1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

DKJaigen wrote...

Mages should self-regulate themselves and the circle is a needed institution to make sure new mages are able to control their power. As soon as their able to harness this power they should be free to do whatever they are willing to do.

The chantry and Templar's however should be removed from this entire structure as their ignorance does more harm then good.

This worked well keeping Ulred under control didn't it?  Irving and Wynne and such did a great job of keeping tabs on one of their own.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Actually, Lotion, IanPolaris already addressed the DG quotes a few pages back. You didn't like it. So why are you pretending that Ian never addressed the quotes?

You can stick to what ian sez as holy scruptuire as far as I'm concerned..but Ian is wrong as so are you.
Davids point was clear (given that the question asked was specifcly about how dangerous mages are).

Now you try some silly logic that he was actualyl talking about kingdoms not being formed and mighty, and that's why the countryside was full of rampaging abominations, but then you're painting DG as an idiot who can't stick to the topic. Which was danger of mages. So why would he suddnly switch topic and start talking about something else?
No, to anyone who read the full post it's quite clear what DG was talking about.

The only two who refused to accept that are you and Ian..Who never bothered to read that whole post I might add.
Due to the lack of context, your analysis is worth nothing.

Let him use a lightning bolt while the potential rapist is holding an elven woman? I think there would be some issues with that, Lotion.

Freeze? Nightmare? Crushing prison?

Like I said, there's no lack of tools.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Naitaka wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It has happened 17 times in 700 years. But since there are more than 17 Circles (probably) some of the Circles have had no major (public anyway) incident for more than 700 years, which beats Zathrian's score. And while there are several apprentices to a Dalish Keeper, the other candidates "disappear" apparently once a Second is picked.
I'm also willing to bet that when an Abomination happen in a Dalish community it is far more devastating than in the Circle.

I was under the impression that each country in thedas has 1 Circle, is there even 17 countries on the countient? Where does it say that the other Keeper candidates "disappears" I've never seen that mentioned anywhere in game. In fact, Lanaya and Velenna discuss their fellow apprentices quite openingly to an outsider, I always just assume they work in a more support role for the Keeper him/herself.

Ferelden is the only nation with only one Cirlce. Other nations have multiple Circles, apparently. And it doesn't say anywhere that Dalish apprentices disappear, it is all based on the observation that there aren't any more than 2 Magic users in Zathrien's clan, even though there was mention of multiple apprentices. And Aneirin is NOT part of any clan. He is accepted by the clan, yes. But he is not part of it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
17 Circles anulled is an entire Circle of men, women, and children being brutally murdered with a sword of mercy every time - hardly nothing.

How many of those Anulments were justified? Was there a valid reason for the Rites in every case, or were we dealing with Knight-Commanders as paranoid as a Cullen who can rule the Ferelden Circle in fear?

You can side on the unknown and say that villages were saved by murdering mages, but how many villages could those mages have saved if they weren't being villified by the Andrastian Chantry?

*yawn*  .. and how many mages destroy entire villages?
Yes, I can safely say that the circle system is better than no circle system

I can safely say that the number of dead mages is insignificant compared to the number of villagers that would have died, had those same mages been running arounf free for 700 years.

[IanPolaris]

Johnny Shepard wrote...

How about some Dev quotes?

Yes, let's examine point by point what David Gaidar REALLY said and not what some of you think he said.

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
I am getting kind of tired of the overstated dangers of magic. At some point in Thedas's history the first mages came about, they had no one to teach them and no organization to keep them in check and yet somehow the world didnt end, somehow these mages learned their magic and taught it to new mages.

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.

I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.

The first sentence of David's quote has nothing to do with mages or abominations whatsoever.  He observes that "back then" the world was a more danagerous place.  Considering that the only centralized nation with a standing army was the Ancient Tevinter Imperium, that rates as a "No Kidding Sherlock" statement.  The only thing it really points out was that tolerance for violence in the countryside was probably higher back then, but that's a far cry from saying that there were more abominations that ran amuck in the countryside.  Let's move on.

"An abomination tearing up the countryside was simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with."  That is a statement that is still true today and indeed one of the GW's missions is doing exactly that by the Mages' Collective....a magical organization policing itself (and deputizing you to do it).  Again there is no statement or implication that abominations in the countryside still don't occure (because we know they do) NOR even any statement that the rate is less now than it was then.  I see no basis for that no matter what many claim.

"You also had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight"  Again, DG admits that blaming the mages for the blight is CHANTRY PROPAGANDA and even Alistair flat out says that there is no proof of it anywhere.  As for Ancient Tevinter, they were not nice guys.  No one has claimed differently, and their actions had served to give mages a bad name, but that doesn't mean they are more or less susecptible to becoming abominations.  It explains why the Chantry is so venomously anti-mage and really that's all.

So we see that this quote from DG is full of hot air and proves nothing.

I will get to the other quotes in a moment but that's the most important one and the one that pro-chantry posting are hanging their hat on.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
17 Circles anulled is an entire Circle of men, women, and children being brutally murdered with a sword of mercy every time - hardly nothing.

How many of those Anulments were justified? Was there a valid reason for the Rites in every case, or were we dealing with Knight-Commanders as paranoid as a Cullen who can rule the Ferelden Circle in fear?

You can side on the unknown and say that villages were saved by murdering mages, but how many villages could those mages have saved if they weren't being villified by the Andrastian Chantry?

*yawn*  .. and how many mages destroy entire villages?
Yes, I can safely say that the circle system is better than no circle system

I can safely say that the number of dead mages is insignificant compared to the number of villagers that would have died, had those same mages been running arounf free for 700 years.

You're making claims with no proof. A mage is one person; how dangerous is a religious institution like the Chantry, that can do anything in the name of the Maker?Mages don't get to call an Exalted March, though. Not on a cathedral (see: History of the Circle codex), not on the Dales (and the elves claim templars went into the Dales after they kicked out the missionaries), and I'd say the fall of the Dales lead to more deaths than any abomination has.

[IanPolaris]

As promised the rest of the DG quotes:

You cant punish people for what they can possibly do, you have to punish people based on what they actually do.

I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them in the position of being oppressed, as well?

There is no easy answer, here, which is just as I like it. {smilie}

Again here DG is expressing the Chantry partyline while explicitly distancing himself from personal agreement or disagreement.

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
Should I be locked up because I know how to do this, or should law enforcement at least wait until I have posed some threat before arresting me?

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.

All this means is that mages should be regulated.  This is a point not in dispute.

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
Forcing people into a life of imprisonment and slavery is punishment. I am sure back when slavery was common in the real world there where a lot of slaves who where happy with their lot in life, as I am sure there where as many nice and pleasant masters as there where brutal and abusive ones, that doesnt mean that it wasnt a life forced on them with no choice of their own.

Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being slaves. Their life is not their own, but they are not servants to anyone.

I would differ with DG when it comes to the Tranquil, but note that DG himself uses the term imprisonment and not confinment.  The mages are very much prisoners and the circle tower very much a prison.

Not to mention the fact that the mages are not even allowed to love or have families, they are denied that right, if a relationship is discovered the mages are separated, and if a child is born in is taken from them.

Relationships are only discouraged because fraternization inside such a closed community can make things quite complicated. It's not technically forbidden, though marriages generally aren't allowed. As for families, that's discouraged for the same reason -- not least of which is that it makes the mage much more susceptible to demonic influence. Remember Connor? Manipulating someone through the people they care about is the oldest trick in the book for demons.

I simply disagree with DG on this and DG is clearly talking about the Chantry party line (as before) and not his personal view.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Aldandil wrote...
Once again:
1. Mages are dangerous.
2. The Circles contains that danger.

This.
One doesn't even need a DG quote to see this. It's self-evident.

Group A(mages) is source of B(abominations)
B in open cause damage
Circles keep most of the A out of the open
--
Therefore, since A is source of B, there is less B in the open.

Hence, less abomination runnign around. The most basic logic at work people.

Yet the great wielders of magic - the elves - are still alive after all these centuries without the Chantry and their templars, and the History of the Circle codex reveals that there was no urgency to isolate mages from the general populace for reasons of blood magic or abominations.

It takes a LOT to completey exterminate a race or a country. Why do you keep assuming that because a kingdom (or a race) was not completely and uttery destroyed, that abominatiosn are not a real threat?

Did floods completey destroy the human race? Earthquakes? Torandos? Forest fires? No?
How much damage and deaths have they caused over the years?
So tell me, did the early humans try and stop floods and torandos? no. Why not? Not because it wasn't a danger or because it wasn't an issue, but because they were too busy surviving (and not knowing how to protect themselves).

That the mages weren't isolated immidiately proves NOTHING. Except of course, that it took them quite a while to figure out a good solution to the problem.

I have a counter question to propose: if mages were utilized to combat the darkspawn in the Deep Roads instead of being imprisoned, would we even be battling darkspawns and Archdemons with the Blights?

To answer that.

Yes. Mages can't defeat the blight by themsleves. Mages wouldn't want to go into the Deep Roads anyway.

.
Jowan clearly disagreed.

Jowan is a whiny ******. And a blood mage. Of course he would disagree.

Nope.
It's like a saying it's the policemans fault if a criminal starts thorwing bombs around, to avoid capture.

It's the mage himself that's to blame, becase he used blood magic and escaped from the law. And he Ultimatively made the decision to try and summon a demon.

That's not an accurate analogy, Lotion. I think there's a better word to describe here. Hmmm... what do you call a person running away from an organization of people who enslaved him for who he is, rather than what he does? Perhaps there's a word from our own history we can use here that would better fit the description.

I have an even better analogy...you know...the one with the military holding a quarantene..You know that one example, that one question you constantly avoid answering?

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

*yawn*  .. and how many mages destroy entire villages?
Yes, I can safely say that the circle system is better than no circle system

A single battlehardened dwarven beserker will tear through a typical villiage like a headsman's axe.  Let's also not forget the mass graves during the New Exalted Marches against the Qun.

Mages are danagerous sure.  So is the chantry.  So is anyone or any organization with power.

I can safely say that the number of dead mages is insignificant compared to the number of villagers that would have died, had those same mages been running arounf free for 700 years.

Evidence would be helpful.

-Polaris

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Ah, the everlasting Warrior vs. Mage legendary dispute.
I prefer to just cook 'em in their plate armor with fire and lightning instead of reasoning, but Polaris makes a decent job, netherless.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:34 .

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
There's certainly more darkspawn now. Why haven't the nations been using mages to fight them in the Deep Roads to try to prevent the Blights?

Same reasons they aren't just down there generally. Makes a lot of sense in the long term, hard to sell in the short. It complicates the issue, doesn't change it.

LobselVith8 wrote...
given how mages are continually resisting the Chantry's treatment of them (which has been considered everything from imprisonment to enslavement - and I can imagine that there are mages who feel the same way) and that it's likely going to lead to a war in DA2, what good has it ultimately done but instigated a war between templars and mages?

The "good", such as it is, is in the containment, the prevention of potential disasters, but you knew that already. Yes, it leads to other problems, both moral and physical. We can't judge the situation on any one aspect in isolation. The purpose of the fiction is complexity, reductionism doesn't serve it well.

LobselVith8 wrote...
It matters if there's a codex that seems to be "heresay" (based on how it's written) where they're claiming that the Circles were created because of abominations, when that isn't the case.

Doesn't really speak to my question, but still: Personally I'd argue the Chantry isn't a single entity with a sole purpose or intent. I would also say that both statements are true. It exists to protect people, and in doing so increases the Chantries influence. There isn't a contradiction there. If the statement is "It's the only reason it exists", then yes, very much a lie.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Greagoir claimed he had evidence, but Irving was never privy to it - he makes that clear when the mage speaks with him about Jowan's Rite of Tranquility, and how Irving would do things differently but that he doesn't have a say in the matter.

Where are you getting that claim from, Lotion? Because Greagoir clearly shut down Duncan's request for more troops to fight the darkspawn despite Irving clearly disagreeing with him about the issue.[/quote]

Meanges moving outside of tower is a security issue - Geroir has the final say there.

And again..Irwing didn't see any evidence...YET. Teh confronatation between Gregoir, Irwing and Jowan never happened, because Jowan escaped. So you don't know what would have happened.




[quote]

That must be why the Chantry imprisons mages to Circles, permits them no rights to have lives as ordinary citizens, can have their templars (who are outside the bounds of the nobility) kill people on the mere suspicion of being a mage (like the fake made the Magnificent D'Sims), and blames them all (and not Tevinter solely) for the Blights.[/quote]


You mean why they quaranteen them for the good of the great populace, shield them from those that wold kill them and grant them a safe place to live?





[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You mean the original quote from DG that IanPolaris addressed before a few pages back, where you became irate because IanPolaris re-quoted and pointed out that it doesn't mean what you claimed it does?[/quote]

The quote you and Ian "analyze" out of context (because you adimtedly don't know it)? The same quote I already proved eons ago you both got wrong, but you ignore?


[quote]
No incident THAT WE KNOW OFF.
Not that we get much information of hte history of that particular clan..

Oh wait..that curse that caused a lof of people todie and suffer over the course of years...Yeah..let's not call that an incident, shall we?


Oh yes..let's not forget that a Cirlce holds all the mages in a kingdom. The number of mages involved compared to a dalic hcamp is WAAY higher. [/quote]

There are some incidents we do know of about the templars. There is their murder of the Magnificent D'Sims because the templars thought he was a mage (and he wasn't), their attempted murder of the child Aenirin, and their attempt to murder the Warden-Commander and the Grey Warden Anders. Clearly, mages aren't the only ones who can cross the line.[/quote]

You going somewhere with this?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
17 Circles anulled is an entire Circle of men, women, and children being brutally murdered with a sword of mercy every time - hardly nothing.

How many of those Anulments were justified? Was there a valid reason for the Rites in every case, or were we dealing with Knight-Commanders as paranoid as a Cullen who can rule the Ferelden Circle in fear?

You can side on the unknown and say that villages were saved by murdering mages, but how many villages could those mages have saved if they weren't being villified by the Andrastian Chantry?

*yawn*  .. and how many mages destroy entire villages?
Yes, I can safely say that the circle system is better than no circle system

I can safely say that the number of dead mages is insignificant compared to the number of villagers that would have died, had those same mages been running arounf free for 700 years.

You're making claims with no proof. A mage is one person; how dangerous is a religious institution like the Chantry, that can do anything in the name of the Maker?Mages don't get to call an Exalted March, though. Not on a cathedral (see: History of the Circle codex), not on the Dales (and the elves claim templars went into the Dales after they kicked out the missionaries), and I'd say the fall of the Dales lead to more deaths than any abomination has.

An orginization is dependant on the goodwill of its followers. An Exalted March cannot happen unless the Andrastians are willing to join it. Therefore the destruction it will cause is not the result of a single person.
A mage can shoot a fireball, even if he doesn't want to (ie. it would have to be an untrained one for that, but the point still stands).

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, let's examine point by point what David Gaidar REALLY said and not what some of you think he said.

Or we could examine them as a whole and in context. His first sentence only avoids the subject if you ignore both, for one.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:45 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Aldandil wrote...
Once again:
1. Mages are dangerous.
2. The Circles contains that danger.[/quote]

This.
One doesn't even need a DG quote to see this. It's self-evident.

Group A(mages) is source of B(abominations)
B in open cause damage
Circles keep most of the A out of the open
--
Therefore, since A is source of B, there is less B in the open.

Hence, less abomination runnign around. The most basic logic at work people. [/quote]

Yet the great wielders of magic - the elves - are still alive after all these centuries without the Chantry and their templars, and the History of the Circle codex reveals that there was no urgency to isolate mages from the general populace for reasons of blood magic or abominations.[/quote]

It takes a LOT to completey exterminate a race or a country. Why do you keep assuming that because a kingdom (or a race) was not completely and uttery destroyed, that abominatiosn are not a real threat?
[/quote]

Because we can extrapolate a known (hypothetically known) rate of abominations (17 circles in 700 years) and past that rate into the society of the ancient elves or even ancient Tevinter, and it results in the destruction of that society assuming that abominations are as dangerous as claimed.  Clearer now?  Basically if what the Chantry is claiming now is true, then the ancient elves and other pre-circle societies could never have survived REPEATED abomination attacks.

[quote]
Did floods completey destroy the human race? Earthquakes? Torandos? Forest fires? No?
How much damage and deaths have they caused over the years?
So tell me, did the early humans try and stop floods and torandos? no. Why not? Not because it wasn't a danger or because it wasn't an issue, but because they were too busy surviving (and not knowing how to protect themselves).
[/quote]

Earthquakes occure far less frequently than abominations if we take the circle annulment rate to be the historical rate for all time.  Same with tornadoes (at least in inhabited areas) especially with the population density is thin.  Also you can learn to predict (at least within minutes) and evade/survive tornadoes, hurricanes and other natural disasters.  Abominations are intelligent and malign so this doesn't apply.  In short, if the Chanty were right, then Thedas never could have survived.

[quote]
That the mages weren't isolated immidiately proves NOTHING. Except of course, that it took them quite a while to figure out a good solution to the problem.
[/quote]

The Tevinter Imperium and Ancient Arthathan both has mages living in society for thousands of years and no one knew more about magic (and probably still doesn't know more magic) than either one of those two nations, and they never found it necessary to cofine mages.  If the problem were so dire as you try to make out, then it would have happened long ago.

Indeed NO society put mages into prisons and ghettos (except maybe the Qun who we have no information about in this regard), until precious little Divine Ambrosia II got her panties in a twist over a magical worker's strike.  If the circle really were as great as you claim at stopping abominations, don't you think the chantry would say that along with....I dunno.....some NUMBERS to back that up? 

[quote]
[quote]
I have a counter question to propose: if mages were utilized to combat the darkspawn in the Deep Roads instead of being imprisoned, would we even be battling darkspawns and Archdemons with the Blights?[/quote]

To answer that.

Yes. Mages can't defeat the blight by themsleves. Mages wouldn't want to go into the Deep Roads anyway.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but I an almost guarantee you that the fight would be in the deep roads by and large and not downtown Denerim.  As for going to the Deep Roads, that depends on the mage. Wilhelm never had a problem with it (for one).  I am not saying that most mages would want to live there, but with magical support, I think it's fair to say that Orzammar would not be standing alone......which is why an independant mages' "circle" in Orzammar makes so much sense....but the chantry is getting their panties in a twist over THAT.

[quote]
[quote].
Jowan clearly disagreed.[/quote]

Jowan is a whiny ******. And a blood mage. Of course he would disagree.
[/quote]

So did Lily and outside her love for Jowan (no accounting for taste), she was about as pro-Chantry as they come.


[quote][quote]
[quote]
Nope.
It's like a saying it's the policemans fault if a criminal starts thorwing bombs around, to avoid capture.

It's the mage himself that's to blame, becase he used blood magic and escaped from the law. And he Ultimatively made the decision to try and summon a demon. [/quote]

That's not an accurate analogy, Lotion. I think there's a better word to describe here. Hmmm... what do you call a person running away from an organization of people who enslaved him for who he is, rather than what he does? Perhaps there's a word from our own history we can use here that would better fit the description.[/quote]

I have an even better analogy...you know...the one with the military holding a quarantene..You know that one example, that one question you constantly avoid answering?
[/quote]

The Codex directly states that the mage made a deal with a demon BECAUSE he was being chased by Templars.  Thus the templars are indeed directly responsible for that mage becoming an abomination.  That should be a cautionary tell to the Chantry, but the chantry doesn't care nor apparently do the Templars.

As for the military holding quarantine, abominations don't create other abominations by contact so the quarantine model is invalid.  A dangerous mental patient would be a better anology, but even then good policework involves trying to take the suspect alive or at the very least in such a way that MINIMIZES collateral damage....and forcing a mage into becoming an abomination fails on both counts.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:50 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, let's examine point by point what David Gaidar REALLY said and not what some of you think he said.

Or we could examine them as a whole and in context. His first sentence only avoids the subject if you ignore both, for one.

DG in response to the poster could have said explicitly that abominations were more common in old days than now.  He very carefully and very deliberately did not and did it in a way that you apparently failed to notice.  Read it like a lawyer.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

He made the deal with a demon he, and he alone, is responsible for becoming an Abomination. Otherwise we can go even further back and say, he ran away from the Circle, so he is responsible for becoming an Abomination.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He made the deal with a demon he, and he alone, is responsible for becoming an Abomination. Otherwise we can go even further back and say, he ran away from the Circle, so he is responsible for becoming an Abomination.

Only because it was make a deal or die.  That's not a choice, thus it  shifts the responsibility to those holding death over his head.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, let's examine point by point what David Gaidar REALLY said and not what some of you think he said.

Or we could examine them as a whole and in context. His first sentence only avoids the subject if you ignore both, for one.

DG in response to the poster could have said explicitly that abominations were more common in old days than now.  He very carefully and very deliberately did not and did it in a way that you apparently failed to notice.  Read it like a lawyer.

-Polaris

No one are saying they were more common back then. We are saying they were more of a threat to the common population back then. Which they were. Abominations that happen now are mostly contained within a Circle.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He made the deal with a demon he, and he alone, is responsible for becoming an Abomination. Otherwise we can go even further back and say, he ran away from the Circle, so he is responsible for becoming an Abomination.

So running away from the circle should be a death sentence?  That would be news to Anders.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, let's examine point by point what David Gaidar REALLY said and not what some of you think he said.

Or we could examine them as a whole and in context. His first sentence only avoids the subject if you ignore both, for one.

DG in response to the poster could have said explicitly that abominations were more common in old days than now.  He very carefully and very deliberately did not and did it in a way that you apparently failed to notice.  Read it like a lawyer.

-Polaris

No one are saying they were more common back then. We are saying they were more of a threat to the common population back then. Which they were. Abominations that happen now are mostly contained within a Circle.

DG's quote doesn't even say that.  Read it carefully.

-Polaris

Edit PS: Evidence that abominations are "mostly contained in the circle" would be nice as well.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:53 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He made the deal with a demon he, and he alone, is responsible for becoming an Abomination. Otherwise we can go even further back and say, he ran away from the Circle, so he is responsible for becoming an Abomination.

Only because it was make a deal or die.  That's not a choice, thus it  shifts the responsibility to those holding death over his head.

-Polaris

What kind of logic is that?.... He had lots of choices. The Abomination just seemed the easier one. He is the sole person responsible for his own actions. You can't blame that on anyone else than himself.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What kind of logic is that?.... He had lots of choices. The Abomination just seemed the easier one. He is the sole person responsible for his own actions. You can't blame that on anyone else than himself.

Read that codex entry again.  The former templar specifically states in his own words that the mage made a deal with a demon because it was the only way he was going to live.  That is in fact Deal or Die.

-Polaris

[Aphrodite3510]

Great entertainment.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He made the deal with a demon he, and he alone, is responsible for becoming an Abomination. Otherwise we can go even further back and say, he ran away from the Circle, so he is responsible for becoming an Abomination.

So running away from the circle should be a death sentence?  That would be news to Anders.

-Polaris

Running away from the Circle isn't a death sentence. Unless you resist capture. Being a Maleficar is a death sentence though. And the apostate in question was obviously resisting capture, and he may have been a Maleficar too, we will never know.