up and which ones are 'on duty' this weekend. But seriously, if everybody behaves and keeps it somewhat Tevinter-related, I think it should be okay.

 

 

This is...TEVINTER!

[Gervaise]

Dorian comes from a society where mages rule and mages on the whole are treated with honour.   Their gifts are valued, probably even by those who do not have them.   Magic after all can be used to heal as well as kill.   Then he visits another part of Thedas and see how mages are treated.   How they fear them and lock them up away from society.  His own culture is depicted as being responsible for the evils of the world, largely because they are mages.   Naturally he would want to correct these images.  There was a codex that stated that slaves within Tevinter are often treated far better than peasantry elsewhere and even within Tevinter.   This may largely be because they are a valuable commodity but it would seem that until Hadriana decided the need for a blood sacrifice even she treated her slaves well, which is why the slave girl was so confused and distraught by her actions.   She even felt sorry for Hadrianna because she says something about how the other Magisters looked down on her and so it seemed that Hadrianna had to act as she did in order to survive (something that Fenris alludes to concerning mages generally within the society).   If you leave out the blood sacrifice thing, are the Magisters treating the elves in their country any worse than in, say, Orlais.   Do they turn a blind eye to indiscriminate killing of elves or use them for target practice (like the Chevaliers do)?   Probably not, they are too valuable.  

 

There is also the fact that whilst Dorian is meant to be a Magister, he may not yet have ascended to the higher levels of the ruling elite and it would appear that it is there, where the perpetrators are virtually untouchable, that the worst excesses occur.   Officially blood magic sacrifice is illegal in Tevinter.   In reality behind closed doors it goes on all the time.   Lambert grew up in Tevinter and says he had a good friend who was a mage and became the Black Divine.   Before he assumed that high office, the two of them thought they were "Going to Change the World".  Afterwards the mage, and his friends who supported him, were drawn into ever more corrupt practices in order to stay in power.     Lambert as a Templar was meant to be policing these things but kept finding his enquiries going nowhere.   In the end he found out what was going on and confronted his old friend, only to be told he was being naïve in thinking things would be any different.

 

So you see, Dorian can be perfectly genuine in thinking that his society has honour compared with the rest of Thedas.   He may also be aware that corrupt practices take place but does not yet realise that it is endemic to the society and not an aberration.  This is why it is going to be so interesting actually hearing his views on the subject.     After all, every Tevinter mage we have met thus far has been an enemy and may not be the best representatives of their society, the only depictions of which have been given by those in opposition to them.

 

I'm really hopeful that he does present himself as a sane, thoughtful, reasonable and unprejudiced mage who can see both sides of the argument.   It will certainly make a change to meet a mage who has not spent his life either caged in the Circle or running from the Templars.

[Typhrus]

Off the bat, I'm going to say that slavery is morally wrong and that is shouldn't be practiced. However, having said that, I'm going to be arguing against the naïve assumption that just because we view slavery as ' wrong', that it has always been so. In case it is not clear, I'm playing a game of devil's advocate here, I really do not like a lot of the stuff I am supposedly supporting here.

 

To the poster who asked about murder being sanctioned as a good thing, I would say look at the Aztecs or the ancient world as an example where sacrifice (i.e. sanctioned murder for some fictitious entity that makes crops grow better) where it was seen as good and necessary thing to keep their society going. I believe the South American examples are better suited for this example, considering how horrified the Spanish Conquistadors must have been when they saw these practices.

 

I also agree that rape is morally wrong, but one can look around the world today and see that it is 'morally acceptable' in some countries around the world. While it is quite possible that a silent majority does not approve of such actions, it has been institutionalised in the legal and political systems of some governments. If the woman who is the victim, rightly tries to bring justice upon the perpetrator, she is the one legally found to be responsible. Then because of such 'daring do' to even suggest a man could do wrong, she's punished for adultery and then stoned to death or suffers the lash. Hardly fair, or even rational, but there is a modern day example of how something we find morally reprehensible, can be institutionalised and rationalised in some cultural groups.

 

Thirdly, Slavery has been seen as a good thing right up until the 19th century in the western world and still in some rare cases occurs in the third world. The first seat of 'democracy' ancient Athens thrived on a slave trade and there is also the common knowledge that most of the residents within Athens could not vote for their representative (being a slave, woman or a 'non-citizen' living in Athens) as it was an efficient means then of having a sustainable economy. Most of Sparta's population were the slave class Helots, that the Spartans constantly worried about uprising against them, yet it meant that Spartans themselves did not have to worry about doing mere plebeian things such as working pasture. This allowed them to do what Spartans did best, which was the cautiously make war on their enemies (like other Greek city states of the time). Rome flourished with an empire based upon slavery, largely getting a lot of their social and economic ques from the Greeks. Although as others have mentioned, it was possible to move up the social ladder above a slave.

In medieval times it was still perfectly legitimate to own a slave. While both Christian and Muslim writers of the time condemned such a practice, they both wilfully enslaved the other. As long as they were not 'Christian' or 'Muslim' it was all hunky dory, no problem what-so-ever. While definitely the precursor the modern thought on the subject, it was still a practice that had wide support from most European nations and later the Americans.

Essentially, this is a relativist argument, just because we think it is morally repugnant today, does not mean that societies in the past, or even today, did not legitimise and rationalise certain behaviours or institutions. I agree that murder, rape and slavery should be rightly brought up as issues surrounding countries or nations whether fictional or not. But to argue that 'It has always been wrong and there is no way to legitimise it' is arguing purely from emotion and should try better to imagine themselves in a different culture or put themselves 2,000 years in the past.

So for the purposes of Tevinter as a rough analogue to the Roman Empire/ Byzantium, they can rationalise it along those roots. They also have the dubious advantages of blood magic and whatever gifts they can bring from sacrificing slaves 'for the betterment of Tevinter'.

So there is my own relativist argument that I don't really agree with, but can sadly legitimise certain actions within society.

[calvinien]

http://www.ladyinsan...kdown-e3demodai

 

So, Dorian.

 

When has the Tervinter Imperium been honorable in anything.

 

They always allowed slavery, and public torture in their nation, and love it. Their own country is built upon the blood of the weak, and innocent.

 

They caused the blight, and you can bet the Venatori are their product as well. These people kill slaves, and mundane folk for anything, and think there's nothing wrong with it. 

 

In ancient times, the sewer system of an entire city was channeling rivers of blood to their unholy, "Forbidden Ones". Tervinter has no honor.

 

How do people become powerful in that madhouse?- By blood magic, and doing despicable, unspeakable acts of evil.

I'm not sure where you hail from but I guarantee your society has some kind of reverence for a preexisting ancient society that did worse things than the tevinters did.

 

ALL ancient nations have skeletons in the closet. Thedas is no different. You talk about slavery. We've yet to find a nation without it. Even the ancient elves had it. The tevinters just don't dress it up by calling their slaves casteless/city elves/circle mages/saarebas.

 

Most of the info we get about tevinter is form people with a vested interest in hating it. Fenris is a highly unreliable narrator and the Chantry has every reason to lie about their opponents (and they did it before see canticle of shartan).

 

We do know that tevinter appears less racist than the rest of thedas. They have elves in relatively high up places. Danarius clearly has some elven ancestry that hasn't hurt him. If it is truly a magocracy then it could be one of the few places elves could get ahead.

 

There's also the bit with the building the highway and bringing civilization to what amounted to glorified cave people that were humans at the time. Tevinter is like rome. Much of our society is based on things they popularised, so as much as we want to disown them for their barbarism, we can't do so entirely.

[andar91]

True enough. One may argue that abolishing slavery did by no means solve racial segregation and the generally disadvantageous position of people of a certain complexion in society, particularly in the U.S.A.'s case. Not to mention "sweat-shops" and manufacturing exported to third-world countries nowadays at lowest wages possible to maximize corp's profits, at the expense of workers there, but I digress.

 

Staying within Thedas, there's always the dirty laundry the Southern nations, even oh-so liberal Ferelden have to consider: treatment of elves settled within Alienages, Orlesian serfdom, etc.

 

Yes, you are very right, and I didn't mean to imply that the abolition of slavery solved racism. But yeah, I like your Ferelden example: it's real easy to point fingers, but how awful are YOU being to your own people at the same time? 

 

Ferelden Person: Those evil Tevinter mages enslave elves!!! They are evil!!!

 

Someone else: Well, yeah...but don't you force elves to live in segregated neighborhoods with awful sanitary conditions and tons of crime while essentially only allowing them to work menial jobs?

 

Ferelden Person: Well...that's different!!!

 

Someone else: Oh really...

 

 

 

To others in the thread: Relativism only goes so far...for me, when people are being seriously harmed physically or psychologically. Yes, attitudes about right and wrong vary from culture to culture, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and accept something that we could make a strong argument for as wrong.

[Nyeredzi]

How is that any different from the Templars?  If you can redeem the templars, then Tevinter certainly can be.

The Templars' honorable past was when they took down dangerous mages, and saved people from blood mages who were doing bad stuff to the mundane helpless folk. The Templars can be easily redeemed by enforcing control via new leadership, and new rules. Where as an entire nation ruled by evil, powerful mages cannot.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

If I had to choose between either being a Tevinter slave, an Alienage elf or a casteless dwarf...I honestly am not sure which would be worse than the other. All three positions offer very little choice, the last one almost guarantees being in a constant state of starvation, the middle and last one puts you in a position where someone with higher status could kill you with impunity, whereas in the first one you mainly run the risk of your master being a lunatic and killing you in possibly horrifying ways.

 

If I had to choose just between being a Tevinter slave or an elven servant in Orlais though, I'd pick the former in a heartbeat. I am so not about to deal with Orlesian nobles 24/7. Tevinter, for all it's faults, at least has some sensible fashion trends.

I'd choose Casteless Dwarf. Then you can just leave Orzammar and go to the surface where you are treated like everyone else.