55 réponses à ce sujet

[Spetulhu]

As for slavery some people were practically nothing else even if they weren't called it. Cottagers that couldn't leave without the patron's approval, for example. They'd farm the little plot of land around their cottage and owe the patron work days for his mansion, usually farming but sometimes other things like linemen for hunting. One account I read, about an officer returning home from military service in deep southern Russia (later part of 19th century) illustrates it well. Russia had outlawed slavery but patrons treated their people as they wished anyway. The officer asked for sleeping quarters at a mansion and was invited to a card game with the patron and other nobles, where he was quite lucky. As a final bid the patron put up a servant girl and promptly lost. Ban on slavery or not, the girl was waiting outside when the officer prepared to leave in the morning. She might have had a legal right to refuse but doing so would probably have ended badly.

 

I'd imagine the poor in Denerim or Orlais aren't always any better off - their master is a powerful noble after all. Who can they complain to? They're just not slaves officially as in Tevinter.

[Hair Serious Business]

I thought this thread was about "Dorrian's tea party with Desire demon" that he had lol

[turuzzusapatuttu]

*snip*

 

 

I think his personality is the result of David Gaider wanting to write a "gay Tony Stark".  I'm okay with that.

 

[KainD]

I think if Dorian was straight, he would have no problems with Tevinter what so ever.

[Captmorgan72]

Wait, Dorian is ethical? The same Dorian who sees nothing wrong with slavery? 

Some of the most well known founding fathers of the United States owned slaves and in their day, slavery was normal. Most would consider them ethical. Of course like Dorian, they suffered from conflicts of interest. 

[ThreeF]

In the cannibal village it's ethical to eat people. This goes for Dorian and his view on slavery, this goes for any Magister in Tevinter practicing blood magic, this also goes for Orlais and its "Game"

[QueenCrow]

All the comments about the personal evolution of ethics are really great.  I think we see that in a lot of characters in DA:I.

 

No good character is perfect.  If a character is made to be flawless, they are unrealistic, unbelievable, we , as real people, have trouble relating to them.  So none of the characters in DA:I are flawless.  Most of the flaws are part of the person's conscious will and decision-making - ex. Leliana's hardening and ruthlessness in her choices, Cassandra's brash "sword first and ask questions later" tendencies from the beginning, Sera's intolerance of much beyond her realm of opinion, Solas' secret mistake and his tendencies (wisdom is easily twisted to pride).

 

Dorian's "flaws", at least the ones listed here, seem to me to be beyond his conscious will.  He doesn't choose to be from Tevinter.  He doesn't choose to own slaves or practice blood magic.  In my opinon, Dorian's flaws lean more toward displays of arrogance of the narcissistic type.

 

The character I consider closest to the potential of demonic influence is Cole.

[leaguer of one]

But can those people from Tevinter be considered to be in control of their nature? Or is the blood magic oriented upper class demonically influenced to be evil, and as such Dorian stands as a paragon against this lack of ethics?

No, because they are not the only asses in thedus who do horrible thing.

[SwobyJ]

I think if Dorian was straight, he would have no problems with Tevinter what so ever.

 

To me, that speaks to how our differences can not just divide us, but also urge us to improve and not stay stagnant.

 

So what if he would have had no problem with Tevinter if he was straight? Being illuminated to one of the problems of your society may open your eyes to many more problems - and it did with Dorian. This is not a bad thing in itself. It has helped him try to be better, and ultimately, try to make Tevinter better.

 

I'm fairly sure/easy to headcanon that Dorian himself questions whether he'd be on this sort of path if he liked women instead of men, but so what? Does that make his homosexuality a defining characteristic, or is it just part of his greater whole, a whole that is what defines him?* Guess we have to decide that for ourselves.

 

 

*him liking men can be important, but possibly not even as important as his other aspects. Does the gayness cause his personality and mentality, or does his personality and mentality make his gayness important? For all YOU know, he'd have still rebelled against tradition purely because that's who he is anyway, straight or gay.

 

I refer back to the symbolism in his cards.

[Hal-Jordan]

Fun fact, I take some responsibility for the creation of Dorian Pavus.

[nightscrawl]

I think if Dorian was straight, he would have no problems with Tevinter what so ever.

 
By making this statement so extreme you have missed an opportunity to explore the dichotomy between Dorian's differences with his homeland, his innate homosexuality, and how that relates to his rebellious nature.
 
The statement as you wrote it is inaccurate. He has views that are contrary to the "popular" method of thinking in Tevinter, and those have nothing to do with his homosexuality.
 
Even David Gaider specifically said that the problem is not with homosexuality in and of itself, but with the refusal to keep that as a "private conceit" and go on to do his duty. Dorian's comments regarding Tevinter, the Magisterium, mages, their Chantry, corruption, politics, blood magic, ALL of these things bear this out. Even Dorian's father has contrary views, as did Alexius before his personal tragedy, and Dorian admired both of these men for it.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

I think if Dorian was straight, he would have no problems with Tevinter what so ever.

Did you even listen to him when he talked? Perhaps he never would have left if it wasn't for what happened with his father, but Dorian's always been disliked the way Tevinter has been going and both of his father figures felt the same way before they gave into temptation.

[leaguer of one]

Wait, Dorian is ethical? The same Dorian who sees nothing wrong with slavery? 

It's a matter of perspective.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What is freedom if it costs you the life of your loved ones.

 Would you sell your freedom so your family wouldn't starve? 

Yes, because as we all know the entirety of Tevinter's slaves are poor, unfortunate souls who willingly gave up their freedom to support their families. It's not Tevinter has legions of people who go across the continent and forcibly apprehend men, women, and children, ripping them away from the homes and friends to spend the rest of their lives serving people who would sacrifice them on a whim. Oh wait, that pretty much every Tevinter slave.

 

As for the few you mentioned, while the slave is noble the institution of slavery is still not ethical. If you are trying to argue them being such, then they would have something that supports the poor without turning them into living possessions.  

[Icy Magebane]

As far as the topic goes, suggesting that the Tevinters' cruelty may be the result of demonic influence sounds like a huge cop-out.  This culture has persisted for centuries, and it is unreasonable to believe, or even suggest, that the vast majority of the ruling class has been under the control of demons.  As we have seen throughout the series, demonic possession almost always results in extremely chaotic behavior on the part of the victim, so unless every Magister is being controlled by a Pride Demon (or the newly introduced Envy Demon, I guess...), I don't see this making much sense.  The Magisters know exactly what they're doing and supernatural entities are not responsible for the routine human sacrifices they draw power from so that they can stay ahead of their rivals.

 

Take Hadrianna from DA2, for example... she was just an evil woman, period.  There was no sign of demonic influence that compelled her to kill all of her slaves... she just didn't want to die when Fenris came for her.

 

Dorian is just an outlier... a decent guy from an immoral nation, and that's about as far as I'm willing to take it.

[KainD]

To me, that speaks to how our differences can not just divide us, but also urge us to improve and not stay stagnant.

 

So what if he would have had no problem with Tevinter if he was straight? Being illuminated to one of the problems of your society may open your eyes to many more problems - and it did with Dorian.

 

Agreed. 

 

 

It has helped him try to be better, and ultimately, try to make Tevinter better.

 

But don't agree here. I like Tevinter. 

[Medhia_Nox]

The evil of Tevinter is state sanctioned hubris (slavery, eugenics, class 'mage/non-mage') - not demons (regardless of whether or not "Pride" is a demonic entity).

[Xilizhra]

Slavery is unethical. Monarchy is unethical. Religious institutions with armies are unethical. We can only change so many things at once (thankfully, this game at least allows for the latter).

[KainD]

Slavery is unethical. Monarchy is unethical. Religious institutions with armies are unethical. 

 

Your statement is unethical. 

[Lumix19]

Slavery is unethical. Monarchy is unethical. Religious institutions with armies are unethical. We can only change so many things at once (thankfully, this game at least allows for the latter).

I'm not sure I would say Monarchy is unethical. Tyranny is unethical certainly but they're not synonymous.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

 

 

But don't agree here. I like Tevinter. 

From a RP perspective I like Tevinter too. I so hope DA4 allows us to play a staunch Tevinter traditionalist, a bit like the Venatori except without all the Corypheus worship.

[t0mm06]

No, ethics are a set of well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do. 

 

He sees nothing wrong with it, saying they are no different than the poor people in Southern Thedas. He is ignoring the fact that slavery robs someone of their freedom, which is ethically wrong. Thus since he supports it, he is not ethical. 

 

 

Just because someone considers something normal does not mean said thing is ethical. 

 

Ethics arn't that at all. Perspective is involved, for instance i know people who say it is unethical to sleep with someone before marriage. I do not believe this. Also some might think that it is ok to sleep with someone before marriage but not if you do not have feelings for them. Each of these people believe theirs to be the 'ethical' opinion but which can we actually say is 'ethical'. 

 

Also Dorian didn't say that slavery is OK. He argued that it isn't any worse then the alianages in the south. Something i agree with to a degree. Those in the alianage don't have any freedom. Not really.   

[Dio Demon]

Yes, because as we all know the entirety of Tevinter's slaves are poor, unfortunate souls who willingly gave up their freedom to support their families. It's not Tevinter has legions of people who go across the continent and forcibly apprehend men, women, and children, ripping them away from the homes and friends to spend the rest of their lives serving people who would sacrifice them on a whim. Oh wait, that pretty much every Tevinter slave.

 

As for the few you mentioned, while the slave is noble the institution of slavery is still not ethical. If you are trying to argue them being such, then they would have something that supports the poor without turning them into living possessions.  

So Dorian's family abuses slaves? Maevaris is a horrible person? You're making wide sweeping gestures.

 

Nothing is evil, people only corrupt it to serve their own means. Hell my D&D sessions are set on a continent where you essentially have to sell yourself into slavery so you can feed your family and even have protection from the dangers of the continent.

 

Calling something evil is blind, evil is a concept created by humans. Throughout history people have been called evil for living how they see fit to live and then persecuted. You're no better.

 

 

Ethics arn't that at all. Perspective is involved, for instance i know people who say it is unethical to sleep with someone before marriage. I do not believe this. Also some might think that it is ok to sleep with someone before marriage but not if you do not have feelings for them. Each of these people believe theirs to be the 'ethical' opinion but which can we actually say is 'ethical'. 

Ethics is BS. It's a way for someone to sleep at night. I do what I want because it's fun and I'm enjoying life. I feel guilt for hurting people and the main reason I don't hurt them. Humans are ultimately selfish and anyone who claims otherwise has never looked up our history. Some people don't want to and I'm cool with that. As long as they're happy with it. Though when someone claims to be ethical it's essentially someone being self-righteous and arrogant.