1158 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

Y'know, debates are good for the exchange of ideas, but expecting people to change their position is not a debate, it's proselytizing. It's nice that there are different views to obtain a better view of the situation, or at least know other views exist.

As for genocide, it is totally valid and justified against the darkspawn, who need ghouls to populate. In a fantasy, genocide isn't an auto-evil action, it depends on the situation. (No, I'm not implying genocide against humans, dwarves, or elves to be good.)

[Lord of War]

As for genocide, it is totally valid and justified against the darkspawn, who need ghouls to populate. In a fantasy, genocide isn't an auto-evil action, it depends on the situation. (No, I'm not implying genocide against humans, dwarves, or elves to be good.)

 

The darkspawn are such a ridiculous exception to the rule that they are barely worth bringing up. All this pro-genocide talk really shouldn't surprise me though, given many here seem to think that what Orlais did to the Dales (cultural genocide) was entirely justified by a few border skirmishes. 

[Daerog]

Such is the nature of war. War is bad, enemies and their ways often get destroyed. No one was in the right in that war against the Dales, everyone went too far, but sometimes that is how you remove a threat from being a threat in the future.

Also, a few border skirmishes is bullshit, it became bigger than that.

[Lord of War]

I don't know, I think the people defending their homes and faith were more right than genocidal zealots.

[MisterJB]

Again, Lore is optional to LoW when it comes to the Chantry.
Are you, somehow, unaware of the fact the Exalted March as only called after the elves sacked Val Royeaux, Montsimmard, etc?

So, who was defending their homes and faith from genocidal zealots again?

[TheKomandorShepard]

As for genocide, it is totally valid and justified against the darkspawn, who need ghouls to populate. In a fantasy, genocide isn't an auto-evil action, it depends on the situation. (No, I'm not implying genocide against humans, dwarves, or elves to be good.)

If you speak on moral ground it is subjective in first place.Genocide as i said may be valid tactic depending on the situation.

 

The darkspawn are such a ridiculous exception to the rule that they are barely worth bringing up. All this pro-genocide talk really shouldn't surprise me though, given many here seem to think that what Orlais did to the Dales (cultural genocide) was entirely justified by a few border skirmishes. 

Yeah, Orlais just should allow to be killed by elves just because feel it is wrong to some people.

 

 

Such is the nature of war. War is bad, enemies and their ways often get destroyed. No one was in the right in that war against the Dales, everyone went too far, but sometimes that is how you remove a threat from being a threat in the future.

Also, a few border skirmishes is bullshit, it became bigger than that.

I disagree that war is bad, war can be beneficial.It just comes in the end whether benefits outweigh costs.

[Lord of War]

Again, Lore is optional to LoW when it comes to the Chantry.
Are you, somehow, unaware of the fact the Exalted March as only called after the elves sacked Val Royeaux, Montsimmard, etc?

So, who was defending their homes and faith from genocidal zealots again?

 

Orlais was perfectly justified in driving off the elven invasion, but their counter-invasion, occupation, forced conversion, and colonization of the Dales remains absurdly brutal and entirely unjustified.

[German Soldier]

You know that would make everyone Tranquil, yeah? Letting Solas kill the world would be preferable.

Disagree you have no understanding whatsoever on how the Veil operate because it was never fully explained from the lore.

nor how elves and humans(because these are the only two races connected to the fade) will be affected.

[raging_monkey]

What proof do you have that he would 't have eventually recovered given that Karl was cured for a few seconds and would be tranquil soon and Pharamond was told that he was going to be made tranquil again.

fair point but I was speaking of opinion not fact. Point the temp hate elsewhere. Same faction here

[raging_monkey]

I dare to hope that we was still talking about a fictional world ...

little of both people (both faction's) project their opinion at some avenue

[Daerog]

If you speak on moral ground it is subjective in first place.Genocide as i said may be valid tactic depending on the situation.
 

Yeah, Orlais just should allow to be killed by elves just because feel it is wrong to some people.
 
 

I disagree that war is bad, war can be beneficial.It just comes in the end whether benefits outweigh costs.

Yes, people claim morality is subjective. I disagree. Although I don't admit to being 100% correct in my own understanding of morality or ethics.

You seem to subscribe to the utilitarian philosophy of ethics.

Still, it's all good to share thoughts, but I try to refrain from saying IMO because it should be obvious.

As for the dalish war (why? why do elf and mage threads always morph into each other, what about the poor dwarves?), I doubt the elves had better ways to treat the Orlesian humans if they won the war. It was awful all around, but sometimes an enemy will be destroyed to remove a threat. The Dalish proved how much of a threat they were. Defeating an enemy, occupying them, and forcing your ideology on them is a very common thing... this could easily dip into rl stuff, so I'll go no further than that for now.

[Lord of War]

As for the dalish war (why? why do elf and mage threads always morph into each other, what about the poor dwarves?), I doubt the elves had better ways to treat the Orlesian humans if they won the war. It was awful all around, but sometimes an enemy will be destroyed to remove a threat. The Dalish proved how much of a threat they were. Defeating an enemy, occupying them, and forcing your ideology on them is a very common thing... this could easily dip into rl stuff, so I'll go no further than that for now.

 

Being common hardly makes it justified, but we are going off-topic, yeah.

 

As for the dwarves, I guess the problem is that they aren't really oppressed by human kingdoms and the Chantry (as a species).

[Daerog]

Nah, dwarves be enlightened, they just oppress themselves.

[Lord of War]

Nah, dwarves be enlightened, they just oppress themselves.

 

Yeah, being a casteless seems really, really awful. Unless you're a lyrium smuggler.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Yes, people claim morality is subjective. I disagree. Although I don't admit to being 100% correct in my own understanding of morality or ethics.

You seem to subscribe to the utilitarian philosophy of ethics.

Still, it's all good to share thoughts, but I try to refrain from saying IMO because it should be obvious.

As for the dalish war (why? why do elf and mage threads always morph into each other, what about the poor dwarves?), I doubt the elves had better ways to treat the Orlesian humans if they won the war. It was awful all around, but sometimes an enemy will be destroyed to remove a threat. The Dalish proved how much of a threat they were. Defeating an enemy, occupying them, and forcing your ideology on them is a very common thing... this could easily dip into rl stuff, so I'll go no further than that for now.

 

It is subjective as morality base on emotions and opinions.

 

Yes, but mainly out of pragmatism as system tends to work most efficiently that way.

 

 

Being common hardly makes it justified, but we are going off-topic, yeah.

 

As for the dwarves, I guess the problem is that they aren't really oppressed by human kingdoms and the Chantry (as a species).

 

It is justified as it had reason behind it, destroying enemy in order to prevent enemy from inflicting further harm onto you is logical thing to do, in contrast to letting enemy inflict further harm just beacuse you feel bad about it.

[Daerog]

It is subjective as morality base on emotions and opinions.
 
Yes, but mainly out of pragmatism as system tends to work most efficiently that way.
 
 

 
It is justified as it had reason behind it, destroying enemy in order to prevent enemy from inflicting further harm onto you is logical thing to do, in contrast to letting enemy inflict further harm just beacuse you feel bad about it.

Morality can be based on emotions, but not necessarily. There can be logic behind it.

Most things have assumptions behind them, anyway, such as believing efficiency is a good thing, because production is believed to be a good thing, because stuff happening is good, blah, blah, blah. Pragmatism can be believed as good because of assumptions. Science assumes everything is intelligible.

If one assumes a single author on existence, like The Maker (maybe?), then morality, right and wrong, is based on the author. If one assumes Chaos, then there is no morality. One can assume that reason and logic are the ultimate, but that is just another assumption or idea based on another assumption.

Assumptions are used in logic and reason all the time. I said morality, right and wrong, isn't subjective, because reason and logic can be applied (if x is true, then y sort of stuff). Yes, assumptions are involved, but assumptions are in every understanding of reality.

Others can disagree based on other assumptions, but if my assumption turns out to be true, then they are wrong, and vice versa.

... okay, this is why appeals to morality are often dismissed in professional debates, but the philosophies of ethics and morality can involve as much logic and reasoning as any science.

[Sports72Xtrm]

I have no idea what was said in the last few pages, but I want to jump on this thought.

While the Rivaini are still a mystery, the Augur of the Avvar don't sound too different. Like the Seers, the Augurs don't want spirits in people for life. The spirit and person will just start bleeding into each other until there is no distinction, as was seen with Anders' deteriorating condition.

The Seeker method requires Tranquility with no gaurantee that a spirit will answer the supplicant. So, that's a problem, too.

As for having a spirit involved with one's person, a mage might as well give the okay to be mind controlled/manipulated by a "respectable" blood mage. It's part of Avvar culture, sure, but having your kids possessed and at the mercy of spirits seemed very wrong and unnecessary. However, I'm totally fine with the Circle, at least one can claim independent thought without any doubts there.

I'll remind you that it was Cole a spirit  who helped the Inquisitor who recruits the Templars to prevent an Envy Demon from taking over them when they were trapped in the Fade. He also uncovered Lambart van Reeves' negative emotions and plan to assassinate Rhys and company, and also to sabotage them from revealing the reversal of the Rite of Tranquility. Spirits don't have any secular ambition beyond wanting to help, if anyone who has motivation to control/manipulate, it's the fallible and cutthroat people of the real world who are more tempted by corruption out of secular desires. Why is a spirit less worthy to "judge" than fallible muggles? With more spirits like Cole, transparency will be more available and mages or templars are able to root out the more volatile and corrupt members instead of punishing wildly just to intimidate or show force. If people want to remove corruption, they need to be ready to adapt to unconventional means to fight it, otherwise it'll always fail.

 

Spirits are able to teach as well, and the Augurs have determined a way to remove the spirit when they are ready. Spirits can be protected from blood magic like Cole if given that Rivaini amulet that Solas states prevents binding. Augurs and Seers employ spirits and their civilization did not fall to blood magic... There must be something to that.

[Daerog]

Spirits teaching and such is one thing, possession is another. I liked Cole and Justice in Awakening, but they weren't bleeding into another person.

Spirits are as worthy judges as fallible mundanes, all can manipulate and/or be manipulated unintentionally or intentionally.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Spirits teaching and such is one thing, possession is another. I liked Cole and Justice in Awakening, but they weren't bleeding into another person.

Temporary possession. That's not the same thing as what you are saying.

 

 

 

Spirits are as worthy judges as fallible mundanes, all can be manipulated unintentionally or intentionally.

They can see volatile emotions better than mundanes, mundanes can't. That makes them a better judge of character, at least one worth heeding. If they can't be seen like Cole, they can also see a premeditated crime and prevent it from happening at the very least. There are benefits to spirits that mundanes can't compensate for. Cole knew of the Envy demon masquerading as Lucius before any of the templars. That's a fact not an opinion.

[Daerog]

Temporary possession. That's not the same thing as what you are saying.
 

They can see volatile emotions better than mundanes, mundanes can't. That makes them a better judge of character, at least one worth heeding. If they can't be seen like Cole, they can also see a premeditated crime and prevent it from happening at the very least. There are benefits to spirits that mundanes can't compensate for. That's a fact not an opinion.

Possession is unnecessary. The spirit will cause influence on the possessed, intentionally or not, and it is like giving a blood mage permission to invade your mind. Having a warded room/building will work just as well until the mage is trained enough.

Spirits have a hard time understanding people, see Cole, so they are not better judges of character. They tend to take on roles, they don't know the complexity of mortal thought. They can read thoughts and emotions, great, but that doesn't make them understand.

Cole could be seen, but used magic to make others forget, again manipulating minds like a blood mage.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Possession is unnecessary. The spirit will cause influence on the possessed, intentionally or not, and it is like giving a blood mage permission to invade your mind. Having a warded room/building will work just as well until the mage is trained enough.

Spirits have a hard time understanding people, see Cole, so they are not better judges of character. They tend to take on roles, they don't know the complexity of mortal thought. They can read thoughts and emotions, great, but that doesn't make them understand.

Cole could be seen, but used magic to make others forget, again manipulating minds like a blood mage.

The Circle's rite of passage- the harrowing- is a fight to the death with a demon using forced possession anyways. It's a certified death sentence for those who weren't given enough time to master their magic. At least with a spirit, it can judge if the mage is ready to do so and train him should he need it without bringing harm to others.

 

Spirits are intelligent beings. Cole can learn to be more human, so they can technically learn "human emotions" and mortal thoughts. They can be more if they choose to. They are not slaves to their passion otherwise Cole would have killed that templar who wronged the original Cole no matter what. So the limitation you listed is fabricated.

 

Cole could loose that ability to make people forget if he chose to understand humans. And since it is in his nature to help, he could help root out the bad blood mages that are a danger to society. Tevinter's biggest problem wasn't blood magic, it's that they always compete for power and use corruption to hide their misdeeds to thrive. If their misdeeds were more transparent, spirits like Cole could sort out the blood mages like Malcolm Hawke from the blood mages like Quentin. How many seekers and templars could have been saved if Cole rooted out Envy and Lucius before hand. Spirits are not demons and only want to help. Those that travel to Thedas out of will can help and won't cause any harm.

[Catilina]

The Circle's rite of passage- the harrowing- is a fight to the death with a demon using forced possession anyways. It's a certified death sentence for those who weren't given enough time to master their magic. At least with a spirit, it can judge if the mage is ready to do so and train him should he need it without bringing harm to others.

 

Spirits are intelligent beings. Cole can learn to be more human, so they can technically learn "human emotions" and mortal thoughts. They can be more if they choose to. They are not slaves to their passion otherwise Cole would have killed that templar who wronged the original Cole no matter what. So the limitation you listed is fabricated.

 

Cole could loose that ability to make people forget if he chose to understand humans. And since it is in his nature to help, he could help root out the bad blood mages that are a danger to society. Tevinter's biggest problem wasn't blood magic, it's that they always compete for power and use corruption to hide their misdeeds to thrive. If their misdeeds were more transparent, spirits like Cole could sort out the blood mages like Malcolm Hawke from the blood mages like Quentin. How many seekers and templars could have been saved if Cole rooted out Envy and Lucius before hand. Spirits are not demons and only want to help. Those that travel to Thedas out of will can help and won't cause any harm.

The problem is always the desire for power.

[Sports72Xtrm]

The problem is always the desire for power.

Magic is magic, it only matters how it is used.

 

"The problem is under the Chantry blood magic is forbidden, so only criminals practice it. While in Tevinter, magisters compete with eachother instead of keeping their volatile friends in check. They always succeed through power, so they never had a chance to learn another way." -Solas

 

Start checking the volatile ones and that desire for power will look less appetizing while rewarding those who use magic, even blood magic, responsibly.

[Daerog]

If a spirit can judge without possessing, then that's great, remove the Harrowing. Although, as is shown in the Mage Origin, the test isn't a battle of power, the test wasn't against the rage demon, it is a test on being able to know the dangers of the Fade and not be fooled by demons. The test in Origins was against the pride demon, the rage demon was a distraction made by the pride demon.

If they can choose to be more than their roles, like Cole can, then they can choose power over love like any mortal. Spirits are not immune to corruption, as can be seen with the Nightmare. Even Solas' angst is probably influencing a spirit in the Fade.

Spirits can help, without possessing. Spirits can also get corrupted and become demons. People can and have had their souls imprisoned by demons, so it is a risk dealing with spirits in the first place, even without possession.

The possesion stuff is unnecessary and just adds to the risk.

[Catilina]

Magic is magic, it only matters how it is used.

 

"The problem is under the Chantry blood magic is forbidden, so only criminals practice it. While in Tevinter, magisters compete with eachother instead of keeping their volatile friends in check. They always succeed through power, so they never had a chance to learn another way." -Solas

 

Start checking the volatile ones and that desire for power will look less appetizing while rewarding those who use magic, even blood magic, responsibly.

Yet the Chantry also uses blood magic. (I have blood mage Hawke.)