147 réponses à ce sujet

[CoM Solaufein]

I never cared much for Dalish elves until I played DAI and they are the best. In Origins I preferred the city elves. This is also the first DA game I've played as a mage, which I found to be the better class of DAI.

[jlb524]

Well depending on how exactly you count the bodies, you could make a case that Corypheus has him beat if you include all the victims of the Blight.

Solas probably caused all that too.

[Bizantura]

Play all races.  Some I like more then others.  But all games I payed, DAI included use stereotypical archetypes, which is fine by me, but unfortunately all but spetacular or special in revealing anything.  DAI thrives on projection from the player and that is projected in the comments.  The more a player is pro a race and anti an other = mostly projection.

[Chaelura]

I'm absolutely not "anti" any other race/class options.  Do what's fun for you of course!   For me, I felt like I had so many more meaningful choices and dialogue as an elven mage, given the content of the game.  

 

Also, seeing as how elves are housed in slums with little to no opportunity to get out (outside of the Dalish, who are understandably fearful since any of their mages are apostates and humans hate "knife ears"), well yeah; they're oppressed.  And it sucks ass.

 

What about all the people with swords and knives?  They kill too.  Doesn't really matter *how*.  Also the Exalted March was kind of a big deal. 

[Artona]

 

 

What about all the people with swords and knives?  They kill too.  Doesn't really matter *how*.

 

It matters, because people with swords and knives are really limited in comparison to mages. They couldn't do big boom no Conclave. They couldn't start Blight, or bring undead over Redcliffe, or cast anyone in some alternative future, or imprison entire village in Fade. Yeas, it matters *how*. Simply, "what the worst mages could do" is much worse than "what's the worst warriors and rogues and templars could do".

[Ieldra]

Play all races.  Some I like more then others.  But all games I payed, DAI included use stereotypical archetypes, which is fine by me, but unfortunately all but spetacular or special in revealing anything.  DAI thrives on projection from the player and that is projected in the comments.  The more a player is pro a race and anti an other = mostly projection.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Absolutely everyone is biased for something and against something else. Things like this are value judgments, and since there is no objective value system we're all making judgments based on our own perception of things.

 

There only place where I need to be somewhat neutral is in descriptive, scholarly accounts of the state of things. In everything else, why wouldn't I follow my preferences? Sometimes it's fun to play against them, in order to try out a different mindset, but most of the time it isn't. 

[ArcaneEsper]

It matters, because people with swords and knives are really limited in comparison to mages. They couldn't do big boom no Conclave. They couldn't start Blight, or bring undead over Redcliffe, or cast anyone in some alternative future, or imprison entire village in Fade. Yeas, it matters *how*. Simply, "what the worst mages could do" is much worse than "what's the worst warriors and rogues and templars could do".

I agree with you and feel like this highlights an issue with the pro-mage side, in that a portion of the members don't seem to realise that mages actually pose a very real danger to others. While I feel mages should be educated on the use of their powers and not "jailed" I still feel it's a very narrow view on things if you keep painting them as victims and don't address the very valid concerns people might have about them.

[Ieldra]

I agree with you and feel like this highlights an issue with the pro-mage side, in that a portion of the members don't seem to realise that mages actually pose a very real danger to others. While I feel mages should be educated on the use of their powers and not "jailed" I still feel it's a very narrow view on things if you keep painting them as victims and don't address the very valid concerns people might have about them.

it's not quite as simple.

 

(1) Untrained mages pose an unwilling danger to others, and that's why training should be mandatory. However, on whose authority is the training designed? "Apostates" like Morrigan are clearly in full control of their powers, yet the established system would treat her worse than any untrained child. As I see it, appropriate training can only be designed by the mageborn themselves. It should be transparent to others in order to mediate fear, but a non-mageborn who designs mage training will always attempt to limit the mages' potential.

 

(2) Unscrupulous mages pose a danger to others. Since I do not think it justified to limit all mages because of those, the logical consequence is that all mageborn have an obligation to fight those who would use their power for oppression.

 

(3) Behind all, there is the unsolved question "what is a legitimate use of magical power, and what is not?" If I were a mageborn in Thedas and had learned to control my powers, I would accept that I had a higher responsibility than people without those powers. In other words, a mage needs to be a more responsible person than a non-mage. Meanwhile, any attempt to impose limits on such uses of my powers that enhance my independence, in order to keep me under control, would make me lose regard for others, and eventually turn me into a full-blown supremacist. 

 

I'm pro-mage as a rule, but I don't know if co-existence is possible, if a society with such a degree of intrinsic power imbalances can exist and be reasonably stable. If you don't believe that co-existence is possible, then the only way out is autonomous segregation - an independent city or state, controlled only by the mageborn. 

[Dabrikishaw]

As long as mages can be possessed, total cohabitation with regular people isn't possible.

[ArcaneEsper]

it's not quite as simple.

(1) Untrained mages pose an unwilling danger to others, and that's why training should be mandatory. However, on whose authority is the training designed? "Apostates" like Morrigan are clearly in full control of their powers, yet the established system would treat her worse than any untrained child. As I see it, appropriate training can only be designed by the mageborn themselves. It should be transparent to others in order to mediate fear, but a non-mageborn who designs mage training will always attempt to limit the mages' potential.

(2) Unscrupulous mages pose a danger to others. Since I do not think it justified to limit all mages because of those, the logical consequence is that all mageborn have an obligation to fight those who would use their power for oppression.

(3) Behind all, there is the unsolved question "what is a legitimate use of magical power, and what is not?" If I were a mageborn in Thedas and had learned to control my powers, I would accept that I had a higher responsibility than people without those powers. In other words, a mage needs to be a more responsible person than a non-mage. Meanwhile, any attempt to impose limits on such uses of my powers that enhance my independence, in order to keep me under control, would make me lose regard for others, and eventually turn me into a full-blown supremacist.

I'm pro-mage as a rule, but I don't know if co-existence is possible, if a society with such a degree of intrinsic power imbalances can exist and be reasonably stable. If you don't believe that co-existence is possible, then the only way out is autonomous segregation - an independent city or state, controlled only by the mageborn.

I agree with you and definitely see where you're coming from but nothing I said really disagrees with you here. My point was more fandom related than lore related because I've come across people pointing out everything the Templars have done wrong but refusing to acknowledge the existence of abominations which feels too biased to allow any real discussion.

Of course I'm not limiting my view of the pro-mage side due to those people, I just mean to say that this particular side exists as well and they need to balance their views a bit.

My nature is such that I dislike taking a side in such issues because there are valid reasons for supporting and not supporting either. So I find it odd when people try to downplay or overplay things for the sake of their arguments.

And just for the record I definitely agree about mages designing training for other mages. The current Circle system is in need of a serious revamp or being replaced with a whole new system.

[Xerrai]

Your hyperbole aside.

Because both elves and mages are notoriously arrogant douches with superiority complexes... and, sadly, sometimes that rubs off on the people that play them.  (You can see this very clearly in all the whining threads about mages and how powerful they should be)

 

The problem with DA mages... is that they're nothing like wizards.  Wizards (wise-men) work to obtain their power and because of that are often portrayed as intellectual and wise beyond their years and knowing things normal people are not privy to.  DA mages are like Marvel mutants... they just get power whether they're responsible or not... and you can rage all you like, but DA mages on average are neither notably intelligent or responsible, in most cases they are the opposite.

 

Not only is raging with your fireballs an idiotic way to show that you are NOT the uber dangerous loose canon the world believes you to be... it's wrong and evil regardless of who hurt your feelings.  The mages of DA have hurt feelings and then become abominations... blood mages or just straight up start blasting people. 

 

DA elves?  For me... it's the Dalish I hate.  As a casual student of aboriginal folklore, history and culture I find them to be the most abhorrent stereotypes of modern nature lovers masquarading as aboriginal animistic peoples.  

 

And lastly, I hate victims... that is, I hate people who want to remain a victim... and the DA elves and mages are obsessed with their victimhood and I find it anathema to my tastes.

 

@TK514:  Totally agree with you.  If you ask him what he would have done had his plan worked... Solas even says:  Oh, yeah... I'd have totally torn the Veil down.  He's a sick megalomaniac and needs to be killed or Tranquilized whichever he finds more "humane"... or, perhaps imprisoned with his relatives... I'm sure they'd LOVE to have him.

 

He KNOWS there's going to be a huge explosion, that's what he hoped would kill Cory... he doesn't care where it happens so long as Corypheus gets the orb working.  Could have been the middle of the Hissing Wastes... or downtown Denerim.  Does Solas care?  Of course he doesn't. 

 

He must have also known that someone like the Divine would be what Cory did you activate the orb... the Divine was not just chosen at random for Corypheus' plot...

So I take it you only got low approval with Solas? There are so many dialogue snippets to the contrary that I can't take your posts like these seriously unless I assume they only had interaction with Solas a low approval follower. The problem being that low approval companions tend to "shell up" at some point, and limit the exploration of their character.

 

I suppose its just a symptom of the white-and-black labeling just to the cause seem more just. Its a common enough theme in the franchise  (both in human and elvhen society) that really resounds with how people themselves will often oversimplify or label people just because they either refuse or are not capable of looking at the bigger picture.

 

Its quite interesting when you really think about it.  

[Chaelura]

It matters, because people with swords and knives are really limited in comparison to mages. They couldn't do big boom no Conclave. They couldn't start Blight, or bring undead over Redcliffe, or cast anyone in some alternative future, or imprison entire village in Fade. Yeas, it matters *how*. Simply, "what the worst mages could do" is much worse than "what's the worst warriors and rogues and templars could do".

 

Fair point; but do you think essentially imprisoning them is the answer?  And to be clear - a couple of the things you mention were caused by the following:

- Orb of Destruction (ancient elven artifact)

- Blight (cause unknown despite Chantry lore and not necessarily magic as we know it at all)

- Redcliffe undead/Connor happened because they knew he was a mage and it was hidden.  If he went to Hogwarts it probably would not have happened.

 

The others, yeah.  But if they were treated fairly, like human beings, with some sort of check and balance (I don't think the Templars, in *some* fashion, should go away for example), there would be a whooole lot less bloodshed if they weren't locked up forever.  That does something to a person.  

 

Sort of a "get busy livin', or get busy dyin'" situation.

[Chaelura]

it's not quite as simple.

 

(1) Untrained mages pose an unwilling danger to others, and that's why training should be mandatory. However, on whose authority is the training designed? "Apostates" like Morrigan are clearly in full control of their powers, yet the established system would treat her worse than any untrained child. As I see it, appropriate training can only be designed by the mageborn themselves. It should be transparent to others in order to mediate fear, but a non-mageborn who designs mage training will always attempt to limit the mages' potential.

 

(2) Unscrupulous mages pose a danger to others. Since I do not think it justified to limit all mages because of those, the logical consequence is that all mageborn have an obligation to fight those who would use their power for oppression.

 

(3) Behind all, there is the unsolved question "what is a legitimate use of magical power, and what is not?" If I were a mageborn in Thedas and had learned to control my powers, I would accept that I had a higher responsibility than people without those powers. In other words, a mage needs to be a more responsible person than a non-mage. Meanwhile, any attempt to impose limits on such uses of my powers that enhance my independence, in order to keep me under control, would make me lose regard for others, and eventually turn me into a full-blown supremacist. 

 

I'm pro-mage as a rule, but I don't know if co-existence is possible, if a society with such a degree of intrinsic power imbalances can exist and be reasonably stable. If you don't believe that co-existence is possible, then the only way out is autonomous segregation - an independent city or state, controlled only by the mageborn. 

 

Agreed, and you bring up an interesting thought... "If you don't believe that co-existence is possible, then the only way out is autonomous segregation" - which is effectively what Solas is trying to do, yes?  Everyone will be the same.

 

I still believe co-existence is possible though, but locking mages up and throwing away the key is basically saying "you're guilty until proven innocent".  And it ignores the tremendous amount of GOOD they can do for the world (all my mains have been mages fighting the bad guys).  Again, checks and balances in the form of Templars (without them being arseholes about it of course) are necessary.

 

Actually, some kind of Internal Affairs or whatever, like when the FBI has to tail one of their own would probably be the best route.  Hrm.

[Chaelura]

 

I like how you conveniently skip over:

• The stupid elf that continually put his entire clan at risk of being eaten by werewolves for his own selfish ends
• The two stupid elves who play right into the hands of a pride demon, causing, at the very least, the dissolution of their clan if not its destruction, and
• The stupid elf who was the cause of the entire plot of DA:I

 

Uh, yeah because the humans have never done stupid crap.  

[Chaelura]

As long as mages can be possessed, total cohabitation with regular people isn't possible.

Templars can be under the thrall of demons as well, though.  Anyone can.  Mages can be actually *possessed*, yes, but cohabitation is still possible provided there is a check and balance or something like Internal Affairs (mage/templar hybrid thingy?) that can detect it. 

 

Guilty until proven innocent is uncool, and that's essentially what's happened to mages.

[Xerrai]

As long as mages can be possessed, total cohabitation with regular people isn't possible.

You say it like Mages will turn into abominations en mass as soon as they leave the southern circles.

 

Despite its many flaws, Tevinter has shown itself capable of both educating its mages and allowing them to integrate themselves into the general populace. Most danger there is in the form of intentional mal-practice (blood magic, oppression of most non-mages) instead of an abomination wreaking havoc. Of course i'm sure they get abominations too, but from what I can tell, Tevinter doesn't have much of a problem with them when compared to their Southern counterparts.

[TK514]

Uh, yeah because the humans have never done stupid crap.  

At no point have I ever whitewashed humanity's past or attempted to exonerate them of their sins.  I leave that sort of behavior to the pro-elf crowd.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Xerrai:  Yeah, I had a very low rating with Solas.

 

And no, I don't find him interesting at all. 

 

Do you often support people who want to kill everyone "with a heavy heart"?  

 

It's okay, we both can't take each other very seriously. 

 

@Ieldra:  Isn't that Tevinter?  Except... mundanes are oppressed there.  Is that wrong too?

My problem with "Pro-Mage" is that it's always about how mages need to find a magic Shangri La free of mundanes.

 

Why shouldn't mundanes find a place free from the predations of mages?
 

As a mage... I would work for that before I would work on the subculture that makes victimization a pasttime.

[Xerrai]

@Xerrai:  Yeah, I had a very low rating with Solas.

 

And no, I don't find him interesting at all. 

 

Do you often support people who want to kill everyone "with a heavy heart"?  

 

It's okay, we both can't take each other very seriously. 

 

@Ieldra:  Isn't that Tevinter?  Except... mundanes are oppressed there.  Is that wrong too?

My problem with "Pro-Mage" is that it's always about how mages need to find a magic Shangri La free of mundanes.

 

Why shouldn't mundanes find a place free from the predations of mages?
 

Who said I support him? At most I sympathize with him even though I do not agree with him. Not even in the slightest.

A bad leader can destroy the world in inches (ex. Orlais, Tevinter, etc.) but it takes a great revolutionary to take it out all at once. Which is why I shall kill him myself.

 

I just criticize anyone who oversimplifies and labels him as "elvhen hitler" or something for no other reason than they don't like him. It's like saying Cullen or Merril is the epitome of goodness even though they have some less-than-ideal views themselves/character flaws.

 

Good or ill, the rudimentary simplification of characters is simply...distasteful. Not even trying to look at their motivations, or history, or other factors and all the while giving them the most crude categorizations (Sweet Cinnamon Roll! Non-elf Genocidal maniac!). It's like the bad part of youtube.

[Dean_the_Young]

Uh, yeah because the humans have never done stupid crap.  

 

The equivalence works in his favor, not against him, since he was responding to a post which ignored.

 

You're kind of just repeating his point.

[Dean_the_Young]

Who said I support him? At most I sympathize with him even though I do not agree with him. Not even in the slightest.

A bad leader can destroy the world in inches (ex. Orlais, Tevinter, etc.) but it takes a great revolutionary to take it out all at once. Which is why I shall kill him myself.

 

I just criticize anyone who oversimplifies and labels him as "elvhen hitler" or something for no other reason than they don't like him. It's like saying Cullen or Merril is the epitome of goodness even though they have some less-than-ideal views themselves/character flaws.

 

Good or ill, the rudimentary simplification of characters is simply...distasteful. Not even trying to look at their motivations, or history, or other factors and all the while giving them the most crude categorizations (Sweet Cinnamon Roll! Non-elf Genocidal maniac!). It's like the bad part of youtube.

 

How about if we call him Elvhen Hitler because of significant and contemptible parallels to, well, Hitler?

 

Solas does have extremely bigoted views and is intending to commit genocide for the purpose of purifying and restoring his chosen race to greatness. Instigating continental chaos, extreme racism, the denial of the personhood, habitual dishonesty and deception, and- this is the big one- attempts at mass genocide are what made Hitler bad. Not just that he had an army and lacked a conscience.

 

Solas is, by almost any moral system, a bad person. If you believe in results-oriented morality, he is a series of catastrophic failures to the suffering of all. If you believe in means-oriented morality, he'll fail that too. If you believe in intentions-based morality, he is horrific because his intention is, and has been, the mass murder of nearly everyone in the cast on his way to his goals. If you believe racists are bad, he is just a nicer bigot than most. If you believe in quality-of-life moral evaluation, he is a malefactor who has brought ruin towards every group he has championed. If you value ideological consistency, honesty, and integrity, you best look elsewhere.

 

Solas is not a great revolutionary in any sense except power. Great revolutionaries have one significant requirement: they succeed. Solas has yet to.

 

 

I am quite familiar with Solas's history, motives, and many other factors of his relevant history and circumstances as they stand now. Familiarity, and the awareness it provides, merely breeds contempt.

[Addictress]

Although X-Men and Witcher have themes in which common people without abilities actively feel threatened by people endowed with special abilities, Dragon Age is unique because it frames it in a Judeo-Christian conceptual framework, in which peoples' souls are battlegrounds for corruption, possession, etc and evil spirits prey on the pure in a world lingering after a dividing event between the Maker and the people.

 

X-Men frames the fear and danger in the context of science - the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest.

 

The Witcher is less religious and explores a dark ages setting of incredible ignorance and darkness which manifested unknowable terrors of the common peasant's imagination.

[Ieldra]

@Dean_the_Young:

 

I think your assessment is one-sided. Not that I support Solas, but the thing you didn't take into account is that his creating the Veil left his people basically lobotomized. Loaded as the term may appear, I think it is accurate: defunct in a mental capacity that was intrinsic and natural to them. Now he's trying to give it back to them. His options are as follows:

 

(1) Do nothing and perpetuate that state of things, keeping millions of elves lobotomized.

(2) Tear down the Veil and restore his people, destroying human civilization and killing millions.

 

Are there other options? Were there other options than to create the Veil in the past? We don't know and people like to claim "there's always another way", but that's wishful thinking. Sometimes there isn't, and if there isn't, then your characterization fails. Empathy with the state of the elves isn't easy to come by because we don't know how it feels to be connected to a magical aspect of the world, but you can compare it to a debilitating mental disease. The answer that comes to mind is "At least it's a life and not the death it means for millions of others", but that's an empty consolation. There are states of life not worth living, and in the case of the Tranquil I often hear people say it's a state worse than death. You could say that the present-day elves aren't really suffering from their state because they never knew what they lost, but what's the weight of a life that's immortal until Uthenera? How many "quality-adjusted life years" did the elves lose when the Veil came up, that Solas would restore?

 

In other words, if you evaluate Solas' actions, it is necessary to take those aspects of the situation into account that are non-human, and thus not usually taken into account in our ethical calculus: lost immortality and lost innate magic, and if you do that, the situation isn't as one-sided as you paint it.

[Il Divo]

^Except it is pretty one-sided. Solas feeling bad about his actions doesn't make him any less of a murderous psychopath. It doesn't help either that he doesn't seem to have any idea of the exact consequences of his actions. His opening of the veil destroyed his people, giving Corypheus the orb failed to kill him. 

 

What you seem to be advocating for is a variant of the trolleys thought experiment, except where the subject himself is responsible for the dilemma under consideration with very little guarantee that the solution won't leave the world in a much worse state than before. 

 

Edit: And this is putting aside a number of different issues with trying to equate "revival of the elves" as being an acceptable consequence for "utter destruction of the rest of the world". 

[Dean_the_Young]

@Dean_the_Young:

 

I think your assessment is one-sided. Not that I support Solas, but the thing you didn't take into account is that his creating the Veil left his people basically lobotomized. Loaded as the term may appear, I think it is accurate: defunct in a mental capacity that was intrinsic and natural to them.

 

 

It fails on those terms as well. It fails especially on those terms.

 

Magic may have been intrensic to the ancient elves- it is not intrensice to the modern elves, or anyone else. You are not 'born' lobotomized- you have to be made it. The modern Thedas is a new base level, not a crippled old. It may be different, but it is whole.

 

Especially, as you should know, the criticism of the use of lobomization is the effect on mental and emotional faculty... which is not imparied. The world is not full of tranquil- and this is quite apart from that even tranquil can be

 

 

 

Now he's trying to give it back to them. His options are as follows:

 

(1) Do nothing and perpetuate that state of things, keeping millions of elves lobotomized.

(2) Tear down the Veil and restore his people, destroying human civilization and killing millions.

 

 

 

He's not restoring magic to the elves already without it. He's killing them too.

 

It's a mundanicide, not a restoration. The only people who 'benefit' are the future generations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are there other options? Were there other options than to create the Veil in the past? We don't know and people like to claim "there's always another way", but that's wishful thinking. Sometimes there isn't, and if there isn't, then your characterization fails. Empathy with the state of the elves isn't easy to come by because we don't know how it feels to be connected to a magical aspect of the world, but you can compare it to a debilitating mental disease. The answer that comes to mind is "At least it's a life and not the death it means for millions of others", but that's an empty consolation. There are states of life not worth living, and in the case of the Tranquil I often hear people say it's a state worse than death.

 

 

Here's the other option-

 

Don't commit genocide of people just because they don't have magic like you used to. Humans, elves, even dwarves- magic is not a requirement for value as a person.

 

It really is that simple. Solas's world is gone. There is no necessity, obligation, or even moral requirement for him to kill the current one as well, just to have a third one. The living world has every right to exist, and it's people every right to be prioritized, if there are is any concept of rights at all.

 

If there is a right to existence, the people existing in the present have the strongest claim. If there is no right to existence, then Solas has no claim at all.

 

 

 

You could say that the present-day elves aren't really suffering from their state because they never knew what they lost, but what's the weight of a life that's immortal until Uthenera?

 

 

One life.

 

Well, if we believe that people have intrensice value of any sort of fundamental equal worth. We can debate what sort of bigotries are acceptable if you don't, or the value of extending life at the cost of others.

 

Since Solas is supporting the sacrifice of shorter lives in the name of extending life and power, I assume you've no conceptual objection to the blood magic sacrifice of mundane children by Tevinter Magisters? They're younger, crippled, and their deaths give value-added years and power.
 

 

How many "quality-adjusted life years" did the elves lose when the Veil came up, that Solas would restore?

 

 

 

Sunk cost fallacy. Solas is not restoring any lost value.

 

The 'quality-adjusted life years' lost when the Veil came up are already lost. Nothing Solas does changes that loss.

 

 

 

In other words, if you evaluate Solas' actions, it is necessary to take those aspects of the situation into account that are non-human, and thus not usually taken into account in our ethical calculus: lost immortality and lost innate magic, and if you do that, the situation isn't as one-sided as you paint it.

 

 

 

No, it really is that one-sided because the lost immortality and lost innate magic are lost. Already done. Kaput. Solas is trying to make changes on a forward basis, not removing harms from the past. Solas brings no one back from the dead, and kills countless more instead.

 

The only merit immortality has is based on increasing the value of life- but immorality for a few does not justify the mass murder of nearly everyone. The potential for immortality and greater power does not justify genocidal oligarchy.

 

Well, not unless you think the Sith Emperor has the right idea. He's the logical endpoint for this argument- it's hard to make a compelling limitation of 'well, this much genocide for this much life and power is okay, but fractionally more for even greater life and power is not.'