[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Guess what Sherlock, no one disputes this. NO ONE says that magic isn't inherently dangerous and NO ONE says that magic and mages shouldn't be regulated. DG carefully does not say that the Chantry has improved abominations nor does he say that abominations don't roam the countryside even with the circle system in place (because we all know they do). He simply says that abominations occured before the circle which is another point that was never in dispute.
You've just been PWND. Your precious quote doesn't prove what you thought it did.[/quote]
Wrong again.
You don't bother to read properly (you might want to abc ktrack and find hte actual question asked to DG and read teh answer again).
He specificly said the countryside was more dangerous before, with abominations roaming free.
Can you say ULTRA-PWNED?
[/quote]
Nope. You are reading impaired. DG does NOT say that there were more abominations before the circle. Your quote doesn't say that either. He says that the countryside was more dangerous but carefully does NOT SAY this is because there were more abominations. You are reading into that statement what you want to believe...and this is why you keep getting PWNED. If DG had wanted to say that Abominations were more frequent, he was given more than enough rope to do so with....but he very carefully made no such claim.
You are grossly overstating and misrepresenting what DG actually said. He is saying that in old times the countryside was more dangerous (duh...there was a general lack of centralized military authority in old times outside of Tevinter!) and thus there would be more 'tolerance' for a rogue abomination then as opposed to now, but that does NOT mean that:
1. They don't occure now (because they do and your warden has to fight at least one)
2. They were more common before the circle.
Please try reading what you post to save yourself further embarassment.
[quote]
[quote]
Substitute nobles for mages and you can say the same regarding anyone that has power. Anyone at all. The proper solution would be to integrate mages into society so that mages would have a strong say (and stake) to what happens to them. Shocking notion, no?
Remember the Chantry is substituting one oppression for another, and that never ends well especially not when it comes to magic as descrdibed in the Dragon Age universe.
Also remember that DG is explicitly writing this from the Chantry's PoV not the authorial PoV.[/quote]
Earth to Polaris, Earth to Polaris:
Stick to reality of the setting please.
No, the situation is not the same. It cannot be the same. No sane person would ever reason it's the same
[/quote]
I am sticking to the setting. In fact the seeds of a bad explosion for everyone are just around the corner (see DAA and Cumberland).
[quote]
A noble in power is not equal to a mage. In any way, shape or form.
[/quote]
Really? Mages can destroy entire nations and cause such destruction it takes generations for the entire nation to recover? I must have missed that. Nobles do have such power (at least high ranking ones do).
[quote]
Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too.
[/quote]
You have yet to come even close to proving it's justified here though.
[quote]
[quote]
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.
[/quote]
So can someone with a sword. Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales). They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.[/quote]
Again, lack of information on those societies makes them poor examples to use. Actually, it makes them INVALID as examples. Youdon't know how mages are treated tehre. You THINK you do, but there's noa actual hard facts. So untill some facts come our way, those societies are irrelevant to the discussion.
This is something I've ben trying to explain to LobselVith8 for an eternity, and now apperently to you too.
[/quote]
Wrong. Negative Evidence DOES count as evidence against a hypothesis. Just as Morrigan scored major points on Lelianna for asking, "where the disbelieving souls were that should be polluting the fade" so too is the lack of Abominations in Rivvain, Dales, and elsewhere evidence against the circle system because obviously these healthy societies deal with mages without them without falling to pieces because of abominations. If the chantry were right and they had the same rate of abominations as the circles, we should be hearing regular horror stories (about once per generation per non-chantry nation) and we don't.
In short, you don't get to restrict the sample size especially not when it's clear that for the first 200 years the CHANTRY didn't feel the need to lock up mages either...and it wasn't done because of any safety issue. It was done by a nutty Divine in a naked political power ploy (see Codex Entry: History of the Circle written by the Chantry).
[quote]
For hte rest of your "arguments", they are not even worth answering, since all you do is trying to circukent or diminish what DG sez. It's sad to see someone so entrentched in an oppinion, that he's rather argue aganst the creators and basic reason before giving up.
[/quote]
Again, I am not arguing against DG. I think you are willfully reading stuff into his statements that aren't there.
-Polaris
Mages: To be or not to be Free?
Débuté par
Johnny Shepard
, janv. 17 2011 07:47
Retour en haut
#552
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:14
Aldandil
-
- Members
- 411 messages
Mages have different levels of power, true, but either your mind is linked to the Fade so that you can draw power from it, or it isn't.IanPolaris wrote...
Aldandil wrote...
True, there's a level to mental illnesses. There's no level to being a mage, either you are or you aren't. My full analogy can be found at page 10 in this thread.
Now that's not true and you know it. There are many levels to being a mage and some are more innately gifted (cursed) than others. This was one reason why Jowan dabbled in bloodmagic to start with....he was tired of always being second best to the incredibly talented PC mage. I also note that Fade awareness varies greatly (and contrary to her own hype Wynne does very badly in this) with Nial and the PC Mage being near the top.
The point is there seems to be considerable variance in not just magical ability but the ability to deal with it's consequences (and no doubt such tests were part of the Dalish winnowing out of Apprentice Keepers).
On a slight tangent, we know at least in Zathrian's clan that there are far more than two mages. There is Zathrien and Lanaya of course, but the Shop Keeper and Halla herder also cast spells and advance spells at that (if you side with the werewolves) and we have no reason to think that Zathrian's clan is esp unique in that regard. So mages do live side by side with non-mages (even in non-"leadership" positions) and do quite well and apparently this was a tradition carried over from when the Dales were an explicit kingdom in their own right.
In any event, using the standards of mental illness, mages as a group don't even come close to the danger standard that would merit preemptively locking them all away and tossing the key. Not even close. In fact even in the case of Conner, he had to LET the demon in, and that seems to be the usual case. The only other case (Uldred) is if you try to dominate a demon in the fade in fail (which is what Uldred was trying to do when he tried summoning too many demons).I'm not saying that the Circle is the optimal solution. See my post above. I'm saying that it is better to have strict control than no control. The Circle is better than no Circle. Let's view this as a continuum and make another thread if we want to discuss what level of control, or what shape that control should be. A circle tower with green drapes might be an improvement over a circle tower without green drapes. My point is that current solution is preferable to total freedom. We could argue compromises between the two, if you like, but that's less polarizing and less fun.
This is a false dilemna which is why I keep pointing to the Dales, Haven, Rivvain, and even the Andrastian nations in the first two hundred years. No one is saying that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated. I expect most mages would agree with that as well. Likewise no one is saying that magical crimes and misbehavior shouldn't be dealt with harshly, but that does not excuse treating mages as non-people just becasue they are mages. It's possible (clearly because we see it in the game) to control mages and still have mages live side by side with mundanes with a stake in society. As part of society (likely along with Templar-like fighters trained to deal with magic) there is no reason why mages shouldn't be part of a magical police force (which the Mage's Collective itself does very well considering the handicaps it is under).We could also do close readings and deconstructions of David Gaider's posts, but remember that it's neither a poem nor a text of law. I think it's a fair interpretation of the text to say that since he states that Abominations happened and had to be dealt with, the world was more dangerous and that magic is dangerous, Abominations were a part of making the world more dangerous.
I disagree. I think you are reading into DG's quote what you want to read. All I see is him saying that abominations have always existed and that magic is dangerous. As for the world being more dangerous, that does NOT say or even imply that there were more abominations before the circle and Arlathan and Ancient Tevinter are strong indicators (to say nothing of the Avvaar, Chasind, etc) that the opposite is true.
-Polaris
I would take Haven as a particularly weak case when it comes to Mage co-existance, considering that it was a militaristic cult and might very well have dealt with mages that didn't seem to make the cut when it came to resisting possession harshly. We don't know, however. That they are lead by a mage isn't that strange, they seem to take after the Imperial Chantry a lot. Male priests and all.
We know nothing about Dalish magic practice either. Apparently, they don't like Blood Magic either, considering the spoilerific things we've heard from DA2. They seem to be kinder to mages than the Circle. They also seem to care more about the community than humans, so they might also deal with weak minds brutally. We don't know that either,
The Rivain situation is vaguely referenced in a Codex, so we know next to nothing about that. Very hard to say.
No one appears to know anything about Arlathan and the Dales.
Apparently, this is proof to you and not to me. To me, what David Gaider says and the context in which he say it outweighs what he doesn't explicitly states. Clearly, not to you. Someone clearly sees what he/she wishes to see. Neither of us thinks we're that one...
#553
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:17
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
packardbell wrote...
Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.
You'd still get resistance. It would be a bit less, but you'd still get it. There will allways be resistance.
Given that, there's really no reason for the Chantry to give em more freedom. Tehy have plenty.
Since they're gonna have periodic uprisings anyway, they might as well leave it as it is, to cull the bigegst malcontents.
That's nice all the way up until you have a full scale mage's revolt (and it's going to happen). If other powers (like the Dwarves of Orzammar) decide to make a play here, things can get very ugly for the chantry since the Chantry depends on it's sponsering nations for it's exalted marches and Orlais has problems with Nevarra and Ferelden's support for such a march would be suspect at best (esp with a King Alistair on the throne).
It would be in the Chantry's best interest to defuse the situation before it blows up, but we all know how likely that is.....
-Polaris
#554
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:26
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
[quote]Aldandil wrote...
Mages have different levels of power, true, but either your mind is linked to the Fade so that you can draw power from it, or it isn't.
[/quote]
That still doesn't mean all mages are equally susceptible to possession. Also as Wilhelm put it (and on this one point I agree with him), how on earth are mages (and the chantry) supposed to protect against possession if they aren't allowed to study it?!?
[quote]
I would take Haven as a particularly weak case when it comes to Mage co-existance, considering that it was a militaristic cult and might very well have dealt with mages that didn't seem to make the cut when it came to resisting possession harshly. We don't know, however. That they are lead by a mage isn't that strange, they seem to take after the Imperial Chantry a lot. Male priests and all.
[/quote]
Kolgrim was no mage and he was the one in charge. Edrick (IIRC) was the nominal Village leader, but it was the non-mage Kolgrim that called the shots. Again it's the false dichotomy. I am not saying that Haven is the ideal vacation spot, but Haven does have mages living alongside non-mages and the world doesn't end....and they do (at least they think they do) believe in the chant of light (making them heretics as opposed to infidels).
[quote]
We know nothing about Dalish magic practice either. Apparently, they don't like Blood Magic either, considering the spoilerific things we've heard from DA2. They seem to be kinder to mages than the Circle. They also seem to care more about the community than humans, so they might also deal with weak minds brutally. We don't know that either,
[/quote]
There is no reason why human mages can't care about community either. The Dalish almost have to be this way of course given their hunter-gather status, but the Kingdom of the Dales was a powerful (and very much non-tribal) nation for nearly 500 years, and they also permitted mages to live alongside non-mages. The point is IT IS POSSIBLE without the circle.
Once again you also refuse to aknowledge that for the first two centureies, the CHANTRY permitted mages and non-mages to live along side each other and that didn't change until a Divine wanted to control all mages (and not because of abominations and the like).
[quote]
The Rivain situation is vaguely referenced in a Codex, so we know next to nothing about that. Very hard to say.
No one appears to know anything about Arlathan and the Dales.
[/quote]
The Dalish do (about the Dales) and we are explicitly told that the method of choosing keepers stems from that time.
[quote]
Apparently, this is proof to you and not to me. To me, what David Gaider says and the context in which he say it outweighs what he doesn't explicitly states. Clearly, not to you. Someone clearly sees what he/she wishes to see. Neither of us thinks we're that one...
[/quote]
And again you ignore the fact that not even the Chantry really believes (at least not the high ranking ones) believes that the circle is really necessary because of abominations. This is right out of the Codex (History of the Circle). If DG wanted to say that the circle was needed to control abominations and that there were more in the past, he was given every opprotunity to say that....and he very carefully did not.
-Polaris
[/quote]
Mages have different levels of power, true, but either your mind is linked to the Fade so that you can draw power from it, or it isn't.
[/quote]
That still doesn't mean all mages are equally susceptible to possession. Also as Wilhelm put it (and on this one point I agree with him), how on earth are mages (and the chantry) supposed to protect against possession if they aren't allowed to study it?!?
[quote]
I would take Haven as a particularly weak case when it comes to Mage co-existance, considering that it was a militaristic cult and might very well have dealt with mages that didn't seem to make the cut when it came to resisting possession harshly. We don't know, however. That they are lead by a mage isn't that strange, they seem to take after the Imperial Chantry a lot. Male priests and all.
[/quote]
Kolgrim was no mage and he was the one in charge. Edrick (IIRC) was the nominal Village leader, but it was the non-mage Kolgrim that called the shots. Again it's the false dichotomy. I am not saying that Haven is the ideal vacation spot, but Haven does have mages living alongside non-mages and the world doesn't end....and they do (at least they think they do) believe in the chant of light (making them heretics as opposed to infidels).
[quote]
We know nothing about Dalish magic practice either. Apparently, they don't like Blood Magic either, considering the spoilerific things we've heard from DA2. They seem to be kinder to mages than the Circle. They also seem to care more about the community than humans, so they might also deal with weak minds brutally. We don't know that either,
[/quote]
There is no reason why human mages can't care about community either. The Dalish almost have to be this way of course given their hunter-gather status, but the Kingdom of the Dales was a powerful (and very much non-tribal) nation for nearly 500 years, and they also permitted mages to live alongside non-mages. The point is IT IS POSSIBLE without the circle.
Once again you also refuse to aknowledge that for the first two centureies, the CHANTRY permitted mages and non-mages to live along side each other and that didn't change until a Divine wanted to control all mages (and not because of abominations and the like).
[quote]
The Rivain situation is vaguely referenced in a Codex, so we know next to nothing about that. Very hard to say.
No one appears to know anything about Arlathan and the Dales.
[/quote]
The Dalish do (about the Dales) and we are explicitly told that the method of choosing keepers stems from that time.
[quote]
Apparently, this is proof to you and not to me. To me, what David Gaider says and the context in which he say it outweighs what he doesn't explicitly states. Clearly, not to you. Someone clearly sees what he/she wishes to see. Neither of us thinks we're that one...
[/quote]
And again you ignore the fact that not even the Chantry really believes (at least not the high ranking ones) believes that the circle is really necessary because of abominations. This is right out of the Codex (History of the Circle). If DG wanted to say that the circle was needed to control abominations and that there were more in the past, he was given every opprotunity to say that....and he very carefully did not.
-Polaris
[/quote]
Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 10:27 .
#555
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:33
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Blood magic has always been practiced by all magic using cultures. It was Tevinter that abused it but let's not make the mistake of saying that bloodmagic is inhernetly evil. Only chantry idiots like Kelli and Wynne believe that. It IS dangerous, should NOT be used by just any mage, and should be tightly controlled (because of mind control if for no other reason), but it's no more 'evil' than a .45 pistol IRL.
-Polaris
You can't honestly belive that?
Who says I can't? Both kill. Both can be used to do unspeakable crimes. If you like, let's say a nuclear warhead. Nukes aren't evil. The people that use them on the other hand can very well be....but that is why if one nation has nukes, you need them as well...if for no other reason than to deter possible enemies. The same can be said about bloodmagic which makes the Chantry's position on this worse than stupid. Blood magic is easily the most potent form of magic (bang for buck) around, and the Chantry is making sure that only criminal mages have it.....with utterly predictable results.
Not all things are equall. Not all forms of power are equally tempting or prone to abuse.
All the more reason to control it and banning it means you cede that tempting power to those most likely to abuse it....really smooth.
That's why blood magic is labeled evil. Because it's pwoer corrupts so easily. If anything, I'd compare it to the One Ring from LOTR (with the corrupting influence being indirect).
Tehre is nothing more intoxicating and tempting then the power to control minds. Farting nukes is insignificant compared to it.
There is no evidence that bloodmagic actually corrupts anyone. The power itself may well be intoxicating but that is a strong argument AGAINST banning it outright. I'll give you that you don't want just any mage using it, but you damned well better have a few crack mages you trust knowing it just in case someone else you don't like has it.
Again, just like WMDs.
-Polaris
#556
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:36
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Nope. You are reading impaired. DG does NOT say that there were more abominations before the circle. Your quote doesn't say that either. He says that the countryside was more dangerous but carefully does NOT SAY this is because there were more abominations. You are reading into that statement what you want to believe...and this is why you keep getting PWNED. If DG had wanted to say that Abominations were more frequent, he was given more than enough rope to do so with....but he very carefully made no such claim.
You are grossly overstating and misrepresenting what DG actually said. He is saying that in old times the countryside was more dangerous (duh...there was a general lack of centralized military authority in old times outside of Tevinter!) and thus there would be more 'tolerance' for a rogue abomination then as opposed to now, but that does NOT mean that:
1. They don't occure now (because they do and your warden has to fight at least one)
2. They were more common before the circle.
Please try reading what you post to save yourself further embarassment.
Dear Lord Allmighty...grant me strength.
Is there any word meaning or law of logic you will NOT defile and rape to death?
It's funny that you accuse me of reading into things and interpreting thing as I like WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE CONTEXT DG WAS POSTING IN. Those DG quotes were from anotehr thread. And answer to a question you obviously do not know the wording off.
No man, it's not me who should be worried about embarrasment...
Don't get me wrong - it's fun to see you digging yourself in ever deeper - but it's slowly also becoming cringeworthy.
I am sticking to the setting. In fact the seeds of a bad explosion for everyone are just around the corner (see DAA and Cumberland).
You are very conviniently ingoring a whole lot of established facts..liek for example, a noble being a tyrant or not depend on his personality and intentions. A mage becoming an abomination,...not really.
The best mage with the best intentions cna still end up turning an entier vilalge into walking corpses and assault another vilalge.
Not to mention that there are checks and balances even for nobles. At least in Ferelden.
Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too.
You have yet to come even close to proving it's justified here though.
I have proved it. Several times. But you choose to ingore or dismiss it.
Mages running free being a disaster waiting to happen is not debatable. It is a fact. Mages being confined or mass tranquilization are the only logical ways to deal with it.
From a relaistic, logistical, psychological and scientific standpoint. Other solutions are nothing more than wishfull thinking that are not based on any concrete facts.
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.
So can someone with a sword. Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales). They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.
What is tihs..I ..I don't even..WTF?????
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious?
Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.You're serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the same level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
Man..please..qutoe while you still have some dignity left.
Wrong. Negative Evidence DOES count as evidence against a hypothesis. Just as Morrigan scored major points on Lelianna for asking, "where the disbelieving souls were that should be polluting the fade" so too is the lack of Abominations in Rivvain, Dales, and elsewhere evidence against the circle system because obviously these healthy societies deal with mages without them without falling to pieces because of abominations. If the chantry were right and they had the same rate of abominations as the circles, we should be hearing regular horror stories (about once per generation per non-chantry nation) and we don't.
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
And if you did know that those system work better (for which you have NO proof) you still naively belive that such a system can be simply applied everyhere, dispite the vast differences in scale and culture. A specific system cannot simpel be directly transplanted. What works for a small Dalish clan might break up completely when up-scaled to cover a whole kingdom.
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 janvier 2011 - 10:37 .
#557
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:37
s0meguy6665
-
- Members
- 601 messages
I don't like the Templars. I'm going to help the mages, even if it means I'm evil for helping blood mages.
#558
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:40
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That's why blood magic is labeled evil. Because it's pwoer corrupts so easily. If anything, I'd compare it to the One Ring from LOTR (with the corrupting influence being indirect).
Tehre is nothing more intoxicating and tempting then the power to control minds. Farting nukes is insignificant compared to it.
There is no evidence that bloodmagic actually corrupts anyone. The power itself may well be intoxicating but that is a strong argument AGAINST banning it outright. I'll give you that you don't want just any mage using it, but you damned well better have a few crack mages you trust knowing it just in case someone else you don't like has it.
Again, just like WMDs.
-Polaris
Again...waht part of MIND CONTROL and TRUST are you failign to see? The connection escapes you.
It is impossible to trust ANYONE with mind control. I wouldn't trust myself with it, let alone any stranger.
It's sheer folly.
#559
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:54
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Dear Lord Allmighty...grant me strength.
Is there any word meaning or law of logic you will NOT defile and rape to death?
It's funny that you accuse me of reading into things and interpreting thing as I like WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE CONTEXT DG WAS POSTING IN. Those DG quotes were from anotehr thread. And answer to a question you obviously do not know the wording off.
[/quote]
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.
[quote]
No man, it's not me who should be worried about embarrasment...
Don't get me wrong - it's fun to see you digging yourself in ever deeper - but it's slowly also becoming cringeworthy.
[/quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.
[quote]
[quote]
I am sticking to the setting. In fact the seeds of a bad explosion for everyone are just around the corner (see DAA and Cumberland).[/quote]
You are very conviniently ingoring a whole lot of established facts..liek for example, a noble being a tyrant or not depend on his personality and intentions. A mage becoming an abomination,...not really.
The best mage with the best intentions cna still end up turning an entier vilalge into walking corpses and assault another vilalge.
[/quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.
[quote]
Not to mention that there are checks and balances even for nobles. At least in Ferelden.
[/quote]
There are checks and balances against mages too or at least there can be. No one is saying that mages should be able to do whatever they like with no consequences.
[quote]
[quote]
Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too.
[/quote]
You have yet to come even close to proving it's justified here though.[/quote]
I have proved it. Several times. But you choose to ingore or dismiss it.
[/quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
You haven't shown either. In the case of Redcliff, you have one village destroyed. Tragic but hardly the end of the world and the only reason it went that far was BECAUSE of the Chantry system and Isolde's desire to protect her son from it. The Fereldan Tower was caused by the Chantry. The only isolated Abomination is the Mage's Collective one, and it serves as a good example of how mages can police themselves (or at least help police themselves).
The mere existance of stable societies without Chantry/Circle oversight with no apparent continuing abomination problem (whcih is damned hard to hide if it's as bad as the Chantry claims) is direct evidence against the second point. So no, you haven't come close to proving your case.
[quote]
Mages running free being a disaster waiting to happen is not debatable. It is a fact. Mages being confined or mass tranquilization are the only logical ways to deal with it.
From a relaistic, logistical, psychological and scientific standpoint. Other solutions are nothing more than wishfull thinking that are not based on any concrete facts.
[/quote]
The Chantry didn't think so for the first two hundred years and the circle wasn't started for that reason. I also note the logical error of the false dichotomy. No one is saying that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated. What is in dispute is the necessity of the circle system and the necessity of the CHANTRY doing to the oversight.
[quote]
[quote]
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.
[/quote]
So can someone with a sword. Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales). They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.[/quote]
What is tihs..I ..I don't even..WTF?????
[/quote]
People with power are always a threat. Magic and/or abominations are not required.
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious? Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.
Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.
[quote]
[quote]
Wrong. Negative Evidence DOES count as evidence against a hypothesis. Just as Morrigan scored major points on Lelianna for asking, "where the disbelieving souls were that should be polluting the fade" so too is the lack of Abominations in Rivvain, Dales, and elsewhere evidence against the circle system because obviously these healthy societies deal with mages without them without falling to pieces because of abominations. If the chantry were right and they had the same rate of abominations as the circles, we should be hearing regular horror stories (about once per generation per non-chantry nation) and we don't.[/quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.
Also the very fact they EXIST is evidence that the circle system isn't needed.
[quote]
And if you did know that those system work better (for which you have NO proof) you still naively belive that such a system can be simply applied everyhere, dispite the vast differences in scale and culture. A specific system cannot simpel be directly transplanted. What works for a small Dalish clan might break up completely when up-scaled to cover a whole kingdom.
[/quote]
OK then, how about the system used in Antiva, Orlais, and other Andrastian lands from 1:1 to 3:1 approximately. This is proof positive that the circle isn't needed even for our conventional cultures.
-Polaris
Dear Lord Allmighty...grant me strength.
Is there any word meaning or law of logic you will NOT defile and rape to death?
It's funny that you accuse me of reading into things and interpreting thing as I like WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE CONTEXT DG WAS POSTING IN. Those DG quotes were from anotehr thread. And answer to a question you obviously do not know the wording off.
[/quote]
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.
[quote]
No man, it's not me who should be worried about embarrasment...
Don't get me wrong - it's fun to see you digging yourself in ever deeper - but it's slowly also becoming cringeworthy.
[/quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.
[quote]
[quote]
I am sticking to the setting. In fact the seeds of a bad explosion for everyone are just around the corner (see DAA and Cumberland).[/quote]
You are very conviniently ingoring a whole lot of established facts..liek for example, a noble being a tyrant or not depend on his personality and intentions. A mage becoming an abomination,...not really.
The best mage with the best intentions cna still end up turning an entier vilalge into walking corpses and assault another vilalge.
[/quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.
[quote]
Not to mention that there are checks and balances even for nobles. At least in Ferelden.
[/quote]
There are checks and balances against mages too or at least there can be. No one is saying that mages should be able to do whatever they like with no consequences.
[quote]
[quote]
Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too.
[/quote]
You have yet to come even close to proving it's justified here though.[/quote]
I have proved it. Several times. But you choose to ingore or dismiss it.
[/quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
You haven't shown either. In the case of Redcliff, you have one village destroyed. Tragic but hardly the end of the world and the only reason it went that far was BECAUSE of the Chantry system and Isolde's desire to protect her son from it. The Fereldan Tower was caused by the Chantry. The only isolated Abomination is the Mage's Collective one, and it serves as a good example of how mages can police themselves (or at least help police themselves).
The mere existance of stable societies without Chantry/Circle oversight with no apparent continuing abomination problem (whcih is damned hard to hide if it's as bad as the Chantry claims) is direct evidence against the second point. So no, you haven't come close to proving your case.
[quote]
Mages running free being a disaster waiting to happen is not debatable. It is a fact. Mages being confined or mass tranquilization are the only logical ways to deal with it.
From a relaistic, logistical, psychological and scientific standpoint. Other solutions are nothing more than wishfull thinking that are not based on any concrete facts.
[/quote]
The Chantry didn't think so for the first two hundred years and the circle wasn't started for that reason. I also note the logical error of the false dichotomy. No one is saying that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated. What is in dispute is the necessity of the circle system and the necessity of the CHANTRY doing to the oversight.
[quote]
[quote]
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.
[/quote]
So can someone with a sword. Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales). They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.[/quote]
What is tihs..I ..I don't even..WTF?????
[/quote]
People with power are always a threat. Magic and/or abominations are not required.
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious?
Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.
[quote]
[quote]
Wrong. Negative Evidence DOES count as evidence against a hypothesis. Just as Morrigan scored major points on Lelianna for asking, "where the disbelieving souls were that should be polluting the fade" so too is the lack of Abominations in Rivvain, Dales, and elsewhere evidence against the circle system because obviously these healthy societies deal with mages without them without falling to pieces because of abominations. If the chantry were right and they had the same rate of abominations as the circles, we should be hearing regular horror stories (about once per generation per non-chantry nation) and we don't.[/quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.
Also the very fact they EXIST is evidence that the circle system isn't needed.
[quote]
And if you did know that those system work better (for which you have NO proof) you still naively belive that such a system can be simply applied everyhere, dispite the vast differences in scale and culture. A specific system cannot simpel be directly transplanted. What works for a small Dalish clan might break up completely when up-scaled to cover a whole kingdom.
[/quote]
OK then, how about the system used in Antiva, Orlais, and other Andrastian lands from 1:1 to 3:1 approximately. This is proof positive that the circle isn't needed even for our conventional cultures.
-Polaris
#560
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:56
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That's why blood magic is labeled evil. Because it's pwoer corrupts so easily. If anything, I'd compare it to the One Ring from LOTR (with the corrupting influence being indirect).
Tehre is nothing more intoxicating and tempting then the power to control minds. Farting nukes is insignificant compared to it.
There is no evidence that bloodmagic actually corrupts anyone. The power itself may well be intoxicating but that is a strong argument AGAINST banning it outright. I'll give you that you don't want just any mage using it, but you damned well better have a few crack mages you trust knowing it just in case someone else you don't like has it.
Again, just like WMDs.
-Polaris
Again...waht part of MIND CONTROL and TRUST are you failign to see? The connection escapes you.
It is impossible to trust ANYONE with mind control. I wouldn't trust myself with it, let alone any stranger.
It's sheer folly.
What part of "self defense" don't you get? You do realize that Adralla of the Litany of Adralla was a Bloodmage from the Tevinter Imperium, yes? Do you get that the only reliable defense against bloodmagic INCLUDING MIND CONTROL is other blood magic to help fight it, no?
Or do you only want criminal mages to have mind control magic? That'll work really well......
-Polaris
#561
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 10:59
Aldandil
-
- Members
- 411 messages
This has been repeated more than once: That things have been a certain way in a certain place or culture doesn't mean they worked well. With no evidence (or even an indication) of how they worked in that place, there's no proof that they were perfectly happy.
#562
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:04
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Aldandil wrote...
This has been repeated more than once: That things have been a certain way in a certain place or culture doesn't mean they worked well. With no evidence (or even an indication) of how they worked in that place, there's no proof that they were perfectly happy.
I am not required to show this. You are advocating a system where an entire class of human beings are locked away for being what they are on the grounds that they are too dangeorus to live in normal society.
That's a very extraordinary claim that you (and the chantry) are making. You need to show me evidence that if you didn't do this that disaster would ensue, and you can't. You especially can't since not even the chantry locked away mages for that reason. (Look it up: Codex: History of the Circle....abominations had nothing to do with it...this was a power play by a Divine).
-Polaris
Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 11:14 .
#563
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:25
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.[/quote]
There was no need for it, since what DG was saying was obvious enough. But if you want to check it, be my guest. It's in the Meridith thread.
Hopefully this will prompt you to turn your brain on, given that you're STILL stating the quote doesn't mean what it means, even after admiting you haven't read the original thread and question.
Self-dellusion much?
[quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.[/quote]
I have been supplying nothing but proof since this started. However, logic, reasonable arguments, quotes - nothing is enough for you.
I really fail to see why I should even humor you aynomre...but I will point you in the direction anyway.
[quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.[/quote]
You have no numebrs to work with, now have you?
During the game we ran into 3 abominations outside, and all have been killing and causing vast damage. the number of abomintions in other lands is an unknown.
And what you fail to realsie is that the point of the circle IS to have abominations happen there, where they can be contained. Templars may die in the process..some mages too. But it's better than loosing whole vilalges. There's no way (except forced tranqulisation) to prevent abominations from happeneing anyway..so better to have it happen in controled envirement when it's unavoidable.
As for the Cricle. It was OFFICIALY formed then. Was there arenother form of contol before that that just didn't work? Did they spend 200 years discussingwhat to do with mages? I really can't tell.
You really need to learn the difference between fast and speculation.
FACT - the Cirlce officialy formed at time X.
SPECULATION - its was formed only then because of Y.
Learn the difference. You derive from a fact one possible explanation, but it doesn't have any real support. What you have is a lack of informatio and a really active immagination.
[quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
[/quote]
I have. Which you again choose to ignore. You ignore the dangers of abominations. You trivilize teh issues and problems caused.
You ignore the fact that modern, liberal govenrments would act in the exactly same way (as evident by quarantene procedures that practicyl everyone accepts)
You ingore basic human psychology and mentality.
You igore the logicisital, pratical and organizational problems.
In other words, you ingore everything that douesn't suit you, you fail to provide VIABLE alternatives (not wisfull thinking).
[quote]
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious? Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.
Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.[/quote]
.... You really living in your own little work, aren't you?
A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior.
And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.
Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here.
[quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.[/quote]
No, it's not.
Lore-wise, mages are rare. Yet in the game they are everywhere. you know why? Because it makes for challaneging battels.
At some point you have to learn that not everything you see in a game is direct lore.
So no, you DON'T know what the Dalish do with their mages. You just don't.
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.[/quote]
There was no need for it, since what DG was saying was obvious enough. But if you want to check it, be my guest. It's in the Meridith thread.
Hopefully this will prompt you to turn your brain on, given that you're STILL stating the quote doesn't mean what it means, even after admiting you haven't read the original thread and question.
Self-dellusion much?
[quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.[/quote]
I have been supplying nothing but proof since this started. However, logic, reasonable arguments, quotes - nothing is enough for you.
I really fail to see why I should even humor you aynomre...but I will point you in the direction anyway.
[quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.[/quote]
You have no numebrs to work with, now have you?
During the game we ran into 3 abominations outside, and all have been killing and causing vast damage. the number of abomintions in other lands is an unknown.
And what you fail to realsie is that the point of the circle IS to have abominations happen there, where they can be contained. Templars may die in the process..some mages too. But it's better than loosing whole vilalges. There's no way (except forced tranqulisation) to prevent abominations from happeneing anyway..so better to have it happen in controled envirement when it's unavoidable.
As for the Cricle. It was OFFICIALY formed then. Was there arenother form of contol before that that just didn't work? Did they spend 200 years discussingwhat to do with mages? I really can't tell.
You really need to learn the difference between fast and speculation.
FACT - the Cirlce officialy formed at time X.
SPECULATION - its was formed only then because of Y.
Learn the difference. You derive from a fact one possible explanation, but it doesn't have any real support. What you have is a lack of informatio and a really active immagination.
[quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
[/quote]
I have. Which you again choose to ignore. You ignore the dangers of abominations. You trivilize teh issues and problems caused.
You ignore the fact that modern, liberal govenrments would act in the exactly same way (as evident by quarantene procedures that practicyl everyone accepts)
You ingore basic human psychology and mentality.
You igore the logicisital, pratical and organizational problems.
In other words, you ingore everything that douesn't suit you, you fail to provide VIABLE alternatives (not wisfull thinking).
[quote]
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious?
Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.[/quote]
....
You really living in your own little work, aren't you?A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior.
And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.
Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here.
[quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.[/quote]
No, it's not.
Lore-wise, mages are rare. Yet in the game they are everywhere. you know why? Because it makes for challaneging battels.
At some point you have to learn that not everything you see in a game is direct lore.
So no, you DON'T know what the Dalish do with their mages. You just don't.
#564
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:29
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Again...waht part of MIND CONTROL and TRUST are you failign to see? The connection escapes you.
It is impossible to trust ANYONE with mind control. I wouldn't trust myself with it, let alone any stranger.
It's sheer folly.
What part of "self defense" don't you get? You do realize that Adralla of the Litany of Adralla was a Bloodmage from the Tevinter Imperium, yes? Do you get that the only reliable defense against bloodmagic INCLUDING MIND CONTROL is other blood magic to help fight it, no?
Or do you only want criminal mages to have mind control magic? That'll work really well......
IIRC, the Litany itself is not blood magic.
And, only mages can preform the litany. It's used to disrupt blood magic. It doesn't stop it. And it has to be used again and again. Do you plan to spend your whole life chanting the Litany?
And how do you protect yourself if you're not a mage?
Mind control is a power that shouldn't be used by ANYONE..ANYWHERE...AT ALL...NEVER.
#565
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:29
Aldandil
-
- Members
- 411 messages
No, if the repeated mentioning of the risk of possession throughout code entries and discussions with mages, as well as being mentioned as a risk by developers doesn't qualify as evidence with you, I suppose I can't. I'd like to remind you that we're not arguing human rights, but the factual state in a fictional universe. It's not as if you can argue reasonable doubt or innocent until proven guilty. What seems more likely is proof enough. If we were to enter the world, though, the burden of evidence would lie on you considering that you want to change the status quo, and should be able to prove that the circle does not prevent abominations.
#566
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:42
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.[/quote]
There was no need for it, since what DG was saying was obvious enough. But if you want to check it, be my guest. It's in the Meridith thread.
Hopefully this will prompt you to turn your brain on, given that you're STILL stating the quote doesn't mean what it means, even after admiting you haven't read the original thread and question.
Self-dellusion much?
[/quote]
The selected quote does NOT state that abominations were more common or more of a problem before the circle. Read your own damn quote. If you want to supply further information or *gasp* supply us with a link then feel free to do so. Otherwise, you are not meeting your burden of proof, and no amount of insult will change that.
[quote]
[quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.[/quote]
I have been supplying nothing but proof since this started. However, logic, reasonable arguments, quotes - nothing is enough for you.
I really fail to see why I should even humor you aynomre...but I will point you in the direction anyway.
[/quote]
You have yet to supply anything remotely resembling proof, even to the point where you obviously have not read your own quoted material. Really, enough said.
[quote]
[quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.[/quote]
You have no numebrs to work with, now have you?
During the game we ran into 3 abominations outside, and all have been killing and causing vast damage. the number of abomintions in other lands is an unknown.
[/quote]
As a matter of fact I do have numbers. The Rite of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in 700 years. That's the total destruction of a circle about once every forty years and that's a huge number...and that doesn't account for the invididual cases (like failed harrowings) that don't make the radar. As for the abominations you run into, you run into one that isn't directly tied to the circle/chantry in some way, and that's the law enforcement quest via the Mage's Collective which is actually evidence that a magical organization can police itself even when operating outside the law.
[quote]
And what you fail to realsie is that the point of the circle IS to have abominations happen there, where they can be contained. Templars may die in the process..some mages too. But it's better than loosing whole vilalges. There's no way (except forced tranqulisation) to prevent abominations from happeneing anyway..so better to have it happen in controled envirement when it's unavoidable.
[/quote]
That is not the point of the circle. The point of the circle was to control mages by putting them in one place. See Codex Entry: History of the Circle. I also note that abominations happen outside the circle anyway....and the system is about to break down explosively. In short, the circle system doesn't work.
[quote]
As for the Cricle. It was OFFICIALY formed then. Was there arenother form of contol before that that just didn't work? Did they spend 200 years discussingwhat to do with mages? I really can't tell.
You really need to learn the difference between fast and speculation.
FACT - the Cirlce officialy formed at time X.
SPECULATION - its was formed only then because of Y.
[/quote]
The codex entry is clear. The circle was formed because the Divine wanted to control mages and it was the only way short of destroying all mages that she could break what amounted to a magical strike. The Divine wanted to slaughter all mages for their presumption but her templars talked her out of it. Read the codex entry. These are facts.
[quote]
Learn the difference. You derive from a fact one possible explanation, but it doesn't have any real support. What you have is a lack of informatio and a really active immagination.
[/quote]
Try reading the codex entry before deciding what is fact and what is not.
[quote]
[quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
[/quote]
I have. Which you again choose to ignore. You ignore the dangers of abominations. You trivilize teh issues and problems caused.
You ignore the fact that modern, liberal govenrments would act in the exactly same way (as evident by quarantene procedures that practicyl everyone accepts)
You ingore basic human psychology and mentality.
You igore the logicisital, pratical and organizational problems.
In other words, you ingore everything that douesn't suit you, you fail to provide VIABLE alternatives (not wisfull thinking).
[/quote]
I am doing none of that. I am pointing out that by your own standards and the standard of the chantry itself, the circle is not needed (it's not like suddenly mages became different after 200 years). The circle was formed as part of an explicit powerplay by the Divine. Period.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious? Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.
Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.[/quote]
.... You really living in your own little work, aren't you?
A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior.
And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.
Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here.
[/quote]
Dead is dead. You are the one that's embarrassing to read honestly.
[quote]
[quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.[/quote]
No, it's not.
Lore-wise, mages are rare. Yet in the game they are everywhere. you know why? Because it makes for challaneging battels.
At some point you have to learn that not everything you see in a game is direct lore.
[/quote]
Elves in game lore have more magical aptitude and thus are likelier to be mages than humans. The GAME shows multiple mages in the Dalish camp and the explicit lore says nothing to the contrary.
Game experience is game lore unless explicitly contraindicated (and it's not in this case). Four out of fifty is not particularly common....and 8% seems about right for elves at least to me.
[quote]
So no, you DON'T know what the Dalish do with their mages. You just don't.
[/quote]
I know they live side by side with mundanes just as every culture in Thedas has (the Qun come from elsewhere) prior to the Chantry...and even during the first two hundred years of the Chantry. That's all I need to show.
-Polaris
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
It was up to you to supply it. That you have not and haven't even supplied a link tells me that the context is also not what you want us to think it is. Again, put up or shut up. I am stating the obvious. Your quote does NOT say what you think it says.[/quote]
There was no need for it, since what DG was saying was obvious enough. But if you want to check it, be my guest. It's in the Meridith thread.
Hopefully this will prompt you to turn your brain on, given that you're STILL stating the quote doesn't mean what it means, even after admiting you haven't read the original thread and question.
Self-dellusion much?
[/quote]
The selected quote does NOT state that abominations were more common or more of a problem before the circle. Read your own damn quote. If you want to supply further information or *gasp* supply us with a link then feel free to do so. Otherwise, you are not meeting your burden of proof, and no amount of insult will change that.
[quote]
[quote]
Really? Proof would be nice. So far you are insisting on reading things in a quote that clearly aren't there. DG had every opporuntity to explicitly state that abominations were more of an issue before the circle than now and failed to do so.[/quote]
I have been supplying nothing but proof since this started. However, logic, reasonable arguments, quotes - nothing is enough for you.
I really fail to see why I should even humor you aynomre...but I will point you in the direction anyway.
[/quote]
You have yet to supply anything remotely resembling proof, even to the point where you obviously have not read your own quoted material. Really, enough said.
[quote]
[quote]
Actually the rate of mages becoming abominations seems to be very low except in the circle. If the rate were that high outside the circle we should have seen evidence of it and we do not. I also point out and it's something you are willfully ignoring that even the Andrastian nations did not regard mages living alongside non-mages as a problem for nearly two hundred years and that situation did not change because of abominations. It changed because the Divine wanted to control mages (and had to be talked out of slaughtering all of them). The abomination excuse came much later. This is per the Chantry's own recorded history.[/quote]
You have no numebrs to work with, now have you?
During the game we ran into 3 abominations outside, and all have been killing and causing vast damage. the number of abomintions in other lands is an unknown.
[/quote]
As a matter of fact I do have numbers. The Rite of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in 700 years. That's the total destruction of a circle about once every forty years and that's a huge number...and that doesn't account for the invididual cases (like failed harrowings) that don't make the radar. As for the abominations you run into, you run into one that isn't directly tied to the circle/chantry in some way, and that's the law enforcement quest via the Mage's Collective which is actually evidence that a magical organization can police itself even when operating outside the law.
[quote]
And what you fail to realsie is that the point of the circle IS to have abominations happen there, where they can be contained. Templars may die in the process..some mages too. But it's better than loosing whole vilalges. There's no way (except forced tranqulisation) to prevent abominations from happeneing anyway..so better to have it happen in controled envirement when it's unavoidable.
[/quote]
That is not the point of the circle. The point of the circle was to control mages by putting them in one place. See Codex Entry: History of the Circle. I also note that abominations happen outside the circle anyway....and the system is about to break down explosively. In short, the circle system doesn't work.
[quote]
As for the Cricle. It was OFFICIALY formed then. Was there arenother form of contol before that that just didn't work? Did they spend 200 years discussingwhat to do with mages? I really can't tell.
You really need to learn the difference between fast and speculation.
FACT - the Cirlce officialy formed at time X.
SPECULATION - its was formed only then because of Y.
[/quote]
The codex entry is clear. The circle was formed because the Divine wanted to control mages and it was the only way short of destroying all mages that she could break what amounted to a magical strike. The Divine wanted to slaughter all mages for their presumption but her templars talked her out of it. Read the codex entry. These are facts.
[quote]
Learn the difference. You derive from a fact one possible explanation, but it doesn't have any real support. What you have is a lack of informatio and a really active immagination.
[/quote]
Try reading the codex entry before deciding what is fact and what is not.
[quote]
[quote]
No you haven't. You need to show that:
1. Even the slightest chance of abomination is merits imprisoning all mages no matter what.
2. That such a harsh solutio is necessary to guard against the negative consequences.
[/quote]
I have. Which you again choose to ignore. You ignore the dangers of abominations. You trivilize teh issues and problems caused.
You ignore the fact that modern, liberal govenrments would act in the exactly same way (as evident by quarantene procedures that practicyl everyone accepts)
You ingore basic human psychology and mentality.
You igore the logicisital, pratical and organizational problems.
In other words, you ingore everything that douesn't suit you, you fail to provide VIABLE alternatives (not wisfull thinking).
[/quote]
I am doing none of that. I am pointing out that by your own standards and the standard of the chantry itself, the circle is not needed (it's not like suddenly mages became different after 200 years). The circle was formed as part of an explicit powerplay by the Divine. Period.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
So can someone with a sword? Are you serious?
Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.Your'e serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the smae level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?
[/quote]
A trained beserker with a two handed sword will be just as deadly to a small faming village with virtually no (real) soldiers as any abomination. In both cases the villiage is wiped out, so the comparison is suprisingly apt.[/quote]
....
You really living in your own little work, aren't you?A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior.
And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.
Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here.
[/quote]
Dead is dead. You are the one that's embarrassing to read honestly.
[quote]
[quote]
Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives,
[/quote]
We know that they don't because if you side with the Werewolves you face multiple mages (not just two). Clearly mages live alongside non-mages then in your typical Dalish clan often nearly invisibly (save the Keeper and Keeper's first). That's in-game lore.[/quote]
No, it's not.
Lore-wise, mages are rare. Yet in the game they are everywhere. you know why? Because it makes for challaneging battels.
At some point you have to learn that not everything you see in a game is direct lore.
[/quote]
Elves in game lore have more magical aptitude and thus are likelier to be mages than humans. The GAME shows multiple mages in the Dalish camp and the explicit lore says nothing to the contrary.
Game experience is game lore unless explicitly contraindicated (and it's not in this case). Four out of fifty is not particularly common....and 8% seems about right for elves at least to me.
[quote]
So no, you DON'T know what the Dalish do with their mages. You just don't.
[/quote]
I know they live side by side with mundanes just as every culture in Thedas has (the Qun come from elsewhere) prior to the Chantry...and even during the first two hundred years of the Chantry. That's all I need to show.
-Polaris
#567
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:45
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Again...waht part of MIND CONTROL and TRUST are you failign to see? The connection escapes you.
It is impossible to trust ANYONE with mind control. I wouldn't trust myself with it, let alone any stranger.
It's sheer folly.
What part of "self defense" don't you get? You do realize that Adralla of the Litany of Adralla was a Bloodmage from the Tevinter Imperium, yes? Do you get that the only reliable defense against bloodmagic INCLUDING MIND CONTROL is other blood magic to help fight it, no?
Or do you only want criminal mages to have mind control magic? That'll work really well......
IIRC, the Litany itself is not blood magic.
And, only mages can preform the litany. It's used to disrupt blood magic. It doesn't stop it. And it has to be used again and again. Do you plan to spend your whole life chanting the Litany?
Wrong. I've had dwarven warriors with 100% magic resistance use the Litany. The Litany is a prepackaged ritual prepped by.....stay with me please....a BLOOD MAGE from Tevinter.
And how do you protect yourself if you're not a mage?
Mind control is a power that shouldn't be used by ANYONE..ANYWHERE...AT ALL...NEVER.
Tought ******. Mind control EXISTS and that means you need to have people that know about mind control magic and can (hopefully) use it and counter it on your side. Banning something just makes it more attractive and more likely that you will be outgunned by your enemies.
You don't get to shut your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.
-Polaris
#568
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 11:47
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Aldandil wrote...
No, if the repeated mentioning of the risk of possession throughout code entries and discussions with mages, as well as being mentioned as a risk by developers doesn't qualify as evidence with you, I suppose I can't. I'd like to remind you that we're not arguing human rights, but the factual state in a fictional universe. It's not as if you can argue reasonable doubt or innocent until proven guilty. What seems more likely is proof enough. If we were to enter the world, though, the burden of evidence would lie on you considering that you want to change the status quo, and should be able to prove that the circle does not prevent abominations.
That's easy enough. 17 Rites of annulment in 700 years should be proof enough that the circle system doesn't prevent abominations (and that's letting all the less serious cases pass under the radar).
-Polaris
Edit PS: Certainly the Tevinter Imperium (Ancient or Modern) didn't have to purge it's ruling class a bit less than once per generation or else the Imperium never would have survived let alone become the strongest power in Thedas history.
Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 11:48 .
#569
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 12:55
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
The selected quote does NOT state that abominations were more common or more of a problem before the circle. Read your own damn quote. If you want to supply further information or *gasp* supply us with a link then feel free to do so. Otherwise, you are not meeting your burden of proof, and no amount of insult will change that.
Burden of proof? Given that you never even came close to it, I wonder if you even know what it is.
And I told you where to find that quote.
And yes, the quote DOES say that. Your insistance that you cannot be wrong despite self-confessed ignorance sez everything.
As a matter of fact I do have numbers. The Rite of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in 700 years. That's the total destruction of a circle about once every forty years and that's a huge number..
A huge number? Sez who?
That is not the point of the circle. The point of the circle was to control mages by putting them in one place. See Codex Entry: History of the Circle. I also note that abominations happen outside the circle anyway....and the system is about to break down explosively. In short, the circle system doesn't work.
what part of "abomination happenign cannot be stopped" escapes you?
As long as mages exist, abomination will exist.
The point of the Circle is NOT to completey stop abominations from happening. It never was.
It was to contain and control. Yes. To minimize damage. To stop abominations from rampagin in the countryside (worst case scenario they rampage in the tower instead). To keep mages in one place.
The codex entry is clear. The circle was formed because the Divine wanted to control mages and it was the only way short of destroying all mages that she could break what amounted to a magical strike. The Divine wanted to slaughter all mages for their presumption but her templars talked her out of it. Read the codex entry. These are facts.
Except it wasn't the only the divine who wanted mages under control. Pertty much everyone wants to have mages under control not runnin around.
The Quaniri, Orlais, Ferelden...even Tevinter
I am doing none of that. I am pointing out that by your own standards and the standard of the chantry itself, the circle is not needed (it's not like suddenly mages became different after 200 years). The circle was formed as part of an explicit powerplay by the Divine. Period.
Yes, you are doign that.
While the specific Cirlce itself is not needed, a similar form of control is.
No matter how you spin it, mages have to be kept under control.
A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior.
And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.
Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here.
Dead is dead. You are the one that's embarrassing to read honestly.
Your logic is flawless. Someone with the capcity to kill off whole villages at any time, regardless if he wants it or not, is CLEARLY an equal danger to a guy with a sword.
I know they live side by side with mundanes just as every culture in Thedas has (the Qun come from elsewhere) prior to the Chantry...and even during the first two hundred years of the Chantry. That's all I need to show.
You know nothing. You shown nothing.
#570
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 12:57
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Wrong. I've had dwarven warriors with 100% magic resistance use the Litany. The Litany is a prepackaged ritual prepped by.....stay with me please....a BLOOD MAGE from Tevinter.
Gameplay mechanics are not lore.
Tought ******. Mind control EXISTS and that means you need to have people that know about mind control magic and can (hopefully) use it and counter it on your side. Banning something just makes it more attractive and more likely that you will be outgunned by your enemies.
You don't get to shut your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.
No, you don't pretend it doesn't exist. You eliminate everyone and everything that tries to use it.
#571
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 12:58
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
That's easy enough. 17 Rites of annulment in 700 years should be proof enough that the circle system doesn't prevent abominations (and that's letting all the less serious cases pass under the radar).
It's supposed to prevent abominations for rampaging the coutnryside. Which it does.
fail.
#572
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 01:22
Nerevar-as
-
- Members
- 5 375 messages
The only Rite of Annulment we know of started becuase of a group of mages getting fed up of the Chantry, and getting Loghain´s support (who was probably not much of a fan of the main Chantry, with their support of Orlais invasion - that´s another issue, but the Chantries resemblance of the middle ages church doesn´t bode well).
So the rite would have prevented abominations from getting away (and we probably missed one, it´s that kind of setting), but it wouldn´t have been needed without the Chantry laws in the first place.
Another issue is the Tevinter system. They claim a lot of things, yet the Alienage slaver is a BM of the evil kind.
So the rite would have prevented abominations from getting away (and we probably missed one, it´s that kind of setting), but it wouldn´t have been needed without the Chantry laws in the first place.
Another issue is the Tevinter system. They claim a lot of things, yet the Alienage slaver is a BM of the evil kind.
#573
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 01:48
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
That's easy enough. 17 Rites of annulment in 700 years should be proof enough that the circle system doesn't prevent abominations (and that's letting all the less serious cases pass under the radar).
It's supposed to prevent abominations for rampaging the coutnryside. Which it does.
fail.
Yet from what we know, the case that prompted the abomination to transpire happened because a templar murdered a mage. The case in A Broken Circle happened because Uldred and the mages allied with him wanted to be free. That doesn't seem to be an indicator of anything but the Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology to fight back against the templars.
And if we're discussing fail, let's remember how Greagoir and his templars failed to defeat Uldred and the abominations.
#574
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 02:05
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
Yet from what we know, the case that prompted the abomination to transpire happened because a templar murdered a mage. The case in A Broken Circle happened because Uldred and the mages allied with him wanted to be free. That doesn't seem to be an indicator of anything but the Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology to fight back against the templars.
And if we're discussing fail, let's remember how Greagoir and his templars failed to defeat Uldred and the abominations.
Eh? From what I recall form that quest, Uldred was planign a rebllion for a long time. He and his followers attempted to persuade other mages and a heated debate erupted, got out of control and blows where thrown. Uldred summoned an demon.
So no. Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology? Bollocks.
Altouhg it's bound to happen sooner or later. No matter how hard you try to teach somebody something or how much you forbid, there will be black sheep. As long as poeple have wants and desires, mages wil lresort to demonology.
At least the Circle roots those individuals out.
Also..gamplay reasons. The game has to give the palyer something to do, which is why he is so uber-awesome and everyone is impotent. The templars, the mages, the dalish, the dwarves - everyone feels incompetent once you think about it.
But taht's gameplay.
Not to mention that the templars haven't failed. The abominations were contained in the tower, and reinforcemetns were on their way.
#575
Posté 20 janvier 2011 - 03:07
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Eh? From what I recall form that quest, Uldred was planign a rebllion for a long time. He and his followers attempted to persuade other mages and a heated debate erupted, got out of control and blows where thrown. Uldred summoned an demon.
That's precisely how the Rites started - because mages were reacting to a templar murdering a mage. As for Uldred, he wanted mages to be freed from the Chantry - that was the reason he allied with other mages and why he resorted to demonology in his attack against Uldred and the other Senior Enchanters. I don't see how you can pretend otherwise.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So no. Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology? Bollocks.
Only if you ignore the facts.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Altouhg it's bound to happen sooner or later. No matter how hard you try to teach somebody something or how much you forbid, there will be black sheep. As long as poeple have wants and desires, mages wil lresort to demonology.
At least the Circle roots those individuals out.
Like Greagoir did?
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Also..gamplay reasons. The game has to give the palyer something to do, which is why he is so uber-awesome and everyone is impotent. The templars, the mages, the dalish, the dwarves - everyone feels incompetent once you think about it.
But taht's gameplay.
The dwarves aren't incompetent. You fight alongside the Legion of the Dead at one point. The Dalish are busy tending to the wounded. The Warden fights alongside the Redcliffe milita against the undead. It seems pretty clear that the templars simply couldn't handle the abominations, while the Warden could.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Not to mention that the templars haven't failed. The abominations were contained in the tower, and reinforcemetns were on their way.
There were no reinforcements, and the Warden was the one who dealt with the abominations.
