147 réponses à ce sujet

[BSpud]

You are not 'born' lobotomized- you have to be made it.

 

Except for, like, anencephalic babies--if you want to be that pedantic about a metaphor.

[Dean_the_Young]

Except for, like, anencephalic babies--if you want to be that pedantic about a metaphor.

 

I don't, nor do I see any particular reason to apply it. Personhood comes from the ability to think, reason, and maintain identity- not from the ability to manipulate magic.

 

Every indication we've had of the ancient elves is that they reasoned, emoted, and thought like mortal elves. Every indication from the ancient elves we've had leads towards an equivalence of flaws, not some mental superiority or enlightened plane or mode of thinking. They were as vain, they were as cruel, and they were as power hungry as non-magi. The possible exception is the role of spirits and the mutability of the fade pre-Veil.

 

The entire basis of Solas's guilt is his possible acceptance that people are people, not that they are fundamentally incapable of it. The difference was one of culture and physics, not emotion or cognition.

[Secret Rare]

 Uldred's mob in DAO who insist that the only way to enact change is through blood.

 

 

Uldred and Anders stories are slightly different.

From what i grasped Uldred had no malicious intentions towards the circle,his story is a little bit more complicated.

He believed in Loghain's word and wanted to prove the circle of mages worthiness at the Battle of Ostagar to try to gain more independence from the chantry yet when Loghain ordered the retreat he agreed with him in the given situation.

When he returned at the Circle both Wynne and Gregoir didn't agreed so he tried to abandon the circle  but Wynne and Gregoir stopped him,in order to defeat them he summoned the demon but was unable to control him and that's why the escalation of abominations begun.

Agreed on the mob of Uldred,those blood mages however were young people, their short sightedness and desire of freedom is understandable,also the senior mage was a mentor to them all.

[Cute Nug]

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.

 

You couldn't swing a dead nug in DAO and DA2 without hitting an abomination or demon thrall. I don't remember any abominations in DAI except Cole and maybe Leliana.

 

The silly Grey Spawn were enthralled by a Tevinter mage and his Darkspawn master I guess.

 

The hero Solas must have fixed the whole abomination and demon thrall thing!

[TheKomandorShepard]

You couldn't swing a dead nug in DAO and DA2 without hitting an abomination or demon thrall. I don't remember any abominations in DAI except Cole and maybe Leliana.

 

The silly Grey Spawn were enthralled by a Tevinter mage and his Darkspawn master I guess.

 

The hero Solas must have fixed the whole abomination and demon thrall thing!

 

Cole wasn't abomination apparently as he didn't possessed Cole only took his form and possibly same for Leliana if we assume she was spirit not something else.

I agree, however, that bioware did terrible job in presenting threat that mages pose and went for rainbow ending with Leliana where that threats and other issues that would came with mages freedom were ignored.

 

Only abomnation in the game (not counting dlc) probably was Ishmael.     

[Chaelura]

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.

I'm not pro *any* race.  As my OP said, it's just that in this game, I felt my character's background, under the circumstances, gave my decisions and actions more weight.  I just found the story most compelling when played that way.  

 

I *am* on playthrough 3 now though, playing a human rogue.  I just miss the badass mage staff and spell sounds  On the plus side, I actually have thighs now.  I'm cool with that.

 

 

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.

How?  I read the post he was referring to.  My point was that he seemed to think it was some sort of contest to see who did more stupid crap... which is irrelevant, really.  All of everyone does stupid crap, which is one of the things I love about DA games

[Cute Nug]

Cole wasn't abomination apparently as he didn't possessed Cole only took his form and possibly same for Leliana if we assume she was spirit not something else.

I agree, however, that bioware did terrible job in presenting threat that mages pose and went for rainbow ending with Leliana where that threats and other issues that would came with mages freedom were ignored.

 

Only abomnation in the game (not counting dlc) probably was Ishmael.     

 

I think Bioware in DAI still did a good (IMO almost very good) job in NPC discussions/comments about the mage issue throughout the DAI game. They also did okay in providing in-game pseudo-choices for dealing with the interesting ongoing mage issue. Although, I think they did better in depicting the templars in DAI than they did with the mages. Fiona was left another bad Orsino.

 

It's still relevant that mages prior to DAI (Breech?) were at risk to demon possesion/abomination and the mundanes are probably still scared by their sparkle fingers stuff. Just seems like a missed opportunity that no one discussed the decrease from mages becoming abominations left and right like in the previous games.

 

If mages are again at high risk for becoming abominations and mundanes at risk to become demon thralls now that the Veil holes were closed in DAI then at least some mages might be willing to consider what Thedas would be like without the current Veil. Maybe it will be discussed in DA4.

 

Just seems like someone in DAI would have noted that every mage isn't becoming an abomination every time they fart. I wonder if Circles have "It's been ___ days since the last abomination" signs.

 

Guess they were too busy to notice the lack of abominations in Thedas with all the sky hole and shard collecting stuff.

[Chaelura]

...

 

Just seems like someone in DAI would have noted that every mage isn't becoming an abomination every time they fart. I wonder if Circles have "It's been ___ days since the last abomination" signs.

 

Guess they were too busy to notice the lack of abominations in Thedas with all the sky hole and shard collecting stuff.

Ahahhahaaahahha!   Those damned shards.  You need like a ridiculously huge pile of those things to open all the doors.

 

*imagines Cullen with his ear against the bathroom doors of the Circle Tower, waiting for a fart so he can fly in, sword swinging*

[TheKomandorShepard]

I think Bioware in DAI still did a good (IMO almost very good) job in NPC discussions/comments about the mage issue throughout the DAI game. They also did okay in providing in-game pseudo-choices for dealing with the interesting ongoing mage issue. Although, I think they did better in depicting the templars in DAI than they did with the mages. Fiona was left another bad Orsino.

 

It's still relevant that mages prior to DAI (Breech?) were at risk to demon possesion/abomination and the mundanes are probably still scared by their sparkle fingers stuff. Just seems like a missed opportunity that no one discussed the decrease from mages becoming abominations left and right like in the previous games.

 

If mages are again at high risk for becoming abominations and mundanes at risk to become demon thralls now that the Veil holes were closed in DAI then at least some mages might be willing to consider what Thedas would be like without the current Veil. Maybe it will be discussed in DA4.

 

Just seems like someone in DAI would have noted that every mage isn't becoming an abomination every time they fart. I wonder if Circles have "It's been ___ days since the last abomination" signs.

 

Guess they were too busy to notice the lack of abominations in Thedas with all the sky hole and shard collecting stuff.

 

To be honest i would argue with that, i my memory may be wrong here if i recall only Viviene discussed issues of mage freedom and then as i said bioware failed to show it especially with rebel mage despite they should.Fiona was given tame portrayal compared to Lucius as her issue was stupidity , while Lucius was member of the cult that wanted world destroyed and actively was helping Corypheus.

 

Not only that , in fact logically speaking numbers of abomnations should be greater than ever due to mages being involved in war , what means more fear, stress and trauma than ever and less oversight over mages and all those factors would lead to more blood mages and abomnations than we saw in series before 

[TK514]

I'm not pro *any* race.  As my OP said, it's just that in this game, I felt my character's background, under the circumstances, gave my decisions and actions more weight.  I just found the story most compelling when played that way.  

 

I *am* on playthrough 3 now though, playing a human rogue.  I just miss the badass mage staff and spell sounds  On the plus side, I actually have thighs now.  I'm cool with that.

 

How?  I read the post he was referring to.  My point was that he seemed to think it was some sort of contest to see who did more stupid crap... which is irrelevant, really.  All of everyone does stupid crap, which is one of the things I love about DA games

I was responding specifically to a poster who continually glorifies DA elves, and I did so using examples that highlight the fallacy of their argument, which usually boils down to 'everything is the humans' fault'.  You seem to believe that I was saying that humans are blameless, which could not be further from the truth.

[Chaelura]

I was responding specifically to a poster who continually glorifies DA elves, and I did so using examples that highlight the fallacy of their argument, which usually boils down to 'everything is the humans' fault'.  You seem to believe that I was saying that humans are blameless, which could not be further from the truth.

My apologies then, I misunderstood - I thought there was a "who's done *more* dumb crap" pissing contest    I retract my statement good sir.

[SgtSteel91]

To be honest i would argue with that, i my memory may be wrong here if i recall only Viviene discussed issues of mage freedom and then as i said bioware failed to show it especially with rebel mage despite they should.Fiona was given tame portrayal compared to Lucius as her issue was stupidity , while Lucius was member of the cult that wanted world destroyed and actively was helping Corypheus.

 

Not only that , in fact logically speaking numbers of abomnations should be greater than ever due to mages being involved in war , what means more fear, stress and trauma than ever and less oversight over mages and all those factors would lead to more blood mages and abomnations than we saw in series before 

 

My issue with the Mage's portrayal was that the Templar mission had you working with the Templars and had Ser Barris, with sequential missions involving the Templars, and Ser Barris if he survived, helping people and Barris getting promoted.

 

By contrast, the Mage mission had no involvement with the Rebel Mages, nothing like, say, Fiona and her people helping you clear out Redcliff Castle of Alexius and the Venatori. Fiona's role after that is becoming an NPC in Skyhold recapping her role in The Calling and Asunder, and War Table missions are either dealing with extremists for conscripting the Mages or paying reparations to Redcliff if they are allies. Apart from helping you close the Breach, there's no showing the Mages in a positive light or you helping to redeem them compared to the Templars or even the Grey Wardens if you ally with them (the Grey Warden's alliance War Table mission has them defending a town from Darkspawn and taking down a Venatori cell).

 

I find the lack of Blood Magic and Abominations during the War as a positive thing for the Mages, showing they can show restraint and control during extreme circumstances, except with Alexius' deal of course. But I see that as a failing on the writer's part, because if you knew about Fiona from Asunder and especially the Calling which details her past (the big thing being she was a sex slave in Orlais before coming to her Magic) it's extremely out of character of her to accept becoming a slave/indentured servant to a Tevinter Magister.

[Cute Nug]

To be honest i would argue with that, i my memory may be wrong here if i recall only Viviene discussed issues of mage freedom and then as i said bioware failed to show it especially with rebel mage despite they should.Fiona was given tame portrayal compared to Lucius as her issue was stupidity , while Lucius was member of the cult that wanted world destroyed and actively was helping Corypheus.

 

Not only that , in fact logically speaking numbers of abomnations should be greater than ever due to mages being involved in war , what means more fear, stress and trauma than ever and less oversight over mages and all those factors would lead to more blood mages and abomnations than we saw in series before 

 

DAI is a game I want to like and I may just at times desperately be trying to over convince myself of what it does well.

 

True there isn't a lot of deep NPC discussion regarding mage freedom/restiction beyond Viv and the initial comments you get if you do the "In Hushed Whispers" tract. However, since Corybits ends the mage templar war by co-opting/destroying the combatants making it the surprise non-event of DAI, I'm okay with the unexpected lessened status of the mage issue in DAI.

 

I like that it was still an ongoing side topic in conversations/banter throughout the game and not awkwardly compartmentalized to only the beginning of the game and then vanish once the mage templar choice is made. If your Quizzie is a mage you get more moments which is actually back with the OP topic in preferring to play a mage. I would disagree with the OP that playing non-mage is boring for me.

 

Sera definitely voices ideas about the mage issue but not really into meaningful discussion. I think Bull briefly mentions Qun mages and what fighting Vent mages is like. Cullen is focused on his personal experience as a templar which I like better then a solely preachy attitude on the way mages must be. Cassandra will discuss her experience as a Seeker and the injustice to the mages that help save her and the Reverend Mother. Solas of course definitely has opinions. Dorian is a glorious example of the Tevinter free mage that doesn't even do that much evil blood magic and slavery. Each main NPC reacts to the mage templar issue in character to their experience and bias which felt right to me.

 

I agree that the rebel mages don't seem as fleshed out and interesting in their portrayal in DAI. They were rebel enough to leave their religion, break centuries held traditions, and oppose military templer oversight but suddenly become slaves to an evil magister. IMO a little more story would have made that 180 degree flip more interesting.

 

@SgtSteel91 is right that the "rebel" mages in DAI seem feckless in their portrayal. Not allowing Fiona to respond to the Tranquil murder shack and fighting for the evil Venatori cult makes her another bad Orsino in DAI. Viv also could have made the mages more interesting if her loyalist mages weren't M.I.A. in DAI. Seems like she should have been a factor in the Winter Palace mission too.

 

I agree it's odd that no one comments that the abomination problem seems fixed in DAI when it seemed it would have been worse. I think it was mentioned as part of the fear of mages but no one comments when abominations magically stop occuring.

 

DAI seemed a almost too big of a game. Maybe the abomination fix was a side quest moment that got cut or just the extra abomination graphics were too much to make it in DAI so they just ignored the topic. No game is perfect. I can say DAI is really big with big industry awards. Not sure if that is the same or better than good.

 

Back to the OP, I would say it is possible and non-boring to play any of the classes and races unless you wanted to play as an abomination which in DAI is not included. On the plus side we were allowed to be a Qunari, ride a battle nug, and jump for shards.

[Chaelura]

...

 

Back to the OP, I would say it is possible and non-boring to play any of the classes and races unless you wanted to play as an abomination which in DAI is not included. On the plus side we were allowed to be a Qunari, ride a battle nug, and jump for shards.

I'm enjoying my human rogue alright, but I wish she wasn't noble.  I wanna be a human serf but that's never really been an option.  And don't get me started on my loathing of the dreaded shards

[Cute Nug]

I'm enjoying my human rogue alright, but I wish she wasn't noble.  I wanna be a human serf but that's never really been an option.  And don't get me started on my loathing of the dreaded shards

 

I think my first play through was a male human mage. I wanted a melee character but melee combat was too horrible in the beginning for key board and mouse with my computer until some patches. 

 

I did a second play through as a female elf mage or archer (I forget which) with main game, JoH, and Tresspasser. I also think Elf as the Quizzy makes an interesting play through choice in DAI.

 

Human was still interesting because a human as Inquisitor feels expected with the Chantry and Thedas being so human-centric. I probably enjoy the elf as Quizzie most. Dwarf and Qunari are fine but would be more appealing for me if their origin side content was real content and not just in the Bore Table missions.

 

Most interesting class is a toss up for me. I can definitely see the interest in experiencing DAI as a mage with the fade, demon, and ancient magic lore. The mage templar war fizzled in DAI and the Quizzy never felt a part of the mage world in DAI for me. Why didn't the human mage have any friends from before the glowing hand thing? Also I wasn't as amazed with the mages in general in DAI. Rebel mages just weren't. Loyalist mages were MIA until the epilogue. Grey Spawn mages were just no. Tevinter mages were Ventori scum or too far away.

 

I agree Elf mage is fun and works well with DLC. Personal choice, I only like mage in DAI as an Elf. Might be fun as Qunari if game has content that recognizes the difference. Otherwise I prefer a warrior or fighter as elf or human even though the human noble doesn't have any friends. I bet a serf would have at least had some drinking buddies that would have come to visit Skyhold. Your new DAI companions gotta be wondering why the Quizzy didn't have any friends pre-glowing hand. There could have been some really good comments from Sera and Cole about the friendless Inquisitor.

 

I would like to do a play through as a male elf warrior but I am still recovering from DAI PTSD (Post Traumatic Shard Disorder). I still get nightmares of the big sky-hole shardting all over us and staring through murdered Tranquil heads to find them! Shards. Why?

[Chaelura]

I think my first play through was a male human mage. I wanted a melee character but melee combat was too horrible in the beginning for key board and mouse with my computer until some patches. 

 

I did a second play through as a female elf mage or archer (I forget which) with main game, JoH, and Tresspasser. I also think Elf as the Quizzy makes an interesting play through choice in DAI.

 

Human was still interesting because a human as Inquisitor feels expected with the Chantry and Thedas being so human-centric. I probably enjoy the elf as Quizzie most. Dwarf and Qunari are fine but would be more appealing for me if their origin side content was real content and not just in the Bore Table missions.

 

Most interesting class is a toss up for me. I can definitely see the interest in experiencing DAI as a mage with the fade, demon, and ancient magic lore. The mage templar war fizzled in DAI and the Quizzy never felt a part of the mage world in DAI for me. Why didn't the human mage have any friends from before the glowing hand thing? Also I wasn't as amazed with the mages in general in DAI. Rebel mages just weren't. Loyalist mages were MIA until the epilogue. Grey Spawn mages were just no. Tevinter mages were Ventori scum or too far away.

 

I agree Elf mage is fun and works well with DLC. Personal choice, I only like mage in DAI as an Elf. Might be fun as Qunari if game has content that recognizes the difference. Otherwise I prefer a warrior or fighter as elf or human even though the human noble doesn't have any friends. I bet a serf would have at least had some drinking buddies that would have come to visit Skyhold. Your new DAI companions gotta be wondering why the Quizzy didn't have any friends pre-glowing hand. There could have been some really good comments from Sera and Cole about the friendless Inquisitor.

 

I would like to do a play through as a male elf warrior but I am still recovering from DAI PTSD (Post Traumatic Shard Disorder). I still get nightmares of the big sky-hole shardting all over us and staring through murdered Tranquil heads to find them! Shards. Why?

I am now going to try using "shardting" in regular conversation.

 

It is puzzling how you never get to start as a human nobody... In DA2 you were just down on your luck for a bit, then you get your estate back and presto, noble.  Hooooo man, if you're loyal to the Qun (even if you are Tal Vashoth) and are a Mage.... wow that could actually be super interesting.  EVERYONE would hate you.

[Ieldra]

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.
...
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.
...
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.

If you think this through to the end, we should always forget wrongs done to past generations that are inherited by future generations. Take the hypothetical situation that someone released virus that made a permanent, inheritable undesirable change in the human genome. Suppose that 500 years lter, the perpetrators were still alive. Well, I think there *would* be a moral obligation to attempt to correct this, even after ten or fifteen generations.

Likewise, yes, I think a moral obligation to attempt to correct things exists for Solas. In cases like this, I find it inappropriate to break down a species-level effect down to individuals and claim since people were born damaged, the new state is natural and should be accepted as such. Imagine we knew that our ancestors had been immortal and that someone was responsible for taking that away. You can bet we would hold that one responsible and obliged to correct the situation even after ten or twenty generations, if that person was still alive. Not for the price of genocide, no, but the question what price would be acceptable is one that should be asked *after* the obligation was recognized.

If there is a right to existence, the people existing in the present have the strongest claim.

This is actually the only valid counterargument IMO. it doesn't nullify the moral obligation to correct things, but it's a clear case against the "genocide option". Things are somewhat unclear about who would benefit, though. If everyone in the present dies - including the elves, as Solas says to the Inquisitor - who will inherit the world?

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.

Meanwhile, if we hold to your statement of "What's lost is lost", we should never hold those blood-mages responsible for the wrongs they did after a hundred years or so...

I should stress that I recognize a moral obligation on Solas' part as such, and because of that I think your statements in this regard are one-sided. I don't accept genocide as a valid solution, but *if* no other options exists, it means that a wrong of the past is perpetuated. Solas can't do right by doing nothing, he can only accept the lesser evil and live with it.

[Ieldra]

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.

I find it natural to take a side. It doesn't mean I can't acknowledge problems, I definitely don't think that setting mages free would make all problems go away, but I have certain thematic preferences that will make me take a side. I value individual freedom and empowerment, and I very much dislike communities imposing rules on their members beyond what's necessary to live together in relative peace (except in economy since a reasonable level of fairness is necessary for everyone to have the chance for individual empowerment). I also value aspiration to powers that extends our control over our fate, on a species-level, which means it doesn't really matter who does it, as long as someone does and the benefits eventually trickle down to others. So mages seeking new powers is perfectly ok, even desirable, as long as they don't sacrifice others for it. For those reasons, I'm naturally pro-mage. I can't be anything else if I'm to stay true to myself.

Meanwhile, I dislike religion, basically for the extra rules it tends to impose which mostly make no sense whatsoever to me. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" is another reason. Thus, I'm naturally very much anti-Templar, and I would be anti-Templar even if they didn't add to my fundamental dislike by restricting magic.

This means, among other things, if the two sides of the argument are balanced, I'll always take the side of the mages, and regardless of the problems caused by mages and the weight against them, I'll never accept the Templars as the organization responsible for overseeing the practice of magic, even if I accept such oversight is necessary.

[Witch Cocktor]

I don't like to play elves because I only play with a male inq, and male elves look absolutely horrible in DAI. It's all fine and dandy for female elves who can look like botox dough-eyed barbies and live their hot elf fantasies, but male elves? Takes so much more time to make anything REMOTELY attractive in CC if you don't have zillion mods installed.. 

 

It's a pretty shallow reason for not playing elves, but it's enough for me.

[Dean_the_Young]

If you think this through to the end, we should always forget wrongs done to past generations that are inherited by future generations. Take the hypothetical situation that someone released virus that made a permanent, inheritable undesirable change in the human genome. Suppose that 500 years lter, the perpetrators were still alive. Well, I think there *would* be a moral obligation to attempt to correct this, even after ten or fifteen generations.

 

There would be a moral obligation because the perpetrator was still alive. But only for action gainst the perpetrator.

 

Not against his descendants, and certainly not by the perpetrator against the descrendants of everyone else who have accepted that mutation and live live good lives. 500 or 5000 years later a mutation is no longer a change- it is a norm if it has been accepted. You are not a freak because you are genetically different from previous iterations of the species.

 

Blood guilt is a bad concept, and should be dropped. The nature of justice is one of responsibility- the only people guilty of a crime are the ones who commit it. Not their friends, not their family, and not their descendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise, yes, I think a moral obligation to attempt to correct things exists for Solas. In cases like this, I find it inappropriate to break down a species-level effect down to individuals and claim since people were born damaged, the new state is natural and should be accepted as such. Imagine we knew that our ancestors had been immortal and that someone was responsible for taking that away. You can bet we would hold that one responsible and obliged to correct the situation even after ten or twenty generations, if that person was still alive. Not for the price of genocide, no, but the question what price would be acceptable is one that should be asked *after* the obligation was recognized.

 

 

 

Except we already can deny the price as acceptable from the start if the price is too much, because the price is genocide. There is no getting around this, Ieldra, because this is central to Solas's position and intention. Genocide is not negotiable- whether Solas's desire is even a good thing (let alone possible) comes only after that.

 

The argument over Solas is only not one-sided if the balance of his his genocidal plan for eugenics and the denial of personhood of the mundanes is not one-sided. For that to be true, you are going to have to provide substantial arguments for his side that balance the other.

 

If you dance around the subject, claiming it's not one sided while refusing to provide support to his position, then you're not actually demonstrating that Solas is an even subject or person. You are merely ignoring Solas and his actual positions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, we don't even have to recognize an obligation when there is none. Mundanity is not a injury from health just because it was not always there, any more than your evolutionary loss of abilities is a deformation. The people and societies have had millenia to adapt, and there is not even a popular movement amongst the Thedasians, let alone the elves, to appeal to some democratic legitimacy of public support for overturning that.

 

Far more importantly, though, munanity is not a denial of personhood- which is at the heart of Solas's position.

 

This is actually the only valid counterargument IMO. it doesn't nullify the moral obligation to correct things, but it's a clear case against the "genocide option". Things are somewhat unclear about who would benefit, though. If everyone in the present dies - including the elves, as Solas says to the Inquisitor - who will inherit the world?

 

 

 

The hyperminority few who don't (most likely magi), the ancient elves still hidden away, and the fade beings.

 

Meanwhile, if we hold to your statement of "What's lost is lost", we should never hold those blood-mages responsible for the wrongs they did after a hundred years or so...

 

I've never rejected a statuate of limitations. It's much of the same reason I do not believe Solas should be killed for making the Veil in the first place.

 

But of course, most criminals are neither ongoing or enduring beneficiaries of specific crimes of the past. Solas will be murdering people for the express purpose of lifespan extension. Since we are not centuries after the fact, but looking at this as an imminent option in the present tense, we can evaluate and judge Solas in that context- and the comparison to blood mages who continually expand life by murdering the younger mundanes remains relevant.

 

 

So please, do answer the question. I'm sure this shouldn't be hard if Solas isn't as one-sided as you say.

 

 

 

 

I should stress that I recognize a moral obligation on Solas' part as such, and because of that I think your statements in this regard are one-sided. I don't accept genocide as a valid solution, but *if* no other options exists, it means that a wrong of the past is perpetuated. Solas can't do right by doing nothing, he can only accept the lesser evil and live with it.

 

 

Unless you cling towards dogmatic deontologicalism- the providience of religion- then doing nothing can absolutely be the best action if every other action is worse. Good choices are relative to the other options unless you're a deontologist, and greater evils remain worse.

 

 

 

Past wrongs are perpetual as long as the past is immutable. That's why they're the past, and not present or future.

[Dean_the_Young]

I am now going to try using "shardting" in regular conversation.

 

It is puzzling how you never get to start as a human nobody... In DA2 you were just down on your luck for a bit, then you get your estate back and presto, noble.  Hooooo man, if you're loyal to the Qun (even if you are Tal Vashoth) and are a Mage.... wow that could actually be super interesting.  EVERYONE would hate you.

 

If success over the course of a game means you aren't a nobody, then no PC in any Bioware game is a nobody. From the City Elf to the Dalish to lowly carta thugs, you become something Public and Important.

 

Since Hawk doesn't become a human noble until nearly a third of the way into the game- well after The Warden becomes Leader and well after the Inquisitor was already the Herald of Andraste....

[Chaelura]

If success over the course of a game means you aren't a nobody, then no PC in any Bioware game is a nobody. From the City Elf to the Dalish to lowly carta thugs, you become something Public and Important.

 

Since Hawk doesn't become a human noble until nearly a third of the way into the game- well after The Warden becomes Leader and well after the Inquisitor was already the Herald of Andraste....

No no, I mean when you start the game.   Of course after that it's fair game, but I like the idea of having to scratch and crawl and bleed to get to the top for some weird reason.  Ahem.

 

I was just pointing out the fact that humans in particular seem to have an instant advantage.  I can't imagine that's accidental... but it would be interesting if humans were still around when the Elves were and the tables were turned.

 

I've been one of those people, starting out lowest of the low, so it's sort of nice to be able to play the hero who came from nothing (because it sure as hell doesn't happen in real life, heh.)

[MisterJB]

In DAO, that advantage is taken away when not only your family, but the very order you joined suddenly become anathema in Ferelden.

[Chaelura]

In DAO, that advantage is taken away when not only your family, but the very order you joined suddenly become anathema in Ferelden.

True, but you were still raised in comfort, with all the trimmings that some poor serf in an alienage did not - proper nutrition, clean water, education and training, not working as a child in a sweatshop... Gawd.  I sound like a politician now  The point is all that will make it easier for you to move on and make something of your situation, no matter where you are.

[Ieldra]

There would be a moral obligation because the perpetrator was still alive. But only for action gainst the perpetrator.
 
Not against his descendants, and certainly not by the perpetrator against the descrendants of everyone else who have accepted that mutation and live live good lives. 500 or 5000 years later a mutation is no longer a change- it is a norm if it has been accepted. You are not a freak because you are genetically different from previous iterations of the species.

Have the elves accepted that? It does not appear so most of the time. Also, I wasn't speaking of retribution but about an obligation to correct the situation if possible.
 
 

Except we already can deny the price as acceptable from the start if the price is too much, because the price is genocide. There is no getting around this, Ieldra, because this is central to Solas's position and intention. Genocide is not negotiable- whether Solas's desire is even a good thing (let alone possible) comes only after that.

It was always my impression that the genocide was exactly NOT central to Solas' position. That's the main reason why I think your condemnation is one-sided. My impression was that he'd restore the old world with no casualties if he thought it was possible. It makes no difference with regard to the justification of his actions, but it does make a difference with regard to evaluating him as a character. The Inquisitor can say she'll look for alternatives. If Solas was the complete monster you say he wouldn't care, and if he actively wanted to destroy all mundanes as a primary objective then he wouldn't want alternatives in the first place. I don't exactly recall what he says in tha scene, but it's nothing like that.
 

The argument over Solas is only not one-sided if the balance of his his genocidal plan for eugenics and the denial of personhood of the mundanes is not one-sided. For that to be true, you are going to have to provide substantial arguments for his side that balance the other.

See above. There appears to be a difference in how we view Solas' objectives. He's not denying personhood to anyone unless you take his comparison to Tranquils much more literally than the context justifies IMO. The topic is lost magic, not lost passion. He sees the magic the elves lost as part of their intrinsic nature and wants to restore that, and I've heard enough elves lamenting about the loss of the old times that I can very well imagine a lot of them would want that even if there was a good chance they wouldn't be among those who survived.

Again, that doesn't justify his plan, but a character is more than just one action. In his position, I would want that old world back as well. I wouldn't push the button, so to speak, but at the same time there would be times I regretted that my conscience prevented me from doing do. I should mention that I often feel that way about fictional antagonists who have more interesting objectives than world domination. Rather often, I feel the writers of those stories want to paint a basically desirable goal as evil by making its proponent use monstrous means. Not so in this case, though.

To be clear about this: Solas must be opposed, there's no disagreement about that. The difference is: in the case of that other person whose name is too often and too easily used in comparisons in order to discredit others, I would shoot them with no second thoughts and be glad I rid the world of a menace. In Solas case, should it come to that, I'll regret the necessity, because he's exactly not the complete monster some people paint.

BTW:
I still don't agree with your assertion "the past is the past". The past is always immutable, but I whink we have an obligation to correst past mistakes where possible and feasible, even after generations. Consider the question of radioactive waste as an example. There is much to say against Solas' position, but I consider this argument as completely invalid.