225 réponses à ce sujet

[Vordish]

@200

 

The root of believing that a small or large existence has any meaning for the future is based on the desire to believe that it actually matters for the future and the possible worth it would be to others. After all, the mere stance of "I existed, therefore I mean something, therefore it matters" rings hollow if its not absolute throughout all time. Its like claiming that you existed and mattered because a comet flew by the earth and the reason that comet exists is because of the decision of a single entity in long forgotten age. There is no way to tell and there is no way to prove it. It doesn't matter.

 

When concerning evidence...I would say that your statement about God being unprovable is rather biased in this regard specifically because I gave you an avenue of contention that I claimed had no justifiable evidence to the contrary; The Book of Daniel. The prophecies concerning world powers even up to the coming of Christ. This book has been traditionally accepted as scripture for everyone that believes either in Judaism and/or "Christianity" or just generally anyone who believes in the Bible. It is only those that have a problem with the God of the Bible who attempt to dispute it as those prophecies would indicate a God is the one who gave them; the God of the Bible. I attested to the fact that if you were to remove the prophecies that the fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been dated the same as Isaiah and the others...and would show conclusive evidence that it was written way before the fact and therefore...the prophecies actually came true. Show me credible evidence that shows this to be false and then you would perhaps have a case.

 

Redemption instead of punishment? I would argue as an example that I do not advocate for a mass-killer to continue to live. God's Law requires execution for people who would do such things. It would be both for the benefit of society in the short and long term and it would be actual justice to the victim and the victims family. The here and now requires us to obey His Law, but if that killer were truly repentant then it would be the Almighty who would decide if that person had Eternal Life. There is a difference between this world and the next. People today do not seem to be content to know and understand the difference.

 

If God exists and God requires us to be good and just and holy as He is...then it stands to reason that He would have given the basics to us by our very design. We know what love is. We know what hate is. We know how to kill and we know how to not kill. We naturally do those things which are contained in His Law, but it is our desire to rebel and do things our way instead of His that causes us to sin and hurt ourselves and others. If God does exist and doesn't care or doesn't exist at all...then it is all subjective.

 

Your love and kindness does not, by default, equal someone else's definition. So what use is it? Only for the here and now and that gives credence to any action that anyone could ever take no matter what anyone else would think of it. Righteousness and wickedness is subjective.

 

So I would ask you a question; why should I ever agree that your righteousness or anyone else's trumps my own if you are not God?

[karushna5]

It's really not hard. His plan is only abhorrent (and yes I think it is completely abhorrent, and flawed and not well thought-out, and he must be stopped imo) because we [well, our PCs and the characters that we love] are on this side of the equation. 

 

It's his world or theirs. What do you think the Inquisitor did in the Redcliffe Future? Destroyed one world to bring back theirs. Was it a shitty world? Yes. Was it real to the people in it despite that? Yes. The Redcliffe Future wasn't real to us or the Inquisitor, but people still lived in it. It's the exact same thing with Solas. He's found himself in a world which to him, from his perspective, given the world he came from is a shitty world. It's real to the people in it despite it all, but it's not real to him. Them or us. It's basic survivalism and human nature.

 

There is a huge difference to what you are saying though is that he created this world, and those people hated it. He has done this before. And it is abhorrent to us because he is killing people in mass. The only way to not think it is abhorrent is to accept we are like Tranquil, and are not people. This is only coming from him, and even he decides otherwise, so yes, abhorent, very abhorent because even he admits we are people and he is killing us.

 

Second, the other choice does not translate the same. 1st you didn't kill anyone by going back in time. If that is the argument, then we would have to accept that every time traveler of every media is a mass murderer, and every clairvoyant ever is a killer. Solas isn't going to change the present. That would be a different issue, still suspect but not evil in itself and more of a philosophical issue. i don't see how making a different choice that led to a different conclusion in a 2 year(?) span is tantamount to actually killing millions. Whole generations were not born and erased, cultures and history were not created and you were ending it. Its not anywhere near the same.

 

All those people are mostly still alive, also no actual killing anyone with going back, also the world is ending, so you saved everyone instead Its exactly the opposite of Solas decision.

[BansheeOwnage]

Or an even more "plausible" explanation is that there are variable paths or "dimensions" created or exploited by the time "magic". Thus, the "alternate" time line continues on with Coryphypants still in charge and thus it's not wiped out by the choices or actions of the Inquisitor or Dorian. 

Yeah, I know this thread is long, but I mentioned that in my first post about time travel. Either way, the Inquisitor doesn't destroy anything.

[BansheeOwnage]

@200

 

So I would ask you a question; why should I ever agree that your righteousness or anyone else's trumps my own if you are not God?

I'll answer for myself first: If god existed, I'd view it as a person, and judge it accordingly. Therefore, I would not accept that its morality is any more valid or fundamentally true than mine or anyone else's. A creator does not get to dictate what you should do simply because it created you.

 

With that in mind, I would not suddenly change my moral compass if a god appeared and declared the rules to be different than mine. I would be very alarmed, but I would simply disagree. Your morals don't get overridden by a deity unless they forcibly take control of your being. That's why Christians or any other religious group are just as diverse in their morality as non-believers. They can't help but feel those things regardless of what they are told is right. That's also why most people are going to find at least one law absurd. Rules are not morality. What you're describing are rules set forth by a god, not morality. It could potentially convince me to change my views with reasoned arguments, but that is not the same thing.

 

So basically, you should not agree that your righteousness is trumped by anyone - not god, not me - unless they naturally change your mind with discussion. Letting someone hijack your own views because of a sense of subservience is something I find extremely disheartening and tragic, and to bring this back on-topic, Solas would too. He values freedom of thought highly.

 

Lastly: Out of curiosity, why don't you use the quote button?

[Aravasia]

@200

 

The root of believing that a small or large existence has any meaning for the future is based on the desire to believe that it actually matters for the future and the possible worth it would be to others. After all, the mere stance of "I existed, therefore I mean something, therefore it matters" rings hollow if its not absolute throughout all time. Its like claiming that you existed and mattered because a comet flew by the earth and the reason that comet exists is because of the decision of a single entity in long forgotten age. There is no way to tell and there is no way to prove it. It doesn't matter.

I believe the issue here is that deriving meaning is endless cycle. Even if you believe that obeying a God is the ultimate meaning, you would then need to ask yourself: What is the meaning of God? What is the meaning of believing in him? What is the meaning of meaning? What is the meaning of the meaning of meaning? - an endless cycle.

 

 

When concerning evidence...I would say that your statement about God being unprovable is rather biased in this regard specifically because I gave you an avenue of contention that I claimed had no justifiable evidence to the contrary; The Book of Daniel. 

I do not see how claiming there is not evidence to support either the existence or non-existence of a God comes across as biased, it is virtually a neutral stance. What I had been curious of pertained to how you explain factors such as evolution and cosmology. 

 

 

So I would ask you a question; why should I ever agree that your righteousness or anyone else's trumps my own if you are not God?

You should not. In fact, I am completely advocating the opposite. You are an individual with the right to live autonomously.

I may attempt to persuade you to think differently, but that does not mean that I have the 'right' to command you to do such, and that you must obey me. I believe that no one has that right over anyone. 

However, you seem to believe that God has that right, and thus you, as a advocate of God, as well have that right over others - to which I fundamentally disagree with. 

[Vordish]

@205

 

Well, that is the essence of personal volition. You have the capacity to choose and that is your right and that is not in dispute in the scriptures. In fact, actual discussion and reasoned debate is encouraged.

 

As for quoting...I seem to have always had an issue with that as whenever I press the button...it never shows up in my web browser. I'm still using IE 11. I haven't switched over to Edge yet as Microsoft hasn't updated its phishing protection that would agree with Norton 360

[Vordish]

@206

 

Indeed. Valid questions, but not an endless cycle because those questions were already answered in my studies.

 

The evidence matters because the prediction of future events so precisely is what constitutes evidence as the book that those prophecies are written in claim it is given by the same God as supported throughout the entirety of the Bible. No human could know such things with such accurate details. No evidence of such a claim would exist and therefore would have been the perfect situation to disprove the validity of claims to divinely inspired authorship.

 

Your answer to my proposed question is prima-facie evidence of my argument. Its all subjective without an absolute authority and without a God...nothing can make an absolute claim to moral authority.

 

Therefore, all is subjective and based on the desires and wants of the person committing the actions entailed; killers, rapists, incestuous relations, beastiality, polygamy, bigamy, homosexuality, theft, slander, kidnapping, slavery, torture...everything is permissible from an objective standpoint. Nothing is fair to condemn by you or anyone else because you are not objectively higher than them. It is all interpretable.

[Aravasia]

@206

 

Indeed. Valid questions, but not an endless cycle because those questions were already answered in my studies.

 

The evidence matters because the prediction of future events so precisely is what constitutes evidence as the book that those prophecies are written in claim it is given by the same God as supported throughout the entirety of the Bible. No human could know such things with such accurate details. No evidence of such a claim would exist and therefore would have been the perfect situation to disprove the validity of claims to divinely inspired authorship.

 

Your answer to my proposed question is prima-facie evidence of my argument. Its all subjective without an absolute authority and without a God...nothing can make an absolute claim to moral authority.

 

Therefore, all is subjective and based on the desires and wants of the person committing the actions entailed; killers, rapists, incestuous relations, beastiality, polygamy, bigamy, homosexuality, theft, slander, kidnapping, slavery, torture...everything is permissible from an objective standpoint. Nothing is fair to condemn by you or anyone else because you are not objectively higher than them. It is all interpretable.

 

The point of the idea of it as an endless cycle is that there will always be something left to derive meaning from. Relate to me what you believe the solution to ultimate meaning is, that you have learned form your studies, and I will exhibit how deriving meaning continues infinitely. 

 

I understand that you see the prophecies in the scriptures you had studied as direct proof, that is not what I had been meaning to pertain to. I had been pondering how you respond to evidence that suggests against the events of the bible, such as the examples I described above. If I am being too impertinent by asking, I apologize, and you are not required to answer. You have just been willing to explain the basis of your faith so far, so I thought that you might elaborate on such. 

 

And, I do agree that everything is subjective, that has been my intended argument from the start. However, in addition, I do not believe that the belief in, nor existence of a God provides any objectivity. 

 

Edit: This does not relate to our discussion, but, have you tried Chrome or Firefox? Generally, both browsers are faster and easier to utilize than Internet Explorer. 

[BansheeOwnage]

@206

 

Your answer to my proposed question is prima-facie evidence of my argument. Its all subjective without an absolute authority and without a God...nothing can make an absolute claim to moral authority.

 

Therefore, all is subjective and based on the desires and wants of the person committing the actions entailed; killers, rapists, incestuous relations, beastiality, polygamy, bigamy, homosexuality, theft, slander, kidnapping, slavery, torture...everything is permissible from an objective standpoint. Nothing is fair to condemn by you or anyone else because you are not objectively higher than them. It is all interpretable.

I don't think there is such thing as absolute morality. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't develop a collective morality based on what is beneficial to the well-being of a society and, when possible, the individuals within. That's why every society has laws, and that's why they are a good thing even if I think a lot of them are ridiculous and need to change. And they do change, as society and its morality does.

 

Also, I would have a deep loathing for an entity that created me a certain way and declared me not only inferior, but morally disgusting, for the very nature it gave me. I couldn't ever let go of my morality whether god exists or not.

[Vordish]

@209

 

Yes, of course there will always be a means to derive meaning from anything in an endless cycle, but the underlying point is that it would be based on what you personally agree with and what you would conflict with. The key difference is that you choose to put yourself as supreme and to not submit to any other authority than your own. That is the essence of personal volition and that is every sentient beings right.

 

Well, once again this "circular arguments are circular". The way you prove something to be false is to take what they claim and show how it doesn't make sense, either contradictory or an outright falsehood. You wish to entertain ideas of cosmology and evolution? Well, I have submitted the premise that God exists and everything that we know of was created by Him and that the Bible is God's Word. Naturally, the information we have concerning the will of God would be contained in His word...therefore, one might think that finding something wrong with the Bible would have been the best way to prove my claims to be false.

 

I haven't seen anything so far. I gave a classic example and its treated as irrelevant. In return, your asking me to relate how I could stand against people who would come at it from a completely different angle whereas I could state that the fundamental question still hasn't been refuted; does the God of the Bible exist? After all, you claim to be an agnostic. You do not claim to be an atheist. I submit the scriptures and now one must either poke holes in it or confirm it or outright deny it. All other contentions are essentially irrelevant until then.

 

Your last statement essentially boils down to; Absolute personal authority = absolute morality. Your subjective argument equals absolute morality...yet you make no claims to a deity. Therefore, the choice is your own authority and not based upon divine permission. It changes depending on your desires. You equate yourself, metaphorically speaking, as a type of "god" in your own right.

 

Well, that is your choice, but its the same old response to those who do not adhere to a "real" God outside of themselves.

[DragonNerd]

I'm one of the nuts who believes Solas is actually going to use time travel to reverse everything he did, thus erasing modern Thedas and restoring the past. Literally. 

 

And it's entirely possible. 

 

Alexius was able to use time magic because of the Breach -- the big HOLE in the sky -- that allowed the Fade to slip through. It seems the Fade enables time magic, and as the Veil surpresses the Fade, it's this "suppression" that makes time magic impossible. 

 

Now, if someone were to completely remove the Veil . . . time magic would be possible.  If In Hushed Whispers is anything to go by, it's the Veil that prevents time magic. This is why Alexius couldn't travel back to before the Breach: the Veil was intact then.  Solas is trying to go back to a time when the Veil didn't exist.

 

I also think the "Tranquil" comparison is apt. In Solas' time, the Veil didn't exist, so the Fade was everywhere and everyone had a connection to it. Thus, everyone had magic. Now the Veil has severed everyone's tie to the Fade, leaving only a few with a connection to it (mages). So the entire world is literally Tranquil, even the mages, because they lack this deep connection to the Fade that ancient beings had. Everyone in the world is essentially brain damaged to Solas. It takes an effort for him to recognize them as people, the same way we might struggle to recognize the humanity in a Tranquil person. 

 

In Hushed Whispers is different from Solas' scenario because the Inquisitor isn't killing millions of people to restore the past. The Inquisitor is reversing what happened to keep bad things from happening to people who continue existing. Children that were born into an apocalyptic world of demons are instead born into a world the Inquisitor will salvage for them in fighting Corypheus and defeating. 

 

If Solas goes back in time, he will be erasing everyone who exists now, not rewriting the future to make it better for them. The Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra won't exist at all. And while he is tearing down the Veil to make this happen, demons will destroy everyone around him, killing millions -- not unlike what Corypheus did in In Hushed Whispers, actually. Solas is doing the same stuff as Cory, only he's actually sorry about it. Him being a good person at heart doesn't make what he's doing good, though. 

 

It brings to mind the scene at the end of In Hushed Whispers when Leliana is dying for the Inquisitor and Dorian is casting the time travel spell. Solas would be in Dorian's place, his agents would be fighting demons and dying for him, and then he would turn back time, step through a time rift, and stop Mythal from being murdered. 

 

But it's different. Because instead of saving the Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra from torment in a dark future, he has erased them completely. As well as millions of others on top of that. 

 

90% of this is head canon but it makes the most sense to me right now. And I don't care. 

 

Point is, I sympathize with Solas. Especially given the fact that even if he tried to adapt to modern Thedas, he is immortal and would live on and on, watching the Inquisitor and all his new friends die.

 

But I also recognize that what he is doing is very wrong. It's a pity he couldn't have just stayed asleep. 

[Aravasia]

@209

 

Yes, of course there will always be a means to derive meaning from anything in an endless cycle, but the underlying point is that it would be based on what you personally agree with and what you would conflict with. The key difference is that you choose to put yourself as supreme and to not submit to any other authority than your own. That is the essence of personal volition and that is every sentient beings right.

 

Well, once again this "circular arguments are circular". The way you prove something to be false is to take what they claim and show how it doesn't make sense, either contradictory or an outright falsehood. You wish to entertain ideas of cosmology and evolution? Well, I have submitted the premise that God exists and everything that we know of was created by Him and that the Bible is God's Word. Naturally, the information we have concerning the will of God would be contained in His word...therefore, one might think that finding something wrong with the Bible would have been the best way to prove my claims to be false.

 

I haven't seen anything so far. I gave a classic example and its treated as irrelevant. In return, your asking me to relate how I could stand against people who would come at it from a completely different angle whereas I could state that the fundamental question still hasn't been refuted; does the God of the Bible exist? After all, you claim to be an agnostic. You do not claim to be an atheist. I submit the scriptures and now one must either poke holes in it or confirm it or outright deny it. All other contentions are essentially irrelevant until then.

 

Your last statement essentially boils down to; Absolute personal authority = absolute morality. Your subjective argument equals absolute morality...yet you make no claims to a deity. Therefore, the choice is your own authority and not based upon divine permission. It changes depending on your desires. You equate yourself, metaphorically speaking, as a type of "god" in your own right.

 

Well, that is your choice, but its the same old response to those who do not adhere to a "real" God outside of themselves.

 

Your previous argument had been that lack of belief in God equates to a lack of meaning, to which I disagreed with. Displaying how determining meaning is endless was my attempt to convince you that such a belief does not truly have any higher meaning over other life meanings.

 

I did not intend to treat your revelations on the prophecies you disclosed as irrelevant. In fact, I find the idea of such fascinating. If I recall, Isaac Newton had been known to seek hidden meaning within biblical texts (though, I believe his practices were considered further towards occultism) and he was one of the major founding fathers of modern physics. Having not reviewed such prophecies myself, I simply did not wish to comment on something I am ignorant of. Evolution and cosmology do not dismiss the idea of a God, nor any related prophecies that I am aware of - and the same is true vice verse - but, they do go against certain aspects of the bible, such as creation of man and our world. I suppose a more relevant question to be asked was whether you believed in all aspects of the scriptures you have researched, or, whether you believe some aspects are subject to falsity or interpretation. 

 

Also, do you consider that your scriptures were written by man, and therefore, are subject to the biases of the authors whom wrote them? Even if the ideas written in such came directly from a deity, they would have been processed and formed into word by other human beings. This leaves room for interpretation within the biblical scriptures.

 

I do not believe that my subjective argument equals absolute morality. As I mentioned before, my attempts are both to understand your way of reasoning, and debate you on matters that I disagree with - but that is all. Persuasion is not the same as commanding. I do not believe that my opinions have any objective value over yours, nor do yours over mine. 

[Aravasia]

 

In Hushed Whispers is different from Solas' scenario because the Inquisitor isn't killing millions of people to restore the past. The Inquisitor is reversing what happened to keep bad things from happening to people who continue existing. Children that were born into an apocalyptic world of demons are instead born into a world the Inquisitor will salvage for them in fighting Corypheus and defeating. 

 

If Solas goes back in time, he will be erasing everyone who exists now, not rewriting the future to make it better for them. The Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra won't exist at all. And while he is tearing down the Veil to make this happen, demons will destroy everyone around him, killing millions -- not unlike what Corypheus did in In Hushed Whispers, actually. Solas is doing the same stuff as Cory, only he's actually sorry about it. Him being a good person at heart doesn't make what he's doing good, though. 

 

It brings to mind the scene at the end of In Hushed Whispers when Leliana is dying for the Inquisitor and Dorian is casting the time travel spell. Solas would be in Dorian's place, his agents would be fighting demons and dying for him, and then he would turn back time, step through a time rift, and stop Mythal from being murdered. 

 

But it's different. Because instead of saving the Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra from torment in a dark future, he has erased them completely. As well as millions of others on top of that. 

 

Well, to be fair, by time-traveling, Solas would as well be preventing catastrophes and the deaths of those whom would have otherwise existed (remember, elves lost their immortality with the destruction of the veil.)

Another had mentioned this previously, but, the argument was that, despite the circumstances, new life had still likely been created in the wake of the dark future that the Inquisitor erased by traveling back in time.

Admittedly, Solas would no doubt be erasing conceivably more life than the Inquisitor and Dorian had, but, it is still worth considering. 

 

I am still uncertain of whether Solas's plan would include time-travel, while the option certainly presents itself, he presented it as though this world would be aware of their end - 'burning in the raw chaos.' So, if the plot does include time-travel, I imagine that it would occur following Solas's plan to destroy the current world... which I believe is what you had related, anyway. 

[Vordish]

@213

 

Lack of belief in God if God were real does not equal the same meaning, yes. That is my position. Otherwise there would be no reason to argue with you concerning it. My particular premise is not ambiguous. The scriptures are specific within the context of what the Bible presents concerning the will and nature of God and that is all that is needed. If you reject that then your going to end up finding your own meanings upon meanings. The confusion resides in a fundamental misunderstanding about what is construed as Biblical versus what actually is.

 

Broadly, perhaps, Evolution and Cosmology doesn't dismiss the concept of a God, but I am not talking about "a" god. I am talking about a specific God; The Almighty and Christ Jesus. That specification alone causes problems with your argument. However, with your now specification of parts of the Bible which relate "to the creation of man and world" we actually come to heart of the matter. The only other explanation for creation of the world and mankind is probably the "evolution" argument. The rest is just some small variation of it. The universe either came into existence by Evolution or by Intelligent design. I believe it was intelligent design and according to my research, I do not believe the scriptures promote evolution in that context. Small variations, yes, but not from a primordial soup or whatever into the creatures we are today.

 

When in regards to believing in "all aspects of the scriptures", I believe that the English translation is problematic enough, which is why I encouraged you to research the Hebrew and the Greek(OT and NT respectively). It is also another reason why I mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls. Language comparisons between the Mesoretic text and what is translated to day is very, very close. The only differences are minor. Punctuation differences mostly. Hence, to a point I would argue the English could be trusted, but you need to research the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek as I would say that the Hebrew and the Greek are what the scriptures were divinely inspired to be written in at the first.

 

To be blunt, I am one of those people society generally believes is a "bible-thumping crackpot" who believes the scriptures are the infallible and divinely inspired Word of God. As such, I would claim the Bible interprets itself. Words have meaning and we have access to lexicons and encyclopedias from the experts of the languages of Hebrew and Greek and there is, in reality, no actual dissent concerning the definitions of words/language in question. I do not believe the Bible needs personal interpretation from us. I believe that people have tried to personal interpret it...and that is why there is so much variation that you have today. Could I be one of those people? Of course, but I would challenge anyone to prove it. That is where you get into the actual nitty-gritty aspects.

 

You may argue against subjective morality being absolute, but the end result is the same. It is what it is for "you" and you alone. You are the one who gets to decide differently and until you submit wholly to someone or something else to define things for you, to tell you the way things really are(whether true or false in reality)...you are your own god. That is true for anyone.

[Almostfaceman]

Can you guys please quit hijacking the thread with your off-topic discussion? They have a Personal Message system for that.

[Aravasia]

We were discussing philosophy - it is semi-on topic, but fine we may resume my originally posed thesis. 

 

 

*Snip*

Thankyou for the conversation, Vordish. We may disagree, but you have at least allowed me to discern the reasoning behind your own beliefs. I have considered preforming further in-depth research on individual belief systems for the purpose of studying anthropology. As such, in the case, I will bear in mind what you have mentioned on your beliefs on the scriptures. 

We should likely recommence the topic of Solas. 

[solomon.kosin]

Just want to add my thoughts to this

 

This is really a situation about how you look at it.

 

1) Solas is wrong

 

Having created the Veil Solas has destroyed the world of ancient elves and developed a new reality, actually. The reality with Veil and most people being "tranquil". 

But the world has adapted to the new reality. People were born and died in this world. They loved, hated, they lived and continue to live. The Veil has now become a part of reality just as mountains or seas are.

The world is constantly changing. Where there once were seas now is land, forests become cities, kingdoms become Empires and they grow and get destroyed. Once there were no Veil but now there is.

Without the Veil elves were strong, with the Veil people are strong: there is no situation when everyone is satisfied. But one has to accept mistakes and live through it

Arlathan was as evil as modern empires are and bringing the world back to ancient times is no panacea.

We might have forgotten and lost the ancient secret of times when pyramides were constructed but that is life. Thigs change, become lost and forgotten, but the only way is a way forward not backward

 

2) Solas is right

 

The world was created with the Fade, they were meant to be together there had to be no boundaries, so people (elves) could use its power and magic. Having created the Veil Solas has changed the world, turned it away from its initial idea. Current state - is not how the world had to be, its no more than a mistake. Veil prevents people from using what is their by right - magic.

Destroying the Veil will bring the world back to its normal state. The Veil is like a Berlin Wall which has parted the city. Once people had the whole city and now have to deal with just a part of it leaving some secrets, wisdom, friends and lovers behind.

It will be just justiful to break the wall down and give people what is theirs by right. Even though it means destroying manking and other races - as i said, there is no win/win situation.

 

So, everyone just picks that he likes most. I think that both ideas have their strong points and thus I would greatly appreciate if in next game we could ally with Solas as well as oppose him. I really would like to go both ways.

[BansheeOwnage]

*snip*

 

So, everyone just picks that he likes most. I think that both ideas have their strong points and thus I would greatly appreciate if in next game we could ally with Solas as well as oppose him. I really would like to go both ways.

I think it would be hilarious if you could side with Solas, and the Inquisitor kills you. No matter what

[wildannie]

 

I'm one of the nuts who believes Solas is actually going to use time travel to reverse everything he did, thus erasing modern Thedas and restoring the past. Literally. 

 

And it's entirely possible. 

 

Alexius was able to use time magic because of the Breach -- the big HOLE in the sky -- that allowed the Fade to slip through. It seems the Fade enables time magic, and as the Veil surpresses the Fade, it's this "suppression" that makes time magic impossible. 

 

Now, if someone were to completely remove the Veil . . . time magic would be possible.  If In Hushed Whispers is anything to go by, it's the Veil that prevents time magic. This is why Alexius couldn't travel back to before the Breach: the Veil was intact then.  Solas is trying to go back to a time when the Veil didn't exist.

 

I also think the "Tranquil" comparison is apt. In Solas' time, the Veil didn't exist, so the Fade was everywhere and everyone had a connection to it. Thus, everyone had magic. Now the Veil has severed everyone's tie to the Fade, leaving only a few with a connection to it (mages). So the entire world is literally Tranquil, even the mages, because they lack this deep connection to the Fade that ancient beings had. Everyone in the world is essentially brain damaged to Solas. It takes an effort for him to recognize them as people, the same way we might struggle to recognize the humanity in a Tranquil person. 

 

In Hushed Whispers is different from Solas' scenario because the Inquisitor isn't killing millions of people to restore the past. The Inquisitor is reversing what happened to keep bad things from happening to people who continue existing. Children that were born into an apocalyptic world of demons are instead born into a world the Inquisitor will salvage for them in fighting Corypheus and defeating. 

 

If Solas goes back in time, he will be erasing everyone who exists now, not rewriting the future to make it better for them. The Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra won't exist at all. And while he is tearing down the Veil to make this happen, demons will destroy everyone around him, killing millions -- not unlike what Corypheus did in In Hushed Whispers, actually. Solas is doing the same stuff as Cory, only he's actually sorry about it. Him being a good person at heart doesn't make what he's doing good, though. 

 

It brings to mind the scene at the end of In Hushed Whispers when Leliana is dying for the Inquisitor and Dorian is casting the time travel spell. Solas would be in Dorian's place, his agents would be fighting demons and dying for him, and then he would turn back time, step through a time rift, and stop Mythal from being murdered. 

 

But it's different. Because instead of saving the Inquisitor and Varric and Cassandra from torment in a dark future, he has erased them completely. As well as millions of others on top of that. 

 

90% of this is head canon but it makes the most sense to me right now. And I don't care. 

 

Point is, I sympathize with Solas. Especially given the fact that even if he tried to adapt to modern Thedas, he is immortal and would live on and on, watching the Inquisitor and all his new friends die.

 

But I also recognize that what he is doing is very wrong. It's a pity he couldn't have just stayed asleep. 

 

I find the tranquil comparison quite interesting in getting some idea of the extent what has been lost.  In DAO and DA2 the idea of being tranquil is presented to us as a fate worse than death.  However the nature of tranquility for the actual tranquil is very passive,  when in that state there is no indication that they would rather be dead, they have no emotion and seem to be content with their lot.  When Anders kills Carl, he is carrying out the wishes of 'real' Carl, but there is no indication that tranquil Carl has any great wish to die, he has no wishes at all while in that state.  The two states are so massively different that it is like two separate people.  

Maybe then,  the return of magic would effectively 'kill' the population by changing the people and their outlook to a similar extent as the difference between tranquil and non tranquil.  It might not be that people will actually physically die, just that they will be changed to an extent where they would be unrecognizable to their previous selves, and their previous desires, dreams and thoughts have become irrelevant.  Doing that to a population is effectively killing them in the same way as reconnecting a mage to the fade kills a tranquil, especially to someone who values freedom and choice as much as Solas.

 

If I'm honest,  I don't actually think this is the case with Solas' plans... but it could be.

[Ieldra]

Just want to add my thoughts to this
 
This is really a situation about how you look at it.
 
1) Solas is wrong
 
Having created the Veil Solas has destroyed the world of ancient elves and developed a new reality, actually. The reality with Veil and most people being "tranquil". 
But the world has adapted to the new reality. People were born and died in this world. They loved, hated, they lived and continue to live. The Veil has now become a part of reality just as mountains or seas are.
The world is constantly changing. Where there once were seas now is land, forests become cities, kingdoms become Empires and they grow and get destroyed. Once there were no Veil but now there is.
Without the Veil elves were strong, with the Veil people are strong: there is no situation when everyone is satisfied. But one has to accept mistakes and live through it
Arlathan was as evil as modern empires are and bringing the world back to ancient times is no panacea.
We might have forgotten and lost the ancient secret of times when pyramides were constructed but that is life. Thigs change, become lost and forgotten, but the only way is a way forward not backward
 
2) Solas is right
 
The world was created with the Fade, they were meant to be together there had to be no boundaries, so people (elves) could use its power and magic. Having created the Veil Solas has changed the world, turned it away from its initial idea. Current state - is not how the world had to be, its no more than a mistake. Veil prevents people from using what is their by right - magic.
Destroying the Veil will bring the world back to its normal state. The Veil is like a Berlin Wall which has parted the city. Once people had the whole city and now have to deal with just a part of it leaving some secrets, wisdom, friends and lovers behind.
It will be just justiful to break the wall down and give people what is theirs by right. Even though it means destroying manking and other races - as i said, there is no win/win situation.
 
So, everyone just picks that he likes most. I think that both ideas have their strong points and thus I would greatly appreciate if in next game we could ally with Solas as well as oppose him. I really would like to go both ways.

Indeed, which state of the world is preferable is a matter of perspective. However, the decision is not just about that. It's also about the price paid for any drastic change ny those who live in the world as it is now. You don't start from nothing, and an existing state has more weight than a hypothetical one. That makes it hard for me to support Solas, even though I happen to think a world with no Veil is desirable.

[Almostfaceman]

Indeed, which state of the world is preferable is a matter of perspective. However, the decision is not just about that. It's also about the price paid for any drastic change ny those who live in the world as it is now. You don't start from nothing, and an existing state has more weight than a hypothetical one. That makes it hard for me to support Solas, even though I happen to think a world with no Veil is desirable.

 

I don't think it's just desirable, I think it's the natural order and thus inevitable. How many times do we hear "the Veil is thin" in Dragon Age? The artificial boundary is falling apart the more death and destruction weigh on it, which, again, is inevitable. It's also apparently placing stress on not just the elves but on perhaps the Dwarves and even humans. I say prepare for the tearing down of the Veil, one way or another, it's gonna happen. It keeps happening (I think we had a "repair the Veil" quest in Awakening if I recall correctly). At least this way, we have a chance of maybe mitigating the damage through reasoning with Solas or other means. 

[solomon.kosin]

I think it would be hilarious if you could side with Solas, and the Inquisitor kills you. No matter what

Even so) i would fell really devasted to play a character who wants to support solas but is doing just the opposite

[solomon.kosin]

Indeed, which state of the world is preferable is a matter of perspective. However, the decision is not just about that. It's also about the price paid for any drastic change ny those who live in the world as it is now. You don't start from nothing, and an existing state has more weight than a hypothetical one. That makes it hard for me to support Solas, even though I happen to think a world with no Veil is desirable.

Well, at the initial point- his decision costed him lives and abilities of elves
At this point either he sacrifices any chance for a better future for elves, because they are nothing without magical abilities
Or he sacrifices lives of many humans.
He has to choose between bad and bad, and neither is a right choice

[megageeklizzy]

"Sometimes terrible choices are all that remain."

[Andrew Lucas]

Yes. His world was just as much of a utopia as current-day Thedas, which is to say, not even close. But it's not necessarily about comfort, but simply restoring the elves in terms of... evolution? Superiority? Now I feel like I'm playing Mass Effect. Well, no surprise there, with Weekes at the helm I think he would simply prefer a world with problems full of advanced people over a world with problems with devolved people. For lack of better terms.


Actually, he has barely done anything really bad. Yet. He's redeemable.

Nah, he's 'killable'.