inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Jun 5, 2020 3:00:15 GMT
I don't mean to start the old morality debate or talk about who is to blame for what. I'd like to focus on the practical aspect.
Cassandra and Celene's ladies in waiting make the argument that drastic change doesn't work. That being impatient only leads to a backlash so great that what you've achieved will be undone.
And instead, change must be done one step at a time.
Within the world of Dragon Age, do you believe they are right?
|
|
bear
N2
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 217 Likes: 285
inherit
1715
0
285
bear
217
October 2016
bear
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by bear on Jun 5, 2020 9:16:34 GMT
It would depend on what sort of things are drastically/gradually changed.
When it comes to the possible raising up an elf to a position of Orlesian nobility, that isn't neccesarily a radical change if elves integrate into and the same... Game. If they believe that it's the same rules, the same mechanics, that they still have power,just with the addition of Orlesian elves as players of The Game, the nobility would probably have less issue with *that* particular change.
But if change you wish to impose takes power away from someone, say turn Ferelden into a constitutional monarchy and replace the royal council with a popularly elected parliament... yeah, that would lead to severe backlash. Nobles would fear losing, and commoners would also not support that sort of radical change unless preceded by significant public political agitation beforehand. And publicly condoning nobles should lose power, is likely to get the Crows after you.
So yeah, the DA societies don't strike me as being able to tolerate sudden, drastic change. A common bastard can become king in the DA-verse, but he is one person and has to follow tradition, as well.
|
|
inherit
11368
0
Jan 25, 2020 19:06:39 GMT
1,712
Sonya
1,332
December 2019
jackmorte
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by Sonya on Jun 5, 2020 10:25:12 GMT
You mentioned practical aspect. In practical aspect both variants are right, but it depends on what you want to change. Cass/Celene opinion's are right as well in this case.
The thing is: change will always find it's opponents, if not some uprisings can happen. Every time you want to change something - there are unhappy people using any pretext to say/do anything. Unavoidable thing.
What approach you use - historical examples can make a hint at least. History is not just some subject you are taught at school. History must be used to make conslusions, to learn lessons what should or should not be done at all or how do it at all.
There is no strict answer to your initial question. Simply put - it depends on changes/society/circumstances and other such things.
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Jun 5, 2020 14:14:44 GMT
It would depend on what sort of things are drastically/gradually changed. When it comes to the possible raising up an elf to a position of Orlesian nobility, that isn't neccesarily a radical change if elves integrate into and the same... Game. If they believe that it's the same rules, the same mechanics, that they still have power,just with the addition of Orlesian elves as players of The Game, the nobility would probably have less issue with *that* particular change. But if change you wish to impose takes power away from someone, say turn Ferelden into a constitutional monarchy and replace the royal council with a popularly elected parliament... yeah, that would lead to severe backlash. Nobles would fear losing, and commoners would also not support that sort of radical change unless preceded by significant public political agitation beforehand. And publicly condoning nobles should lose power, is likely to get the Crows after you. So yeah, the DA societies don't strike me as being able to tolerate sudden, drastic change. A common bastard can become king in the DA-verse, but he is one person and has to follow tradition, as well. I meant mages, elves, casteless dwarves... all the folks who got dealt a bad hand in Thedas.
|
|
bear
N2
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 217 Likes: 285
inherit
1715
0
285
bear
217
October 2016
bear
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by bear on Jun 5, 2020 16:58:30 GMT
It would depend on what sort of things are drastically/gradually changed. When it comes to the possible raising up an elf to a position of Orlesian nobility, that isn't neccesarily a radical change if elves integrate into and the same... Game. If they believe that it's the same rules, the same mechanics, that they still have power,just with the addition of Orlesian elves as players of The Game, the nobility would probably have less issue with *that* particular change. But if change you wish to impose takes power away from someone, say turn Ferelden into a constitutional monarchy and replace the royal council with a popularly elected parliament... yeah, that would lead to severe backlash. Nobles would fear losing, and commoners would also not support that sort of radical change unless preceded by significant public political agitation beforehand. And publicly condoning nobles should lose power, is likely to get the Crows after you. So yeah, the DA societies don't strike me as being able to tolerate sudden, drastic change. A common bastard can become king in the DA-verse, but he is one person and has to follow tradition, as well. I meant mages, elves, casteless dwarves... all the folks who got dealt a bad hand in Thedas. Same point applies. Their circumstances can change... if the established powers aren't feeling threatened by them gaining more freedoms/rights/privileges. I think the most "adaptable" of Thedosian cultures would probably be Ferelden, having had a recent history of being considered/considering themselves as the underdog (-lords. heh). They'd be most willing to grant more rights or freedoms to elves, others who been dealt a bad hand... but not mages for a time due to the recent mage-related events in Redcliffe. The least adaptable is Orzammer - if under Harrowmont - else, it is probably Tevinter. The Orlesian ladies in waiting are making the point that even if you change laws drastically, impose changes on society, etc., that doesn't mean it "sticks". Leliana's reforms, for example, in the Trespasser epilogue speaks to severals revolts and voices of dissent. And regarding mages, particularly human ones, imagine giving them certain rights - like inheritence rights? Imagine the number of firstborn human mages from noble houses who suddenly find that they've been retroactively put back in the line of succession for their family estate? That's going to lead to alot of second sons being resentful. Or something much lesser, like if they had the right to own their own property, amass personal wealth (not sure if Vivienne's bypassing some rule, or that bit's allowed?). Mages can do all sorts of useful and beneficial things for people with enough coin, and could get rich and powerful fast. That would breed resentment among both commoners and "old money" elites, I think. Casteless dwarves' social situation is the 2nd least suckiest social situation before being a Tevinter slave. Improve their lot, however...and then you got the caste that's next in line (merchant caste?) that are going to be resentful, because they feel that they're now part of the lowest caste along with the casteless. The drastic change regarding casteless would be to declare the end of the caste system. Only Bhelen might do that... and then he'd get clubbed to death by his guards and the entire Assembly. If you're also referring to the possibility of society-changing revolutions in various DA societies, I don't think that they are impossible , but they don't seem to have a great track record of succeeding. Could change in DA4, though.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 6, 2020 10:12:33 GMT
I think that kind of argument is complete nonsense, both "within the world of Dragon Age" and in every other context in which it appears. What's "drastic"? What's one "step" look like? If they don't have an actual plan of their own, then they should shut up.
Change will always be "too sudden" for the people who don't want it to happen. It's literally impossible to ever do it in a way that will be "good enough" for naysayers. Backlash is unavoidable, and saying it'll be "too great", and therefore we shouldn't try is just pathetic, cowardly hand-wringing.
I think it's a poor argument, and if I'm supposed to accept it as sage counsel, then it's also poor writing from BioWare.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
Apr 17, 2024 14:38:35 GMT
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 6, 2020 13:12:22 GMT
The "step-by-step" reforms are just as easy to undo (or rather easier!), and cause war, revolts, like the radical changes. After a world chaos is the best timing to take radical changes. To start step-by-step reforms is wasted opportunity and not safer, only coward... and a risk to be attacked from two fronts: who demand more change and who want to return to the status quo.
|
|
bear
N2
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 217 Likes: 285
inherit
1715
0
285
bear
217
October 2016
bear
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by bear on Jun 6, 2020 20:00:05 GMT
What one "ought to" or what one should do, isn't the question being posed. From a moral standpoint, they (Celene's ladies in waiting) should not be right, but in practical terms, of course they are. Take any subject, any oppressed race or class in DA-verse, and they're not going to accomplish anything they like, without getting the elities to cease power, and then installing themselves on top- and in which case, they and what army is going to accomplish that?
If the naysayers are the ones with the pointy metal sticks, or in Tevinter's case pointy metal sticks AND blood magic, it is the handwringing, naysaying conservatives who win. There are no democracies in Thedas, and with the exception of maybe some Marcher cities, no freedom of speech, either. Want to upturn some tradition of keeping down the casteless that is currently beneficial to the king of Orzammer? Expect to be tied down and fed alive to deepstalkers.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 0:13:55 GMT
What one "ought to" or what one should do, isn't the question being posed. From a moral standpoint, they (Celene's ladies in waiting) should not be right, but in practical terms, of course they are. Take any subject, any oppressed race or class in DA-verse, and they're not going to accomplish anything they like, without getting the elities to cease power, and then installing themselves on top- and in which case, they and what army is going to accomplish that? If the naysayers are the ones with the pointy metal sticks, or in Tevinter's case pointy metal sticks AND blood magic, it is the handwringing, naysaying conservatives who win. There are no democracies in Thedas, and with the exception of maybe some Marcher cities, no freedom of speech, either. Want to upturn some tradition of keeping down the casteless that is currently beneficial to the king of Orzammer? Expect to be tied down and fed alive to deepstalkers. They're not wrong because they're immoral, they're wrong because they're wrong. People who whine about change happening "too fast" don't actually have a real argument. They never say what speed they would actually find acceptable, or what they think that "gradual change" looks like, or where that process should start. If all someone can do is shut down ideas, and they can't present alternatives of their own, then the truth is they aren't really trying to assist with change, they are transparently trying to prevent it. And in fact, within the context of Dragon Age, change only *ever* happens drastically. In the very game we are talking about, I can force Celene to give Briala a position of leadership and declare equality for elves *on the very same night* that her ladies-in-waiting told me "that's not how it works", so clearly they are wrong and stupid. Other examples: - If you choose Bhelen in DAO, he starts reforming Orzammar immediately, and epilogue slides show he is successful. - The mages declared open war with the templars in Asunder within *days* of learning there was a cure for Tranquility. It only took a single vote. - In Masked Empire, the elven rebellion explodes over a matter of mere days, because Celene herself took the *drastic* action of killing elves enmasse, just because someone wrote a play about her supposedly being an elf-lover. So yeah, I don't take the "change should be gradual" argument seriously at all. It's a dumb thing to say in any context, but especially in the context of Dragon Age, where sudden and drastic change is the only kind there is.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
30,240
Hanako Ikezawa
22,350
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jun 7, 2020 0:27:45 GMT
Historically speaking, gradual change has both a better success rate and lower body count than drastic change.
|
|
inherit
1685
0
1,633
riverdaleswhiteflash
1,501
Sept 28, 2016 8:03:42 GMT
September 2016
riverdaleswhiteflash
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by riverdaleswhiteflash on Jun 7, 2020 0:46:31 GMT
I think it's a poor argument, and if I'm supposed to accept it as sage counsel, then it's also poor writing from BioWare. My reading of this is that it's supposed to be what Celene and her supporters believe, either because they honestly believe it or because it's what they tell themselves to justify keeping things "stable." I'd been under the impression that the Inquisitor (and the players) were meant to decide whether or not it's wise.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 1:25:49 GMT
Historically speaking, gradual change has both a better success rate and lower body count than drastic change. See, this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. Without examples to compare, working definitions of "drastic" vs "gradual", or an applicable metric for "success", it's just a meaningless statement. I can just claim that any change is "too drastic", or any movement "too extreme", anytime I like, without having to explain why, or what specifically I would like to see happen instead.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 1:49:42 GMT
I think it's a poor argument, and if I'm supposed to accept it as sage counsel, then it's also poor writing from BioWare. My reading of this is that it's supposed to be what Celene and her supporters believe, either because they honestly believe it or because it's what they tell themselves to justify keeping things "stable." I'd been under the impression that the Inquisitor (and the players) were meant to decide whether or not it's wise. Which is fine... except that we were also told that we were participating in "the great game", that Celene is a political mastermind, etc etc. We keep being told how skilled and intelligent Celene and other characters must be, to keep their positions of power, but when it comes time to show us anything, the best BioWare can do is empty rhetoric that would be thrown out of a high school debate. And the infuriating thing is it works, and people in here are genuinely saying stupid shit like "But Celene HAD to commit genocide, don't you see? She was satirised in a play!"
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Jun 7, 2020 1:54:51 GMT
Why is everyone talking about Celene's ladies and not Cassandra, though?
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 2:16:29 GMT
Why is everyone talking about Celene's ladies and not Cassandra, though? I assumed it went without saying that I think Cassandra is also wrong and stupid. It's an empty, meaningless statement, regardless of which mouth it comes out of.
|
|
xerrai
N3
Posts: 842 Likes: 1,156
inherit
1451
0
1,156
xerrai
842
September 2016
xerrai
|
Post by xerrai on Jun 7, 2020 7:12:39 GMT
Historically speaking, gradual change has both a better success rate and lower body count than drastic change. Are we so sure about the body count bit? More often that not statements like these make "body count" just mean lives lost in a rebellion, war or similar conflict and not the actual amount of lives lost durring the period of change. Let's use Andraste's Rebellions as an example. Her wars, undoubtedly, resulted in the loss of millions if not trillions of lives. But would that really compare to the body count if she opted for gradual change? The blood sacrifices would continue. The casual abuse of slaves would have continued. And each day it wasn't put down by drastic change would result in larger and larger body count that would put her bloody rebellions to shame. And good luck getting Old Tevinter to willingly give up thier entrenched blood magic practices (hell, they still haven't) by attempting gradual change. But that's an extreme example. How about chevaliers and their abuse of commoners in Orlais? They are a smaller group and by and large none of them are considered radical. They are just facets of everyday Orlesian life. Drastic change would be the monarch either dissolving the chevaliers entirely or just outright banning them from killing commoners. I expect retribution to take the form of assassinations, lynching, inciting of riots or raids in alienages--maybe even a civil war if some noble uses this change as an excuse to go after the throne. But does that body count really compare to the amount of lives chevaliers undoubtedly rack up year after year just because they are allowed to get away with it? Generation after generation? The monarch could argue for gradual change, and try to discourage commoner abuse by means of politics or shifting cultural values. But that doesn't change the fact people are still unjustly dying under the current system while this gradual change is being pursued. Drastic change may have a massive body count. But I would argue the body count of gradual change can be much, much higher. There's just less fanfare around it.
|
|
bear
N2
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 217 Likes: 285
inherit
1715
0
285
bear
217
October 2016
bear
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by bear on Jun 7, 2020 7:26:18 GMT
What one "ought to" or what one should do, isn't the question being posed. From a moral standpoint, they (Celene's ladies in waiting) should not be right, but in practical terms, of course they are. Take any subject, any oppressed race or class in DA-verse, and they're not going to accomplish anything they like, without getting the elities to cease power, and then installing themselves on top- and in which case, they and what army is going to accomplish that? If the naysayers are the ones with the pointy metal sticks, or in Tevinter's case pointy metal sticks AND blood magic, it is the handwringing, naysaying conservatives who win. There are no democracies in Thedas, and with the exception of maybe some Marcher cities, no freedom of speech, either. Want to upturn some tradition of keeping down the casteless that is currently beneficial to the king of Orzammer? Expect to be tied down and fed alive to deepstalkers. They're not wrong because they're immoral, they're wrong because they're wrong. People who whine about change happening "too fast" don't actually have a real argument. They never say what speed they would actually find acceptable, or what they think that "gradual change" looks like, or where that process should start. If all someone can do is shut down ideas, and they can't present alternatives of their own, then the truth is they aren't really trying to assist with change, they are transparently trying to prevent it. And in fact, within the context of Dragon Age, change only *ever* happens drastically. In the very game we are talking about, I can force Celene to give Briala a position of leadership and declare equality for elves *on the very same night* that her ladies-in-waiting told me "that's not how it works", so clearly they are wrong and stupid. Other examples: - If you choose Bhelen in DAO, he starts reforming Orzammar immediately, and epilogue slides show he is successful. - The mages declared open war with the templars in Asunder within *days* of learning there was a cure for Tranquility. It only took a single vote. - In Masked Empire, the elven rebellion explodes over a matter of mere days, because Celene herself took the *drastic* action of killing elves enmasse, just because someone wrote a play about her supposedly being an elf-lover. So yeah, I don't take the "change should be gradual" argument seriously at all. It's a dumb thing to say in any context, but especially in the context of Dragon Age, where sudden and drastic change is the only kind there is. Beginning to understand your position, I think. Your definition of "change" isn't at all what I thought the OP was talking about. I assumed he referred to the possibility of success of *political and social* change. You say - to paraphrase - that if someone doesn't want to assist with ideas leading to change, they should just get out of the way. Right. That’s an argument that makes alot of sense... if everyone's opinions mattered equally in Thedas. It doesn't. It matters who put the ideas forward and what power or influence they have to make it a reality. Celene isn't politically or socially accountable to simply anyone in her realm who might want social/political change. The Council of Heralds > Gourd farmer in the Dales who wants a republic or just better rights. She isn't obligated to listen to peasants, like Bhelen isn't obligated to listen to casteless. And even after that, sudden drastic change isn't guarenteed to *last*. Bhelen is an exception only because he centralizes all political power around himself, kills those who oppose him and exiles the rest. His changes might last as long as he lives, but whether the changes stick afterwards depends on the amount of plotters among the deshyrs who wanted to roll back his changes, but stayed silent to avoid knives in the dark. The mage templar war isn't sudden drastic change. It's just an odd not-really-a-civil war, between two groups that neither represent two opposing political factions vying to rule the countries of Thedas nor an ethnic one. Never felt that conflict made any sense whatsoever, but they don’t accomplish drastic change unless they side with the Inq as allies and Leliana is Divine. And as we see in the Trespasser epilogue, dissent remains. Change that only lasts a few years, isn't approved by those who hold power, only to be reversed when the next king/queen/Archon/empress rises to the throne, isn't much of a change. Meredith imposed sudden drastic changes on the Kirkwall Circle and look what that accomplished? Loghain did away with a monarch descended from a line of kings Fereldens associate with their nation's founder. His loathing of the "fascination with honor and tradition" lead to attempts at sudden changes...that get quashed by the HoF and his political allies. I'm not saying you can't change anything drastically in Thedas. You just need to seize absolute powers and start killing all dissenters to do it.
|
|
bear
N2
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
Posts: 217 Likes: 285
inherit
1715
0
285
bear
217
October 2016
bear
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by bear on Jun 7, 2020 8:00:12 GMT
To give another example of sudden drastic change not translating into lasting change is the dialogue you can get from Dorian about slavery in Tevinter: Archons have tried sudden drastic abolitions of slavery before. Then they got assassinated by those (also) in positions of power who resented it, and slavery got reinstated.
|
|
inherit
1685
0
1,633
riverdaleswhiteflash
1,501
Sept 28, 2016 8:03:42 GMT
September 2016
riverdaleswhiteflash
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by riverdaleswhiteflash on Jun 7, 2020 8:25:59 GMT
To give another example of sudden drastic change not translating into lasting change is the dialogue you can get from Dorian about slavery in Tevinter: Archons have tried sudden drastic abolitions of slavery before. Then they got assassinated by those (also) in positions of power who resented it, and slavery got reinstated. Then there was the Civil War when an Archon tried to name a common-born mage named Tidarion as his heir, in defiance of the ruling class's expectation one of them would take the top spot. I guess my answer to whether you should prefer gradual change to drastic change is that no matter how far from the ideal system you are, drastic change is only preferable if you can make it stick. If you can't, all you'll accomplish is a potentially expensive (or potentially lethal) failure. But if you can make drastic change work, and the system needs it badly enough, then sure.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 11:05:19 GMT
They're not wrong because they're immoral, they're wrong because they're wrong. People who whine about change happening "too fast" don't actually have a real argument. They never say what speed they would actually find acceptable, or what they think that "gradual change" looks like, or where that process should start. If all someone can do is shut down ideas, and they can't present alternatives of their own, then the truth is they aren't really trying to assist with change, they are transparently trying to prevent it. And in fact, within the context of Dragon Age, change only *ever* happens drastically. In the very game we are talking about, I can force Celene to give Briala a position of leadership and declare equality for elves *on the very same night* that her ladies-in-waiting told me "that's not how it works", so clearly they are wrong and stupid. Other examples: - If you choose Bhelen in DAO, he starts reforming Orzammar immediately, and epilogue slides show he is successful. - The mages declared open war with the templars in Asunder within *days* of learning there was a cure for Tranquility. It only took a single vote. - In Masked Empire, the elven rebellion explodes over a matter of mere days, because Celene herself took the *drastic* action of killing elves enmasse, just because someone wrote a play about her supposedly being an elf-lover. So yeah, I don't take the "change should be gradual" argument seriously at all. It's a dumb thing to say in any context, but especially in the context of Dragon Age, where sudden and drastic change is the only kind there is. Beginning to understand your position, I think. Your definition of "change" isn't at all what I thought the OP was talking about. I assumed he referred to the possibility of success of *political and social* change. You say - to paraphrase - that if someone doesn't want to assist with ideas leading to change, they should just get out of the way. Right. That’s an argument that makes alot of sense... if everyone's opinions mattered equally in Thedas. It doesn't. It matters who put the ideas forward and what power or influence they have to make it a reality. Celene isn't politically or socially accountable to simply anyone in her realm who might want social/political change. The Council of Heralds > Gourd farmer in the Dales who wants a republic or just better rights. She isn't obligated to listen to peasants, like Bhelen isn't obligated to listen to casteless. And even after that, sudden drastic change isn't guarenteed to *last*. Bhelen is an exception only because he centralizes all political power around himself, kills those who oppose him and exiles the rest. His changes might last as long as he lives, but whether the changes stick afterwards depends on the amount of plotters among the deshyrs who wanted to roll back his changes, but stayed silent to avoid knives in the dark. The mage templar war isn't sudden drastic change. It's just an odd not-really-a-civil war, between two groups that neither represent two opposing political factions vying to rule the countries of Thedas nor an ethnic one. Never felt that conflict made any sense whatsoever, but they don’t accomplish drastic change unless they side with the Inq as allies and Leliana is Divine. And as we see in the Trespasser epilogue, dissent remains. Change that only lasts a few years, isn't approved by those who hold power, only to be reversed when the next king/queen/Archon/empress rises to the throne, isn't much of a change. Meredith imposed sudden drastic changes on the Kirkwall Circle and look what that accomplished? Loghain did away with a monarch descended from a line of kings Fereldens associate with their nation's founder. His loathing of the "fascination with honor and tradition" lead to attempts at sudden changes...that get quashed by the HoF and his political allies. I'm not saying you can't change anything drastically in Thedas. You just need to seize absolute powers and start killing all dissenters to do it. Well, what I'm really getting at is that criticising change for being "too drastic", and saying the people trying to change things are "too extreme", is a deliberate tactic intended to stifle *any* attempt at change and maintain the status quo. That they fail to offer an alternate plan is not an accident. The reason people who make this statement don't offer ideas of their own is because *they aren't trying to change anything*. Their real goal is to undermine. And no matter how small or insignificant the change or movement, someone, somewhere, will always call it "too extreme". It literally doesn't matter if you're rioting in the streets or just kneeling during a national anthem. In real life, and in Dragon Age, the people saying it's "too drastic" are always the people who like things the way they are now. Cassandra is a prime example, when she says change is 'too drastic', what I think she really means (what I think everyone who says it really means) is she doesn't want change *at all*. Cassandra was happy with the status quo. If she thought things needed changing, she would have tried to change them herself, before now. She helps the Inquisition *because* she wants things to go back to how they were before. That attempts at change fail, or are met with violence, is also not a valid argument for change to slow or stop. Violence has been a part of all change throughout human history, even the successful change. People have to be prepared for violence if they want change.
|
|
inherit
1685
0
1,633
riverdaleswhiteflash
1,501
Sept 28, 2016 8:03:42 GMT
September 2016
riverdaleswhiteflash
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by riverdaleswhiteflash on Jun 7, 2020 11:51:07 GMT
In real life, and in Dragon Age, the people saying it's "too drastic" are always the people who like things the way they are now. Cassandra is a prime example, when she says change is 'too drastic', what I think she really means (what I think everyone who says it really means) is she doesn't want change *at all*. Cassandra was happy with the status quo. If she thought things needed changing, she would have tried to change them herself, before now. She helps the Inquisition *because* she wants things to go back to how they were before. Not entirely. She does want some reform, designed to curb outright criminal behavior by the templars. But yeah, she wants a whole lot less change than a lot of the mages do. Part of the reason Cassandra doesn't go as far as Leiliana does is that she doesn't want to. But you do need account for the potential for violence and failure while you're planning, right? You do need to consider whether or not you think the fight you're walking into is winnable. Especially if you're in a political environment where being executed for trying to change something is a possibility. If you try to change something, fail, and get crushed by the status quo, what good does that do?
|
|
inherit
11368
0
Jan 25, 2020 19:06:39 GMT
1,712
Sonya
1,332
December 2019
jackmorte
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by Sonya on Jun 7, 2020 13:26:03 GMT
Historically speaking, gradual change has both a better success rate and lower body count than drastic change. If it is not difficult, could you give those "historically speaking" examples?
|
|
inherit
11368
0
Jan 25, 2020 19:06:39 GMT
1,712
Sonya
1,332
December 2019
jackmorte
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by Sonya on Jun 7, 2020 13:30:01 GMT
Btw, why only Cassandra? What about Leliana and Viv reforms? Cass is so special to talk only about her? Leliana and Viv also have opinions about reforms and we see the reults of their reforms as well.
|
|
inherit
3852
0
Feb 26, 2017 13:09:29 GMT
2,275
Rouccoco
520
Feb 24, 2017 23:47:54 GMT
February 2017
bioticapostate
|
Post by Rouccoco on Jun 7, 2020 13:46:10 GMT
Up until Inquisition, a 14th of the mage population under Andrastian rule was being slaughtered roughly every 35 years through the Right of Annulment. And that went on for 700 years. I guess mages should have written more strongly worded letters?
The only people who call for "gradual change" are those, who are comfortable with the status quo. Who are outside of the groups struggling for their rights and don't really care about them, or are a part of them, but hold positions of power that shield them from harm (think Vivienne).
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 7, 2020 13:58:48 GMT
But you do need account for the potential for violence and failure while you're planning, right? You do need to consider whether or not you think the fight you're walking into is winnable. Especially if you're in a political environment where being executed for trying to change something is a possibility. If you try to change something, fail, and get crushed by the status quo, what good does that do? Yes, people should prepare to face violence, it is obviously better for their overall goal if as many of them stay alive as possible, but your question seems to imply that an action only has value ('does good') if it succeeds. I don't know how to explain why I believe that there are times when action must be taken, even when failure is likely or even inevitable.
|
|