366 réponses à ce sujet

[renfrees]

Regarding the whole morality issue, I think it’s pretty clear that from both a modern western and an Andrastian perspective, particularly a Ferelden Andrastian point of view, both slavery and blood magic / blood sacrifice are immoral.
Players are assumed to automatically take a ‘modern’ moral attitude, and the setting enables and encourages this as well. Even if your character is not a practising Andrastian 'in your mind', he or she is likely to have the same or very similar moral attitudes. Neither the Qun nor the Dwarves seem to practise or condone blood magic or slavery.

Except that Qunari do have slavery. Mindless laborers sounds like one.

[Das Tentakel]

Except that Qunari do have slavery. Mindless laborers sounds like one.

 

It's not. The formal definition of slaves as property makes for a pretty clear boundary. You could argue that dependent / involuntary labourers are effectively slaves, but once you use that argument it's possible to include huge numbers of people in past and present societies where the institution of slavery itself is unknown.

 

Having said that, you don't want to be a convict labourer in Han China, or condemned to the galleys in medieval and early modern Europe, or a servant in a 19th century European household, particularly not in those countries where the employer enjoyed certain legal rights regarding discipline inside his household.

[renfrees]

It's not. The formal definition of slaves as property makes for a pretty clear boundary. You could argue that dependent / involuntary labourers are effectively slaves, but once you use that argument it's possible to include huge numbers of people in past and present societies where the institution of slavery itself is unknown.

You conveniently omitted 'mindless' part. I'd say they have it worse, than actual slaves. Slaves at least have the luxury of revolting (and probably dying).

[Palidane]

You conveniently omitted 'mindless' part. I'd say they have it worse, than actual slaves. Slaves at least have the luxury of revolting (and probably dying).

Heck of a luxury.

[CrazyGobstopper]

I haven't followed the info about him closely. Is he really ostracized? Or did he just leave?

You could probably say that it's both. Dorian's refusal to conform to the norms of Tevinter society, and indeed to stand in direct opposition to those norms, has resulted in him being labeled an "outcast."

 

Character profile on the official website.

Character entry on the wiki.

[Ieldra]

Regarding the whole morality issue, I think it’s pretty clear that from both a modern western and an Andrastian perspective, particularly a Ferelden Andrastian point of view, both slavery and blood magic / blood sacrifice are immoral.
Players are assumed to automatically take a ‘modern’ moral attitude, and the setting enables and encourages this as well. Even if your character is not a practising Andrastian 'in your mind', he or she is likely to have the same or very similar moral attitudes. Neither the Qun nor the Dwarves seem to practise or condone blood magic or slavery.

While blood sacrifice qualifies as immoral, blood magic as such does not. Slavery, of course, does, but the qunari also practice a form of it and it's at least equally repugnant. I think what the qunari do to those not willing to convert is actually worse. A regular slave at least keeps their mind. Then there are the dwarves and their caste system, which is quite as offensive to our modern western sensibilities as its RL equivalent. Personally, if you gave me the alternative "Tevinter or the qunari", I wouldn't need to ponder the decision for more than a second: I'd choose Tevinter.

 

The problem I have personally with the presentation of Tevinter and Andrasteanism is this: I really detest the ideology of the Orlesian Chantry, most specifically when it comes to attitutes toward magic and the Fade, standing as a proxy for individual power and knowledge. Yet I feel I am somehow expected to see the Chantry as a force for good. Well, I don't. I actually feel offended that I'm supposed to see it that way. That's why I tend to give Tevinter a little more leeway than I'd usually do to a culture which practices slavery (which defaults to no leeway at all - but I'd still judge its people as individuals). As I said, I would rather be associated with evil than accept that ignorance or powerlessness is a virtue. Unfortunately, too many people tend to lap up this subtle indoctrination and accept that powerlessness is a virtue, because you can delude yourself into believing you're better than others if you don't have any power. People want to hear that power corrupts, and so our stories perpetuate this meme and those who represent it tend to be painted as good, while those who oppose it tend to painted as evil and loaded with additional evils to bring the meme home into our minds by association.

[Das Tentakel]

You conveniently omitted 'mindless' part. I'd say they have it worse, than actual slaves. Slaves at least have the luxury of revolting (and probably dying).

 

There's nothing convenient about it. Some societies have the institution of slavery, others have very unpleasant forms of forced labour.

But I gather this is something of an anti-Qunari mini-rant rather than a discussion about slavery.

 

I'd like to point out that the alternative to unpleasant forced labour in many societies was or is execution or perhaps mutilation (which might lead to living the life of a starving outcast). Rope is cheap, but getting some use out of the convict is even more economical.

Neither is particularly humane.

[Aimi]

Roman, Byzantine inspired? Instantly a place to visit for me.

Shouldn't it be "Korinos Palaiologos" or "Corrinus Palaeologus"? >_>

[Das Tentakel]

Shouldn't it be "Korinos Palaiologos" or "Corrinus Palaeologus"? >_>

 

 

Nai!

 

But seriously, I think it sort of fits Dragon Age Tevinter...a bit of quasi-Latin over here, some semi-Greek over there, mix it with Hollywood movies and D&D, then stir it enthusiastically.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Heck of a luxury.

 

It worked for Spartacus. Sort of.

 

Of course, the Qunari also have the Saarebas, who aren't just indoctrinated labourers, but are also trapped in a heavy metal harnass, are dragged around in chains, have their lips sewn shut and are expectered to obey their ''Kataraam'' (some sort of taskmaster) blindly. I have trouble seeing them as anything but slaves, even if they aren't precisely property by the definition of the Qun, since they are a bunch of communists.

[Silcron]

I think David Gaider said in Ashe's interview that we were not going to see Tevinter in DAI. Though I would love to see Minrathous, after reading The World of Dragon Age that is one of the two locations I'd love to see (the other being the Nevarran catacombs).

[Periculo]

So, just joined the forum, and fell haphazardly into this immensely murky topic. Thought I might as well toss in a few shillings. Now, as for moral relativism/moral absolutism, while as far as I'm concerned, there is no intrinsic good or evil, nor are there objectively good or evil action, simply for the fact, that at its base, the entirety of existence is subjective.There is no such thing as an objective fact, because the human organism observes subjectively. That being said, morals are implaced by way of consensus within a community or social structure as a way of casting order onto an inherently chaotic existence, alowing the existence of said social construct, outside the demands of the selfish gene. Granted, in any group, there will always be outliers and variable change present, forever exceptions to the rule. As for the majority feeling on the crimes discussed prior, the consensus is that human life is immeasurably valuable, up unto the point of infringing on the sovereignty of you/your clan/tribe/country/etc. As a combatant, I appreciate that human life is valuable, but the point that it becomes an acceptable cost is up to the individual, for at the end of the day, it is that same individual that must internalize the consequences of those actions. All in all, context is literally everything.

 

That all aside, I think the reason that so many people are infatuated with Tevinter is because it is such a massive gray area, and for those hardcore RPGamers, it provides a massive potential for mature, in depth storytelling, in a setting from which there is plenty of history for inspiration. As to whether or not BW decide to tap this wellspring, is yet to be seen, given the track record of the gaming industry as a whole, I fully expect the following:

 

Slavery's bad, m'kay?

Killing's bad, m'kay?

Poor mages go to the colo...erm...mage-o-sseum, m'kay?

Don't forget your toga, m'kay?

 

On a final note, some of the greatest structures in the history of man have been built upon the back of forced labor.

Their construction may have been born of atrocity, but one cannot deny that such an accomplishment is not great.

[themageguy]

My favourite Tevinters so far have to be Maevaris and Dorian.

Though i did like Caladrius in origins.

[Tevinter Rose]

That all aside, I think the reason that so many people are infatuated with Tevinter is because it is such a massive gray area, and for those hardcore RPGamers, it provides a massive potential for mature, in depth storytelling, in a setting from which there is plenty of history for inspiration. 

 

Very well said. I'm infatuated with Tevinter for those same reasons. I like that its a place full of contradictions and is not so black and white, especially because i like role playing ruthless morally gray characters. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Now, as for moral relativism/moral absolutism, while as far as I'm concerned, there is no intrinsic good or evil, nor are there objectively good or evil action, simply for the fact, that at its base, the entirety of existence is subjective.There is no such thing as an objective fact, because the human organism observes subjectively

So explain to me how rape isn't objectively evil or intrinsically bad. Or to put it in other words, how is it good for the victim of the act? 

[Das Tentakel]

So explain to me how rape isn't objectively evil or intrinsically bad. Or to put it in other words, how is it good for the victim of the act?

That is not what Periculo is saying. He is making a difference between the act itself, and how we humans evaluate that act. The act just ‘is’, it’s in the eye of humans that the act is evil. Or not.

And for you information – acts like rape and murder are generally considered crimes by most societies. However, how they exactly evaluate these acts varies a lot. In some societies, rape is a worse crime than in others, and it changes over time in different societies. Because the mentality of people, and their ideas of right and wrong, are subject to change. There was a time, not so long ago, that people could get executed (or at a minimum, mutilated) in Europe for being homosexual or just committing some ‘blasphemy’. Rape, on the other hand, was merely fined. If at all.
This change isn’t because people have gotten ‘better’ at recognising evil, it’s because their ideas of right and wrong, as well as what constitutes a just punishment, has changed.
 


Somebody acknowledging this does NOT mean he or she suddenly thinks ‘rape’ is not a vile act.

[Ieldra]

In the same line as Periculo (good post btw), I would also like to point out that there is such a thing as a value hierarchy. If one questions why one can appreciate Tevinter in spite of slavery etc.., one possible answer is "there are greater evils". That doesn't make slavery any better, but in a political sense, it may justify supporting Tevinter against the Qun.

Also, I make a difference between the means used to achieve something and the goal. For instance, you won't find me tolerant of blood sacrifice as a method to power magic, but I admire the ancient Magisters for the way they dared the unknown to gain knowledge and power. Were it not for the blood sacrifice, I would've felt honored to be included in an expedition like the one to the Golden City. For me such things are part of what makes us human, and in a good way, too. Meanwhile, the Chantry doesn't mention the blood sacrifice much in its stories about Tevinter but focuses instead on the supposed "hubris" of making the attempt to reach the Golden City. That means overlooking the real, tangible evil and focusing instead on a piece of ideology that would have civilization still at the level of the Dreamers' time had people not systematically failed to follow it.

What this comes down to: Tevinter can be blamed for some real evils, but the Orlesian Chantry blames it primarily for none of those, but instead - for a mental attitude it finds disgreeable...and for an accident.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Das Tentakel: So then what ARE you saying about rape?  Are you saying if it weren't a crime you would feel perfectly fine raping whomever you wanted? 

 

How about eugenics?  Because Tevinter practices that, and of course, to accept Tevinter - one must believe (incorrectly) that one would be on the "winning" side of their genetics selection. 

 

I hear people who preach moral relativism state "Oh, we're not the monsters the things we say make us out to be." And yet, what do you believe and why and how, if you truly believe in moral relativism, do you believe it at all?  Simply because you can?  It's a perfectly valid answer, but then.

The answer is simple.  "Simply because we can."  Governments have defined law.  "Simply because we can."  Philosophy has shaped morality.  "Simply because we can."  Religious groups of like minded individuals band together to give their particular opinion on morality more credence.  And none of it is wrong - it can't be - because nothing a moral relativist can produce - can take it's place. 

 

You cannot be a moral relativist (or a good one) and condemn moral absolutists - because, unlike moral absolutism, moral relativism MUST include all possible spectrums to even have a chance of being a viable belief system.  Of course, I have yet to see such a relativism do such an action.  Like every human on the planet who believes in something they are right (white) and the other is wrong (black) - everything, is absolute.

 

But what I believe moral relativism really is... is a system by which people excuse themselves for their base recidivism through a set of logic based mantras about the nature of morality.  It is a mean by which a person need never fix their flaws and failures because such things cannot exist in a relative system.  Sin is in. 

 

Precisely because of what Periculo states - people who believe they can form their morality individually from everyone else - are probably the most dangerous people I can conceive of.

[Elfquisitor]

Yeah, I hope i can burn it to ground with every magister in it.

[Andersfels-one]

am with you man, i also would love to see tevinter !!!! why ? because am very curious about the only place in thedas where mages are truely free !!! my heart is sore from watching mages suffer from hating ,bashing, lobotomization and feared thanks to a chantry that doomed the kind once for all  throught this dragon age serie .... i want to see and breath the air of a free nation despite whatever legends about it !! freedom stays freedom ,and if i can choose the origin of my inquisitor it would be either tevinter or the anderfels ,cause the last is my truely eternal love .

[Das Tentakel]

@Das Tentakel: So then what ARE you saying about rape? Are you saying if it weren't a crime you would feel perfectly fine raping whomever you wanted?

How about eugenics? Because Tevinter practices that, and of course, to accept Tevinter - one must believe (incorrectly) that one would be on the "winning" side of their genetics selection.

I hear people who preach moral relativism state "Oh, we're not the monsters the things we say make us out to be." And yet, what do you believe and why and how, if you truly believe in moral relativism, do you believe it at all? Simply because you can? It's a perfectly valid answer, but then.

The answer is simple. "Simply because we can." Governments have defined law. "Simply because we can." Philosophy has shaped morality. "Simply because we can." Religious groups of like minded individuals band together to give their particular opinion on morality more credence. And none of it is wrong - it can't be - because nothing a moral relativist can produce - can take it's place.

You cannot be a moral relativist (or a good one) and condemn moral absolutists - because, unlike moral absolutism, moral relativism MUST include all possible spectrums to even have a chance of being a viable belief system. Of course, I have yet to see such a relativism do such an action. Like every human on the planet who believes in something they are right (white) and the other is wrong (black) - everything, is absolute.

But what I believe moral relativism really is... is a system by which people excuse themselves for their base recidivism through a set of logic based mantras about the nature of morality. It is a mean by which a person need never fix their flaws and failures because such things cannot exist in a relative system. Sin is in.

Precisely because of what Periculo states - people who believe they can form their morality individually from everyone else - are probably the most dangerous people I can conceive of.

A fine rant. But if you mistake moral relativism - an acknowledgement of the relative 'truth' of various competing value systems - for a belief system in itself, and at the same time deny that people who are 'moral relativists' have strongly-held values and opinions, then there's nothing to discuss.

 

Have a nice day .

[Medhia_Nox]

Das Tentakel:  You've missed my point.

 

 I'm saying you have strongly held beliefs which defy the "relative" nature of morality.  I'm saying it's very likely that, while you say things like: "Rape just is." you would be horrified to be raped, to see someone else get raped, or to rape someone.  You have taken a stand despite "moral relativity."

 

Once you acknowledge that someone may have a different belief than you, moral relativism has expended its uses. 

[Periculo]

My my, I didn't expect such a response. SImply put, Das Tentakel hits it square: I see that majority of the disagreement is stemming from the misrecognition of moral relativity as a belief system in itself, which is hardly the case. That very relatism is the reality within which all the myriad value system exists; actions only have positive and negative connotations (and arguable consequences with the attached values) because a society has come to a consensus decaring as much. Again, these judgements are based on the context of the act, the difference between murder and self-defence is context, which is open to the interpretation of the observing party. Trying to distill the actions into polar absolutes is, at best, foolish, with the idea that organisms as complex as man, (and mankind for that matter) can simply be reduced to a binary existence; at worst, it is a dangerous ignorance, that encourages radicalization in either direction. There is no such thing as a black or white circumstance, only a gradient of gray. That having been said, by acknowledging the fact that this is the condition of existence, am I indicating that I do not adhere to socially enforced norms? Hardly, but I have also come to the realization that subjectively developed value systems, like anything formulated by man, come with flaws and areas open to interpretation.

 

Precisely because of what Periculo states - people who believe they can form their morality individually from everyone else - are probably the most dangerous people I can conceive of.

 

I find this statement immensely interesting. It has always been my experience, that the man who develops and adheres to his own code of conduct, in general, tends to stand by his code, far more effectively than a system enforced by social stigma.

 

As for the "evils" of rape and murder, again, context is everything. If a single rape decided between the survival and the extinction of the species, would the cost still be too great? if the success and fruitfulness of a community depended on the murder of a single individual, is that individual's worth greater than that of the community? By no means am I condoning either act, but there will always be that extenuating instance. As a combatant, if I must end the lives of others to protect my countrymen, or to protect our (as a community) way of life, I will do so without hesitation. This is not to say such choices are to be acted upon lightly.

 

It wasn't so long ago that the Christian Church advocated the forced conversion or wholesale slaughter of unbelievers, along with spiritual immunity, so long as the crimes were done in the name of God. Thus are the dangers of black and white, us vs. them rhetoric.