1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

atheelogos wrote...



Alistair supports it and he saw both incidents first hand, so yeah........

Alistair is not the smartest bulb in the box but that aside unless I missed it I didn't hear a credible plan on his part to give the mages the kind of freedom they want.  If I did miss his plan to reduce Chantry and Templar presence let me know about where in the game I can find it (I'm in the middle of another play through now.) and I'll gladly either try to debunk his words or admit they have merit and are sensible.  He'd certainly have a very tough sell in some parts of his lands but hey he is king in some playthroughs.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Condescending?  You can see it that way.  The way I see it whenever anything to do with a mage turning into an abomination or getting possessed gets brought up I see no rebuttle or explanation of the incident other than 'it was the chantries fault or the templars fault!' 

You mean when it's addressed that the times we read about it, it happens as a direct result of the templars and the Chantry?

Beerfish wrote...

You quite simply agreed with me in your 1st paragraph.  Gregoire was indeed being slack in his job and because he was slack the incident happened.  Irving and the other mage leaders failed utterly in their given task to be on top of what others were up to.  Thus it gives a person zero confidence that they could ever look after themselves.

Because a revolution happened, that never would have happened if mages weren't placed in a prison for the rest of their lives? Uldred and the mages wanted freedom - if mages had that, there wouldn't be any revolutions to be free from their oppressors, so your conclusion really work. You can't oppress an entire group of people and then, when they try to emancipate themselves, claim that they would do the exact same thing if they were free.

Beerfish wrote...

You blamed the Uldred incident on Gregoire not doing his job (totally counter to the freedoms you want.), you totally ignored the redcliffe connor incident and you totally ignored AVernus.

I pointed out that you ignored Greagoir while blaming two others entirely for Uldred, who was fighting to see mages emancipated from the Chantry.

Regarding Redcliffe and Warden's Keep, it's because IanPolaris already addressed the incident at Redcliffe and with Averus. Do you want me to cover the rest? Let me think of what else wasn't addressed:

Redcliffe happened because Isolde was a pious woman and didn't want to lose her son; it was a combination of being shameful of her son having magic (as Jowan admitted) and not wanting to lose him. If mages were properly taught how to use magic instead of being imprisoned for being mages, this incident never would have happened.

As for Averus, he did what he was ordered to do by a superior officer - use demonology. It was pretty stupid to do and tore the Veil, but do did the massacres of towns where soldiers murdered men, women, and children because they had converted to the Qun during the New Exalted Marches. The same is true for the Brecillian Forest because of all the killing that took place there. To get back to the point, nobody is saying that magic shouldn't be used responsibly or that magic shouldn't be taught, but I see no reason why an anti-mage organization that preaches intolerance should be the one to imprison, control, and indocturinate mages. You either get self-hating mages like Keili or radicals like Uldred who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Beerfish wrote...

I have not once declared that Templars or the Chantry are saints.  There are bad Templars, the Chantry is a dubious organization that has it;s own agenda.  Feel free to post as many bad templar bad chantry incidents you wish, it won't change the mage situation.

The mages with the incidents I quoted in my post need to be watched carefully.

Nobody is denying that there shouldn't be law and order when it comes to the mages, but it's another argument entirely when it comes to the practices committed by the Chantry against the mages.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Condescending?  You can see it that way.  The way I see it whenever anything to do with a mage turning into an abomination or getting possessed gets brought up I see no rebuttle or explanation of the incident other than 'it was the chantries fault or the templars fault!'  You quite simply agreed with me in your 1st paragraph.  Gregoire was indeed being slack in his job and because he was slack the incident happened.  Irving and the other mage leaders failed utterly in their given task to be on top of what others were up to.  Thus it gives a person zero confidence that they could ever look after themselves.

You are arguing the false dichotomy though.  No one is saying that magic isn't dangerous or that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated.  No one is even saying that abominations aren't a bad thing.  What we are saying is that the Chantry is "viewing with alarm" a problem that has been grossly overstated to justify a system that wasn't even intended to protect anyone in the first place!  I don't say that, the chantry itself does! (See History of the Circle)  This is a regressive system that encourages angst and strife and all sorts of negative emotions (making mages trapped within even more attractive to demons) while the Chantry eggs the situation on by preaching hate towards magic to the mundanes.

As for zero confidence, there were no circles until about 700 years ago and the world didn't end.....not even Andraste's own followers thought that mages should be confined.  That was the brainchild of a nutty Divine who wanted total control over magical labour.

Again with your 2nd paragraph you have done what you have done throughout this thread.  Not address the point that was made to you to, you merely jump on the templars and chantry and totally ignored or refuted the point.

You blamed the Uldred incident on Gregoire not doing his job (totally counter to the freedoms you want.), you totally ignored the redcliffe connor incident and you totally ignored AVernus.

Avernus isn't an abomination.  The fact Avernus has lived for 200 years in a place where the veil is torn practicing bloodmagic should tell you right away that it's HARD for mages to become abominations.  You are ignoring this and the evidence that the chantry is deliberately hyping a system that doesn't seem to be needed (at least not for the protection of mundanes).

I have not once declared that Templars or the Chantry are saints.  There are bad Templars, the Chantry is a dubious organization that has it;s own agenda.  Feel free to post as many bad templar bad chantry incidents you wish, it won't change the mage situation.

The mages with the incidents I quoted in my post need to be watched carefully.

Yes, but you don't prove the circle system is the only or even best way to do this.  You don't come close.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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?

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.

No, you can't. You cna't extrapolate anything from that. A logical fallcy of the highest order.

You don't know where the abominations hit, how hard...nor do you have any proof that those societies could have never survived. How often do natual disters hit some countries? Some get hit every yers but a few...massive damages and loss of life...but they still move on and are not destroyed.

So yea..you clear now?

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).

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.

You cannot take the number of ANNULMENT to extrapolte numbers of abominations. This is a logical fallcy (again). Annulments are called when a circle is in danger of falling..when multiple abominations happen.
So in essence, abominations are far more frequent than what you would get fro mthat number.

Humanity...life in general..is resillient. And humans breed fast.

So no, your argument is worthless.

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.

You have no idea how mages were handeld there, so they are both invalid as arguments.

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.

Aha..and the templars chased him BECAUSE he was a maleficar. We can go down the chain of events to infinity.

I disagree wiht your analysis of hte codex.

IanPolaris wrote...
A single battlehardened dwarven beserker will tear through a typical villiage like a headsman's axe.

And a lvl 99 warrior in WoW can kill a billion (literaly) lvl 1 soldiers... Gamplay mechanics and balance are NOT fluff.
A single dwarven berserker can NOT kill off an entire village.

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.

The model is valid, but for different reason. Something I explained multiple times but you and Val seem to ignore...

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

atheelogos wrote...



Alistair supports it and he saw both incidents first hand, so yeah........

Alistair is not the smartest bulb in the box but that aside unless I missed it I didn't hear a credible plan on his part to give the mages the kind of freedom they want.  If I did miss his plan to reduce Chantry and Templar presence let me know about where in the game I can find it (I'm in the middle of another play through now.) and I'll gladly either try to debunk his words or admit they have merit and are sensible.  He'd certainly have a very tough sell in some parts of his lands but hey he is king in some playthroughs.

Read my posts a few pages back, and I present such a system (which seem very similiar to what the Dalish already do).

1.  Magic should be regulated by the crown with trusted (and you can determine good and bad mages just as you can with any other human or elf) mages having a large (and perhaps controlling) say as to what the specific regulations are.
2.  Mages should live along side other members of society and have a stake in that society all while being carefully monitered by magical police (which would include a combination of trusted bonded mages and templar-like warriors trained in how to work with and against magic).
3.  Magical police should be established to handle magical crimes and problems (see above)  Mages should have a prominent voice in how this force works, runs, and operates.

There's more but you get the idea.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

He had a choice before that..stay with the circle or run. Practice blood magic or not. He knew the consequences. Responsibiltiy is his and his alone.
And b.t.w. - death is still a choice.

[SgtElias]

Beerfish wrote...

 The way I see it whenever anything to do with a mage turning into an abomination or getting possessed gets brought up I see no rebuttle or explanation of the incident other than 'it was the chantries fault or the templars fault!' 

Honestly? Sometimes it is. You chase down a scared teenager that hurls lightning bolts at you in terror, you may feel justified executing him, even though if you left him alone he never would have hurt anyone. And honestly, sometimes? It's not the Chantry's fault. I think, personally, that saying that neither group is at fault is erroneous. The Chantry and the templars DO cause some of their own problem, just as mages cause some of theirs. And everytime a mistake is made by either side, it just reinforces their opponent's views, leading to a cycle of death and hatred.

Beerfish wrote...

Feel free to post as many bad templar bad chantry incidents you wish, it won't change the mage situation.

What is the "mage situation?" If you mean that the mages need to be regulated, I think almost everyone unanimously agrees. But regulation and oppression are different thing. I think that where the disagreement occurs is between those that think the Chantry should be doing that regulation, and those who think that they need to go. And since no one, really, has any sort of hard-and-fast evidence about which would be better, this topic remains my current favorite debate on these forums, because there's really no right answer.

Oh, also, I didn't quote you just to single you out, but because you summed up in your post the things I wanted to address.  Not trying to start an argument, or anything.

[Lotion Soronarr]

atheelogos wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

If you're not prepared to do the time, don't do the crime.

No one with mind controling powers can ever be trusted. That is logical enough.

I beg to differ, though I don't have the time to do so now. lol Gotta go to class.

Differ how? What?

The issue is simple.
How do you know the trust you have for that person with mind-controling powers is real trust, and not his mind-control working on you?
How do you know he doesn't do you from behind every night and simply makes you forget it?
How do you know he's not using mind control on your right now, or has been using it subtely for years?
How do you evne know what's youre seeing is real, with him around?

Mind control..unltimate power..ultimte threat.

Okay I'm back from class where did we leave off? Oh yes lol..... I think your giving mind control too much credit. Its dangerous yes, but small time compared to what we have with all of our weapons of mass destruction. And we're still here.

You do not fully realise the power of mind control..or haven't relly though about it.
Go ahead..give it a bit of though. Immagine you can take control of anyones mind..make him your puppet. remove or add memories. Bend him to your will. Now, think of everything you could do with that kind of power....
You can get ANY woman (evne those that find you repulsive and would rather die then be with you)...money..power.

Someone with mind control can trun your against your own family. Force you to slaughter them. Compel kings to his will and have them wage war. If he's pwerfull and smart enough, he can rule nations (covertly of course).

No power is more intoxicating and tempting to use...none.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
without the toxic circle environment (and I hope you'd agree that it is toxic)

Definitely. They've created a situation with prisoners and jailers. By nature it's antagonistic.

IanPolaris wrote...
 If the rate of abomination is very low (say 1 in a million as a theoretical excercise) but the rate increases to say 1 in 100 in the tower, then I can reasonably conclude that the tower actually makes the abomination problem worse (because more than 1:1000 abominations will escape or avoid tower confinement).

Here is where I say "evidence would be nice". Maybe I should clarify my position here, because I can imagine it sounds like I'm pro chantry, arguing against the anti stance: I think it's definitely something that should be questioned, just that it's not something we should conclude, one way or the other. I think that defeats it's purpose.

As I said earlier in the thread, we have no hard data on the the positive effects of the circle, but given the reason for the fiction I personally think we can conclude that it lies somewhere between "enough that justification may be made" and "not enough to be entirely justified". I do concede that it may fulfill it's intended purpose if all we have to go on is false information, but I think at that point we're saying "pə-ˈdā-, bə-\\" and calling things off.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]

No, you can't. You cna't extrapolate anything from that. A logical fallcy of the highest order.

You don't know where the abominations hit, how hard...nor do you have any proof that those societies could have never survived. How often do natual disters hit some countries? Some get hit every yers but a few...massive damages and loss of life...but they still move on and are not destroyed.

So yea..you clear now?
[/quote]

You are making the same error then only on a much larger scale.  If we can not determine the rate of abominations then you have absolutely no basis in fact for why the circle system is needed.  NONE!

[quote]
[quote]
[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]

Humans could learn to read the signs and avoid them and even the most ancient of peoples knew of practical ways to protect against both.

[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]

You cannot take the number of ANNULMENT to extrapolte numbers of abominations. This is a logical fallcy (again). Annulments are called when a circle is in danger of falling..when multiple abominations happen.
So in essence, abominations are far more frequent than what you would get fro mthat number.

[/quote]

Yet we KNOW that societies functioned just fine without the circles.  You can not make this go away.  If you refuse to use any kind of numbers, then you have NO BASIS IN FACT for locking mages away in the circle.  Even Chantry history teaches us that the circles were not formed to protect anyone!  How many times must you have this drummed into you?!


[quote]
Humanity...life in general..is resillient. And humans breed fast.

So no, your argument is worthless.
[/quote]

If so, then your entire argument is worthless because you now have no basis in fact for any of it.



[quote]
[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.[/quote]

You have no idea how mages were handeld there, so they are both invalid as arguments.
[/quote]

I don't have to.  I know they were handled and I know that mages weren't imprisoned, and they seemed to have none of the enhanced abomination issues the circle does.   That makes them valid counter examples.




[quote]
[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.[/quote]

Aha..and the templars chased him BECAUSE he was a maleficar. We can go down the chain of events to infinity.

I disagree wiht your analysis of hte codex.
[/quote]

Of course you disagree.  It doesn't mean you are right.  Even the Devs have said that all codex entries are written from various PoVs and should not be regarded as absolute truth (save those that deal directly with the game-mechanics).  That also brings up the fact that the Chantry has not just regressive but stupid rules about bloodmagic.  Bloodmagic is so dangerous that it should be carefully controlled and regulated but NOT banned.  Banning it is about the worst thing you can do.

[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
A single battlehardened dwarven beserker will tear through a typical villiage like a headsman's axe.[/quote]

And a lvl 99 warrior in WoW can kill a billion (literaly) lvl 1 soldiers... Gamplay mechanics and balance are NOT fluff.
A single dwarven berserker can NOT kill off an entire village.
[/quote]

Actually IRL there are incidents of armored knights doing just that to Saracen villiages during the crusades, so yes he can.  Read more history.

[quote]
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

The model is valid, but for different reason. Something I explained multiple times but you and Val seem to ignore...

[/quote]

No it's not because abominations aren't contagious.

-Polaris

[atheelogos]

SgtElias wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

 The way I see it whenever anything to do with a mage turning into an abomination or getting possessed gets brought up I see no rebuttle or explanation of the incident other than 'it was the chantries fault or the templars fault!' 

Honestly? Sometimes it is. You chase down a scared teenager that hurls lightning bolts at you in terror, you may feel justified executing him, even though if you left him alone he never would have hurt anyone. And honestly, sometimes? It's not the Chantry's fault. I think, personally, that saying that neither group is at fault is erroneous. The Chantry and the templars DO cause some of their own problem, just as mages cause some of theirs. And everytime a mistake is made by either side, it just reinforces their opponent's views, leading to a cycle of death and hatred.

Beerfish wrote...

Feel free to post as many bad templar bad chantry incidents you wish, it won't change the mage situation.

What is the "mage situation?" If you mean that the mages need to be regulated, I think almost everyone unanimously agrees. But regulation and oppression are different thing. I think that where the disagreement occurs is between those that think the Chantry should be doing that regulation, and those who think that they need to go. And since no one, really, has any sort of hard-and-fast evidence about which would be better, this topic remains my current favorite debate on these forums, because there's really no right answer.

Oh, also, I didn't quote you just to single you out, but because you summed up in your post the things I wanted to address.  Not trying to start an argument, or anything.

" it just reinforces their opponent's views, leading to a cycle of death and hatred." YES!!!!!!! That is it exactly! We need to change in order to break that cycle, though some people just want to leave things the way there are...... I simply don't understand why people wouldn't want to work for a better system that can benefit both sides.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

He had a choice before that..stay with the circle or run. Practice blood magic or not. He knew the consequences. Responsibiltiy is his and his alone.
And b.t.w. - death is still a choice.

Actually you don't even know if the mage in the codex was in fact a malificar...only that he was accused of being one.  Knowing the penalty and knowing you've been accused and knowing that no trial is needed, I'd run too even with all the risks.  A 95% chance of dying is better than complete certainty.

That's the problem.  The Chantry and her Templars aren't accountable for any of their actions when it deals with mages and magic.

-Polaris

[Huntress]

The child make a pact because he dind't know what a DEMON was.. The demon never told connor that the father was going to survive without his help, the demon lied to the child. Childrens never know when you lie to them, they are innocents.



It doesn't suck to be a mage, and mages are born with a great tool, how they uses that tool is what matters. That is what you are over looking.



NO what everyone is telling you is: see what happen when a ruthless organization make everyone believe that magic is bad. How many innocent have died because of fears and stupid rules.

That is why mages become apostates, that is why mages like Uldren are taken over and destroyed by a pride demon. Do you even know why the pride demon took over Uldren and for how long it was waiting?



If mages were killed as soon as the gift was present on them, then the elves never would have been able to teach magic to the humans.. do you even THINK before writing?

As a Dalish assasin I belive that chantry should be burned, and anyone who believe in the maker should be hanged by their... neck?

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

If we can not determine the rate of abominations then you have absolutely no basis in fact for why the circle system is needed.  NONE!

It exists because abominations do. "Needed" isn't really part of the conversation. Personally, I think the "rate" is irrelevance. You're attempting to quantify potential suffering for the purposes of calculation, and I don't believe that's how moral questions get answered.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You do not fully realise the power of mind control..or haven't relly though about it.
Go ahead..give it a bit of though. Immagine you can take control of anyones mind..make him your puppet. remove or add memories. Bend him to your will. Now, think of everything you could do with that kind of power....
You can get ANY woman (evne those that find you repulsive and would rather die then be with you)...money..power.

Someone with mind control can trun your against your own family. Force you to slaughter them. Compel kings to his will and have them wage war. If he's pwerfull and smart enough, he can rule nations (covertly of course).

No power is more intoxicating and tempting to use...none.

Really?  And you call yourself a realist (with full scorn).  Mind control magic EXISTS.  Bloodmagic EXISTS.  Demons will quite willingly teach both, and every culture in Thedas that can learn magic, has had bloodmagic within it. 

Given that FACT, how do you deal with it?  Banning it simply means that the very worst criminals will have the very worst and most powerful magic.  It's like saying that only organized crime should have biological weapons. 

A saner approach would be to research mind-control magic and learn to combat it (like the BLOODMAGE Adralla did) and restrict Bloodmagic to those mages that have proven themselves able to handle it and strong willed enough to resist the temptation...and even THEN you bond them and watch them carefully.  Does this stop bad people from using bloodmagic or mind-control?  Of course not, but then again nothing will.  That's the true "realist" position.  However, in this case you'd have a trusted cadre of people ready and able to deal with it on it's own terms.

That's why the Chantry's position on bloodmagic is simply stupid. 

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
No it's not because abominations aren't contagious.

Well, they kinda are. That's what uldreds working on when you find him.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If we can not determine the rate of abominations then you have absolutely no basis in fact for why the circle system is needed.  NONE!

It exists because abominations do. "Needed" isn't really part of the conversation. Personally, I think the "rate" is irrelevance. You're attempting to quantify potential suffering for the purposes of calculation, and I don't believe that's how moral questions get answered.

We know for a fact that circle didn't exist until a bit more than 700 years ago.  We also know for a fact that not even the anti-magical Chantry thought the problem of abominations merited putting all mages in prison.  We also know for a fact that the only reason this was done was because the Divine wanted to break a magical worker's strike.

Given that, you need to show that the circle system does what the Templars and Chantry claims and that means quantification. 

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
However, in this case you'd have a trusted cadre of people ready and able to deal with it on it's own terms.

Like a templar!

[EmperorSahlertz]

The scene of Wynne wanting the Blood Mage Warden arrested is NOT canon. If it is not accesible through the vanilla game, or through any official patch, it is NOT lore. I'm sorry to break that bubble to you Ian. The only way that scene will ever become lore, is if a dev comes and say that it is.

And I'd rather kill a hundred mages every 39 years (and you don't kill support staff and Templars in the tower), than let any Abomination roam free.
It took a year for a legion of Templars to hunt down an Abomination, in that time it had killed 70 people. I'm willing to bet that Abominations happen more often than once every 39th year, which would then bring the total deaths caused by Abominations in 39 years over what an annulment would cause. So even in pure math having a Circle is preferable.

Edit: and since it bothers me that you spread misinformation: Adralla was NOT a Blood Mage.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:40 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No it's not because abominations aren't contagious.

Well, they kinda are. That's what uldreds working on when you find him.

No they aren't.  What Uldred is doing is what any bloodmage can do with mindcontrol magic.  He is forcing the mage to consent to having the demon inhabit the body.  It's one reason why Mindcontrol magic is so scarey (a point I will never deny). 

In short, it's not the abomination that's a contagious condidition.  It's the fact that Uldred knows a ritual designed to force an abomination that's allowing him to create his army.

That means the disease model is invalid.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
However, in this case you'd have a trusted cadre of people ready and able to deal with it on it's own terms.

Like a templar!

You consider a drug-addicted religious fanatic trustworthy? 

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Abominations are sorta contagious. Once a single Abomination is created, it can tear the veil and bring in more demons who can possess mages and others alike.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No it's not because abominations aren't contagious.

Well, they kinda are. That's what uldreds working on when you find him.

They aren't. A better comparison would be the darkspawn (who can infect people with contact, i.e. darkspawn disease). Anyone can become possessed, and mages can become abominations but they aren't contagious. It's an issue of will, as Mouse says in the Magi Origin. You don't become an abomination simply by touching one, breathing the same air, or anything like that. The situation at the Circle happened because Uldred was foolish enough to use demonology, and couldn't control it. It can happen if a person makes a deal with a demon (like Connor) but it isn't a disease that you can catch.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:44 .

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
You consider a drug-addicted religious fanatic trustworthy? 

I consider them trusted. In fact, the Chantry goes so far as to ensure they are loyal with dependance.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The scene of Wynne wanting the Blood Mage Warden arrested is NOT canon. If it is not accesible through the vanilla game, or through any official patch, it is NOT lore. I'm sorry to break that bubble to you Ian. The only way that scene will ever become lore, is if a dev comes and say that it is.
[/quote]

Yes it is.  It is an official part of the game.  It was never deleted.  It's also in the official guides as well.

[qujote]
And I'd rather kill a hundred mages every 39 years (and you don't kill support staff and Templars in the tower), than let any Abomination roam free.
It took a year for a legion of Templars to hunt down an Abomination, in that time it had killed 70 people. I'm willing to bet that Abominations happen more often than once every 39th year, which would then bring the total deaths caused by Abominations in 39 years over what an annulment would cause. So even in pure math having a Circle is preferable.
[/quote]

If that were the case then all of Thedas should have been razed to the ground long ago if abominations were that destructive and that common. 

I also note that this abomination occured because of the tower (escaped circle mage) and thus should be added to the death toll of the circle.

When you consider all the societies that function without the circle perfectly well (including Andrastian societies for the first twoo hundred years),  we have absoutely no evidence that the circle system is even needed  or desireably.  None.

[quote]
Edit: and since it bothers me that you spread misinformation: Adralla was NOT a Blood Mage.[/quote]
[/quote]

Oh yes she was.  She was a refugee from the Tevinter Imperium who studed bloodmagic specifically.  She might not have used bloodmagic herself, but she had the knowledge of bloodmagic and that makes her by definition a bloodmage.  (Wynne of course gets this completely wrong).

-Polaris