4632 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

You're a guy? I thought you looked like your icon.

Anyways.

Nah, just an Angel/Amy Acker fan.

[midnight tea]

Dualism is certainly older than Greece, it makes an appearance in Sumer among other places I believe.

 

Of course it's older than Greece - what I'm talking about are specific philosophies that arose around the concept.

[Medhia_Nox]

Still genocide. Feeling you have no choice when you do something is still you intending to do something thus fits the definition. 

 

But fine, let's use another term. Let's go with holocaust which is defined as "any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life" or "a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire"(Solas even uses 'burn in the raw chaos' as a word choice when describing what will happen). 

If you don't like that, there is also always massacre, mass murder, slaughter, extermination, decimation, etc.

 

What I'd like to know is:  "What is the number?"

What is the number that makes what Solas wants to do "okay" for people?

 

Insane people "actually" have to do what their brain chemistry makes them do... and we put those people away and sedate them into irrelevancy. 

 

Yet Solas, who clearly has free will, is "complex" because he chooses to use that free will to slaughter people.  Does the number matter?  If it's one or all.  Is there a line for people that makes what he's doing "okay"?  

 

That he won't tell us only indicts him further.  That's not "mysterious" - that purposefully withholding information.  It's not even enigmatic... we know the depth of Solas' knowledge base - there's no mystery as to "what" the bald rat knows.  There's only what he refuses to tell the audience.

 

If that's for storytelling reasons... Bioware writers should be working for the Walking Dead and the atrocious cliffhangers that show is becoming infamous for.  

[Lezio]

What I'd like to know is:  "What is the number?"

What is the number that makes what Solas wants to do "okay" for people?

 

Insane people "actually" have to do what their brain chemistry makes them do... and we put those people away and sedate them into irrelevancy. 

 

Yet Solas, who clearly has free will, is "complex" because he chooses to use that free will to slaughter people.  Does the number matter?  If it's one or all.  Is there a line for people that makes what he's doing "okay"?  

 

That he won't tell us only indicts him further.  That's not "mysterious" - that purposefully withholding information.  It's not even enigmatic... we know the depth of Solas' knowledge base - there's no mystery as to "what" the bald rat knows.  There's only what he refuses to tell the audience.

 

If that's for storytelling reasons... Bioware writers should be working for the Walking Dead and the atrocious cliffhangers that show is becoming infamous for.  

 

'Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill all and you are a God.'

 

It's fascinating. Probably because destroying an entire world is such an absract concept for human beings that killing a few (dozens) of people seem so much more unforgivable. I mean, if he straight up killed favoritecharacterofDA on the spot, or a kid, or whatever, just as he basically plans to do (and as he also already did with the orb screwup), i wonder if people would still think highly of him

highly of him

[Xerrai]

'Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill all and you are a God.'

 

It's fascinating. Probably because destroying an entire world is such an absract concept for human beings that killing a few (dozens) of people seem so much more unforgivable. I mean, if he straight up killed favoritecharacterofDA on the spot, or a kid, or whatever, just as he basically plans to do (and as he also already did with the orb screwup), i wonder if people would still think highly of him

We are already dealing with a man who intends on destroying the world. That he will, has or already done so won't really change my thoughts of him, assuming we still had Trespasser (or events like it) prior to its actual execution.

 

He's a man that will do (or has done) horrible things because of what he thought were good reasons. It just-so-happens that those reasons are something I can sympathise with, even though none will forgive him for it.

 

When really trying to understand why people like a character, it is less about the actions and more about how those actions were presented.

 

Look at Blackwall. He's a murder of both adults and little girls--and he did this all for mere coin. He's a murderer basically. But he was presented as a follower first, and in that time when he was acknowledged as such, time was given to the player to determine how they felt about his actions. Many saw a man who was good at heart, and when his crimes were revealed, then decided to view him as man who has a (very) troubled and disturbing past but has developed into person who has demonstrate that he has a good heart.

 

The reception would be very different if he was introduced as Thom Rainier the man and child murderer first. That the game allowed us to see "Blackwall" first, and 'Thom Rainier" later is part of why many people like Blackwall. Similarly, most of the player base has met "Solas" the apostate hobo before we ever met the world-destroying "Fen'Harel".

[midnight tea]

@midnight tea,

Good points. I also think that seperation of 'sacrum' and 'profanum' extends to a tradition of what is considered suitable for the mundane/masses, in order to preserve and protect sacred knowledge (from the profane). I mean, that exists in eastern traditions certainly as well, but it seems more pronounced in western culture for whatever reason. It may be that it was initially because of practices going underground due to persecution at one time, but it persists nevertheless.

 

Well, knowledge was always valuable and therefore usually put in the 'light side' which we on West here tend to favor, instead of looking at them as pretty much equals. I think the idea certainly caught in the West with Neoplatonism and certainly with Tomism (philosophy of Thomas Aquinas), but eventually how we perceive certain things or concepts was probably heavily influenced by most mundane things: economy and accessibility of certain goods.

 

I mean, even today the Catholic Church seems to be unable to come in terms with a fact that their position of a sole keepers of knowledge 'bestowed' to them by studies of Scripture and blessings of God is a thing of times long past, especially in Information Age. Yet at a time knowledge was rare and precious since it was harder to preserve; but thanks to that it was also a mark of status. It was desirable and therefore 'good', or protected jealously to prevent others to gain advantage from it.

Art and concept of beauty went similar route, in West at least, since it was only the wealthy and powerful that could afford surrounding themselves with beautiful things, and religious institutions were at one point super-wealthy and influential. Therefore all those things - beauty, art, knowledge, basically things more associated than ideas - we now tend to associate with 'good' things, and 'good' things are automatically associated with divine and godly.

 

Eh, but I could talk hours about how funny thing our perception is and how many things people take for granted or think of them as 'as they are' are actually just a product of our culture...

[Seraphim24]

Well, knowledge was always valuable and therefore usually put in the 'light side' which we on West here tend to favor, instead of looking at them as pretty much equals. I think the idea certainly caught in the West with Neoplatonism and certainly with Tomism (philosophy of Thomas Aquinas), but eventually how we perceive certain things or concepts was probably heavily influenced by most mundane things: economy and accessibility of certain goods.

 

I mean, even today the Catholic Church seems to be unable to come in terms with a fact that their position of a sole keepers of knowledge 'bestowed' to them by studies of Scripture and blessings of God is a thing of times long past, especially in Information Age. Yet at a time knowledge was rare and precious since it was harder to preserve; but thanks to that it was also a mark of status. It was desirable and therefore 'good', or protected jealously to prevent others to gain advantage from it.

Art and concept of beauty went similar route, in West at least, since it was only the wealthy and powerful that could afford surrounding themselves with beautiful things, and religious institutions were at one point super-wealthy and influential. Therefore all those things - beauty, art, knowledge, basically things more associated than ideas - we now tend to associate with 'good' things, and 'good' things are automatically associated with divine and godly.

 

Eh, but I could talk hours about how funny thing our perception is and how many things people take for granted or think of them as 'as they are' are actually just a product of our culture...

 

I'm just going to quibble with "we"

[Medhia_Nox]

'Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill all and you are a God.'

 

It's fascinating. Probably because destroying an entire world is such an absract concept for human beings that killing a few (dozens) of people seem so much more unforgivable. I mean, if he straight up killed favoritecharacterofDA on the spot, or a kid, or whatever, just as he basically plans to do (and as he also already did with the orb screwup), i wonder if people would still think highly of him

highly of him

 

Of course Bioware won't show the destruction of what he does slaughtering children, the elderly and fuzzy animals.  Otherwise, it begins to lose its complexity. 

[Sah291]

What I'd like to know is: "What is the number?"
What is the number that makes what Solas wants to do "okay" for people?

That's easy none. It's not ok to kill, rob, or steal from others to save or enrich yourself.

Except most would probably make an exception for situations involving self defense against an aggressor (to save one's own life or the lives of others), with the exception of strict pacifists, which is where it gets complicated for people, because nobody can ever agree where that line is.

It gets even more complicated and hazy when we are no longer talking about individuals, but Peoples, collectively, and civilizations.

But anyway, can what Solas is doing be considered in any sense of the idea, a matter of self defense? It may not be, but from his perspective it seems he thinks it is. That doesn't make it justifiable, but considering how many times he expreses distaste at war and violence in the base game, it's pretty unbelievable.

[midnight tea]

'Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror. Kill all and you are a God.'

 

It's fascinating. Probably because destroying an entire world is such an absract concept for human beings that killing a few (dozens) of people seem so much more unforgivable. I mean, if he straight up killed favoritecharacterofDA on the spot, or a kid, or whatever, just as he basically plans to do (and as he also already did with the orb screwup), i wonder if people would still think highly of him highly of him

 

Yes I would, depending what would be revealed, or what decisions they'd make later in the series. I hardly ever judge the book by its cover or deem the character as iredeemable, especially if I don't yet know full details, or what are they going to do next. I've been like this for the longest time, and more so after a long-ish period of watching many anime/reading mangas where redeemable villains or opponents can be frequently spotted.

 

Good example of it? Vegeta from DragonBall Z. He started as a straightforward villain with basically no redeemable qualities and ended up as Goku's friend, married and raising a son with other Goku's friend and protecting the world from other menaces together with his new family.

[Medhia_Nox]

We are already dealing with a man who intends on destroying the world. That he will, has or already done so won't really change my thoughts of him, assuming we still had Trespasser (or events like it) prior to its actual execution.

 

He's a man that will do (or has done) horrible things because of what he thought were good reasons. It just-so-happens that those reasons are something I can sympathise with, even though none will forgive him for it.

 

When really trying to understand why people like a character, it is less about the actions and more about how those actions were presented.

 

Look at Blackwall. He's a murder of both adults and little girls--and he did this all for mere coin. He's a murderer basically. But he was presented as a follower first, and in that time when he was acknowledged as such, time was given to the player to determine how they felt about his actions. Many saw a man who was good at heart, and when his crimes were revealed, then decided to view him as man who has a (very) troubled and disturbing past but has developed into person who has demonstrate that he has a good heart.

 

The reception would be very different if he was introduced as Thom Rainier the man and child murderer first. That the game allowed us to see "Blackwall" first, and 'Thom Rainier" later is part of why many people like Blackwall. Similarly, most of the player base has met "Solas" the apostate hobo before we ever met the world-destroying "Fen'Harel".

 

 

This is very true - I never saw him as "just" an apostate hobo (untrue, before Haven I did I suppose. But even then I found it convenient he knew about my magical hand.)... my interactions with him were always hostile because what he claimed he wanted was dangerous for everyone.

 

So - when he actually showed that what he wanted was achievable instead of another loony Thedosian mage talking crap about magic... my response went from dislike and disdain to open hostility to what I perceive is his "evil". 

[Xerrai]

Of course Bioware won't show the destruction of what he does slaughtering children, the elderly and fuzzy animals.  Otherwise, it begins to lose its complexity. 

Tsk, tsk.

Some of your fandom bitterness is showing. Such things never reflect well on you or your arguments if one seems entrenched in their hate.

 

But more on topic. We have already seen him directly killing people who had (debatedly) no reason to be killed. If you didn't know what you were getting into with his personal quest choice, his incinerating of the circle mages could have easily come as a shock. Their only crime was ignorance and desperration, after all.

[Xerrai]

This is very true - I never saw him as "just" an apostate hobo (untrue, before Haven I did I suppose. But even then I found it convenient he knew about my magical hand.)... my interactions with him were always hostile because what he claimed he wanted was dangerous for everyone.

 

So - when he actually showed that what he wanted was achievable instead of another loony Thedosian mage talking crap about magic... my response went from dislike and disdain to open hostility to what I perceive is his "evil". 

Well people do say first impressions are important. ^-^

[roselavellan]

When it comes to crimes, a person's intent matters. There are differences, for example, between:

 

- a person who kills because he wants someone dead;

- a person who kills because he has to, for example, to save a life;

- a person who kills without intending to kill, but knowing his action will most probably lead to death; and

- a person who kills by accident etc.

 

In the first 3 scenarios, the person is considered to have intent to kill, but the degree of moral culpability is very different. So here no one is arguing that what Solas is planning to do is not terrible, but we're saying that the morality of his situation is not that straightforward - and it's certainly not as bad as a person who intends in the first instance to carry out murder/genocide.

[Medhia_Nox]

That's easy none. It's not ok to kill, rob, or steal from others to save or enrich yourself.

Except most would probably make an exception for situations involving self defense against an aggressor (to save one's own life or the lives of others), with the exception of strict pacifists, which is where it gets complicated for people, because nobody can ever agree where that line is.

It gets even more complicated and hazy when we are no longer talking about individuals, but Peoples, collectively, and civilizations.

But anyway, can what Solas is doing be considered in any sense of the idea, a matter of self defense? It may not be, but from his perspective it seems he thinks it is. That doesn't make it justifiable, but considering how many times he expreses distaste at war and violence in the base game, it's pretty unbelievable.

 

If he really hated violence... his first reaction would not be to kill the mages who hurt his spirit friend.  That wasn't self-defense.  That was vengeance. 

 

Blackwall is a repentant killer... and should be hung for his crimes and take solace in the fact that he repented before he was made to pay for those crimes in the eyes of the law (assuming hanging would be his punishment under the law).  At the best... he should be put into service of the Inquisition as a tool to inevitably die in that service as payment for his crime.  

 

Whatever is done - he is never going to not be a killer of women and children.  Nothing will ever erase that.  Blackwall seems aware of that... and I give him credit for it.

 

Solace is not repentant... Solas simply believes he made a mistake and wants to correct it.  His "sadness" is the sadness of a sociopath who knows that conventional wisdom says what he is about to do is wrong.  So - he knows he's supposed to feel bad... and yet, he's apathetic enough to continue with his plan.  

 

Both are killers... currently, Solas is an accidental killer (at least so far as his elf-pocalypse is concerned) - but he is actually premeditating a future mass murder which, for me, makes him far worse than Blackwall.

[Medhia_Nox]

Tsk, tsk.

Some of your fandom bitterness is showing. Such things never reflect well on you or your arguments if one seems entrenched in their hate.

 

But more on topic. We have already seen him directly killing people who had (debatedly) no reason to be killed. If you didn't know what you were getting into with his personal quest choice, his incinerating of the circle mages could have easily come as a shock. Their only crime was ignorance and desperration, after all.

And those are not children, the elderly, the infirm or fuzzy puppies.  

 

To a great many people... those are people that "deserved" it.  So justification comes easily. 

 

I'll be very impressed if Solas drops the Veil and you see children being gobbled up by Fade craziness - and duly grossed out by his fans talking about how great it is that the mysteries of Thedas are finally opening up to them.

[midnight tea]

And those are not children, the elderly, the infirm or fuzzy puppies.  

 

To a great many people... those are people that "deserved" it.  So justification comes easily. 

 

I'll be very impressed if Solas drops the Veil and you see children being gobbled up by Fade craziness - and duly grossed out by his fans talking about how great it is that the mysteries of Thedas are finally opening up to them.

 

It's much easier to see victims of drastic event than systemic victims of things that are not easy to see or are disperses into millions of less noticeable tragedies - war, hunger, disease, persecution, demonic possessions or deaths caused by misunderstandings of world's very nature. This is why people shake their fists at the sky when the airplane falls from it instead of mourning thousands of those dying in car accidents yearly; and that's even though statistically airplanes are the safest form of transport we have.

 

But, like I said - it's easy to just focus on one thing instead of looking at bigger picture, for some at least. What if it turns out that the decision to sacrifice those few lives would ultimately save many more from other kinds of horrible death? And that's not even counting of other terrors that may lurk on the horizon after current threat is dealt with?

[Xerrai]

And those are not children, the elderly, the infirm or fuzzy puppies.  

 

To a great many people... those are people that "deserved" it.  So justification comes easily. 

 

I'll be very impressed if Solas drops the Veil and you see children being gobbled up by Fade craziness - and duly grossed out by his fans talking about how great it is that the mysteries of Thedas are finally opening up to them.

All right. Fair enough. But I don't think the fandom change will be drastic as you would think (this is just my opinion though).

 

Exceptionally few have deluded themselves into thinking that the veil falling will be all hunky-dory and everything will be all peaceful and wonderful. Even Solas downright admitted that there would be great cost. If people haven't figured out that yes, children, puppies, and everything connected to innocence, are going to die horribly then they probably have not been paying attention to the story very much.

 

Or do you think that actually seeing it (as in, cutscene with graphic murder) would change their minds? In which case, my argument will be pretty much the same, but I can't deny that seeing something vs. hearing it can be really invoking for certain people. So maybe.

[Seraphim24]

Solas basically just intends outright that genocide is his goal, and it's because he hates people who aren't exactly like him. It's not even ambiguous.

 

It's like the definition of bad.

 

Which is why presumably (I would think?) he is the ultimate villain/final boss post-Tresspasser/DA4 whenever the follow up to DA:I actually comes.

[Sah291]

If he really hated violence... his first reaction would not be to kill the mages who hurt his spirit friend. That wasn't self-defense. That was vengeance.

Well Bioware likes exploring the line between justice and vengeance I think. It shows up a ton in their games. There's Alistair in DAO with the whole Loghain thing. Anders in DA2, and now Solas (and Mythal) in DAI. Mass Effect had Garrus and his meltdown on Omega.

Anyway, I do think he hates violence... but in the sort of way I imagine someone who has carried out a lot of it on behalf of protecting other people would come to hate it... It is hinted how he started off a folk hero to the slaves, who he liberated. But it's like, he's never been able to quit fighting that war, and he's still going at it. He realizes he's becoming a terrible monster at this point, but even still. It could be he believes The People expect this of him so he has no choice.

[Seraphim24]

Well Bioware likes exploring the line between justice and vengeance I think. It shows up a ton in their games. There's Alistair in DAO with the whole Loghain thing. Anders in DA2, and now Solas (and Mythal) in DAI. Mass Effect had Garrus and his meltdown on Omega.

Anyway, I do think he hates violence... but in the sort of way I imagine someone who has carried out a lot it on behalf of protecting other people would come to hate it... It is hinted how he started off a folk hero to the slaves, who he liberated. But it's like, he's never been able to quit fighting that war, and he's still going at it. He realizes he's becoming a terrible monster at this point, but even still. It could be he believes The People expect this of him so he has no choice.

 

Nothing to say the rest of "Elven Pantheon" weren't also monsters at any rate.

 

Has he ever just considered that maybe Evanuris was the problem in the first place?

 

Heck, why was Mythal so good? Didn't this thread already state she was involved behind some of the Evanuris' transgressions and excess?

 

Solas hasn't even given a reason why Evanuris was worth protecting in the first place.

[midnight tea]

Solas basically just intends outright that genocide is his goal, and it's because he hates people who aren't exactly like him. It's not even ambiguous.

 

It's like the definition of bad.

 

Which is why presumably (I would think?) he is the ultimate villain/final boss post-Tresspasser/DA4 whenever the follow up to DA:I actually comes.

 

How can you claim that 'genocide is his goal' when we've just spent a few threads pointing out that it isn't? And "t's because he hates people who aren't exactly like him" is an outright lie.

[Seraphim24]

How can you claim that 'genocide is his goal' when we've just spent a few threads pointing out that it isn't? And "t's because he hates people who aren't exactly like him" is an outright lie.

 

He says "This world must die" I didn't make that up, he's the one who says it.

 

Also he's full of it. I mean really why couldn't he have just casted this super weak spirit mage spell at one of the other Evanuris? Why the Veil why all the dizzy/magic?

 

Because he's part of the Evanuris, the Evanuris which basically destroyed half the world already, and he wants to find a way to destroy the other half.

 

the "Veil" is basically just a giant bomb he planted.

[midnight tea]

Well Bioware likes exploring the line between justice and vengeance I think. It shows up a ton in their games. There's Alistair in DAO with the whole Loghain thing. Anders in DA2, and now Solas (and Mythal) in DAI. Mass Effect had Garrus and his meltdown on Omega.

Anyway, I do think he hates violence... but in the sort of way I imagine someone who has carried out a lot of it on behalf of protecting other people would come to hate it... It is hinted how he started off a folk hero to the slaves, who he liberated. But it's like, he's never been able to quit fighting that war, and he's still going at it. He realizes he's becoming a terrible monster at this point, but even still. It could be he believes The People expect this of him so he has no choice.

 

When Inky tells him (after sing-along, prior to finding Skyhold) that people trust them, Solas's is first to point out that people's faith and trust is oftentimes what turns a hero into a martyr. So I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed the case - it's not just that he's pressured by himself and/or circumstances; but people who believe he'd keep fighting on their behalf, even if it means sacrificing everything he is, including his principles.

[Illegitimus]

I'll have to disagree since I do not think Solas shows a whole lot of "entitled rage" if the Inquisitor breaks up with him. Quite the opposite;

 

Balcony

Solas: "It means I have not forgotten that kiss."

Inquisitor: "Perhaps you should."

Solas: "Perhaps you are right. I will always respect you, Inquisitor"

 

Grove

Inquisitor: "Solas, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you were right. I was too impulsive earlier."

Solas: "Even in this, you surprise me. I shall speak no more of it. Still, know that whatever happens, you are a rare spirit in this world. Goodbye"

 

Trespasser

Inquisitor: "Whatever happened between us has ended, Solas, speak no more of it."

Solas: "As you wish. You've earned your anger"

 

 

She wasn't talking about Solas though.