881 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprea]

Alternatively, they frequently work out well enough for most of the duration. It's the Evil Empire theory of storycraft: if the Evil Empire exists, it must have existed for some time and long enough that people reasonably assume it will continue to exist for some time in the future, or else where is the drama in overcoming it?

 

Wouldn't that make the chantry the evil empire? After all the circle had a run of around a thousand years I believe.

 

 

It does when the main historical alternative is Tevinter.

 

I don't see shows like X-Men agreeing with you. Star Wars doesn't seem to agree either despite the massive damage the sith tend to cause.

[Steelcan]

Prometheus is just about the worst example for that kind of story imaginable

[Br3admax]

Whatever god! I'll start my own universe and it'll be so much better than yours!

With blackjack! And hookers! 

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

 

 

 

 

I don't see shows like X-Men agreeing with you. Star Wars doesn't seem to agree either despite the massive damage the sith tend to cause.

Because using other universes to talk about DA doesn't work?

[TheJediSaint]

Alternatively, they frequently work out well enough for most of the duration. It's the Evil Empire theory of storycraft: if the Evil Empire exists, it must have existed for some time and long enough that people reasonably assume it will continue to exist for some time in the future, or else where is the drama in overcoming it?

Funnily enough, the Evil Empire people are most familiar with lasted only about twenty years or so.

 

But yeah, the Circle system has remained pretty stable for several centuries, surviving at least three Blights, a war with the Dailish, and the Qunari invasions.  That's pretty robust.

[Steelcan]

The Empire did linger on for a long time after the Battle at Endor, the remnant was instrumental in repelling the Vong

[Dean_the_Young]

Wouldn't that make the chantry the evil empire? After all the circle had a run of around a thousand years I believe.

 

 

Don't worry- it also happens to the good empires as well. What's the drama in the hero saving the better status quo from those who would cast it down if the good hasn't also endured for some time?

[Ieldra]

But what evidence do you present that the maker controls humanities fate and decisions to the point it must be usurped? From what I've seen, the maker has been pretty much completely hands off when it comes to free will and self determination. He doesn't smite people, or make commandments, or has a wrath to speak of that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

Assuming the maker is real, it seems like trying to usurp him is a unprovoked act of aggression more then some virtuous excercise of revolution. Like if Saudi Arabia decided to invade Ireland cause they need to self determinate dammit.

The message is the same regardless of whether the Maker really exists. The Chantry claims that "breaking into the Maker's house" exemplifies the sin of pride. I say it wasn't the Makers house, but whatever I do if I make the attempt to reach the City constitutes a fundamental overreaching in the Chantry's eyes, and my reply is basically "I am claiming the right to reach out of my domain" in the symbolic parlance of mythological stories. That the Maker doesn't appear actually gives this story more applicability, since here, as in the real world, those who would forbid these things are human, not gods.

 

Perhaps even more to the point, in a setting where gods exist I claim that they should be treated like any other superpower. Opposing them might be dangerous and sometimes even reckless, but sometimes there is no other choice if you want to gain something for your own small kingdom instead of forever continuing as the satellite of the superpower.

 

This kind of thinking may appear odd to some, but I am really fundamentally irreverent. What is a really existing god after all but a super-powered alien wizard? Worship lies in the mind of the worshiper. There are no gods, only beings regarded as such. And if a deity never appears its even worse. Then humans speak for them, and they have even less business setting up boundaries of the forbidden.

[Inprea]

Because using other universes to talk about DA doesn't work?

 

Oh? Then what where you doing when you said.

 

 

Yes because mortals attempting to usurp a deity always ends in a happy fashion in fantasy settings.

 

"Bro maybe we shouldn't try to usurp this god."

 

"Nah man PROGRESS DEMANDS IT!"

 

"But what if it doesn't work out?"

 

"PROGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

As I doubt attempting to claim the power of a god is a common enough thing in the DA universe to set a standard.

[Br3admax]

 

The message is the same regardless of whether the Maker really exists. The Chantry claims that "breaking into the Maker's house" exemplifies the sin of pride. I say it wasn't the Makers house, but whatever I do if I make the attempt to reach the City constitutes a fundamental overreaching in the Chantry's eyes, and my reply is basically "I am claiming the right to reach out of my domain" in the symbolic parlance of mythological stories. That the Maker doesn't appear actually gives this story more applicability, since here, as in the real world, those who would forbid these things are human, not gods. 

 

Are you a lawyer? You make breaking and entering sound such noble a cause. 

[TheJediSaint]

The Empire did linger on for a long time after the Battle at Endor, the remnant was instrumental in repelling the Vong

Emphasis on the linger.  It turned into Space-Prussia after about a decade.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh? Then what where you doing when you said.

 

 

 

As I doubt attempting to claim the power of a god is a common enough thing in the DA universe to set a standard.

 

1. That was obviously not supposed to be taken literally OR seriously

2. You countered in universe discussion with Star Wars and X-Men

[HTTP 404]

I have to comment on this thread.  I am doing a research paper (and maybe it will be submitted to IRB so that I can conduct it).  The OP topic is already biased so an objective research cannot be done.  But I'll play along because this is fun!  To examine this issue we already have to agree on what it means to be evil.  Can you measure evil and examine other factors that coincide with evil (like making a mistake or turning a blind eye). On the flip side, a good researcher would research what it means to be good and provide contrary literature in the report.

 

Once "evil" is defined and you have to find a way to obtain a sample of data of "evil" things that chantry has done.  Now when doing this research, are we looking at qualitative stories or are we measure hard data through quantitative means? or both?  If it's qualitative, through interviews we will still have to measure the worth of each descriptive word a person is telling.  For example the use of "violence" could be worth 5 points and the use of "ignoring" would be 1 point and how do you measure stories when the witness says something positive?  does that negate the evilness of the chantry?  An easier more digestible approach would be to do a quantitative study by sending out surveys to all people who believe in the maker.  After making an unbiased test of the quality assurance that the Chantry provides, you could give out the questionnaire to taverns, home to home, chantries, military barracks, etc.  Perhaps a sample of 1000 people across all demographics.  Each questioned would be measured and would provide an outcome of how "evil" the chantry is.  The more diverse you sample pop is, the more valid your test would be.  Also if you are not including opposite questions of how helpful the chantry is to the questions of how harmful the chantry is, your test will be less valid.

 

Now what if your outcome turns out that the chantry is mostly good?  how does your thesis look if you state measuring how evil it is?  already you debunked your theory through testing.  Or perhaps, everyone secretly hates the chantry and they are evil.   How do you explain how everyone still cow-tails to their doctrine still.  Also perhaps your study is doomed if your pop "drank" the kool aid and is brainwashed so it doesn't matter what they think anyways!  So in the end, you still get conjecture and you are still left believing what you want to believe.

 

as for my own belief on this.  I see the Chantry as better than my religion growing up at least towards magic use (probably more accepting of other demos as well allowing women to fight).  I think my religion would burn magic users at the stake (and probably have).

[Dean_the_Young]

The message is the same regardless of whether the Maker really exists. The Chantry claims that "breaking into the Maker's house" exemplifies the sin of pride. I say it wasn't the Makers house, but whatever I do if I make the attempt to reach the City constitutes a fundamental overreaching in the Chantry's eyes, and my reply is basically "I am claiming the right to reach out of my domain" in the symbolic parlance of mythological stories. That the Maker doesn't appear actually gives this story more applicability, since here, as in the real world, those who would forbid these things are human, not gods.

 

Perhaps even more to the point, in a setting where gods exist I claim that they should be treated like any other superpower. Opposing them might be dangerous and sometimes even reckless, but sometimes there is no other choice if you want to gain something for your own small kingdom instead of forever continuing as the satellite of the superpower.

 

This kind of thinking may appear odd to some, but I am really fundamentally irreverent. What is a really existing god after all but a super-powered alien wizard? Worship lies in the mind of the worshiper. There are no gods, only beings regarded as such. And if a deity never appears its even worse. Then humans speak for them, and they have even less business setting up boundaries of the forbidden.

 

Fundamentally irreverent is as irrationally fundamentalist as fundamentally reverent. Even if you dedicate yourself to opposing the idea, you're still letting the existence of the concept shape your morality and ideology.

 

Apathy and dismissal, not a consistent desire to poke a taboo just because you can or to spite the divine, is the real liberation from dogma. Even if apathy doesn't oppose the status quo of the dogma.

[Ieldra]

Are you a lawyer? You make breaking and entering sound such noble a cause. 

*chuckles*

Well, the Maker never appears to tell me I'm trespassing, and the Chantry doesn't have any right to set up boundaries in his name. The breaking and entering is symbolic and represents the breaking of boundaries of the forbidden. Which I do, in fact, support since I don't believe anyone has the right to set such boundaries.

 

If the Maker actually appeared and said "My domain, get out", I'd respect that but I'd probably try to swindle him out of things I believe he doesn't have the right to reserve for himself.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

 

 

Are you a lawyer? You make breaking and entering sound such noble a cause. 

 

If I respect your right to be free as a restriction of my own actions, I am no longer free.

 

My right to self-determination requires me to deny you the right to yours, simply because I can. If you have a house I can break into, I must in order to prove that I can do so of my own free will and volition. Anything else is slavery to the norms and beliefs of others rather than myself.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

*chuckles*

Well, the Maker never appears to tell me I'm trespassing, and the Chantry doesn't have any right to set up boundaries in his name. The breaking and entering is symbolic and represents the breaking of boundaries of the forbidden. Which I do, in fact, support since I don't believe anyone has the right to set such boundaries.

 

Watch out for that anti-intrusion system, I hear it's positively brutal.

[Dean_the_Young]

Watch out for that anti-intrusion system, I hear it's positively brutal.

 

Nah, dude, I hear it's sick.

 

 

On the other hand, maybe the entire issue would have been moot if the front door of the Golden City had a plaque that began with 'This place is not a place of honor...'

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Nah, dude, I hear it's sick.

 

 

On the other hand, maybe the entire issue would have been moot if the front door of the Golden City had a plaque that began with 'This place is not a place of honor...'

 

"Don't open, Taint inside"

[Ieldra]

Fundamentally irreverent is as irrationally fundamentalist as fundamentally reverent. Even if you dedicate yourself to opposing the idea, you're still letting the existence of the concept shape your morality and ideology.

 

Apathy and desire, not consistent desire to poke a taboo just because you can or to spite the divine, is the real liberation from dogma.

I'm not doing that as a matter of principle, but because the dogma sets up boundaries I think it is desirable to break. The mere existence of a god - in settings where gods do exist - is never enough to act against them. Just the same as others' beliefs. I may disagree with what others believe but as long as that doesn't result in them interfering in my life, I am indeed largely indifferent to it. Unfortunately religions have a tendency for such interference, and as a result, so do the gods they claim to speak for.

[Ryzaki]

"Don't open, Taint inside"

 

Oh please the Magisters would've just said it was a lie.

 

And then still blamed him for not putting up more signs.

 

Edit: I mean I'm of the "screw that I do what I want." variety but I'm not gonna throw a hissy fit when it predictably blows in my face.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Oh please the Magisters would've just said it was a lie.

 

And then still blamed him for not putting up more signs.

 

Corypheus: I mean sure there were three fences each with progressively more descriptive signs, a video warning, thirteen magic seals, AND one mean attack Bronto but we thought that just meant there was REALLY good loot in there.

[Ieldra]

"Don't open, Taint inside"

LOL.

When has *that* ever presented anything but an irresistible temptation. But yeah, at least then those who claim it's stupid to open this door would have a point.

[Br3admax]

Yeah, because listening to the dragons that talk to you in your sleep, that advise usurping heaven from your creator, which all of them accepted as their creator, is rational .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

LOL.

When has *that* ever presented anything but an irresistible temptation. But yeah, at least then those who claim it's stupid to open this door would have a point.

 

This is one of those situations where the results kind of speak for themselves.

 

Trying to usurp possibly existent possibly fictional god leads to Darkspawn and incalcuable suffering. Whoops!