1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Maybe you should be the one reading it.

No warrior can match the destructive potential of a mage. This is full. This is not debatable.
In the foodchain:

abomination >>>>> mage >>>>> warrior

FACT.

Without becoming too embroiled in this argument, I think this brings up a relevant issue, at least when comparing a Mage to any other 'dangerous' individual. Game mechanics aside, a competent Mage can cause destruction on a much larger scale than any well-trained Knight or Templar by themselves. If a normal free person goes on a murder spree, the amount of carnage caused will be far less than a free Mage doing the same. That is all aside from Blood Magic and summoning demons.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:53 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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]

Nope, I'm saying you made a error with calculating only annulments. The actual number of abominations would be MUCH HIGHER.

In other words, your math was off.
[/quote]

I said in my post that I was shooting for a LOW number.  A higher number makes the chantry look worse not better.

[quote]
[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]

Yes you do.
You can hardly call them better systems if hunderds dies each year at the hands of abomniations.
[/quote]

Evidence to this effect would be nice.


[quote]
[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]

Maybe you should be the one reading it.

No warrior can match the destructive potential of a mage. This is full. This is not debatable.
In the foodchain:

abomination >>>>> mage >>>>> warrior

FACT.
[/quote]

Dead is dead.  FACT.  It's a fact that anyone with power over others is potentially dangerous.  So given that dead is dead, the comparison is very apt.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Huntress wrote...
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. [/quote]

I dont' think anyone is overlooking that.


[quote]
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?[/quote]

The rules aren't stupid. They exist for a reason.
Magic is dangerous. This is a hard fact. Abominations are even mroe dangerous. another hard fact.

Have an abomination kill your village and you will mistrust or hate mages too. It's natural human behavior. It would be like that, preaching or no preaching.




[qutoe]

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.  [/quote]

Yes. Realist.  As opposed to you. Because you naively belive that you can control someone with that power.

It's not like another weapon and comparing it to it is folly.




[quote]
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.  [/quote]

HAHAHAH....Restrict it? to those you truist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

A) you cannot really restrict it, as any mage can learn it from a demon
You cannot really trust anyone with it

There is no trusted cadre of pople. Don't you get it? That's hte problem with mind control. It's a power that can't be entrusted to NOBODY. NOBODY. AT ALL. EVER. IN ANY SHAPE, WAY OR FORM.

but if would be fun if oyu actually tried it...Once somone from that "trusted cadre" turns you into his puppetand takes over.

[IanPolaris]

Il Divo wrote...

Without becoming too embroiled in this argument, I think this brings up a relevant issue, at least when comparing a Mage to any other 'dangerous' individual. Game mechanics aside, a competent Mage can cause destruction on a much larger scale than any well-trained Knight or Templar by themselves. If a normal free person goes on a murder spree, the amount of carnage caused will be far less than a free Mage doing the same. That is all aside from Blood Magic and summoning demons.

Enough to justify imprisoning mages for what they are in total?  As I said before, not even the chantry believed this until Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical strike and control all mages herself....and then this reason was trotted out much later to 'justify' it.  Again, this is per the Chantry's own history.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

It's not. Abomination can tear the veil futher, letting more demons in. Hence, more possesions. And not only of mages.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



You can not remove the existance of bloodmagic (and thus mindcontrol magic) whcih means that blanket bans will ALWAYS fail. That's the true realist talking.



Given that FACT, the question is how do you deal with it. Do you:



A. Make it so that only criminal mages will use the most powerful forms of magic.

B. Research this magic and place it in the hands of a very trusted few to protect against those that would abuse it.



I'm thinking B is the better option.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It's not. Abomination can tear the veil futher, letting more demons in. Hence, more possesions. And not only of mages.

Wrong.  Only one abomination in the entire game and lore had that ability (to tear the veil) and that was the Baroness who was able to manifest in pure demon form in the real world...and as such was a highly special case if there ever was one (and she harnessed the life energy of those villiagers over hundreds of years to get that power to boot!)

Now, if you have enough death in a particular place, it will sunder the veil further, but that's not due to any specific action by anyone.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Indeed when she does this (tear the veil) she is no longer an abomination.  She is a pure Pride Demon as Justice confirms.  In fact you can wonder how she is able to manifest and she gloats that her TRUE FORM (not an abomination then) has substance (why....see above).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:02 .

[Beerfish]

"Now, if you have enough death in a particular place, it will sunder the veil further, but that's not due to any specific action by anyone."



You mean like Avernus letting loose a whole pile of demons and he himself making the veil weaker to let them through? In Wardens keep he has to undo what he has done by closing up the tear he created.



As far as tearing the veil? It matters not to me because if a abomination goes wild ala Connor the veil will be weakend because of the slaughter of so many people.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

"Now, if you have enough death in a particular place, it will sunder the veil further, but that's not due to any specific action by anyone."

You mean like Avernus letting loose a whole pile of demons and he himself making the veil weaker to let them through? In Wardens keep he has to undo what he has done by closing up the tear he created.

As far as tearing the veil? It matters not to me because if a abomination goes wild ala Connor the veil will be weakend because of the slaughter of so many people.

That does not make an abomination a contagious condition, however, and so the disease model fails.  I also note that it apparently takes a LOT of death in once place to sunder the viel by itself.  Redcliff is fine once you deal with Conner for example.  It takes slaughters of the order of Ostagar and the Circle Tower to do that on it's own.

Again, not nearly enough justification for the harm the circle system is causing.  If were are going to balance this, then you HAVE to consider the human rights of the mages as well, and ask yourself if there are better systems out there.

In this case too many of you are refusing to consider the human rights of the mages NOR are you willing to consider that not even the Chantry thought the circle system was needed to protect anyone.

-Polaris

[Il Divo]

IanPolaris wrote...

Enough to justify imprisoning mages for what they are in total?  As I said before, not even the chantry believed this until Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical strike and control all mages herself....and then this reason was trotted out much later to 'justify' it.  Again, this is per the Chantry's own history.

-Polaris

In effect, yes. 
 
A crazy knight is less terrifying than a crazy Mage because even a knight remains within a sphere which the common folk can understand. A knight wields a sword, bow, whatever, if he swings it at you, it will cut you.  But people have all sorts of misrepresentations of Mages that I don't think is solved by the Chantry doing a 180 and telling people Mages are safe, not when Mages can summon demons, shoot lightning, and the like. People see this, understand that Mages are connected to the Fade (a realm of spirits and demons), which already has many misrepresentations. How (for example) is a common person able to know if a Mage is casting a spell to heal a simple cut or to summon an inferno?

I'm personally not sure that the Circle system is right in its current form, but neither is it so easy to just integrate Mages back into the general populus.

[Heretical Sound]

IanPolaris wrote...
 There are many reported instances of armored knights going into small villiages in the holy land (esp Hospitalars) and slaughtering them to a man.  A villiage of untrained peasents is no match against a trained and armored knight unless the villiagers get very, very lucky or just happen to have trained warriors of their own (very unlikely).

Gameplay mechanics have jack and fecal matter to do with it.  Read more history.

Now this caught my eye. Really I'm interested to hear of these 'knights' who brazenly waltzed into villages on a whim and casually slaughtered the inhabitants with minimal effort. Mediaeval history has always been an interest of mine so I wondering whether you could expand on this phenomena you've mentioned.

Would I be right in my understanding that these instances are of single knights slaughtering villages? Could you offer any dates or specific villages? Or better yet the chronicler. It would be a simple matter for me to then google away.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
We know enough to know that these socieites worked very well without the circle.[/quote]

No, you don't.



[quote]
Yes we do, not becaues the Chantry is Evil (although that case could certainly be made) but because even within Andrastian societies itself, the most devote and anti-magical forces in society didn't think that isolating the mages was needed to protect anyone.  That's not my word on this.  That's established Chantry history.[/quote]

No, that's not a fact. youre adding your own words in. Where does it say "and the templars told her: let us never confine mages". Nowhere.- You're adding that in. you're asking why tehy didn't create circles before? How the hell should I know?

You might as well ask why wasn't the wheel invented earlier...becasue it wasnt.


[quote]
[quote]
impossible to detect, intention of carreir irrelevant
- a dormant virus, no means of detection. Anyone can be a carrier, with a dormant virus inside. Virus doesn't care about the hosts intentions. Good or bad, both cna cause death of hunderds.
- who is to become and abomination is impossible to detect. Inentions of the mage are irrelevant, he wil become an abomination if he's overpowered by a deamon or tricked.
[/quote]

However, in the case of abominations there are known risk factors that can be avoided.  The circle not only fails to research these risk factors but actually AGRAVATES them.[/quote]

Wrong.
The circel tries to minimize these factors...Which is alos one of hte reasons childern are taken away..because the demons may attempt poseseion using children as a bargaining chip.



[quote]
[quote]
Prevention methods - none
- there are no acceptalbe methods of preventing the danger..short of nuking the site and killing the whle town
- short of killing all mages or tranqilizing them, there are no known methods of preventing an abomination rampage
[/quote]

False.  Education is the primary prevention method here.  Listen to Mouse.  You can only become an abomination if you let that demon in (or force a confontation with a demon and lose in the fade).  There are prevention methods.[/quote]

Lies. there are no real prevention methods. Education only helps so much. There's NO WAY to tell if somone is going to get possesed or not. Learned, harrowed mages get possesed. So no. Jsut no.


[quote]
[quote]
spread and danger level
- can spread trough physical contact. even air. Prximity to any carrier is dangerous. Inefction rate and mortality high.
- an abomination can kill hunderds, can tear opening in the veil and let in other demons, creating an army of possesed corpses to ramapge and kill. Can even create other abominations if there are other mages around.
[/quote]

Utterly false and horrible comparison.  You are forgetting that it's easy for many airborn viruses to spread (the contagion rate) while it's almost impossible to make a mage an abomination unless he wants to become one.  Of all the abominations we see in the game ONLY ONE can do it and only by using a specific bloodmagic ritual which involves mind-control

Abominations completely fail in this comparison.[/quote]

No they are not. I'm not talking only about spreading of abomination, but spreading of damage/death. A aboination creating ozther aboniations (yes, it cna do that if there are other mages. Not with 100% certant,y it still relies on the other mage getting possesed, but ti's the same thing with a virus. It must overcome your immune system)

Hence, given that abominations can tear the veil and bring in other demons (thus raising an army of corpses), they can spread death further at an increqsing rate, if not stopped.




[quote]
[quote]
reactive-measures
- insufficient. Once a carrier gets into another village, further spread can only be stoped by another quarantene. Damage is already done
- insufficient. Once a reposne team arrives, the abmniation has already slain many, or even worse escaped. Damage already done.
[/quote]

I point out that Mages Collective quest as a counterexample.  In that case you are hired to deal with a potential abomination situation and only one death occured.  That's impressive.  There is no reason to think that with appropriate safeguards OUTSIDE the circle, an abomination can't be detected and dealth with swifty especially since we have on record many sucessful societies in history (many hightly magical) that have done just that.[/quote]

MAges collective is fail. Teh Warden is not an explane since he is uber-sup-extra l33t.
And no, we dont' have on record many sucesfull societies. We have socieites we know next to nothnig about.




[quote]
I've pointed out many times why this comparison completely fails.  A better (but IMO still wrong) comparison would be to the criminally insane.[/quote]

And I've pointed why it doesn't fail and why you fail.



[quote]
Funny how in your 'realistic' world the chantry and those that apologize for it (Wynne, Kelli, etc) are never wrong.....[/quote]

Who sez they're never wrong?

[IanPolaris]

Il Divo wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Enough to justify imprisoning mages for what they are in total?  As I said before, not even the chantry believed this until Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical strike and control all mages herself....and then this reason was trotted out much later to 'justify' it.  Again, this is per the Chantry's own history.

-Polaris

In effect, yes. 
 
A crazy knight is less terrifying than a crazy Mage because even a knight remains within a sphere which the common folk can understand. A knight wields a sword, bow, whatever, if he swings it at you, it will cut you.  But people have all sorts of misrepresentations of Mages that I don't think is solved by the Chantry doing a 180 and telling people Mages are safe, not when Mages can summon demons, shoot lightning, and the like. People see this, understand that Mages are connected to the Fade (a realm of spirits and demons), which already has many misrepresentations. How (for example) is a common person able to know if a Mage is casting a spell to heal a simple cut or to summon an inferno?

I'm personally not sure that the Circle system is right in its current form, but neither is it so easy to just integrate Mages back into the general populus.

I can not agree with you here.  Now I can agree that reintegration should be done gradually, but you seem to be willing to give the Chantry a free pass at all the mage hate they have spread over the years.

I also think we can not ignore that most societies INCLUDING Andrastian ones did just fine with mages being part of society.

Here's the deal.  Given that mages are powerful (and should be regulated...no one disputes that), is it better to alienate them from society completely (and thus provoke the dragon) or integrate them, allow them rights and controls (as historically socieites have done), and thus give mages incentive to help society...including protecting society against those that would abuse their power.

I think the answer is clear.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It's not. Abomination can tear the veil futher, letting more demons in. Hence, more possesions. And not only of mages.

Wrong.  Only one abomination in the entire game and lore had that ability (to tear the veil) and that was the Baroness who was able to manifest in pure demon form in the real world...and as such was a highly special case if there ever was one (and she harnessed the life energy of those villiagers over hundreds of years to get that power to boot!)

EPIC FAIL..

Connor. Where do you think those unded come from? Check the codex. They are corpses possesed by demons. And how do demaons get to posses corpses? Tear the veil....

[IanPolaris]

Heretical Sound wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
 There are many reported instances of armored knights going into small villiages in the holy land (esp Hospitalars) and slaughtering them to a man.  A villiage of untrained peasents is no match against a trained and armored knight unless the villiagers get very, very lucky or just happen to have trained warriors of their own (very unlikely).

Gameplay mechanics have jack and fecal matter to do with it.  Read more history.

Now this caught my eye. Really I'm interested to hear of these 'knights' who brazenly waltzed into villages on a whim and casually slaughtered the inhabitants with minimal effort. Mediaeval history has always been an interest of mine so I wondering whether you could expand on this phenomena you've mentioned.

Would I be right in my understanding that these instances are of single knights slaughtering villages? Could you offer any dates or specific villages? Or better yet the chronicler. It would be a simple matter for me to then google away.

I don't want to digress too far, but during the first Crusade, the Knights Hospitaler purged anyone in cities and villages they conquired (including Jerusalem) of non-Christians (and I mean non-Latin Christians).  It was an absolute slaughter by any definition, and yes said knights were outnumbered hundreds to one by villiagers/peasents in many cases when this happened.

I am sure that a quick perusal of the first crusade can supply more.  The point is that in a villiage full of non-combantent peasents, a armored and trained knight is absolutely lethal.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It's not. Abomination can tear the veil futher, letting more demons in. Hence, more possesions. And not only of mages.

Wrong.  Only one abomination in the entire game and lore had that ability (to tear the veil) and that was the Baroness who was able to manifest in pure demon form in the real world...and as such was a highly special case if there ever was one (and she harnessed the life energy of those villiagers over hundreds of years to get that power to boot!)

EPIC FAIL..

Connor. Where do you think those unded come from? Check the codex. They are corpses possesed by demons. And how do demaons get to posses corpses? Tear the veil....

EPIC FAIL

Conner tore the veil when he made the deal with the Demon.  Jowan (who very knowledgeable about the academic side of magic) explains this when you meet him.  He did so when he WASN'T an abmonination and he did it accidentally.

Try this again.

-Polaris

[Il Divo]

IanPolaris wrote...

I can not agree with you here.  Now I can agree that reintegration should be done gradually, but you seem to be willing to give the Chantry a free pass at all the mage hate they have spread over the years.

Now see, I personally don't care who it is that regulates them. The problem is that Templars are mostly fueled by dogma, not by a genuine urge to see everyone (Mage and society) protected which really should be their function. The phrase: "Quis custodies ipsos custodes" comes to mind. The Templars are simply unregulated and this leads to its own problems.  

Here's the deal.  Given that mages are powerful (and should be regulated...no one disputes that), is it better to alienate them from society completely (and thus provoke the dragon) or integrate them, allow them rights and controls (as historically socieites have done), and thus give mages incentive to help society...including protecting society against those that would abuse their power.

I think the answer is clear.

-Polaris

I do think that phylacteries should still play an important part. A little pain now protects the general populus from those crazy ones. Hell, I'd actually not limit this to Mages but say every citizen, King and commoner, should be expected to give blood should they need to be found. I also do believe in the 'standardized' education expected of all Mages, remaining in the tower through childhood, even the Harrowing, but instead of remaining for life, they should have the option to see the outside world (as per Anders). Finally, I would keep the Templars as a force but remove them from the control of the Chantry which is largely responsible for their cruelties. I would also make damn sure that those Templars were trained enough to recognize the difference between a healer and a demon to prevent further worthless atrocities.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
That must explain why Greagoir only permitted seven mages to Ostagar. Had more been permitted, the Fifth Blight might have been averted. If more were typically permitted before it got so bad to be a Blight, then maybe there would not be any Blights to contend with.

Where do you get that number from?

Duncan, Magi Origin.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
About the darkspawn yes...so why should I care about his oppinion on mages?

I never said you should. You asked. I pointed out his status as the Warden-Commander and his knowledge of the darkspawn place him as the best person able to assess how valuable mages would be against the darkspawn. Duncan understands that the Blight and the darkspawn armies need to be stopped, and that goal is paramount. Instead of fighting darkspawn and preventing the Blight, Greagoir was more interested in caging the mages in the Circle Tower. If there were more than seven, maybe the Fifth Blight wouldn't have taken the south of Ferelden.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm not making any statements at all on the Chantry there. War is hell.

And I'd say that it's better to accept your responsibility in life then run from it.

Being a prisoner - or, as some here would argue, a slave - to the Chantry isn't a responsibility for any mage.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I have provided a zillion codex entries, dev quotes and firm evidence in discussion with you before...nothing seems to stick or matter. So yea...think what you want.

All you've done is dismiss entire posts because you disagreed with the people who wrote them. Instead of tackling them, you either write them off as stupid or you blatantly ignore them.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I wonder why the Chantry then gave her asylum. Hmmm, could it be because she provided a lot of knowledge about Blood Magic, and defenses against all forms of Mind Control? Gee, I don't know but it sure looks like it.
.... No, she was not a Blood Mage. Having knowledge about the forbidden arts does not make you a practioner of it. By your logic, any one who knows about the rituals of the Ku Klux Klan are a member. Which, I hope, you can see is faulty logic.

Doubtful that the Chantry would admit that Adralla practiced blood magic (given how Wynne and Greagoir will try to murder a Grey Warden who knows blood magic despite saving everyone in the missing scene), but it makes sense that she would given how she knows that her spell can prevent mind control, and took that knowledge outside of Tevinter to the Circle of Magi.

[Heretical Sound]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't want to digress too far, but during the first Crusade, the Knights Hospitaler purged anyone in cities and villages they conquired (including Jerusalem) of non-Christians (and I mean non-Latin Christians).  It was an absolute slaughter by any definition, and yes said knights were outnumbered hundreds to one by villiagers/peasents in many cases when this happened.

I am sure that a quick perusal of the first crusade can supply more.  The point is that in a villiage full of non-combantent peasents, a armored and trained knight is absolutely lethal.

-Polaris

I'm hesitant to call you a liar but while my own experience with the Crusades is limited, I do possess a working knowledge of events.
The Knights Hospitaller as a military order were founded in the direct aftermath of the first crusade(1099), ergo they could not have been involved in any associated 'slaughtering'. Furthermore the absence of any mention to such events outside the well known incident at Jerusalem, leaves me sceptical.
Jerusalem itself was witness to a massacre but to what extent remains heavily debated. In any case the killings at Temple Mount, the only confirmed slaughter, were carried out by a significant number of crusader troops not lone knights.

Of course if you were to provide citations mentioning these village massacres then I would happily drop my cynicism.

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What the Chantry does is necessary. A lesser evil. It would be nice if a better system was used, but untill such system is presented (hard, solid proof needed) this one is good enough. don't see the reason to change it. [/QUOTE]
It clearly isn't necessary if other nations don't adopt their methods and haven't been overrun by abominations.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


If I was a pesant living in thedas, I'd want mages locked up in the towers. [/QUOTE]
We all know how much you support the Chantry, Lotion.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And no..It does not condition mages to resrt to fobidden magics...unless you go to hte extreemes of hte definition..but I can do that too. the mages condition templars to kill them because they resist! [/QUOTE]
Considering how many times the codex entries describe mages becoming abominations as a direct result of templars and how the incident at the Circle Tower came about, I disagree.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages will always rebel. Some, yes. but so will prisoners in prison. Rebelion is no reason to break down the system. There is always malcontents. [/QUOTE]

Mages rebel because they want freedom from their oppressors.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Only if all humans could suddenly turn into abominations with no warning. [/QUOTE]

Just imagine if mages could declare an Exalted March on another nation for absolutely no reason...
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
duncan is only one man with his own views.
Cullen? So what. Tehre's always a few peopel liek that. There are some soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan who talk with glee about killing "towelheads". Mages are dangerous poeple. There's pleanty of reason to fear them..and fear breeds hate. no propaganda is necessary. [/quote]

Propaganda happens when you blame all mages for the actions of one particular empire. Compounding that with having mages under the mercy of armored and armed drug addicts, it's a recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hehe...you're making this too easy.

1. non-mages can only be possesed under special circumstances (like where the veil is torn). Mages can be possesed anywhere, anytime

2. possesed non-mages are nowhere near as powerfull and dangerous as true abominations. [/quote]

1. Mages can only be possessed under special circumstances, too.
2. Anders cat murdered four templars. Clearly, they're more powerful than you think.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And that's the reason you mention him in every post? Nah, it's because you hate the templas and chantry and use every single post to jsut list their "crimes" (real of false), evne when it has NOTHINGto do with the actual topic or question. You did that several times. [/quote]

I didn't realize it would upset you so much, Lotion, when I point out that the templars killed an innocent person because they thought D'Sims was a mage.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And you also copy-paste your own posts over and over......what, you're plaing to drive me mad or win the debate trough attrition? [/quote]

Considering you had to resort to calling me stupid because you can't articulate a well-written argument, I'd try to actually formulate a substantial argument if I were you.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
As for the last part. No, I do have a problem with innocent people being killed. I do have a problem wiht the guilty ones getting away unpunished. But that happens in every society and every system. Yet you hapr on it like crazy, liek it's something extra-super-speial here. It's not. [/quote]

It happens because of the conditions of the Chantry on the mages, but you gloss over them because the Chantry never does anything wrong in your eyes. Everything is excused. IanPolaris provides an effective alternative to the Chantry's imprisonment (or some would argue that it's enslavement) of mages, and you brush it off because you can't acknowledge the flaws that are inherent in the Chantry's vicious cycle of dehumanizing and imprisoning mages. People rebel when they want freedom from their oppressors - and maybe the mages will achieve the same victory that the people of Saint Dominique did to be freed from their masters.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No.
Lock them up because at any moment they (your mage bowling buddies) can turn into monsters, kill you, raise your corpse to butcher your family, and then proceed to do that to your negihbor and the rest of the village....regardless if they wanted it or not.

People keep equating this to some sort of racism, but in reality there is no clear historical paralel in our universe.

Yes, locking them up in not nice. Neither is putting people in the quarantene and shooting them when they try to break out. Horrible...but if you had your family outside that quarantene zone,
you'd shoot. [/quote]

Another awful analogy that makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion. Bravo, Lotion, you've continually beat this dead horse of an awful analogy for everything it was ever worth. Considering how you gloss over how Haven and the Dalish clans can survive without the templars or the Chantry, and how multiple accounts of abominations have transpired as a direct result of the templars, maybe it means we should implement a new method that doesn't push mages to fight for their freedom from their oppressors?

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is chicken feed when compared to the numberof people in the villages that would get killed.

And yes, I have proven they have limited the spread of abominations. Again, simple math. And what do you mean by "continue to read". There was one such example. Not to meniont that you don't need templars for mages to turn into abominations. They do that just fine on their own. [/quote]
You haven't provided any evidence of the sort.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
He still has a choice. not to mention that someone with a mind control doesn't need to go that that effort. He'll simply make you belive that oyu WANT to push that button..that you want to kill your own wife and children. [/QUOTE]

You're not an expert on mind control, so don't pretend to be. You're ignoring that both end with the same result - so your analogy doesn't really work as well as you claim it does. Considering how blood magic is already out there, instead of blindly murdering any and all people who may have knowledge of it, shouldn't an alternative method be used? IanPolaris has already provided several examples of integrating it in order to protect people against it.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Blame-chain. I move one chain below.
Mages are to blame. [/quote]

For being prisoners of the Chantry, or would you prefer the term slaves?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Given that we know a single abomination can take out a whole squad of templars, and given that you want to allow mages to live among the popluace, wherever they want - how exactly do you invision this police to work [/quote]

A possessed person can be dangerous as well. Anders possessed cat murdered four templars.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No warrior can match the destructive potential of a mage. This is full. This is not debatable.
In the foodchain:

abomination >>>>> mage >>>>> warrior [/QUOTE]
That isn't the case with the Warden, who can defeat an abomination (in canon). If your statement was accurate, then no one would ever be able to defeat an abomination. There would be no Thedas - it'd be in ruins or overrun with abominations.

[IanPolaris]

Heretical Sound wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't want to digress too far, but during the first Crusade, the Knights Hospitaler purged anyone in cities and villages they conquired (including Jerusalem) of non-Christians (and I mean non-Latin Christians).  It was an absolute slaughter by any definition, and yes said knights were outnumbered hundreds to one by villiagers/peasents in many cases when this happened.

I am sure that a quick perusal of the first crusade can supply more.  The point is that in a villiage full of non-combantent peasents, a armored and trained knight is absolutely lethal.

-Polaris

I'm hesitant to call you a liar but while my own experience with the Crusades is limited, I do possess a working knowledge of events.
The Knights Hospitaller as a military order were founded in the direct aftermath of the first crusade(1099), ergo they could not have been involved in any associated 'slaughtering'. Furthermore the absence of any mention to such events outside the well known incident at Jerusalem, leaves me sceptical.
Jerusalem itself was witness to a massacre but to what extent remains heavily debated. In any case the killings at Temple Mount, the only confirmed slaughter, were carried out by a significant number of crusader troops not lone knights.

Of course if you were to provide citations mentioning these village massacres then I would happily drop my cynicism.

Such slaughters occured in Acre and Constinople in later crusades, and on the Temple Mount, the more modern historians now argue that it was pretty much done in cold blood with the peasentry outnumbering the knights by dozens to one (going by the seige population of Jerusalem and the knights in the crusading army) which certainly does back what I've been saying.

You can quibble all you like about the details but this isn't the thread for it.  My POINT was that a trained armored knight could easily slaughter a whole village he minded to, not from game machanics but based on what knights actually were able to do to peasents IRL.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 03:02 .

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No warrior can match the destructive potential of a mage. This is full. This is not debatable.
In the foodchain:

abomination >>>>> mage >>>>> warrior

That isn't the case with the Warden, who can defeat an abomination (in canon). If your statement was accurate, then no one would ever be able to defeat an abomination. There would be no Thedas - it'd be in ruins or overrun with abominations.

Not just with the warden either.  It's canon that dwarven LotD scouts can make themeselves totally immune from magic for a time, and Templars can get special gear to do the same.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  These LotD techniques can be taught to non-dwarves as well.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:54 .

[Sharn01]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No warrior can match the destructive potential of a mage. This is full. This is not debatable.
In the foodchain:

abomination >>>>> mage >>>>> warrior

That isn't the case with the Warden, who can defeat an abomination (in canon). If your statement was accurate, then no one would ever be able to defeat an abomination. There would be no Thedas - it'd be in ruins or overrun with abominations.

Not just with the warden either.  It's canon that dwarven LotD scouts can make themeselves totally immune from magic for a time, and Templars can get special gear to do the same.

-Polaris

Well, I agree with a lot of what you say but I would not start quoting the effectiveness of class mechanics or magic items in game as canon, unless you want to admit that non magic using rogues can teleport and warriors can create an earthquake by punching the ground.  Game mechanics are there to attempt to make a fun and hopefully challenging game, they are not there to provide canon explanations for things.

Modifié par Sharn01, 22 janvier 2011 - 04:36 .

[Huntress]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
We know enough to know that these socieites worked very well without the circle.[/quote]

No, you don't.

[quote]

Yes Societies were very well before The chantry came to thedas.

The elves have been in thedas long before humans, they didn't need no chantry, no Maker, no Templars. What happen to their culture was a dissaster and we have to thanks: The chantry for it. The elves were the one who master the magic.

The dwarves are an old race too, something with living near lyrium make them somewhat inmune to magic, BUT they can make powerful magical items. Now the Chantry want them to bow to the Maker and keep the lyrium, another stupid move by the chantry right?

You just don't want to see how wrong you are. Oh and anyone/anything can be a danger to anyone also, even Anders cat, who I am sure was NO mage but, I may be wrong.

[IanPolaris]

Sharn01 wrote...
Well, I agree with a lot of what you say but I would not start quoting the effectiveness of class mechanics or magic items in game as canon, unless you want to admit that non magic using rogues can teleport and warriors can create an earthquake by punching the ground.  Game mechanics are there to attempt to make a fun and hopefully challenging game, they are not there to provide canon explanations for things.

It is my understanding that what your characters and NPCs can do in the game is canon unless explicitly contradicted by another source.  It is well known that dwarves (and especially dwarves that spend a lot of time in the Deep Roads) are nearly immune from magic.  We also know that LotD scouts can render themselves totally immune from magic for short periods.

Seems canonical enough to me unless there is some other source that contradicts it.  I am just pointing out that the Templars aren't the only one that can deal with magic from a non-magical PoV.  The Dwarves have been on the wrong end of a magical arms race for centuries and while the Dwarves are losing, they are able to fight the highly magical darkspawn on nearly even terms...which shows that abominations and the like can be handled with proper training which in turn makes the circle even less necessary (not that it was to begin with...not even the Chantry started the circles to protect anyone after all).

-Polaris