1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

"If you are good, you can see your child again. But! If you ever doze off during a chantry sermon again, you will never see your child again, mwahahahahhaahhahaha!!!"

[Everwarden]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

"If you are good, you can see your child again. But! If you ever doze off during a chantry sermon again, you will never see your child again, mwahahahahhaahhahaha!!!"

Mages have to go to sermons? I don't remember that, but I doubt it... why would they want to waste a sermon on vermin only one step above darkspawn?


Seriously can't wait to set a Chantry or two on fire, though. Make it happen, Bioware! 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
1. Templar abuse should not be permitted or winked at. The templars are there for the public good, not for personal satisfaction from bullying mages. This notion has been contested previously in the thread, but no one can deny that at least in some circles, in some cases, templar abuse is grossly out of hand. 

Again, fact of life. You will find soldiers talking how beatifull their last kill was, or police officers that like to beat a perp into submission both in the ploce and the military.  It has been like that since the begining.
They say experience shapes a man, so sadly some will end up being cynical, hatefull bastards.

[Giltspur]

The Chantry's big, and it has a lot of members so it's hard to generalize.  I need to know more about the context of Hawke's life and the decision he has to make.  Not knowing anything my first Hawke would  probably be untrusting of them but not out to get them either.

That said, I've already imagined the ending of DA2 as being Hawke grabbing Cassandra's head in one hand and a Qunari's head in another hand and slamming them together as he yells "My house,  [expletive]!"  And as Cassandra and the random Qunari woozily tumble to the ground he yells "Now get the hell out of Kirkwall!"

/cue Destiny trailer music

Hawke, it seems, is not a diplomat.

[Lumikki]

Giltspur wrote...

The Chantry's big, and it has a lot of members so it's hard to generalize.  I need to know more about the context of Hawke's life and the decision he has to make.  Not knowing anything my first Hawke would  probably be untrusting of them but not out to get them either.

*snip*

Hawke, it seems, is not a diplomat.

If Hawkes past history is too know for player, it forces players to defined role. How ever, if it's left open, play can take many different kind of roles and attitudes. Unless players can choose the past histories as background in character creation.

Example, if Hawkes past history sayes that hawke hates Chantry and has fighting all his/her life agaist it. How would player play Hawke so that Hawke would be Chantries side. Point is that too pre-define forces players hands.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 septembre 2010 - 03:16 .

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't find your comparison compelling. You're saying that, because the life of a peasant or a warrior is difficult, it's comparable to a life of a person who is imprisoned for being different? You're comparing the hardship of a life where people have the freedom to dictate their own actions to a life of a mage who can't do anything unless he or she has permission to do so? To be watched over 24/7 by drug addicts in armor who about talk about killing mages with glee... to never be able to raise your own children, to be taken away from your family, and to risk being turned into a rune crafting slave if they think you aren't strong enough to withstand a demon tricking you into giving consent to become an abomination. I don't see how anyone can say the Circle isn't a prison for mages, especially when the Magi Origin VO refers to the Circle as a prison.

No, I fear I didn't manage to get my point across.

A peasant don't have the freedom to go wherever they want when they want. If they decide to leave without permission or anyone taking their place at the farm their crops will rot and be ruined (or not be planted at all, depending on time of year). If they're really unlucky they'll also live in an area where the nobles would hunt down and kill them for leaving (they'd be called serfs then though).
Essentially their "freedom" boils down to a choice between staying put or putting their life at a huge risk.
Granted... they probably get to keep their children (if they survive... )

Templars are signed up at a very early age and there really isn't any alternative life other than taking the vows. They won't get to decide what to do with their life either... they must follow orders. Anything they want to do for themselves must be sought permission for. Deciding randomly to take a trek through the country side because you don't like your superior officer would mean a detah sentence once you return to civilisation.
Again, a choice of staying put or putting their life at a huge risk.

Same with clergy... they start their education (and like Templars, it's probably you parents putting you there) early and when the time comes to take the vows there are no alternatives open. Then they have to do whatever the chantry asks of them. They don't get to choose where they're placed, how they'll work or who they get to interact with. And like mages they're forbidden from having children (and unlike mages, also relationships).

My point was this: Noone has the freedom the mages seek, the only difference is that in the mages case it is enforced by the Templar's rather than someone else or the world itself. Yes, many of them can technically decide to pack up and leave... but the result is the same as if a mage would do it (likely death). They have just as much a choice in life as the mages do.

To give you a example.. Anders went apostate and was captured and escaped several times. Each time these "frenzied, hateful, mage-killing addicts" just captured him and locked him up. Not until they suspected he had killed some of them did they try to kill him.
If a Templar did the "same thing" and left without permission, as soon as he showed up again he'd be summary executed if he did not have a really good reason. On the spot. On the charge of desertion. Did the templar have more freedom that Anders in that regard?

That's a hollow analogy. You're comparing being imprisoned for being a mage and having little to no rights as the same as an ordinary citizen being constricted by the laws of the land. That's never going to be comparable. Every person lives in a nation with laws and is limited by what's legally permitted and their finances; it's another thing entirely when people are taken from their families by force and imprisoned for being different, forced to be under the thumb of a corrupt religious institution and the soldiers they turn into drug addicts.

As for a runaway mage, the templars thought they killed Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice, and it's only by chance that they failed. It's made clear in the Magi Origin that this is what happens when a mage leaves the Circle without permission, as explained by the senior Enchanter Niall when he discuses the topic of apostates. Why the devs changed this for Anders, specifically in the expansion Awakening, I'd love to learn about.

And I don't understand why you're comparing a deserter who leaves his duty with a mage who leaves the captivity of the Circle for a life of freedom, because those are two very different examples.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Everwarden wrote...
1. Templar abuse should not be permitted or winked at. The templars are there for the public good, not for personal satisfaction from bullying mages. This notion has been contested previously in the thread, but no one can deny that at least in some circles, in some cases, templar abuse is grossly out of hand. 

Again, fact of life. You will find soldiers talking how beatifull their last kill was, or police officers that like to beat a perp into submission both in the ploce and the military.  It has been like that since the begining.
They say experience shapes a man, so sadly some will end up being cynical, hatefull bastards.

And they're turned into drug addicts by the Chantry.

Why support the Chantry imprisoning mages under their Circles when it's merely to keep the mages as their own personal soldiers, as when they used them to defend against the Qunari and their advanced technology? There's no reason the mages shouldn't be allowed to oversee themselves without armed drug addicts looming over them.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is also a mages duty to stay in the tower to protect the rest of humankind. Also the Tower isn't even clsoe to being the prison you try to make it out to be, at least not for a harrowed mage.



And the drug supposedly strengthens the Templars power. Andf before you pull out the "Alistair says.." card: He says the skills can be LEARNED without lyrium, but he never took any lyrium himself, so he doesn't know if it actually strengthens their power.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is also a mages duty to stay in the tower to protect the rest of humankind. Also the Tower isn't even clsoe to being the prison you try to make it out to be, at least not for a harrowed mage.

And the drug supposedly strengthens the Templars power. Andf before you pull out the "Alistair says.." card: He says the skills can be LEARNED without lyrium, but he never took any lyrium himself, so he doesn't know if it actually strengthens their power.

Their duty? According to who? The Chantry? They aren't exactly altruistic when it comes to the mages. And how is it not a prison? Considering that mages keep rebelling and running away, it's exactly the prison that I've described in this thread. It's a prison for the mages who want to be free, for the mages who want to raise their children, for the mages who don't want to be turned into emotionless slaves to help keep the Circle coffers full.

Alistair is shown to be capable of the same templar feats without the drug, and he makes it clear that the Chantry likely uses the drug to make certain that the templars are forced to work for the Chantry, instead of the other way around.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8:



Tell me, in what way is it different to be taken as a mage to a circle to train with people like yourself. Than being born a peasant, a noble, placed in templar or clerical training, being placed in apprenticehood with a craftsman or taken as a assistant by a merchant. All those things happens when you're a child and unable to choose that life for your own.



Do you think a Templar can choose not to take his vows when the time come? They practically gets raised by the chantry. Neither do they get to choose if they're going to be placed in a chantry, a circle or sent to hunt apostates. It's not a chosen proffession (by them anyways).



In what way is he more free than the mage? He didn't chose his social position, neither did the mage. He didn't choose his assignment just like the mage didn't choose a circle. If either go AWOL they will be hunted and killed. If they accept their lot in life and work hard they might get rewarded with being granted what they desire (within limits).



Same thing applies to everyone. The only freedoms that exist are illusions (or ones that exist inside your social caste, like how a mage is allowed to spend his time inside his circle and which schools to study). All choices are limited to how you live your life but not what duties and roles you'll have to take.



As for why Anders got to live but Wynne's student didn't, I assume it is because he gave himself up when the Templars came and did not resist. Allowed them to take him to Aeonar.

Wynne's student however, tried to run. So they killed him. Not because he was a mage, but because he was refusing to accept his place in the circle. Just like how they would kill a templar that tried to run from his position.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why support the Chantry imprisoning mages under their Circles when it's merely to keep the mages as their own personal soldiers, as when they used them to defend against the Qunari and their advanced technology? There's no reason the mages shouldn't be allowed to oversee themselves without armed drug addicts looming over them.

The reason why mages cannot oversee and police themselves has been gone over several times in this thread already.
To sum it up - NOT A GOOD IDEA.
No sensible government will allow mages to polcie themselves.

[Lumikki]

LobselVith8 you problem is that you try to use today real world freedom consept to middle age world where was no freedom in same way we have now. The practice of sending children away to act as servants was even more
common in towns than in the countryside. You never ask why parents does this?

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 septembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is also a mages duty to stay in the tower to protect the rest of humankind. Also the Tower isn't even clsoe to being the prison you try to make it out to be, at least not for a harrowed mage.

And the drug supposedly strengthens the Templars power. Andf before you pull out the "Alistair says.." card: He says the skills can be LEARNED without lyrium, but he never took any lyrium himself, so he doesn't know if it actually strengthens their power.

Their duty? According to who? The Chantry? They aren't exactly altruistic when it comes to the mages. And how is it not a prison? Considering that mages keep rebelling and running away, it's exactly the prison that I've described in this thread. It's a prison for the mages who want to be free, for the mages who want to raise their children, for the mages who don't want to be turned into emotionless slaves to help keep the Circle coffers full.

Alistair is shown to be capable of the same templar feats without the drug, and he makes it clear that the Chantry likely uses the drug to make certain that the templars are forced to work for the Chantry, instead of the other way around.

And yet you pulled the Alistair card...... Yes, he is shown to be capable of using the same skills as a Templar, but not neccesarily just as powerful. He only admits that the skills can be learned without lyrium and that it hypothetically would be an easy way of controlling the Templars.

And if its not their duty to protect mankind as a whole, then they have no right to be free anyway. Mages being contained in as few places as possible is the best for everyone. Except some few rebellious mages who are hopelessly selfish.

[RazorrX]

Okay lets look at history.



Approximately 7600 years before the chantry Elves had the kingdom of Arlathan. Elves had keepers/mages and the world was not overrun with abominations and demons.



Approximately 1195 years before the chantry the Tevinter Imperium was founded - at this time there was still no sign of Abominations and demons running around everywhere.

Approximately 575 years before the chantry the Tevinter Imperium has its first civil war, blood magic and demon summoning becomes common place - HOWEVER the world is STILL not overrun with abominations and demons. Please note that the Tevinter Imperium was around for 620 years being ruled by unsupervised Mages and the world was not a bloodbath of abominations and demons.

Approximately 395 years before the chantry *some* of the Tevinter Magisters raid the 'golden city' to free the old gods, the first blight begins. Notice it is a blight and not a huge army of abominations/demons.

Approximately 75 years before the Chantry - Andraste leads the rebellion against the Tevinter Imperium.

Aproximately 55 years before the chantry takes control it is formed, already various factions are confused as to what Andraste actually taught.

55 years later the Chantry is officially established in Orlais. In that 55 years there is no mention in history of the world being overrun with Abominations and demons.

In year 1 of the Chantry Calendar the free use of magic is declared illegal in *Orlais*. Mages are sent to a chantry owned 'circle'. Note that they are not everywhere yet, in most fo the free world mages are still free and guess what . . . Still no sign of Abominations/demons running around destroying the world.



So we have thousands of years proof that mages left on their own do not suddenly run rampant and turn into abominations killing everyone. Seems to me like they did a pretty good job of policing themselves.

[Archereon]

RazorrX wrote...

Okay lets look at history.

Approximately 7600 years before the chantry Elves had the kingdom of Arlathan. Elves had keepers/mages and the world was not overrun with abominations and demons.

Approximately 1195 years before the chantry the Tevinter Imperium was founded - at this time there was still no sign of Abominations and demons running around everywhere.
Approximately 575 years before the chantry the Tevinter Imperium has its first civil war, blood magic and demon summoning becomes common place - HOWEVER the world is STILL not overrun with abominations and demons. Please note that the Tevinter Imperium was around for 620 years being ruled by unsupervised Mages and the world was not a bloodbath of abominations and demons.
Approximately 395 years before the chantry *some* of the Tevinter Magisters raid the 'golden city' to free the old gods, the first blight begins. Notice it is a blight and not a huge army of abominations/demons.
Approximately 75 years before the Chantry - Andraste leads the rebellion against the Tevinter Imperium.
Aproximately 55 years before the chantry takes control it is formed, already various factions are confused as to what Andraste actually taught.
55 years later the Chantry is officially established in Orlais. In that 55 years there is no mention in history of the world being overrun with Abominations and demons.
In year 1 of the Chantry Calendar the free use of magic is declared illegal in *Orlais*. Mages are sent to a chantry owned 'circle'. Note that they are not everywhere yet, in most fo the free world mages are still free and guess what . . . Still no sign of Abominations/demons running around destroying the world.

So we have thousands of years proof that mages left on their own do not suddenly run rampant and turn into abominations killing everyone. Seems to me like they did a pretty good job of policing themselves.

Well, its almost certain the Tevintir had something reminiscient of the chantry circle.  If there was absolutely no form of institutionalized training for mages, then we'd have craploads of summoned demons, possesed people, and abominations running around.

[Lotion Soronarr]

RazorrX wrote...
So we have thousands of years proof that mages left on their own do not suddenly run rampant and turn into abominations killing everyone. Seems to me like they did a pretty good job of policing themselves

What makes you think they were policing themselves? What makes you think they weren't monitored and contained too?

Even in Tevinter, mages are locked up in towers.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why support the Chantry imprisoning mages under their Circles when it's merely to keep the mages as their own personal soldiers, as when they used them to defend against the Qunari and their advanced technology? There's no reason the mages shouldn't be allowed to oversee themselves without armed drug addicts looming over them.

The reason why mages cannot oversee and police themselves has been gone over several times in this thread already.
To sum it up - NOT A GOOD IDEA.
No sensible government will allow mages to polcie themselves.

I thought we had agreed that letting the tranquil run things -was- a good idea? No? Has drawbacks, sure, but still seems a superior option to me. 

[RazorrX]

Post chantry they are, not pre chantry. Read the history. The *FIRST* time magic is outlawed and you are sent to a tower is year 1 of the chantry calendar. The fact is that the world had magic in abundance for over 6000 years without templar hate and mismanagement, without the chantry demonizing mages and the world did not get overrun with abominations and demons.



There is a form of chantry in the Tevinter Imperium NOW, but prior to year 1 of the chantry calendar they did not exist.



So all the chantry love for how mages are treated has NO historical strength. In fact, history shows that mages were fine without the chantry.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RazorrX wrote...
So we have thousands of years proof that mages left on their own do not suddenly run rampant and turn into abominations killing everyone. Seems to me like they did a pretty good job of policing themselves

What makes you think they were policing themselves? What makes you think they weren't monitored and contained too?

Even in Tevinter, mages are locked up in towers.

We don't know that. From the dialogue in the alienage (the elf lady claiming to not see herself as an elf, but as "Tevinter first, and a servant of the Minrathous circle second.") we know that they are in command of at least some people. It sounds like they have circles, but the circles are the ruling class, not the serfs. 

[Loc'n'lol]

RazorrX wrote...

So all the chantry love for how mages are treated has NO historical strength. In fact, history shows that mages were fine without the chantry.

Well, except for the first blight, that destroyed most of the dwarven and human lands.

[RazorrX]

Everwarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

RazorrX wrote...
So we have thousands of years proof that mages left on their own do not suddenly run rampant and turn into abominations killing everyone. Seems to me like they did a pretty good job of policing themselves

What makes you think they were policing themselves? What makes you think they weren't monitored and contained too?

Even in Tevinter, mages are locked up in towers.

We don't know that. From the dialogue in the alienage (the elf lady claiming to not see herself as an elf, but as "Tevinter first, and a servant of the Minrathous circle second.") we know that they are in command of at least some people. It sounds like they have circles, but the circles are the ruling class, not the serfs. 

The Tevinter Imperium takes the quote "magic is meant to serve man not rule over him": and twists it so that they SERVE by Ruling.

The Mages rule in the Tevinter Imperium, the chantry serves them.

[RazorrX]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

RazorrX wrote...

So all the chantry love for how mages are treated has NO historical strength. In fact, history shows that mages were fine without the chantry.

Well, except for the first blight, that destroyed most of the dwarven and human lands.

Ahhh but again, it was a blight - NOT Abominations and Demons.  Note that the whole arguement against mages and pro chantry locking them up is that they turn into ABOMINATONS and you have Demons running everywhere.

That did not happen.  Even the Blight may not have been caused by them, there is no real proof that they caused the blight.  The darkspawn taint could have always been deep in the earth and the dwarves finally hit it at the same time the Magisters went to the floating city in the fade.

[Sir JK]

RazorrX:

We know absolutely nothing about what control measures the Tevinter Imperium used (or the elves and the early chantrists for that matter). We may of course speculate, but we don't really have any facts to base it on.

Assuming that the circles and templars (or equalients) are exclusive to present day chantry is just likely to be wrong as it is right.



But you are right in that Thedas never has, as far as we know, been overrrun by abominations and demons. But we don't know why.



The only thing I think is safe to say is: There is no simple answer.

[RazorrX]

I think you can be fairly sure that they did NOT have mages locked up in a prison with Templars hunting and killing them in the name of some prophet. There are many mentions of "Shamans, hedge wizards, keepers, etc." that show the world had a history of magic that did NOT involve either a prison tower nor rabid guard dogs.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...
LobselVith8:
Tell me, in what way is it different to be taken as a mage to a circle to train with people like yourself. Than being born a peasant, a noble, placed in templar or clerical training, being placed in apprenticehood with a craftsman or taken as a assistant by a merchant. All those things happens when you're a child and unable to choose that life for your own.

I have difficulty treating this as a serious question. Are you actually comparing how people are treated as a result of their station in life with being torn from your family and forced to live under the watch of an oppressive system? It's comparable to the Japanese-American internment camps (the "War Relocation Camps") of World War II, where you isolate people under the watch of soldiers because they're different.

Sir JK wrote...
Do you think a Templar can choose not to take his vows when the time come? They practically gets raised by the chantry. Neither do they get to choose if they're going to be placed in a chantry, a circle or sent to hunt apostates. It's not a chosen proffession (by them anyways).
In what way is he more free than the mage? He didn't chose his social position, neither did the mage. He didn't choose his assignment just like the mage didn't choose a circle. If either go AWOL they will be hunted and killed. If they accept their lot in life and work hard they might get rewarded with being granted what they desire (within limits).

Your argument for rounding up mages under the watch of armored and armed drug addicts who take them away from their family, prevent them from having any rights, teach them to see their magic as a curse because of the myth behind the Blight, prevent them from raising children and steal their children from them at birth, and can lobotomize them at their leisure is that some people in life have it hard? Do you realize how flawed your logic is?

Sir JK wrote...
Same thing applies to everyone. The only freedoms that exist are illusions (or ones that exist inside your social caste, like how a mage is allowed to spend his time inside his circle and which schools to study). All choices are limited to how you live your life but not what duties and roles you'll have to take.

This isn't the Matrix, and I'm not here to debate the definition of freedom with you. People in Ferelden have the freedom to leave the nation, start over, raise a family, and even foreigners like Leliana can get a fresh start. The same isn't true for mages who are leashed to the templars and Chantry oversight, and plenty of people here have provided you with a myraid of examples why.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Why support the Chantry imprisoning mages under their Circles when it's merely to keep the mages as their own personal soldiers, as when they used them to defend against the Qunari and their advanced technology? There's no reason the mages shouldn't be allowed to oversee themselves without armed drug addicts looming over them.

The reason why mages cannot oversee and police themselves has been gone over several times in this thread already.
To sum it up - NOT A GOOD IDEA.
No sensible government will allow mages to polcie themselves.

Alistair and Anora, the prospective rulers of Ferelden, disagree with you and say that the mages have earned the right to watch over themselves. And it's also been explained several times why the Chantry and the templars are doing a bad job.

Lumikki wrote...
LobselVith8 you problem is that you try to use today real world freedom consept to middle age world where was no freedom in same way we have now. The practice of sending children away to act as servants was even more
common in towns than in the countryside. You never ask why parents does this?

My problem is that you seem to be blatanly ignoring the fact that the game itself refers to the Circle as a prison, there are quite a few mages who see it as oppressive, Fiona became a Grey Warden in order to be free from it, and none of your arguments have actually articulated why anyone should ignore the lore, the mages, and the story in order to instead adhere to your version of the Circle. You're comparing what happened to Alistair with what transpires with a Warden from the Magi Origin. Allow me to sum up why this is a problem for me: An adult made a choice to send a child away (like Eamon did with Alistair), and the other scenerio a child is taken away from his or her family by the templars, with no one given a choice in the matter.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is also a mages duty to stay in the tower to protect the rest of humankind. Also the Tower isn't even clsoe to being the prison you try to make it out to be, at least not for a harrowed mage.

And the drug supposedly strengthens the Templars power. Andf before you pull out the "Alistair says.." card: He says the skills can be LEARNED without lyrium, but he never took any lyrium himself, so he doesn't know if it actually strengthens their power.

Their duty? According to who? The Chantry? They aren't exactly altruistic when it comes to the mages. And how is it not a prison? Considering that mages keep rebelling and running away, it's exactly the prison that I've described in this thread. It's a prison for the mages who want to be free, for the mages who want to raise their children, for the mages who don't want to be turned into emotionless slaves to help keep the Circle coffers full.

Alistair is shown to be capable of the same templar feats without the drug, and he makes it clear that the Chantry likely uses the drug to make certain that the templars are forced to work for the Chantry, instead of the other way around.

And yet you pulled the Alistair card...... Yes, he is shown to be capable of using the same skills as a Templar, but not neccesarily just as powerful. He only admits that the skills can be learned without lyrium and that it hypothetically would be an easy way of controlling the Templars.

And if its not their duty to protect mankind as a whole, then they have no right to be free anyway. Mages being contained in as few places as possible is the best for everyone. Except some few rebellious mages who are hopelessly selfish.

Let me get this straight: your argument is that people shouldn't be free unless they have a duty to serve mankind? And that people who want to be free are inherently selfish? I'm not sure I have the willpower to take that seriously at all, but I'm going to try. Mages possess magical ability, and they should be trained. Nobody here is saying that mages shouldn't be given proper instruction, but there's a huge difference between training mages properly, and imprisoning them under the guard of people who hate them, taking them from their family in the process and refusing them the right to have their own family, turning them into virtual slaves in order to craft magical items on command, and refusing them basic rights.

The Chantry does control the templars with lyrium. Alistair makes that very clear in his conversation with the Warden. He was raised by the Chantry, he was trained to be a templar, he's worked with them and seen the templars in action. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt over you. The templars in Denerim admit that the Chantry forces all templars to take lyrium, and it's highly addictive. And there's nothing in DA:O to indicate that Alistair isn't as powerful as a templar on lyrium; he can accomplish everything that they can.

[Sir JK]

No, we can't be fairly sure of that. All we can be sure of is that there was no abomination-apocalypse.



For all we know mages were butchered en-masse back then and only a handful few skilled individuals made it. Individuals that certainly were capable of resisting demons and managing themselves. That would also explain why the world haven't been destroyed.

No, I don't believe this to be the case either. It was exaggeration for emphasis