midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 20:05:17 GMT
And...? Unjustifiable doesn't mean avoidable. Solas clearly thinks war and violence are sometimes justifiable. As do many pacifists, including Gandhi ("I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence..."). Besides - Solas does expect to experience some form of justice for his actions ("I'm sorry, Cole, but with your gift, I fear you might see the path that I must now walk in solitude forever. This fate is mine alone. Indeed, I would not wish it on an enemy, much less someone that I once cared for." or saying in Trespasser that he will pay the price and will do so alone).
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 20:08:55 GMT
Actually no, I haven't played Trespasser yet. I got Inquisition on the PS3 first time around so I got fucked over on that. I did spoil myself with youtube videos but it's been a while and my memory's fuzzy. I'm currently playing through on the PS4 to get it first hand, though.
And my point is not that his murder of those mages - and it absolutely was murder, he wasn't in danger, he wasn't defending himself, he wasn't defending anyone else, he had no legal authority with which to act, and they were helpless and incapable of defending themselves - was unjustifiable. My point is that it is an action that is incompatible with the right to call one's self a pacifist. A pacifist would have them hauled back to Skyhold to face trial for their actions. An extreme pacifist may even forgive them because he knew they were acting out of sheer ignorance and desperation rather than any true malice.
Solas killed them, even though they were helpless and begging for mercy. That instantly disqualifies him from being called a pacifist.
His response to mages going rogue and abusing their power is to kill them. A reasonable and practical approach. But not a pacifistic one. A pacifist, again, would be to restrain, try, and imprison them so they can do no harm to themselves or others. Not become a wandering vigilante.
Solas is in many ways a very practical individual. Pacifism, by it's very nature, is impractical. That's part of what makes it commendable; that people truly dedicated to it are willing to go out of their way and avoid what would be the easier route to stick to their morals.
So no, I don't think I'm being unfair at all. I think I'm holding him to a very reasonable standard.And that standard is that his actions are understandable but non-pacifistic.
Hell, so far as I can recall, Solas never describes himself as a pacifist in game. So this isn't even part of the reason I call him a hypocrite. That has more to do with the fact that he's so heavyhanded in his condemnation of Corypheus when he's trying to do the exact same goddamn thing, except without deifying himself.
|
|
inherit
3532
0
2,504
ComedicSociopathy
1,037
Feb 12, 2017 21:39:59 GMT
February 2017
delightdul
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by ComedicSociopathy on Sept 17, 2017 20:12:38 GMT
Solas clearly thinks war and violence are sometimes justifiable. As do many pacifists, including Gandhi ("I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence..."). Besides - Solas does expect to experience some form of justice for his actions ("I'm sorry, Cole, but with your gift, I fear you might see the path that I must now walk in solitude forever. This fate is mine alone. Indeed, I would not wish it on an enemy, much less someone that I once cared for." or saying in Trespasser that he will pay the price and will do so alone). Given that those are his thoughts and desires, you'd think he'd just turn himself in and completely ensure that no more suffering comes about because of his actions. Oh well. DA4 needs a plot so that definitely can't happen.
|
|
inherit
3532
0
2,504
ComedicSociopathy
1,037
Feb 12, 2017 21:39:59 GMT
February 2017
delightdul
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by ComedicSociopathy on Sept 17, 2017 20:19:09 GMT
I wouldn't argue against calling Josephine a pacifist. She does try a convoluted and complicated plan of diplomacy to get an assassination contract on her canceled rather than use violence to defend herself from a guild of hired murderers. I'd be willing to call people far less extreme in their dedication to non-violence than that pacifists. Exactly. She is against violence even when it comes to defending herself. Actually especially that because it was when she was defending herself she accidentally killed someone which was the catalyst for her desire to solve things peacefully. Hence why after that plot is dealt with she tells the Inquisitor that story. Fair enough. It's just that in most forms of fiction pacifist characters do more than advocate non-violence and not indulge in it themselves. They ensure that other people don't engage in violence as well, which is why a lot of pacifists are activists. The fact that Josephine kind of just lets the Inquisitor execute people without much resistance is what made me question whether she should be labeled a pacifist. Honestly, know that I think about it, it's kind of shame that Josephine doesn't have a approval meter and can just leave the Inquisition like a lot of the companions can. Would have added so much interesting conflict for that character.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 20:26:46 GMT
Actually no, I haven't played Trespasser yet. I got Inquisition on the PS3 first time around so I got fucked over on that. I did spoil myself with youtube videos but it's been a while and my memory's fuzzy. I'm currently playing through on the PS4 to get it first hand, though. And my point is not that his murder of those mages - and it absolutely was murder, he wasn't in danger, he wasn't defending himself, he wasn't defending anyone else, he had no legal authority with which to act, and they were helpless and incapable of defending themselves - was unjustifiable. My point is that it is an action that is incompatible with the right to call one's self a pacifist. A pacifist would have them hauled back to Skyhold to face trial for their actions. An extreme pacifist may even forgive them because he knew they were acting out of sheer ignorance and desperation rather than any true malice. Solas killed them, even though they were helpless and begging for mercy. That instantly disqualifies him from being called a pacifist. No it doesn't. A person in deep distress can do things they'd later realize are unjustifiable. Being a pacifist doesn't mean that one has to be a perfect being and that judgement won't ever be clouded by emotions. Besides - there is one person who actually has authority there, as the Inquisitor is the one to whom whole countries defer to as legal authority (hence they can go as far as to kill Empress' cousin in front of her and not only suffer no consequences, but have the remains further judged). And they can either let Solas enact justice for effective murder of his friend or stop them with mere utterance of his name. Like I said - Solas was at the end of his rope, not the beginning of it. He doesn't lash out because that's the first thing he does; he does so because he's experienced something horrific; even more horrific that these mages don't even realize what they did and feel entirely blameless (which they weren't. They summoned a demon which killed people on their command, despite laws on the South being very unlikely to be lenient about mages frivolously summoning demons as bodyguards). That makes Solas a conditional pacifist or selective pacifist, just not absolute pacifist. And I have to keep underlining that I said that Solas may be "pacifist at heart" - someone who dislikes war and violence, but ultimately unable to commit to leading life in accordance with what they prefer. Pacifism as a concept is a young one even on XXIst century Earth. There's likely no term for it in Thedas. We do however have comments from Solas about how he feels about violence, and he always calls killing a waste and expresses regret even when killing Venatori and red templars in banter with Iron Bull.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
31,555
Hanako Ikezawa
22,979
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Sept 17, 2017 20:30:47 GMT
Exactly. She is against violence even when it comes to defending herself. Actually especially that because it was when she was defending herself she accidentally killed someone which was the catalyst for her desire to solve things peacefully. Hence why after that plot is dealt with she tells the Inquisitor that story. Fair enough. It's just that in most forms of fiction pacifist characters do more than advocate non-violence and not indulge in it themselves. They ensure that other people don't engage in violence as well, which is why a lot of pacifists are activists. The fact that Josephine kind of just lets the Inquisitor execute people without much resistance is what made me question whether she should be labeled a pacifist. Honestly, know that I think about it, it's kind of shame that Josephine doesn't have a approval meter and can just leave the Inquisition like a lot of the companions can. Would have added so much interesting conflict for that character. I see what you mean, though I'd argue she does advocate non-violence to others. Among the main quests involving the advisors she is always the one who argues for the peaceful option and against the violent ones. A prime example is Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts where she expresses staunch opposition to Leliana's suggestion of letting Celene be assassinated. Plus apparently she does that often to Leliana, to the point Leliana if softened references it and lovingly mimics Josephine. "Niceness before knives, Leliana. Haven't I always told you." I agree with that. I think having the advisors having approval meters like the companions could have created a bunch of interesting opportunities for all three of them. One thing I really like about Trespasser is when Josephine snaps at you and the others because she vehemently disagrees with what they are doing.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 20:31:35 GMT
Words have meanings and definitions and a source with a definition was supplied, by you. Solas has many qualities, both good and bad. There are things about him that I admire. But he is not a pacifist. Where did argue against any definition? All I did point out that believing that war and violence is unjustifiable doesn't mean that it's avoidable - or that pacifists are even capable of living in accordance of their strict moral code. You can actually read about that in the link I've provided. Being a pacifist doesn't mean that one can live according to one's moral rules. In fact, that's one of many things that is tragic in Solas. Whether you choose to describe him as pacifist or not, it's quite apparent that life has forced him to make many decisions that go against his principles.
|
|
inherit
3532
0
2,504
ComedicSociopathy
1,037
Feb 12, 2017 21:39:59 GMT
February 2017
delightdul
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by ComedicSociopathy on Sept 17, 2017 20:38:16 GMT
Fair enough. It's just that in most forms of fiction pacifist characters do more than advocate non-violence and not indulge in it themselves. They ensure that other people don't engage in violence as well, which is why a lot of pacifists are activists. The fact that Josephine kind of just lets the Inquisitor execute people without much resistance is what made me question whether she should be labeled a pacifist. Honestly, know that I think about it, it's kind of shame that Josephine doesn't have a approval meter and can just leave the Inquisition like a lot of the companions can. Would have added so much interesting conflict for that character. I agree with that. I think having the advisors having approval meters like the companions could have created a bunch of interesting opportunities for all three of them. One thing I really like about Trespasser is when Josephine snaps at you and the others because she vehemently disagrees with what they are doing. Yeah, that was a pretty good scene. Cullen and Leliana are good guys by my definition, but I always did think that Josephine should have been much more opposed to their violent measures way more often in Inquisition's main game. Leliana seriously thinking about letting Celene be murdered should have been a breaking point for her.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
31,555
Hanako Ikezawa
22,979
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Sept 17, 2017 20:43:32 GMT
I agree with that. I think having the advisors having approval meters like the companions could have created a bunch of interesting opportunities for all three of them. One thing I really like about Trespasser is when Josephine snaps at you and the others because she vehemently disagrees with what they are doing. Yeah, that was a pretty good scene. Cullen and Leliana are good guys by my definition, but I always did think that Josephine should have been much more opposed to their violent measures way more often in Inquisition's main game. Leliana seriously thinking about letting Celene be murdered should have been a breaking point for her. lol I just commented on that as I did an edit to address the first part of your last post. Fair enough. It's just that in most forms of fiction pacifist characters do more than advocate non-violence and not indulge in it themselves. They ensure that other people don't engage in violence as well, which is why a lot of pacifists are activists. The fact that Josephine kind of just lets the Inquisitor execute people without much resistance is what made me question whether she should be labeled a pacifist. I see what you mean, though I'd argue she does advocate non-violence to others. Among the main quests involving the advisors she is always the one who argues for the peaceful option and against the violent ones. A prime example is Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts where she expresses staunch opposition to Leliana's suggestion of letting Celene be assassinated. Plus apparently she does that often to Leliana, to the point Leliana if softened references it and lovingly mimics Josephine. "Niceness before knives, Leliana. Haven't I always told you?"
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 20:59:36 GMT
Actually no, I haven't played Trespasser yet. I got Inquisition on the PS3 first time around so I got fucked over on that. I did spoil myself with youtube videos but it's been a while and my memory's fuzzy. I'm currently playing through on the PS4 to get it first hand, though. And my point is not that his murder of those mages - and it absolutely was murder, he wasn't in danger, he wasn't defending himself, he wasn't defending anyone else, he had no legal authority with which to act, and they were helpless and incapable of defending themselves - was unjustifiable. My point is that it is an action that is incompatible with the right to call one's self a pacifist. A pacifist would have them hauled back to Skyhold to face trial for their actions. An extreme pacifist may even forgive them because he knew they were acting out of sheer ignorance and desperation rather than any true malice. Solas killed them, even though they were helpless and begging for mercy. That instantly disqualifies him from being called a pacifist. No it doesn't. A person in deep distress can do things they'd later realize are unjustifiable. Being a pacifist doesn't mean that one has to be a perfect being. Besides - there is one person who actually HAS authority there, as the Inquisitor is what many defer to as legal authority (hence they can go as far as to kill Empresse's cousin in front of her and not only suffer no consequences, but have the remains further judged). And they can either let Solas enact justice for effective murder of his friend or stop them with mere utterance of his name. Like I said - Solas was at the end of his rope, not the beginning of it. He doesn't lash out because that's the first thing he does; he does so because he's experienced something horrific; even more horrific that these mages don't even realize what they did and feel entirely blameless (which they weren't. They summoned a demon which killed people on their command, despite laws on the South being very unlikely to be lenient about mages frivolously summoning demons as bodyguards). That makes Solas a conditional pacifist or selective pacifist, just not absolute pacifist. And I have to keep underlining that I said that Solas may be "pacifist at heart" - someone who dislikes war and violence, but ultimately unable to commit to leading life in accordance with what they prefer. Pacifism as a concept is a young one even on XXIst century Earth. There's likely no term for it in Thedas. We do however have comments from Solas about how he feels about violence, and he always calls killing a waste and expresses regret even killing Venatori and red templars in banter with Iron Bull. So you get to use his banter with Bull to prove his innate pacifism while dismissing and excusing and rationalizing his contradictory banter with Vivienne where he advocates for summary execution, and his actual actions that demonstrate a complete disregard for pacifist philosophy. Gotcha. Are we also going to start labeling Celene a pacifist because she'd rather not have murdered three thousand elves in their homes but felt politically compelled to? How low are we going to set the bar on pacifism? Because I genuinely believe that if we extend the label to someone who is perfectly willing to engage in vengeance killings for people who are begging for mercy then the word has become meaningless. I'll admit that I'm biased against Solas. I have no pity for him, I have no respect for him, I have no sympathy for him. Only things I have for him are a blade and a spike. But I would like to think in this case I'm being fair and objective; I'm not condemning him for his actions here. I'm just not elevating him to a commendable position and dismissing the actions he's taken that prove he doesn't deserve to be on that particular pedestal.
|
|
inherit
1587
0
1,772
Walter Black
1,289
Sept 15, 2016 15:02:16 GMT
September 2016
walterblack
|
Post by Walter Black on Sept 17, 2017 21:14:21 GMT
I wouldn't argue against calling Josephine a pacifist. She does try a convoluted and complicated plan of diplomacy to get an assassination contract on her canceled rather than use violence to defend herself from a guild of hired murderers. I'd be willing to call people far less extreme in their dedication to non-violence than that pacifists. Solas, on the other hand, lead a violent and bloody revolt, apparently based not on the widespread oppression caused by the regime he was fighting but because they murdered one woman he liked. Mythal was killed DURING rebellion, not before it. Mythal's death was the reason he's created the Veil, not started the rebellion - and even then the reason wasn't 'they killed someone I liked!', but because it'd seem that without Mythal's voice of reason the Evanuris were unstoppable and about to do something horrid. Well there you go. No, he doesn't. This is exactly why he underlines, both in main game and Trespasser, that he will suffer terribly for his actions. He fully expects to be punished and he seems to want to find better solution to his problem - which is why he saved Inquisition from Qunari in the first place. It's also entirely unfair to say that Solas lashes out and uses violence as first resort - he just witnessed the death of his oldest and probably one of last friends he's lost after millenia of experiencing what could only be loss and sacrifice of everything he's had. He's at the end of his rope, not the start of it. And... you must've not played Trespasser that you say that he never expresses shame or regret? At least quarter of it is Solas expressing shame and regret We only have Solas'* word about what happened. Personally, I will very disappointed if we don't get any opposing testimony from spirits or even other Evanaris in Dragon Age 4 for context. Now, you might be thinking, "Why would he lie about the Evanaris and their war, when he's already painted himself in the worst possible light?"
Why indeed?
*How close Abelas was to pivotal events is debatable, but I suspect he was little more than one of Mythal's grunts.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 21:31:46 GMT
So you get to use his banter with Bull to prove his innate pacifism while dismissing and excusing and rationalizing his contradictory banter with Vivienne where he advocates for summary execution, and his actual actions that demonstrate a complete disregard for pacifist philosophy. Gotcha. Who's exactly trying to dismiss and excuse things? You're the one who are readily quoting banter with Vivienne or misrepresent Solas's actions in attempt to dismiss his actual feelings on killing people. The word is near-meaningless in a world where pacifism as ideology to live by is pretty much unattainable - that doesn't mean that people who commit many acts either we or them would find condemnable would prefer peaceful or non-violent acts, if not at all times, then as often at possible. That does makes people pacifists, at heart at least and... holy hell, how many times do I have to underline that I meant it like that? Pacifism is not this perfect thing where you can be on a rare position to not commit or advocate violence, ever - if your preference in general is to find better solutions than war or abstain from violence, barring exceptions dictated by circumstances or logic, you are on a spectrum of pacifism. You've created some sort of weird narrative for the whole argument that I don't really follow. Nobody here is putting him on pedestal or dismissing his actions and if you believe I did so, then you were't really reading much of what I was writing.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
31,555
Hanako Ikezawa
22,979
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Sept 17, 2017 21:34:22 GMT
Mythal was killed DURING rebellion, not before it. Mythal's death was the reason he's created the Veil, not started the rebellion - and even then the reason wasn't 'they killed someone I liked!', but because it'd seem that without Mythal's voice of reason the Evanuris were unstoppable and about to do something horrid. Well there you go. No, he doesn't. This is exactly why he underlines, both in main game and Trespasser, that he will suffer terribly for his actions. He fully expects to be punished and he seems to want to find better solution to his problem - which is why he saved Inquisition from Qunari in the first place. It's also entirely unfair to say that Solas lashes out and uses violence as first resort - he just witnessed the death of his oldest and probably one of last friends he's lost after millenia of experiencing what could only be loss and sacrifice of everything he's had. He's at the end of his rope, not the start of it. And... you must've not played Trespasser that you say that he never expresses shame or regret? At least quarter of it is Solas expressing shame and regret We only have Solas'* word about what happened. Personally, I will very disappointed if we don't get any opposing testimony from spirits or even other Evanaris in Dragon Age 4 for context. Now, you might be thinking, "Why would he lie about the Evanaris and their war, when he's already painted himself in the worst possible light?"
Why indeed?
*How close Abelas was to pivotal events is debatable, but I suspect he was little more than one of Mythal's grunts.
Yeah I'm curious to hear all the different perspectives and sides of this. With all the revelations about the ancient elves, the group I'm more curious about than the Evanuris are The Forgotten Ones. Were they a group who opposed the Evanuris' tyrannical reign and were vilified as time and knowledge went, were they a group so evil that they were the reason the Evanuris had to reign the way they did, or were they something else?
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 21:49:22 GMT
We only have Solas' word about what happened. Personally, I will very disappointed if we don't get any opposing testimony from spirits or even other Evanaris in Dragon Age 4 for context. Now, you might be thinking, "Why would he lie about the Evanaris and their war, when he's already painted himself in the worst possible light?" Why indeed? How close Abelas was to pivotal events is debatable, but I suspect he was little more than one of Mythal's grunts. I'm fairly sure that we will get more testimonies and clues to fill in the gaps, but it's not like in DAI and it's DLCs we were only presented Solas' point of view on Evanuris. Trespasser itself in fact has presented an opportunity to learn about Solas and his actions as a Dread Wolf without Solas - leaving that only for the end, at which point we can already know of his rebellion or him forming the Veil. And even if you don't believe things written or described in his temple, which is fair, there's still a question of why people flocked to him or why people still very vaguely remember that rebellion, to a point where some echoes of Solas's actions have been attributed to Shartan. Then there's Vir Dirthara - those aren't sources that present Solas' point of view, in many respects they're actually the opposite. We can certainly learn that not all elves were part of Solas' rebellion and dreamed of ending him for creation of the Veil, but at the same time they provide materials that speak of Evanuris as ones having petty feuds, bombastic displays of power, need for adulation as well as the fact that slaves were indeed a thing in Elvenhan or notes suggested to be written by Ghilan'nan herself that tell of experimenting on rare, sentient creatures in order to create fancy enchantments. Then there's Mythal - and whether Abelas was her grunt or not, their combined testimonies seem to support that she was indeed murdered by them. Not only that, she still resents them and tells Inquisitor and Morrigan that not only Mythal was betrayed, but the world itself (though what that means is anyone's guess). And then there's Geldauran - we don't know much about him, other than he was possibly the Forgotten One, but the note we find in a tomb in JOH does suggest that they indeed were false gods and lured people to their temples with promises.
|
|
inherit
565
0
Jun 12, 2022 20:38:58 GMT
1,362
ellawyn
348
August 2016
ellawyn
|
Post by ellawyn on Sept 17, 2017 22:19:59 GMT
(Walks in for the first time in months) OH BOY A SOLAS DEBATE.
*Ahem.* Anyway, I love the guy but I have to admit I 100% do not think he's a pacifist, or even someone who wants to be a pacifist but finds it unworkable in practical terms. Which is different from saying he's a violent person, because I don't think that's the case either. Solas doesn't fit either extreme of the scale, imo. Solas does seem to find violence acceptable even in situations where it's not absolutely necessary. Particularly, he seems to think it's a fine method of dealing out justice/vengeance. His possible murder of the mages, his suggestion of execution to Vivienne, his banter with Sera where he recommends "removing entirely" rowdy agents. Neither situation needs violence, and it's not necessarily the easiest/most practical option, either. But he finds it acceptable anyway.
Although, I think we're conflating "violence" with "death" a little bit here. Because it's important to point out that he kills the mages quickly - almost instantly - and (at least as far as I can recall) all other times where he chooses the violent option, it's usually a swift, practical, and painless thing. (Or as painless as it can realistically get.) That's what the banter with Bull really comes down to - Solas doesn't enjoy violence, but that doesn't mean he's opposed to using it, or even finds it bad in concept. What Solas doesn't like is the idea of drawn-out pain and torture. One of his reasons for opposing the Qunari is even "I want to make the world's destruction as quick and painless as possible." Sure, that's probably partially out of guilt, some attempt to make up for what he thinks he has to do. But I also think it's because he uses violence entirely for the end result, never the process itself. Solas is usually, sometimes shockingly pragmatic and callous. Violence is a tool to him. It's not to be enjoyed, but it's not always morally reprehensible. Painful violence, though, is. Because there's no practical benefit to it.
I think you could argue he's pacifist in the sense that, if he could, he would live a peaceful and non-violent life and be happy with it - that he would gladly choose a world where no one had to die or fight. But you could say that for countless characters in the games.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 22:23:16 GMT
(Walks in for the first time in months) OH BOY A SOLAS DEBATE. *Ahem.* Anyway, I love the guy but I have to admit I 100% do not think he's a pacifist, or even someone who wants to be a pacifist but finds it unworkable in practical terms. Which is different from saying he's a violent person, because I don't think that's the case either. Solas doesn't fit either extreme of the scale, imo. Solas does seem to find violence acceptable even in situations where it's not absolutely necessary. Particularly, he seems to think it's a fine method of dealing out justice/vengeance. His possible murder of the mages, his suggestion of execution to Vivienne, his banter with Sera where he recommends "removing entirely" rowdy agents. Neither situation needs violence, and it's not necessarily the easiest/most practical option, either. But he finds it acceptable anyway.
Although, I think we're conflating "violence" with "death" a little bit here. Because it's important to point out that he kills the mages quickly - almost instantly - and (at least as far as I can recall) all other times where he chooses the violent option, it's usually a swift, practical, and painless thing. (Or as painless as it can realistically get.) That's what the banter with Bull really comes down to - Solas doesn't enjoy violence, but that doesn't mean he's opposed to using it, or even finds it bad in concept. What Solas doesn't like is the idea of drawn-out pain and torture. One of his reasons for opposing the Qunari is even "I want to make the world's destruction as quick and painless as possible." Sure, that's probably partially out of guilt, some attempt to make up for what he thinks he has to do. But I also think it's because he uses violence entirely for the end result, never the process itself. Solas is usually, sometimes shockingly pragmatic and callous. Violence is a tool to him. It's not to be enjoyed, but it's not always morally reprehensible. Painful violence, though, is. Because there's no practical benefit to it. I think you could argue he's pacifist in the sense that, if he could, he would live a peaceful and non-violent life and be happy with it - that he would gladly choose a world where no one had to die or fight. But you could say that for countless characters in the games. ...Which was pretty much what I meant.
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 22:34:52 GMT
(Walks in for the first time in months) OH BOY A SOLAS DEBATE. *Ahem.* Anyway, I love the guy but I have to admit I 100% do not think he's a pacifist, or even someone who wants to be a pacifist but finds it unworkable in practical terms. Which is different from saying he's a violent person, because I don't think that's the case either. Solas doesn't fit either extreme of the scale, imo. Solas does seem to find violence acceptable even in situations where it's not absolutely necessary. Particularly, he seems to think it's a fine method of dealing out justice/vengeance. His possible murder of the mages, his suggestion of execution to Vivienne, his banter with Sera where he recommends "removing entirely" rowdy agents. Neither situation needs violence, and it's not necessarily the easiest/most practical option, either. But he finds it acceptable anyway. Although, I think we're conflating "violence" with "death" a little bit here. Because it's important to point out that he kills the mages quickly - almost instantly - and (at least as far as I can recall) all other times where he chooses the violent option, it's usually a swift, practical, and painless thing. (Or as painless as it can realistically get.) That's what the banter with Bull really comes down to - Solas doesn't enjoy violence, but that doesn't mean he's opposed to using it, or even finds it bad in concept. What Solas doesn't like is the idea of drawn-out pain and torture. One of his reasons for opposing the Qunari is even "I want to make the world's destruction as quick and painless as possible." Sure, that's probably partially out of guilt, some attempt to make up for what he thinks he has to do. But I also think it's because he uses violence entirely for the end result, never the process itself. Solas is usually, sometimes shockingly pragmatic and callous. Violence is a tool to him. It's not to be enjoyed, but it's not always morally reprehensible. Painful violence, though, is. Because there's no practical benefit to it. I think you could argue he's pacifist in the sense that, if he could, he would live a peaceful and non-violent life and be happy with it - that he would gladly choose a world where no one had to die or fight. But you could say that for countless characters in the games. Honestly I don't believe Solas lives up to that criteria for pacifism(which I think is obscenely low; I qualify by that criteria and I'm nothing resembling a pacifist) because he could live a peaceful, non-violent life and actively chooses not to in pursuit of his goal. There's even a series of banters with Varric where he seems to find the notion of just settling down and accepting a less than ideal circumstance but living a peaceful life anyway to be utterly baffling, not understanding how someone could accept that and not fight for what one's lost. But again, I also think that true pacifism requires more than not being a bloodthirsty, sadistic psychopath. Yes, it would have been worse if Solas had subjected the mages to a slow, drawn out, torturous death, but the fact that he didn't wallow in wanton sadism for his revenge doesn't change the fact that he violently murdered a few people out of revenge.
|
|
inherit
The Smiling Knight
538
0
23,488
smilesja
14,326
August 2016
smilesja
|
Post by smilesja on Sept 17, 2017 22:50:51 GMT
I want to know about who exactly the Elvanuris is and where they come from. It sounds like they are a different breed of Elves.
|
|
inherit
565
0
Jun 12, 2022 20:38:58 GMT
1,362
ellawyn
348
August 2016
ellawyn
|
Post by ellawyn on Sept 17, 2017 22:53:58 GMT
(Walks in for the first time in months) OH BOY A SOLAS DEBATE. *Ahem.* Anyway, I love the guy but I have to admit I 100% do not think he's a pacifist, or even someone who wants to be a pacifist but finds it unworkable in practical terms. Which is different from saying he's a violent person, because I don't think that's the case either. Solas doesn't fit either extreme of the scale, imo. Solas does seem to find violence acceptable even in situations where it's not absolutely necessary. Particularly, he seems to think it's a fine method of dealing out justice/vengeance. His possible murder of the mages, his suggestion of execution to Vivienne, his banter with Sera where he recommends "removing entirely" rowdy agents. Neither situation needs violence, and it's not necessarily the easiest/most practical option, either. But he finds it acceptable anyway.
Although, I think we're conflating "violence" with "death" a little bit here. Because it's important to point out that he kills the mages quickly - almost instantly - and (at least as far as I can recall) all other times where he chooses the violent option, it's usually a swift, practical, and painless thing. (Or as painless as it can realistically get.) That's what the banter with Bull really comes down to - Solas doesn't enjoy violence, but that doesn't mean he's opposed to using it, or even finds it bad in concept. What Solas doesn't like is the idea of drawn-out pain and torture. One of his reasons for opposing the Qunari is even "I want to make the world's destruction as quick and painless as possible." Sure, that's probably partially out of guilt, some attempt to make up for what he thinks he has to do. But I also think it's because he uses violence entirely for the end result, never the process itself. Solas is usually, sometimes shockingly pragmatic and callous. Violence is a tool to him. It's not to be enjoyed, but it's not always morally reprehensible. Painful violence, though, is. Because there's no practical benefit to it. I think you could argue he's pacifist in the sense that, if he could, he would live a peaceful and non-violent life and be happy with it - that he would gladly choose a world where no one had to die or fight. But you could say that for countless characters in the games. ...Which was pretty much what I meant. That's fair, but it's not a hugely meaningful distinction. Solas is probably in the large majority of companions who would rather live a peaceful life if they could. The only ones I can think of that wouldn't are Bull, Oghren, hmm... maybe Zevran? And Sera, depending on how you view her Red Jenny thing? Basically all the companions that actively enjoy violence. All the rest only do it because of duty or survival or some other obligation. Honestly I don't believe Solas lives up to that criteria for pacifism(which I think is obscenely low; I qualify by that criteria and I'm nothing resembling a pacifist) because he could live a peaceful, non-violent life and actively chooses not to in pursuit of his goal. There's even a series of banters with Varric where he seems to find the notion of just settling down and accepting a less than ideal circumstance but living a peaceful life anyway to be utterly baffling, not understanding how someone could accept that and not fight for what one's lost. But again, I also think that true pacifism requires more than not being a bloodthirsty, sadistic psychopath. Yes, it would have been worse if Solas had subjected the mages to a slow, drawn out, torturous death, but the fact that he didn't wallow in wanton sadism for his revenge doesn't change the fact that he violently murdered a few people out of revenge. That's fair, too! I'm not sure I'd qualify that as pacifism either. But I mean, Solas does what he does because he feels obligated to, not because he likes or enjoys it. If he were motivated only by his personal happiness, he'd probably be fading it up with Lavellan about now. Or, fuck, never would've woken up to begin with. I mean, look at a character like Alistair, who's so desperate for peaceful domesticity, it's literally what his companion quest revolves around. Yet he does plenty of shit he doesn't really want to do, because he feels duty-bound to do it. Solas is similar - he definitely could choose to screw the whole thing, and he very nearly does during his romance. But he keeps on because he believes he's obligated to - that banter demonstrates that mindset of his, even. He has keep fighting. He can't give up, even if he wants to, because he's the last and he can't give in. That's what he believes, anyway.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 22:55:02 GMT
Honestly I don't believe Solas lives up to that criteria for pacifism(which I think is obscenely low; I qualify by that criteria and I'm nothing resembling a pacifist) because he could live a peaceful, non-violent life and actively chooses not to in pursuit of his goal. There's even a series of banters with Varric where he seems to find the notion of just settling down and accepting a less than ideal circumstance but living a peaceful life anyway to be utterly baffling, not understanding how someone could accept that and not fight for what one's lost. But again, I also think that true pacifism requires more than not being a bloodthirsty, sadistic psychopath. Yes, it would have been worse if Solas had subjected the mages to a slow, drawn out, torturous death, but the fact that he didn't wallow in wanton sadism for his revenge doesn't change the fact that he violently murdered a few people out of revenge. The criteria you describe as low seems to only be low because you choose to view Solas a "sadistic, bloodthirsty psychopath", not because the standards have been lowered by the way discussion went. And what you describe as bloodthirsty murder has been a clear example of killing done in the heat of passion with a recognized legal authority present and choosing not to intervene. It is our Inquisitor's decision whether we choose for Solas to enact impromptu justice for murder of his friend and if we choose to intervene, unlike hardened Leliana, Solas always obeys. The fact that Solas actively chooses to pursue his goals also doesn't mean that: a.) the scenario Varric and Solas describe fighting in literal sense, in fact Solas pretty explicitly tells us that he's baffled by man in the tale because he never "struck out on his own to find new land, new people", while the discussion took place in the wider context of Dwarven relative passivity of fighting for survival of race, and even in that regard Solas didn't suggest violence, but tugging purse strings to claim sovereign land on surface or trying to reunite Orzammar with Kal-Sharok b.) you could make the same argument about 'well, Solas chose to lead the rebellion and create the Veil which destroyed Elvenhan'... but what was he supposed to do? Sit idly and wait until the Evanuris destroy the world? There's a time where one can't choose to withdraw if they care enough about more than their moral principles or realizes that lack of action is choice in itself - we even had such situations happen to our PCs, no matter how they went against their morals. Plus we have absolutely no idea what happens if Solas chooses to withdraw from his current plans, because we don't yet know the full extend of those. Is it just about elves? Is it about something more? Is the world endangered once again? We don't yet know that - so picking on Solas choosing to act as proof that he ain't a pacifist in however the low standard you choose to apply strikes me as disingenuous.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 8,039 Likes: 19,664
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,664
midnight tea
8,039
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Sept 17, 2017 23:03:56 GMT
...Which was pretty much what I meant. That's fair, but it's not a hugely meaningful distinction. Solas is probably in the large majority of companions who would rather live a peaceful life if they could. The only ones I can think of that wouldn't are Bull, Oghren, hmm... maybe Zevran? And Sera, depending on how you view her Red Jenny thing? Basically all the companions that actively enjoy violence. All the rest only do it because of duty or survival or some other obligation. Well, it's a meaningful enough distinction for some to try and deny even the fact that Solas belongs to this wider group of people, which is why discussion began in the first place. I can't say I'm that surprised though, given that Solas is a polarizing figure and it's not the first discussion in such vein to be had.
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 23:13:53 GMT
Except I don't view Solas as a sadistic, bloodthirsty psychopath. I think he's a maniac with a martyr complex who's prepared to destroy the world to restore something that's two thousand years dead, but I don't think he derives any kind of pleasure from it beyond a sense of self aggrandizement and narcissism; he endures his suffering because that suffering makes him the most important person in the world because he alone must bear this terrible burden. The fact that he's alright with the deaths of thousands and the potential death of millions due to his plan isn't the result of blood-thirstiness but callous, arrogant certainty that his goal is necessary, however horrible the means of achieving it.
My criteria for pacifism is not simply someone who believes that a non-violent solution is ideal but who actively opposes violent solutions, who when pressed to violence uses non-lethal means if at all possible, and who expresses guilt and remorse when pressed to lethal action. Solas does not meet a single one of those criteria. No Bioware companion does; the nature of the game doesn't allow them to. By definition they have to be people who are okay with killing dozens to hundreds of people because they got in their way because the game mechanics don't allow for non-lethal takedowns.
I hold pacifism to a higher standard than "would be okay living a peaceful life if the world was perfect". Solas believes that his cause is worth fighting and killing for. Plenty of people on these forums agree with him. I don't, but that's, like, my opinion, man, because I do believe that there are causes worth fighting and killing for.
But I'm not a pacifist, and neither is Solas.
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 23:17:03 GMT
I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to the definition of pacifism that to not qualify as a pacifist, one must be the type of person who in a perfect world where no one wanted for anything and no one had any reason to fight, one would go out and sadistically torture people to death anyway. If that's how low the bar is then we can't really call that a commendable attitude for a person to have.
|
|
inherit
565
0
Jun 12, 2022 20:38:58 GMT
1,362
ellawyn
348
August 2016
ellawyn
|
Post by ellawyn on Sept 17, 2017 23:43:51 GMT
Well at any rate, I popped in because I'm jonesing for another DA and getting a bit mopey that it's nowhere in the near future.
What can I say, I want the next thrilling arc in Murder Puppy's story. Plus Tevinter sounds interesting.
Come and join me in my Moping Pit.
|
|
formerfiend
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
PSN: Former_Fiend
Posts: 547 Likes: 956
inherit
6916
0
956
formerfiend
547
April 2017
formerfiend
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Mass Effect Andromeda
Former_Fiend
|
Post by formerfiend on Sept 17, 2017 23:50:36 GMT
I actually came to this thread to wonder at what the weird squadmate was gonna be. We always get at least one. Origins had Shale, Awakening had Justice, DA2 had Anders/Justice, DAI had Cole and also Solas but mainly Cole.
So a golem, a spirit possessing a corpse, a spirit possessing a radical, and a spirit possessing no one and nothing, and also the villain for the next game. So I'm curious as to what they throw at us next.
|
|