157 réponses à ce sujet

[Gabdube]

That or lawful neutral:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle ground betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world--and the whole universe--is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation. It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything. Without regimentation and strict definition, there would be no purpose in the cosmos. Therefore, whether a law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning. (1)

(same place as your quote)

 

Mainly because I've always viewed the qun more as a machine than as a society. People are just cogs and morality irrelevant to them.

 

Judging morality as irrelevant is, in itself, a moral judgement.

People refer to rules and laws precisely because they believe that it is generally a better (thus, "more moral") thing to do than always exercising judgement on a strictly case-by-case basis (which is proven to be much less efficient in a complex society, and efficiency has definite moral consequences, for example: taking too long to decide wether or not you should do CPR on someone makes the difference between life and death, but the person could sue you later for breaking their ribs).

The downside to rules and laws is that there can be contextual exceptions in which the code of action can lead to more injustice than justice, which could be avoided by breaking said code of action in that special case. But the whole point of the code is that you can't know with certainty what's truly best in an infinite number of possible situations.

It's the whole debate between deontologists and utilitarianists... Or maybe not.

In fact, the Kant/Mill debate is greatly exagerated because utilitarianism actually implies following certain rules and criteria. And if utilitarianism can be reduced to following maxims that can be universalized, then there is no fundamental difference between both of them, they just operate on a different level, with one having much more general rules than the other ("always act to maximize utility" being a very general maxim, more so than Kant's "never lie", but not as much as "always do what is best", the root rule of any ethics).

 

 

So yeah, the Qun (like all codes of law) is all about believing that following it is generally the best thing to do.

Morality is the whole point of it's obsession with efficiency.

 

Or maybe that's just the philosophy major in me that's acting up.

[Willowhugger]

You could say the Qun is evil when it kills non-believers and converts them by force as well as tortures mages.

You could say the Qun is good when it gives racial equality and justice regardless of class.

[tmp7704]

I have the impression lot of people balk at the concept of assigning 'evil' to the qunari because they have this idea that evil = mustache twirling, cackling villains, and because they like the qunari so they'd prefer to justify the more questionable practice to the point where the label can be changed to 'neutral' that doesn't carry the 'evil' stigma.

But I really don't see how one can justify to themselves that openly stated intention (that they follow through with until they meet their match) to conquer and convert entire known world to one's own system... is anywhere near "neutral" stance and doesn't fall under that "hope to impose their yoke upon the world" part of the evil alignment.

And no, the existence of other factions which might also be given this label on similar grounds doesn't somehow render the qunari any less deserving of it.

[Gabdube]

Colonization isn't evil. You're confusing it with conquest. The American settlers were okay until they started killing people and taking slaves. The natives and settlers got along at one point.

 

 

Colonization implies exploiting and controlling land that wasn't yours to begin with (and no land is ever yours to begin with). If there are people already living there, they probably won't like you moving in. And you probably won't like them staying there either (or them coming to stay at your place every once in a while if they are nomads).

 

And even if the native population somehow wants to be colonized (as was the case of those "barbarians" who fought to join the incredibly overrated Roman empire that wanted to keep them out), it's not always a good thing for them, or for anyone in fact (as seen by the fall of any and all expansionist nations/cultures ever, with disastrous consequences for everyone who were part of them).

 

Also, "evil" is a remarkably childish concept that does not exist in reality. There is "the best thing to do", and deeply varying degrees of "not the best thing to do".
And people disagree on all of these because of that whole annoying subjectivity thing.

[Steelcan]

Colonization implies exploiting and controlling land that wasn't yours to begin with. If there are people living there, they probably won't like it.

 

And even if they want to be colonized, conquered even (as was the case of germanic "barbarians" who fought to join the incredibly overrated Roman empire that wanted to keep them out), it's not always a good thing for them, or for anyone in fact (as seen by the fall of any and all expansionist nations/cultures ever, with disastrous consequences for everyone who became part of them).

 

Also, "evil" is a remarkably childish concept that does not exist in reality. There is "the best thing to do", and varying degrees of "not the best thing to do".

And people disagree on all of these because of that whole annoying subjectivity thing.

>Roman Empire

>overrated

[tmp7704]

Also, "evil" is a remarkably childish concept that does not exist in reality. There is "the best thing to do", and varying degrees of "not the best thing to do".

It will depend on how you define "evil". Roughly, it align pretty well with taking the stance that "'the best thing to do' is what's best for me, no matter the negative consequences for anyone else" at which point you have to conclude that yes, it does exist in reality and in large quantities.

[Gabdube]

I have the impression lot of people balk at the concept of assigning 'evil' to the qunari because they have this idea that evil = mustache twirling, cackling villains, and because they like the qunari so they'd prefer to justify the more questionable practice to the point where the label can be changed to 'neutral' that doesn't carry the 'evil' stigma.

But I really don't see how one can justify to themselves that openly stated intention (that they follow through with until they meet their match) to conquer and convert entire known world to one's own system... is anywhere near "neutral" stance and doesn't fall under that "hope to impose their yoke upon the world" part of the evil alignment.

And no, the existence of other factions which might also be given this label on similar grounds doesn't somehow render the qunari any less deserving of it.

The word "evil" is practical when your only goal is to have a concept that can easily be taught in a short amount of time without requiring much prior knowledge. This is why young children identify less nuance and contrast in the intentions of people until they develop a more complex theory of mind over time.

Reflecting on ethics requires a more appropriate vocabulary than just "good" and "evil", or it at least requires an extensive definition of both, which is hard to do because the terms were never intended to be thoroughly defined. They are simple and effective educational tools, not scientific equipment.

Wether you keep using the word or not, the "simple" concept of evil eventually has to be dropped, or else you will have to identify most countries as being inherently "evil" and founded on "evil" deeds instead of using the more appropriate terms of "injustice", "domination" or "political power".

Since mustache-twirling comic villains don't exist and everybody thinks they're doing the best they can, there is no "good and evil", only right and wrong, in the sense of true and false basis of justification.

[Maria Caliban]

Colonization implies exploiting and controlling land that wasn't yours to begin with (and no land is ever yours to begin with).

The word you're looking for is 'colonialism.'

[Willowhugger]

The word you're looking for is 'colonialism.'

He's not wrong, by and large, since colonizing tends to lead to colonialism. However, not universally so, as there have been plenty of places until recently where land wasn't all that developed.

But yeah, 90% of the time? Screw the locals.

[AshesEleven]

I have the impression lot of people balk at the concept of assigning 'evil' to the qunari because they have this idea that evil = mustache twirling, cackling villains, and because they like the qunari so they'd prefer to justify the more questionable practice to the point where the label can be changed to 'neutral' that doesn't carry the 'evil' stigma.

But I really don't see how one can justify to themselves that openly stated intention (that they follow through with until they meet their match) to conquer and convert entire known world to one's own system... is anywhere near "neutral" stance and doesn't fall under that "hope to impose their yoke upon the world" part of the evil alignment.

And no, the existence of other factions which might also be given this label on similar grounds doesn't somehow render the qunari any less deserving of it.

 

If your point is that wanting to conquer and convert the entire world is evil, then most nations in Thedas, and indeed most in our own world, are evil.  And if that's true, what's the point of the label?

 

You're also overlooking all the positive aspects of Qunari culture, of which there are many.  Yes, obviously there are some very negative aspects as well, but that's no different than any of the other cultures within Thedas.  They're simply a different, foreign culture, and are far more nuanced and complex than the labels "good" or "evil".  

[Willowhugger]

I wouldn't want to live in Qun society.

I wouldn't want to live in most of Thedas, to be honest.

I can understand those who DO want to live in Qun society, especially elves, though.

[tmp7704]

If your point is that wanting to conquer and convert the entire world is evil, then most nations in Thedas, and indeed most in our own world, are evil.  And if that's true, what's the point of the label?

You are attributing to most nations in Thedas --and our own world-- actions they did not commit. Neither Thedas nor our own world is in some state of all-out war with everyone trying to conquer everyone else with military force.

Unlike the qunari, who do actively work towards this goal.

Furthermore, having a label work for majority of the population doesn't make the label automatically obsolete. This is not the case from Incredibles where "if everyone is special then no one is". But more of, to use an analogy, "if everyone is racist then everyone is racist". And it'd be neat if they recognized it and worked towards addressing that personal shortcoming. Instead of hiding behind "but look, that other guy sucks as much as I do!"

[Maria Caliban]

He's not wrong, by and large, since colonizing tends to lead to colonialism. However, not universally so, as there have been plenty of places until recently where land wasn't all that developed.

But yeah, 90% of the time? Screw the locals.

I use colonization the same way and have ended up in many discussions where it became all about semantics because *technically* colonization just means a group of people moving to a new place.

[Willowhugger]

You are attributing to most nations in Thedas --and our own world-- actions they did not commit. Neither Thedas nor our own world is in some state of all-out war with everyone trying to conquer everyone else with military force.

Unlike the qunari, who do actively work towards this goal.

I dunno, the Chantry doesn't tolerate the Qun and didn't tolerate the Dales.

[tmp7704]

Since mustache-twirling comic villains don't exist and everybody thinks they're doing the best they can, there is no "good and evil", only right and wrong, in the sense of true and false basis of justification.

As I mentioned in the other reply, the way I see it there's multiple metrics which can be used to determine how one is doing "the best they can", and the concepts of "evil" and "good" stem from which metrics the individual will choose. This possible choice is directly at odds with being "right" or "wrong" as it'll lead to "right" by one set of standards being "wrong" by another.

[tmp7704]

I dunno, the Chantry doesn't tolerate the Qun and didn't tolerate the Dales.

The Chantry didn't tolerate being invaded by the qunari and the prospect of having its followers forcefully converted. With the Dales we don't know what really happened, but the Chantry chooses to claim it was response to being attacked, not just calling a holy crusade to convert the heathens outright and without provocation. Unlike certain other faction.

[AshesEleven]

You are attributing to most nations in Thedas --and our own world-- actions they did not commit. Neither Thedas nor our own world is in some state of all-out war with everyone trying to conquer everyone else with military force.

Unlike the qunari, who do actively work towards this goal.

Furthermore, having a label work for majority of the population doesn't make the label automatically obsolete. This is not the case from Incredibles where "if everyone is special then no one is". But more of, to use an analogy, "if everyone is racist then everyone is racist". And it'd be neat if they recognized it and worked towards addressing that personal shortcoming. Instead of hiding behind "but look, that other guy sucks as much as I do!"

 

Fair enough.  I still don't think we should be throwing around the word "evil" in regards to the Qun, but I can respect your opinion.  

 

I find the Qunari fascinating antagonists.  They are enemies, but damn if I don't respect them.  

[tmp7704]

I find the Qunari fascinating antagonists.  They are enemies, but damn if I don't respect them.

This part, i can readily agree with

[SerCambria358]

Nothing they do or condone is out of greed, nothing they practice is out of malice or spite. Regardless to how we view their policies, they purely want a functioning society, thats pretty neutral to me

[Gabdube]

>Roman Empire

>overrated

It was indeed overrated by the barbarians who thought that living in the empire would make them all richer and happier because all they saw or heard of Rome was its marvelous roads, its well-trained legions and its wealthy merchants or diplomats. People thought of riches and providence when they tought of Rome because Rome's poor and homeless didn't travel much. At the time, Rome presented an idealised image to outsiders.

The so-called "barbarians" were much like today's illegal immigrants, willing to risk their lives and spend what little money they have to get to Europe or the US, only to end up living in poverty anyway.

[Steelcan]

It was indeed overrated by the barbarians who thought that living in the empire would make them all richer and happier because all they saw or heard of Rome was its marvelous roads, its well-trained legions and its wealthy merchants or diplomats. People thought of riches and providence when they tought of Rome because Rome's poor and homeless didn't travel much. At the time, Rome presented an idealised image to outsiders.

The so-called "barbarians" were much like today's illegal immigrants, willing to risk their lives and spend what little money they have to get to Europe or the US, only to end up living in poverty anyway.

barbarians who moved into the empire could reasonably expect much better living conditions than others outside it, the opportunities to enlist in the army and receive citizenship, or if that fails exact tribute from the romans in exchange for not causing too much trouble and settling on the frontiers

[Gabdube]

The word you're looking for is 'colonialism.'

 

He's not wrong, by and large, since colonizing tends to lead to colonialism. However, not universally so, as there have been plenty of places until recently where land wasn't all that developed.

But yeah, 90% of the time? Screw the locals.

 

I use colonization the same way and have ended up in many discussions where it became all about semantics because *technically* colonization just means a group of people moving to a new place.

 

In the context of an established expansionist ideology, you could see colonialism as the mindset that leads to colonizing, not the other way around. You would first need to have a colonialist mindset in order to do any colonizing.

Unless you're talking about the materialist theory of colonization (which, I think, is also valid), and you think that colonialism develops as an a posteriori justification for colonization...

 

Also, we don't call settlements in Antarctica "colonies", don't we? And Why not?

Probably because Antarctica does not and has never had an indigenous population.

 

barbarians who moved into the empire could reasonably expect much better living conditions than others outside it, the opportunities to enlist in the army and receive citizenship, or if that fails exact tribute from the romans in exchange for not causing too much trouble and settling on the frontiers

 

Yes, but they expected more than just settling on the frontiers and living off a protection racket, because you didn't get the improved standard of living without having access to the roman infrastructure.

Also, becoming mercenaries for the romans can hardly be called an improved standard of living because your life expectancy also got much shorter than the folks who just hung outside of the roman frontiers.

But yeah, the social dynamics of the late roman empire is indeed not a simple matter, and this is getty waaay off-topic.

[leaguer of one]

Yeah, put me in the group that thinks that the Qun represents a Lawful Neutral alignment, as close as it can be applied in this context. 

 

Here are the descriptions of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil from Wizards of the Coast (via Wikipedia):

 

A Lawful Neutral character typically believes strongly in Lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules and tradition, and often follows a personal code. A Lawful Neutral society would typically enforce strict laws to maintain social order, and place a high value on traditions and historical precedent. Examples of Lawful Neutral characters might include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.  Characters of this alignment are neutral with regard to good and evil. This does not mean that Lawful Neutral characters are amoral or immoral, or do not have a moral compass, but simply that their moral considerations come a distant second to what their code, tradition, or law dictates. They typically have a strong ethical code, but it is primarily guided by their system of belief, not by a commitment to good or 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. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.  Like Lawful Good Paladins, Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict. However, their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with "Will I get caught?" versus "How does this benefit me?"

 

To me, the Qunari sound much more like the first than the second.  The Lawful Evil description places an emphasis on exploitation and manipulation that the Qunari just don't demonstrate.

It's ironic that the second example sounds like Orlais.

[leaguer of one]

You are attributing to most nations in Thedas --and our own world-- actions they did not commit. Neither Thedas nor our own world is in some state of all-out war with everyone trying to conquer everyone else with military force.

Unlike the qunari, who do actively work towards this goal.

Furthermore, having a label work for majority of the population doesn't make the label automatically obsolete. This is not the case from Incredibles where "if everyone is special then no one is". But more of, to use an analogy, "if everyone is racist then everyone is racist". And it'd be neat if they recognized it and worked towards addressing that personal shortcoming. Instead of hiding behind "but look, that other guy sucks as much as I do!"

Tevintor and Orlias say hi.

[Gabdube]

I think Dragon Age tends to forgo such simplistic classifications.

 

On a literal level, the Qun is an extremist example of Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Evil because the latter requires sadism or personal ambition, of which the Qun has neither.

 

On a metaphorical level, the Qun is an oppressive totalitarian (classically totalitarian too) quasi-religious philosophy that attempts to break down the family system and eliminate all freedom in exchange for the good of the state. It's pretty much Soviet communism writ large, except the Soviets didn't go nearly as far as the Qunari have.

It seems to have a lot more to do with classical utopias like Plato's Republic than soviet communism. The soviets were actually less totalitarian...

Plato's Republic was actually meant to be read as a serious litteral guideline for the construction of a perfectly planned society that would bring out the best of every human being according to their different abilities. And the similarities to Koslun's philosophy don't end here.