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 17:23:15 GMT
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. While I find the rule tedious and not well thought through and wish it wasn't there, there is a "no real world political references" rule that it would be direspectful to the OP to cross. It's especially annoying because your reply brings up a way of thinking about fantasy that, imo, demands RW comparison. *sigh* Oh well, I'll try and frame it some other way, and hope you'll still understand: Dragon Age is a fantasy setting, set in a society where kings and nobles don't just have the political power, but also cultural power, moral power and of course military power. I don't really agree with the notion that the only motive there'd be to want gradual change is that the people in power simply don't change at all. There are plenty of people in power who don't want to change anything at all, though, and they might throw a bone here and there, pay lip service to some change, while plotting to make sure everything stays the same. So, I agree when it comes to some (Vivienne strikes me as one of those people who says the "right" and progressive thing to one party, while trying to maintain the status quo through whispering into the ears of the right people). Thedas isn't just our world with the presidents and prime ministers being called kings, empresses and archons, citizens called peasants, parliaments called Magisterium, Council of Heralds and the Assembly. It's not completely different because it has magic and other races, but because it doesn't have the same politics and philosophies about governance, rights and values. The way you argue against the gradual approach, seems to me to indicate that you make no distinction in your imagination between the morality and values of your own RW values and the morality and values of the DA setting, that you prefer fantasy to mimick RL. I've always read or played fantasy with a mind to accepting the fantasy setting internal logic, internal value system and how it was (mean to be) different from my modern day moral outlook. My reading fantasy/or playing fantasy games is similar to how historians read primary sources with a mind to delve into the target society's way of thinking, instead of looking and judging exclusively through your own modern lens. Similarly, what I argue in favor of in the context of social and political change benefiting the worst treated peoples in Thedas, is not representative of my outlook on the same topic outside of that setting.
|
|
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 18:47:53 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). Doesn't the Rite of Annulment codex say it is a rather rare event?
|
|
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 19:10:48 GMT
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. While I find the rule tedious and not well thought through and wish it wasn't there, there is a "no real world political references" rule that it would be direspectful to the OP to cross. It's especially annoying because your reply brings up a way of thinking about fantasy that, imo, demands RW comparison. *sigh* Oh well, I'll try and frame it some other way, and hope you'll still understand: Dragon Age is a fantasy setting, set in a society where kings and nobles don't just have the political power, but also cultural power, moral power and of course military power. I don't really agree with the notion that the only motive there'd be to want gradual change is that the people in power simply don't change at all. There are plenty of people in power who don't want to change anything at all, though, and they might throw a bone here and there, pay lip service to some change, while plotting to make sure everything stays the same. So, I agree when it comes to some (Vivienne strikes me as one of those people who says the "right" and progressive thing to one party, while trying to maintain the status quo through whispering into the ears of the right people). Thedas isn't just our world with the presidents and prime ministers being called kings, empresses and archons, citizens called peasants, parliaments called Magisterium, Council of Heralds and the Assembly. It's not completely different because it has magic and other races, but because it doesn't have the same politics and philosophies about governance, rights and values. The way you argue against the gradual approach, seems to me to indicate that you make no distinction in your imagination between the morality and values of your own RW values and the morality and values of the DA setting, that you prefer fantasy to mimick RL. I've always read or played fantasy with a mind to accepting the fantasy setting internal logic, internal value system and how it was (mean to be) different from my modern day moral outlook. My reading fantasy/or playing fantasy games is similar to how historians read primary sources with a mind to delve into the target society's way of thinking, instead of looking and judging exclusively through your own modern lens. Similarly, what I argue in favor of in the context of social and political change benefiting the worst treated peoples in Thedas, is not representative of my outlook on the same topic outside of that setting. Indeed. In Dragon Age, it is perfectly acceptable to slaughter Ser Cauthrien and her soldiers because they are blocking the way. In the real world, I'd certainly consider the repercussion of such a decision.
|
|
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 19:33:33 GMT
Doesn't the Rite of Annulment codex say it is a rather rare event? It was invoked 20 times since it was established in 2:83 and now we have 9:44. So every 33 years on average, I was close. That's not rare, when we're talking about mass slaughter? And that's before we even mention how many of those could have been unjustified, like Dairsmuid and Antiva.
|
|
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 19:58:39 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. If you can't explain it, then I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd argue that cutting your losses is a smart move in Thedas, or any other setting where the consequences for a failed political movement are likely to include death. In a political system where you can fight another day even after you lose a round, you don't have to worry quite as much about picking your battles, and might even benefit by getting your name out there at every possible opportunity. But Thedas's systems aren't designed for that.
|
|
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 8, 2020 0:42:17 GMT
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. While I find the rule tedious and not well thought through and wish it wasn't there, there is a "no real world political references" rule that it would be direspectful to the OP to cross. It's especially annoying because your reply brings up a way of thinking about fantasy that, imo, demands RW comparison. *sigh* Oh well, I'll try and frame it some other way, and hope you'll still understand: Dragon Age is a fantasy setting, set in a society where kings and nobles don't just have the political power, but also cultural power, moral power and of course military power. I don't really agree with the notion that the only motive there'd be to want gradual change is that the people in power simply don't change at all. There are plenty of people in power who don't want to change anything at all, though, and they might throw a bone here and there, pay lip service to some change, while plotting to make sure everything stays the same. So, I agree when it comes to some (Vivienne strikes me as one of those people who says the "right" and progressive thing to one party, while trying to maintain the status quo through whispering into the ears of the right people). Thedas isn't just our world with the presidents and prime ministers being called kings, empresses and archons, citizens called peasants, parliaments called Magisterium, Council of Heralds and the Assembly. It's not completely different because it has magic and other races, but because it doesn't have the same politics and philosophies about governance, rights and values. The way you argue against the gradual approach, seems to me to indicate that you make no distinction in your imagination between the morality and values of your own RW values and the morality and values of the DA setting, that you prefer fantasy to mimick RL. I've always read or played fantasy with a mind to accepting the fantasy setting internal logic, internal value system and how it was (mean to be) different from my modern day moral outlook. My reading fantasy/or playing fantasy games is similar to how historians read primary sources with a mind to delve into the target society's way of thinking, instead of looking and judging exclusively through your own modern lens. Similarly, what I argue in favor of in the context of social and political change benefiting the worst treated peoples in Thedas, is not representative of my outlook on the same topic outside of that setting. Well my 'modern lens', as you put it, is a perfectly valid framework through which to read works of fantasy. They are, after all, produced by modern people in our modern society and they cannot ever truly divorce themselves from that, regardless of their powers of imagination. Media always tells you more about the time and place it was *made* then it ever can about the time or place it is *set*. However, I don't think that's really relevent to the application of morality. I apply my own standards of morality to works of fiction, that is true. I also apply them to our real history. A thing doesn't become 'wrong' because we have internet now. If something is 'wrong', then it was, and is, always wrong. I am not the one who needs to change to adapt to the standards of history. I have the same human brain as a person living in the 15th or even the 5th century, so I know that they were capable of recognising and rejecting injustice. That we allowed so many systemic injustices throughout history is an indictment of humanity as a whole. And the reason we study and teach history is not to show people that genocide and slavery were fun and cool. The saying is "those who fail to learn from history are *condemned* to repeat it", not "those who fail to learn from history will repeat it and have an awesome time, good for them". This does not, however, mean that I expect societies in works of fantasy to reflect my own morality, or mimic 'real life'. My *own* fantasy writing does not reflect my own morality, because that would be boring. I am perfectly capable of understanding the thought process of people whose actions I find heinous and deplorable. My disagreement and rejection of other people's behaviour or moral systems does not stem from a failure to understand them, let us be perfectly clear about that.
|
|
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 8, 2020 1:20:41 GMT
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. If you can't explain it, then I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd argue that cutting your losses is a smart move in Thedas, or any other setting where the consequences for a failed political movement are likely to include death. In a political system where you can fight another day even after you lose a round, you don't have to worry quite as much about picking your battles, and might even benefit by getting your name out there at every possible opportunity. But Thedas's systems aren't designed for that. No system is 'designed' for upheaval, they are always designed for the people in power to stay in power, so I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Freedom, justice, equality, and the like are not rational. They are concepts and ideals born from emotion. And emotion is what drives most, if not all grassroots protest movements. You can say that they will likely fail, and that it would be 'smart' to cut one's losses and go home, and I would even say that you are correct, that would be the 'smart' thing to do. Fighting against a system that oppresses you or others is never going to be 'smart'. There will never be a time where a grassroots movement is *likely* to overcome an unjust system backed by wealth and political power and access to weaponry that they can never match. It is not 'smart' to turn up to protests where you may be injured, arrested or even killed. Yet people participate regardless, even in very large numbers, because the alternative course of action, ie, allowing the injustice to continue, has become unbearable. That is not a rational course of action, it is purely emotional, even primal. It comes from anger and pain. If your argument is that people shouldn't fight injustice unless it is 'smart' to do so, then all I can say is that you miss the entire point of the fight. One has to believe, deeply, that the slim chance of success is worth risking their own life.
|
|
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 8, 2020 2:20:55 GMT
There's way more in here about current events than I'd like, given the forum rules, but... If you can't explain it, then I'm not convinced. At the very least, I'd argue that cutting your losses is a smart move in Thedas, or any other setting where the consequences for a failed political movement are likely to include death. In a political system where you can fight another day even after you lose a round, you don't have to worry quite as much about picking your battles, and might even benefit by getting your name out there at every possible opportunity. But Thedas's systems aren't designed for that. No system is 'designed' for upheaval, they are always designed for the people in power to stay in power, so I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Part of what I meant is that a lot of modern governments don't kill you for trying to force those in power to make concessions. (Or, they don't do it deliberately, anyway. A rubber bullet is still a bullet, and tear gas can kill if the wrong person gets hit. But you're probably not going to die of those.) Obviously, you don't need to worry as much about whether you're wasting lives or not if the government is using less-lethal stuff, but I'd also think it's obvious that you do need to worry about wasting lives if they aren't. I was also partially talking about elections, where if you lose, you get the luxury of trying again a few years later, instead of needing to worry about whether you'll see next year. Which does make the possibility of backing the wrong horse less scary.So, are we talking about Thedas? Because I was specifically talking about Thedas. And yes, those are different circumstances in relevant ways. It's one thing to show up to a protest that might get you shot with rubber bullets or tear-gassed. Yeah, either of those can kill, but they aren't likely to, and killing isn't the intended outcome. You can afford to have a hundred protests broken up, as long as the system finally throws its hands up and makes real concessions to make the hundred-and-first go away. If you lose a hundred battles with the system in Thedas, you'll wind up with a negative number of protesters halfway through. Which might be why Briala doesn't seem to make actual battling part of her MO. I'm not saying people in Thedas shouldn't resist oppression. What I am saying is that if it's not smart to resist, you have to resist smart if you're going to resist at all.
|
|
inherit
529
0
7,815
Nightscrawl
3,266
August 2016
nightscrawl
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Nightscrawl on Jun 8, 2020 3:30:15 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. Where does this statistic come from?
|
|
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 8, 2020 3:30:48 GMT
are we talking about Thedas? Because I was specifically talking about Thedas. And yes, those are different circumstances in relevant ways. As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the sentiment of "change needs to be gradual" is wrong both in the context of Dragon Age, and *every other context it appears*. So I am talking more broadly, although yes, I'll acknowledge that Thedas naturally differs from reality in many important ways. I did also say to bear that a work of fiction always tells you more about the time and place it was made than it ever can about the time and place it is set. I don't believe it is possible to meaningfully analyse any aspect of Dragon Age without taking into consideration the society in which it was created, and the audience for which it was intended. Especially as there are points in the series where it is transparently obvious that BioWare is taking cues from modern society. Otherwise, I don't particularly dispute anything you just said.
|
|
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 8, 2020 8:20:40 GMT
While I find the rule tedious and not well thought through and wish it wasn't there, there is a "no real world political references" rule that it would be direspectful to the OP to cross. It's especially annoying because your reply brings up a way of thinking about fantasy that, imo, demands RW comparison. *sigh* Oh well, I'll try and frame it some other way, and hope you'll still understand: Dragon Age is a fantasy setting, set in a society where kings and nobles don't just have the political power, but also cultural power, moral power and of course military power. I don't really agree with the notion that the only motive there'd be to want gradual change is that the people in power simply don't change at all. There are plenty of people in power who don't want to change anything at all, though, and they might throw a bone here and there, pay lip service to some change, while plotting to make sure everything stays the same. So, I agree when it comes to some (Vivienne strikes me as one of those people who says the "right" and progressive thing to one party, while trying to maintain the status quo through whispering into the ears of the right people). Thedas isn't just our world with the presidents and prime ministers being called kings, empresses and archons, citizens called peasants, parliaments called Magisterium, Council of Heralds and the Assembly. It's not completely different because it has magic and other races, but because it doesn't have the same politics and philosophies about governance, rights and values. The way you argue against the gradual approach, seems to me to indicate that you make no distinction in your imagination between the morality and values of your own RW values and the morality and values of the DA setting, that you prefer fantasy to mimick RL. I've always read or played fantasy with a mind to accepting the fantasy setting internal logic, internal value system and how it was (mean to be) different from my modern day moral outlook. My reading fantasy/or playing fantasy games is similar to how historians read primary sources with a mind to delve into the target society's way of thinking, instead of looking and judging exclusively through your own modern lens. Similarly, what I argue in favor of in the context of social and political change benefiting the worst treated peoples in Thedas, is not representative of my outlook on the same topic outside of that setting. Well my 'modern lens', as you put it, is a perfectly valid framework through which to read works of fantasy. They are, after all, produced by modern people in our modern society and they cannot ever truly divorce themselves from that, regardless of their powers of imagination. Media always tells you more about the time and place it was *made* then it ever can about the time or place it is *set*. However, I don't think that's really relevent to the application of morality. I apply my own standards of morality to works of fiction, that is true. I also apply them to our real history. A thing doesn't become 'wrong' because we have internet now. If something is 'wrong', then it was, and is, always wrong. I am not the one who needs to change to adapt to the standards of history. I have the same human brain as a person living in the 15th or even the 5th century, so I know that they were capable of recognising and rejecting injustice. That we allowed so many systemic injustices throughout history is an indictment of humanity as a whole. And the reason we study and teach history is not to show people that genocide and slavery were fun and cool. The saying is "those who fail to learn from history are *condemned* to repeat it", not "those who fail to learn from history will repeat it and have an awesome time, good for them". This does not, however, mean that I expect societies in works of fantasy to reflect my own morality, or mimic 'real life'. My *own* fantasy writing does not reflect my own morality, because that would be boring. I am perfectly capable of understanding the thought process of people whose actions I find heinous and deplorable. My disagreement and rejection of other people's behaviour or moral systems does not stem from a failure to understand them, let us be perfectly clear about that. It is valid from a standpoint of you having a right to feel and believe whatever you feel and believe. Not valid in terms of being or not being a reasonable, well-argued standpoint, though. Because you are arguing that something is only "right" when it fits your own present day culture's feelings of what is right, not the value system, cultural setting and notions of justice of the fantasy setting we're actually supposed to be discussing. It is akin to saying that they're technologically "primitive" because they use trebuchets instead of artillery cannons, or swords instead of gunpowder rifles. Social change in one setting cannot occur the same way in another setting, but you're incapable of decoupling yourself from that one setting (RW). BW's writers writing a fantasy setting that is unjust, is indeed a product of modern minds. DA, specifically, too. Doesn't mean that they're obligated to support any and all modern Western views. After all, again, all the major countries of Thedas are ruled by a feudal monarchy, with nobles having second-most power. The only way to gain influence, is to become noble - or of similar status to a noble - yourself. Despite what you write at the end it seems you still misunderstand the difference between empathy and sympathy, between understanding and agreement. You can read fantasy or play fantasy games however you like, of course, but having the same brain, does not equal having the same concept of which things are just and which are not. Death by hanging is lawful execution but to a person opposed to death penalties, it is "murder", and the same applies to what is just now, just a 1000 years ago, and what is just in RW and what is just in Thedas. So, no, your "a wrong that is wrong now, is and has always been wrong, everywhere, every time and among everyone" - reasoning is great for you, but it is also irrelevant as an argument if you want to make a point beyond "I, personally, don't like this". You can feel that your personal beliefs are universal, and you can deny it when everyone else in the world denies your claim that they just lying to themselves when they don't "know" that your beliefs and values are what they "really" agree with, deep down. As if they're only "honest" if they agree with you. And if you're talking about actual historians, and the academic discipline of history, then no.. that's not why we study and teach history. If you want to take moral lessons from all of human history, be my guest. That's just not been the purpose of history as an academic discipline for over a century now. Also, the more accurate saying about history would be the one that goes: "History does not repeat itself - but it does rhyme".
|
|
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 8, 2020 9:08:25 GMT
Where does this statistic come from? It's an average. The date of the first Annulment was mentioned in WoT vol.1, and a codex in Origins said there were 17 Annulments so far, plus Kinloch Hold, the Gallows, and Dairsmuid since then. The number of circles is murky, 14 was mentioned in Origins, 15 in Asunder, and of course some were destroyed and new ones created.
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Jun 8, 2020 12:03:21 GMT
There's way more in here about current events than I'd like, given the forum rules, but... In conclusion, you can block PessimistPanda but you can't stop him from ruining your thread. Now all focus is on his emotional rants.
|
|
inherit
11247
0
1,639
Buckeldemon
Now stealin' more kidz.
1,200
July 2019
buckeldemon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Buckeldemon on Jun 8, 2020 13:04:22 GMT
There's way more in here about current events than I'd like, given the forum rules, but... In conclusion, you can block PessimistPanda but you can't stop him from ruining your thread. Now all focus is on his emotional rants. Depends on the goal you had while creating this thread, I suppose.
|
|
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 8, 2020 15:10:00 GMT
Well my 'modern lens', as you put it, is a perfectly valid framework through which to read works of fantasy. They are, after all, produced by modern people in our modern society and they cannot ever truly divorce themselves from that, regardless of their powers of imagination. Media always tells you more about the time and place it was *made* then it ever can about the time or place it is *set*. However, I don't think that's really relevent to the application of morality. I apply my own standards of morality to works of fiction, that is true. I also apply them to our real history. A thing doesn't become 'wrong' because we have internet now. If something is 'wrong', then it was, and is, always wrong. I am not the one who needs to change to adapt to the standards of history. I have the same human brain as a person living in the 15th or even the 5th century, so I know that they were capable of recognising and rejecting injustice. That we allowed so many systemic injustices throughout history is an indictment of humanity as a whole. And the reason we study and teach history is not to show people that genocide and slavery were fun and cool. The saying is "those who fail to learn from history are *condemned* to repeat it", not "those who fail to learn from history will repeat it and have an awesome time, good for them". This does not, however, mean that I expect societies in works of fantasy to reflect my own morality, or mimic 'real life'. My *own* fantasy writing does not reflect my own morality, because that would be boring. I am perfectly capable of understanding the thought process of people whose actions I find heinous and deplorable. My disagreement and rejection of other people's behaviour or moral systems does not stem from a failure to understand them, let us be perfectly clear about that. It is valid from a standpoint of you having a right to feel and believe whatever you feel and believe. Not valid in terms of being or not being a reasonable, well-argued standpoint, though. Because you are arguing that something is only "right" when it fits your own present day culture's feelings of what is right, not the value system, cultural setting and notions of justice of the fantasy setting we're actually supposed to be discussing. It is akin to saying that they're technologically "primitive" because they use trebuchets instead of artillery cannons, or swords instead of gunpowder rifles. Social change in one setting cannot occur the same way in another setting, but you're incapable of decoupling yourself from that one setting (RW). BW's writers writing a fantasy setting that is unjust, is indeed a product of modern minds. DA, specifically, too. Doesn't mean that they're obligated to support any and all modern Western views. After all, again, all the major countries of Thedas are ruled by a feudal monarchy, with nobles having second-most power. The only way to gain influence, is to become noble - or of similar status to a noble - yourself. Despite what you write at the end it seems you still misunderstand the difference between empathy and sympathy, between understanding and agreement. You can read fantasy or play fantasy games however you like, of course, but having the same brain, does not equal having the same concept of which things are just and which are not. Death by hanging is lawful execution but to a person opposed to death penalties, it is "murder", and the same applies to what is just now, just a 1000 years ago, and what is just in RW and what is just in Thedas. So, no, your "a wrong that is wrong now, is and has always been wrong, everywhere, every time and among everyone" - reasoning is great for you, but it is also irrelevant as an argument if you want to make a point beyond "I, personally, don't like this". You can feel that your personal beliefs are universal, and you can deny it when everyone else in the world denies your claim that they just lying to themselves when they don't "know" that your beliefs and values are what they "really" agree with, deep down. As if they're only "honest" if they agree with you. And if you're talking about actual historians, and the academic discipline of history, then no.. that's not why we study and teach history. If you want to take moral lessons from all of human history, be my guest. That's just not been the purpose of history as an academic discipline for over a century now. Also, the more accurate saying about history would be the one that goes: "History does not repeat itself - but it does rhyme". 1) Fiction is not capable of decoupling itself from the 'real world'. 2) I did not say that BioWare was obligated to support my moral viewpoint. In fact, I have done my best to keep my moral viewpoint out of this discussion. My main point is, and has always been that whether a change is either 'drastic' or 'gradual' is entirely a matter of perspective to begin with, and that the failure of Cassandra and other characters (and by extension, BioWare) to define these terms in any way makes their argument totally meaningless, to the point that they might as well have spouted random sounds instead. Cassandra argues that the mages want too much too quickly. Anders might argue that mages have been waiting, working towards and fighting for change for centuries. Who's right? Why? 3) I understand the mechanics of Thedas society as it currently operates perfectly well, at least so far as they've shown us. What I don't understand is your argument that Thedas has, somehow, established a version of feudalism that is totally immune to outside attacks/pressure, and that all change must therefore occur from within the system, instigated by those who already possess authority. Feudal systems and monarchies can be disrupted or destroyed by revolution, and people in Thedas understand the concept of 'revolution'. The myth that forms the basis for the entire dominant religion of Thedas is a tale of revolution. There is a quest in DAO:Awakening called 'The Peasant Revolution'. So clearly, theoretically, if someone was unhappy with a situation in Thedas, they could organise a revolution. 4) No, I am not confused between 'understanding' and 'agreement'. And no, I do not live with some delusion that everyone secretly agrees with me. I actually do not at all care if people agree with me, because I have the courage of my own convictions. I freely admit that I am, as you say, ignoring "the value system, cultural setting and notions of justice of the fantasy setting we're actually supposed to be discussing", because they are not relevant to my argument. I wasn't initially arguing from a moral standpoint to begin with, my main problem with the characters that claim to advocate for 'gradual change' is that they do not, at any point, explain what they think 'gradual change' even is, or what the first steps of a 'gradual change' would be, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their argument is 'moral'. I have no idea if Cassandra's position is moral or not because she does not explain it! But if I were to argue from a moral standpoint, I would still consider the moral standards of Thedas to be irrelevent, because I believe my own moral positions to be correct, regardless of what the majority population of any fictional country thinks.
|
|
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 8, 2020 15:43:22 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). Doesn't the Rite of Annulment codex say it is a rather rare event? Nope, here you go: dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_The_Right_of_AnnulmentBiotic Apostate's math is sound, based on the info in the codex entry, but whether or not an event is "rare" is largely a matter of perspective. A person could argue that once is too often.
|
|
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 8, 2020 18:10:07 GMT
It is valid from a standpoint of you having a right to feel and believe whatever you feel and believe. Not valid in terms of being or not being a reasonable, well-argued standpoint, though. Because you are arguing that something is only "right" when it fits your own present day culture's feelings of what is right, not the value system, cultural setting and notions of justice of the fantasy setting we're actually supposed to be discussing. It is akin to saying that they're technologically "primitive" because they use trebuchets instead of artillery cannons, or swords instead of gunpowder rifles. Social change in one setting cannot occur the same way in another setting, but you're incapable of decoupling yourself from that one setting (RW). BW's writers writing a fantasy setting that is unjust, is indeed a product of modern minds. DA, specifically, too. Doesn't mean that they're obligated to support any and all modern Western views. After all, again, all the major countries of Thedas are ruled by a feudal monarchy, with nobles having second-most power. The only way to gain influence, is to become noble - or of similar status to a noble - yourself. Despite what you write at the end it seems you still misunderstand the difference between empathy and sympathy, between understanding and agreement. You can read fantasy or play fantasy games however you like, of course, but having the same brain, does not equal having the same concept of which things are just and which are not. Death by hanging is lawful execution but to a person opposed to death penalties, it is "murder", and the same applies to what is just now, just a 1000 years ago, and what is just in RW and what is just in Thedas. So, no, your "a wrong that is wrong now, is and has always been wrong, everywhere, every time and among everyone" - reasoning is great for you, but it is also irrelevant as an argument if you want to make a point beyond "I, personally, don't like this". You can feel that your personal beliefs are universal, and you can deny it when everyone else in the world denies your claim that they just lying to themselves when they don't "know" that your beliefs and values are what they "really" agree with, deep down. As if they're only "honest" if they agree with you. And if you're talking about actual historians, and the academic discipline of history, then no.. that's not why we study and teach history. If you want to take moral lessons from all of human history, be my guest. That's just not been the purpose of history as an academic discipline for over a century now. Also, the more accurate saying about history would be the one that goes: "History does not repeat itself - but it does rhyme". 1) Fiction is not capable of decoupling itself from the 'real world'. 2) I did not say that BioWare was obligated to support my moral viewpoint. In fact, I have done my best to keep my moral viewpoint out of this discussion. My main point is, and has always been that whether a change is either 'drastic' or 'gradual' is entirely a matter of perspective to begin with, and that the failure of Cassandra and other characters (and by extension, BioWare) to define these terms in any way makes their argument totally meaningless, to the point that they might as well have spouted random sounds instead. Cassandra argues that the mages want too much too quickly. Anders might argue that mages have been waiting, working towards and fighting for change for centuries. Who's right? Why? 3) I understand the mechanics of Thedas society as it currently operates perfectly well, at least so far as they've shown us. What I don't understand is your argument that Thedas has, somehow, established a version of feudalism that is totally immune to outside attacks/pressure, and that all change must therefore occur from within the system, instigated by those who already possess authority. Feudal systems and monarchies can be disrupted or destroyed by revolution, and people in Thedas understand the concept of 'revolution'. The myth that forms the basis for the entire dominant religion of Thedas is a tale of revolution. There is a quest in DAO:Awakening called 'The Peasant Revolution'. So clearly, theoretically, if someone was unhappy with a situation in Thedas, they could organise a revolution. 4) No, I am not confused between 'understanding' and 'agreement'. And no, I do not live with some delusion that everyone secretly agrees with me. I actually do not at all care if people agree with me, because I have the courage of my own convictions. I freely admit that I am, as you say, ignoring "the value system, cultural setting and notions of justice of the fantasy setting we're actually supposed to be discussing", because they are not relevant to my argument. I wasn't initially arguing from a moral standpoint to begin with, my main problem with the characters that claim to advocate for 'gradual change' is that they do not, at any point, explain what they think 'gradual change' even is, or what the first steps of a 'gradual change' would be, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their argument is 'moral'. I have no idea if Cassandra's position is moral or not because she does not explain it! But if I were to argue from a moral standpoint, I would still consider the moral standards of Thedas to be irrelevent, because I believe my own moral positions to be correct, regardless of what the majority population of any fictional country thinks. 1 ) I am talking about writing fiction where the fantasy setting does not go out of its way to present, say feudal monarchy as morally wrong - even if the author/game writers obviously live in a society very far removed from that. 2) If Cassandra support changing absolutely nothing at all changing, she wouldn't support trying to change the Seekers, and her epilogue as Divine also mentions that she reforms the Templars and Circle. And of course the speed of change is a matter of one's perspective, but my point remains that given how this is a fantasy setting without any human or civil rights, freedoms, or even a conception/assumption/belief that a commoner is equal to a royal - and thus his opinions, too - some people's perspective just account for more than others. 3) I don't neccesarily believe it is "totally immune", just that there are no examples of revolutions yet. And for there to be a revolution, there also needs to be an idea - some solution or new form of government to put in its place . For example, untill the age of Enlightenment, you had loads of peasant revolts or even rebellions, but none of them were attempts at revolution - as in overturning the fundamental system of governance. But after philosophers from France, and to some extent Britain, spread ideas about all people supposedly having "human rights", people in Europe and its new colonies, gradually wanted to see those ideas realized to varying extent. But you have to have presented and popularized an alternate way society can look and work, for society to trust in it and thus accept tearing down the established system. Solas could be a sort of Montesquieu or Voltaire of Thedas, for elves anyway. And the elves - and possibly all slaves - might rise up citing some of his ideas about slavery and freedom - provided he keeps the "your world will burn in the raw chaos" thing to himself. Revolution isn't impossible, it's just so far not presented as very likely. If you had a popularized, comprehensive alternate, idea of a new system than the one that keeps casteless, mages, elves, etc. in "their place" and instead offered a new place, then yes, I could absolutely see Thedas-wide revolutions. On that note about the DAO: Awakening quest about the peasant revolt, while the quest is indeed called "revolution", the captain of the guard calls it a revolt, and based on what they demand, they're not engaging in revolution, but in a revolt. They're not asking for self-rule, after all, they're demanding that their liege rules them better, feeds them and provides them with security - what a liege in a feudal society is supposed to do. Seems to simply have been a mistake by BW, not knowing the difference between the two related words. 4. Plenty of Cassandra's feelings about change seems to be revealed not just in player-initiated dialogue, but in companion banter. From her banter with Vivienne: "Provided they fulfill their purpose. Too many have suffered since the mage rebellion began, but we cannot ignore the abuses that prompted it. Without change, we risk repeating the events at Kirkwall." And of course, she wants to change how secretive the Seekers are to their initiates and members. You're right she doesn't get much specific about change outside of that, unlike Leliana speaking of the changes she wants up in the rookery right before the final main quest before Cory. That doesn't mean she (Cass) isn't serious about wanting change, though.
|
|
inherit
1274
0
3,016
sageoflife
1,412
August 2016
sageoflife
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by sageoflife on Jun 8, 2020 19:48:02 GMT
Gradual change is ideal, but those in power simply refuse to allow it.
|
|
inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,653
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Jun 8, 2020 22:42:33 GMT
Gradual change is ideal, but those in power simply refuse to allow it. It may be different with Cassandra as Divine. Some people dismiss her as being in a position of comfort where it is better to maintain the status quo, but that's not exactly fair. For all her flaws, Cassandra isn't the type that says one thing and means another. What you see is what you get. If she says she wants to stop the abuses, you can believe she is serious. The way I see it, she could created a transition stage for society, which would be finished by a successor who is more like Leliana.
|
|
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 8, 2020 22:49:08 GMT
Sorry, it was getting too long. What I guess my issue is, then, is that I still don't feel like I have enough detail from Cassandra about what she wants to see happen. She has some vague ideas, yes, but I take issue with the statement (if she even makes such a statement, I don't really recall), that change is happening 'too fast'. The thing is, the change is already happening. By the start of Inquisition, the Chantry is on the brink of total collapse. It has lost the control of the Circle, and the two branches of its armed forces (Templars and Seekers) that it used to enforce its authority. It's leaders are squabbling over who should get to be the next Grand Poobah, rather than doing anything remotely useful, it's not exerting any oversight over the newly-formed Inquisition, and as far as I can tell it no longer has the support of the general populace either. Now, the game forces me to restore the Chantry to some semblance of working order, but if it were truly up to me, I would let it rot. Especially since their idea of thanking me is to later demand that I fall in line and let the Inquisition become another arm of their theo-fascist octopus. If Cassandra expects my support (and it is my support, because I, a modern man, am controlling the Inquisitor), I need her ideas to be a lot more concrete and detailed. If mages can't have freedom now, when *can* they have it? In five years? Ten? Fifty? If her plan instead is to root out corruption and abuse in the Templars and Seekers, rather than simply allow mages to remain free, then how exactly is that going to work? What new laws would she like to see instated? How does she envision them being enforced in a practical sense? How is she going to prevent a system that is naturally inclined to abuse, and has perpetuated abuse for centuries, from sliding back into it's old patterns? Who's going to police it? Her? She didn't do a good job of that *before*. Those are the sorts of questions I need answered, if someone is going to make the very bold claim that the way things are changing currently is the 'wrong' way. A big problem I have with DAI as a whole, actually, is that I feel it doesn't allow me to properly interrogate the positions of the people who want to 'restore order', while the mages who want to be free and those who support them have to justify themselves over and over again, suffering all the while.
|
|
inherit
1274
0
3,016
sageoflife
1,412
August 2016
sageoflife
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by sageoflife on Jun 8, 2020 22:49:31 GMT
Gradual change is ideal, but those in power simply refuse to allow it. It may be different with Cassandra as Divine. Some people dismiss her as being in a position of comfort where it is better to maintain the status quo, but that's not exactly fair. For all her flaws, Cassandra isn't the type that says one thing and means another. What you see is what you get. If she says she wants to stop the abuses, you can believe she is serious. The way I see it, she could created a transition stage for society, which would be finished by a successor who is more like Leliana. I do think Cassandra means well and wants to improve things, but she has to contend with the same forces who wish to preserve the status quo that Leliana does, and I do not think that Cassandra is political enough for that. I don't see Cassandra's reforms surviving her.
|
|
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 8, 2020 22:50:54 GMT
Doesn't the Rite of Annulment codex say it is a rather rare event? Nope, here you go: dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_The_Right_of_AnnulmentBiotic Apostate's math is sound, based on the info in the codex entry, but whether or not an event is "rare" is largely a matter of perspective. A person could argue that once is too often. Although having it never happen even once is probably too much to hope for. We know at least three happened for reasons other than because the Circle had lost control of the internal situation and was overrun by demons, but there's no way that was always the case. The magic system in this setting was deliberately designed to create cases where Annulment actually sounds reasonable. And unless some unstoppable plot-armored badass happens onto the scene, what else are you going to do if the whole thing's demon'd?
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Jun 8, 2020 22:54:26 GMT
Now, the game forces me to restore the Chantry to some semblance of working order, but if it were truly up to me, I would let it rot. Especially since their idea of thanking me is to later demand that I fall in line and let the Inquisition become another arm of their theo-fascist octopus. To be fair, it's not the Chantry that wants that. Orlais is the one that wants the Inquisition leashed, while Ferelden wants it gone completely. The Chantry doesn't have a say since they are acting as merely a mediator, though each Divine has their personal preference as to what the fate of the Inquisition should be (though support your decision regardless).
|
|
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 8, 2020 23:03:15 GMT
Now, the game forces me to restore the Chantry to some semblance of working order, but if it were truly up to me, I would let it rot. Especially since their idea of thanking me is to later demand that I fall in line and let the Inquisition become another arm of their theo-fascist octopus. To be fair, it's not the Chantry that wants that. Orlais is the one that wants the Inquisition leashed, while Ferelden wants it gone completely. The Chantry doesn't have a say since they are acting as merely a mediator, though each Divine has their personal preference as to what the fate of the Inquisition should be (though support your decision regardless). Fair enough. It's been a while since I played Trespasser, so some details have escaped me.
|
|
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 9, 2020 0:48:35 GMT
Although having it never happen even once is probably too much to hope for. We know at least three happened for reasons other than because the Circle had lost control of the internal situation and was overrun by demons, but there's no way that was always the case. The magic system in this setting was deliberately designed to create cases where Annulment actually sounds reasonable. And unless some unstoppable plot-armored badass happens onto the scene, what else are you going to do if the whole thing's demon'd? With what we now know about spirits/demons and how the Fade and the mortal realm were once one and the same, I suspsct potential solutions are forthcoming. But if we disregard that, and look only at Thedas as it currently stands, I have previously argued for the decentralisation of the Circles, and the institution of a similarly decentralised, non-chantry affiliated force, comprised of both mages, individuals with Templar abilities, and ordinary people, with a focus on mediation, protection and support for all members of the community, rather than the exertion of religious authority and violence. I believe such a system would go a long way to mitigating the risks of demon attacks occuring in the first place. It's well documented by now that mental anguish and stress heighten the risks of involuntary possession, and that when mages *do* deliberately summon demons, it's often in retaliation to violence or the threat of violence. Reduce the violence, allow mages to stay near their families and community support systems, reduce the risk of demon summonings and abominations. Of course the practical concerns of putting such a system in place are considerable.
|
|