1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Legionnaire Scout Skill: Blessing of the Ancestors: Long days among the veins of unrefined lyrium in the Deep Roads have given the legionaire the ability to resist magic.

Makes absolutely no sense for a non-dwarf to possess this skill if we accept that definition as canon. That long near unrefined lyrium would not do good things for the health.

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Legionnaire Scout Skill: Blessing of the Ancestors: Long days among the veins of unrefined lyrium in the Deep Roads have given the legionaire the ability to resist magic.

Makes absolutely no sense for a non-dwarf to possess this skill if we accept that definition as canon. That long near unrefined lyrium would not do good things for the health.

Yet in the game a non-dwarf can have this ability and there is nothing in the game lore that explicitly contradicts it...so it's one (of many) available tools.

Fact is even sword and shield and TH fighters get techniques that aid greatly against magic (shield pummel and pommel strike respectively).

Is magic dangerous and powerful?  Yes.  Can magical abominations be contained by non-magical (and non-templar) means?

Yes.

The dwarves are a prime example being on the wrong end of a magical power imbalance for centuries yet still managing to face the darkspawn on tactically very even terms (the dwarves are losing for a multitude of other reasons but not because of their martial prowess against the darkspawn).

-Polaris

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Yo, Bioware, it's a hotmeal ready banter between archmage and knight commander of some Circle for DA3. Just take it, clean edit it, and you all set.

Me vote for Polaris as our next First Enchanter :3

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Legionnaire Scout Skill: Blessing of the Ancestors: Long days among the veins of unrefined lyrium in the Deep Roads have given the legionaire the ability to resist magic.

Makes absolutely no sense for a non-dwarf to possess this skill if we accept that definition as canon. That long near unrefined lyrium would not do good things for the health.

Yet in the game a non-dwarf can have this ability and there is nothing in the game lore that explicitly contradicts it...so it's one (of many) available tools.

Its own skill description and the lore on lyrium dispute that this should be possible. Being that close near raw lyrium for any length of time would drive a non-dwarf mad, if not kill them, before granting magical immunity--at least according to lore.

So either the lore is wrong, or you prefer to accept in-game mechanics over lore (despite your claims to the contrary earlier).

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Legionnaire Scout Skill: Blessing of the Ancestors: Long days among the veins of unrefined lyrium in the Deep Roads have given the legionaire the ability to resist magic.

Makes absolutely no sense for a non-dwarf to possess this skill if we accept that definition as canon. That long near unrefined lyrium would not do good things for the health.

Yet in the game a non-dwarf can have this ability and there is nothing in the game lore that explicitly contradicts it...so it's one (of many) available tools.

Its own skill description and the lore on lyrium dispute that this should be possible. Being that close near raw lyrium for any length of time would drive a non-dwarf mad, if not kill them, before granting magical immunity--at least according to lore.

So either the lore is wrong, or you prefer to accept in-game mechanics over lore (despite your claims to the contrary earlier).

Dispute is not equal to preclude.  Right now there is no game or world lore that says that non-dwarves can not gain this ability, and in the game non-dwarf (rogues) can.  Ergo it's canon.  If the authors wish to change that, fine, but to my knowledge they have not.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
Dispute is not equal to preclude.  Right now there is no game or world lore that says that non-dwarves can not gain this ability, and in the game non-dwarf (rogues) can.  Ergo it's canon.  If the authors wish to change that, fine, but to my knowledge they have not.
-Polaris

Well... there is this:
"Even though dwarves have a natural resistance, raw lyrium is dangerous
for all but the most experienced of the Mining Caste to handle. Even for
dwarves, exposure to the unprocessed mineral can cause deafness or
memory loss. For humans and elves, direct contact with lyrium ore
produces nausea, blistering of the skin, and dementia. Mages cannot even approach unprocessed lyrium. Doing so is invariably fatal.
"

from the codex
It does imply that longtime exposure for non-dwarves is definantely not healthy and more likely to harm than grant immunity. There's also all the side-effects the templars suffer from the ore in it's processed form (nightmares, dementia, disorientation).

Not to mention that there are no humans or elves in the legion of the dead. Which kind of makes it difficult to attain that slow build up of resistance.

Overall though, I strongly advice being careful in using game mechanics as an indication of anything true. After all the game mechanics does allow you to run with a broken leg or talk with a severed jugular. I assure you... that is not something possible.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Dispute is not equal to preclude.  Right now there is no game or world lore that says that non-dwarves can not gain this ability, and in the game non-dwarf (rogues) can.  Ergo it's canon.  If the authors wish to change that, fine, but to my knowledge they have not.
-Polaris

Well... there is this:
"Even though dwarves have a natural resistance, raw lyrium is dangerous
for all but the most experienced of the Mining Caste to handle. Even for
dwarves, exposure to the unprocessed mineral can cause deafness or
memory loss. For humans and elves, direct contact with lyrium ore
produces nausea, blistering of the skin, and dementia. Mages cannot even approach unprocessed lyrium. Doing so is invariably fatal.
"

from the codex
It does imply that longtime exposure for non-dwarves is definantely not healthy and more likely to harm than grant immunity. There's also all the side-effects the templars suffer from the ore in it's processed form (nightmares, dementia, disorientation).

Not to mention that there are no humans or elves in the legion of the dead. Which kind of makes it difficult to attain that slow build up of resistance.

Overall though, I strongly advice being careful in using game mechanics as an indication of anything true. After all the game mechanics does allow you to run with a broken leg or talk with a severed jugular. I assure you... that is not something possible.

All very interesting but none of that precludes non-Dwarven Rogues from getting the LotD Scout Specialty (i.e. getting LotD training).  It's also tangential to my point.  Certainly Dwarves can certainly get this training (and training like it) which means that non-magical means exist to fight abominations and fairly sucessfully...which is a point against a regressive system like the Chantry's truly being 'necessary'.

-Polaris

[Heretical Sound]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

We are not quibbling over details. The fact you incorrectly believe that the Knights Hospitaller were merrily murdering during the first Crusade is not an insignificant detail. I'd say most would call it a rather significant one.  It is indicative of an absolute lack of knowledge of the Crusades and has made it abundantly clear you are making sweeping assertions and wildly inaccurate ones at that.

There was no slaughter at Acre 1189-1191. Both sides executed captured prisoners. And at Constantinople it was a rather large Crusading army that was the perpetrators.
You mention "Modern Historians" ... oh sorry the "more modern historians". Such as? Names? And am I right in understanding that they specifically mention a "dozen to one" in each and everyone of the sieges? WOW! There was me thinking all we had to go on was estimations. I would so much like to read the works of these "more modern historians".

  Of course this is not to detract from the main point in that you claimed that villages were slaughtered yet the examples you provided and incorrectly at that, have been large cities. I'm still waiting in this regard. So is everyone else.

Oh so we going off point now are we? Or have you just realised that I'm not taken in by your outright fabrications. Provide solid evidence or retract your claims. You don't need to repeat your assertions. It won't make them become true.

[IanPolaris]

Heretical Sound,

Go fish. Seriously a simple google search will tell you that I am right about the Temple Mount massacre. Approx 1,000 knights to appox 30,000 residents of Jerusalem is dozens to one and this was after the surrender.  I alrso read that during the first (and subsequent) crusades, that such "cleansing" was typical.  The POINT was that a single knight in armor and martial training with a sword is more than a match for a typical midaeval villiage and this is true (thus making him dangerous). 

This is not a fabrication, but I will not address this point further becuase it is OFF TOPIC.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I will retract the statement that it was Knights Hospitaler.  That was indeed after the first crusades.

Edit PPS:  As for cold-blood or not, http://www.google.co...muKdCJKNIpWWNtQ

Edit PPPS:  As I said above, I will not address this or posts on this topic further.  You clearly are trying to derail the thread and I was foolish enough to respond to you in the first place.  I regard your motives as highly suspect.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:49 .

[IanPolaris]

Just to hammer it in...two more examples of trained knights slaughtering peasents (albeit not in the crusades) specifically during peasent uprisings (including the Peasents War).

http://www.marxists....ts-war/ch04.htm

http://books.google....d=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK

That's all I'll adress from here on out.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:06 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
All very interesting but none of that precludes non-Dwarven Rogues from getting the LotD Scout Specialty (i.e. getting LotD training).  It's also tangential to my point.  Certainly Dwarves can certainly get this training (and training like it) which means that non-magical means exist to fight abominations and fairly sucessfully...which is a point against a regressive system like the Chantry's truly being 'necessary'.
-Polaris

Yes, Polaris.
I have two counterpoints. One is that the ability to aqcuire the LotD scout abilities as a non-dwarf is purely mechanical, with little lore behind it. Only dwarves are employed by the LotD and the ability mentions years of experience. Lorewise there is nothing that indicate there are non-human LotD scouts. Secondly, there are unique specialisations. The arcane wariors are mentioned to be extinct and a figment remaining of one can brand it's memories onto the warden to grant you the skills... yet every mage in the game can learn this unqiue specialisation. Same with reaver, it is mentioned it specifically needs that ritual... yet every warrior can learn it. Spirit healers needs a spirit to "adopt" them... yet every mage can learn it.
That any rogue in the game can pick up the LotD skills seems not to be lore supported.

Then I feel like I need to point one thing out. Those non-magical means you refer to specifically here, building up a magical resistance and using them to combat abominations. It is already in place and have been for centuries. We call them the templars.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Then I feel like I need to point one thing out. Those non-magical means you refer to specifically here, building up a magical resistance and using them to combat abominations. It is already in place and have been for centuries. We call them the templars.

Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

-Polaris

PS:  I note that (except for Arcane Warrior which btw you find two more without going into the Brecilian Forest...one in Orzammar and one in Haven), you can buy books with this knowledge.  Just saying.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:07 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...
That any rogue in the game can pick up the LotD skills seems not to be lore supported.

It is not lore forbidden.  Unless the game lore specifically says otherwise, what you do in the game is allowable.  I note (see prior post script) that many of these things aren't nearly as unique as you think (we see many Spirit healers for example and you can buy the knowledge at the Wonder's of Thedas).  You can also buy the knowlege for LotD Scout in Amaranthine....and there are at least two example of Arcane Warrior you meet in the game that had nothing to do with the lost gem/phylactery in the Brecilian Forest.  Ironically the same goes for bloodmagic.  There are many sources (not just the desire demon).

-Polaris

Edit PS:  The existance of Templars (or Templar Like Warriors) and their usefulness as part of a magical police force does not ipso facto mean that the Chantry Circle system is justified.  Indeed Templars predate the circle.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:13 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

-Polaris

Mind that even the dwarven resistance comes from Lyrium, so no matter how you go you cannot get away from the magical resistance means addiction thing. I suppose you could employ only stoneborn dwarves (remember, surface dwarves do not have the resistance) for a magical police, but that would put the power over the mages among the dwarves instead.
As far as the lore tells us. Only lyrium can make you resistant to magic. Sadly, lyrium is addictive and detrimental to health. I don't see any way around it. But if you do feel free to point it out and we'll discuss it.

As for no accountability... I'm not so sure they don't have that. We have not seen it yet no, but the seekers have been described as Chantry internal security. I think I'll have to wait until I've played DA2 until I want to discuss that.
Preliminarily I think they do have accountability, if nothing else they must be able to punish templars that do not obey orders. That said... the big question what are they accountable for? Probably not as much as we'd like them to be.

As for the Chantry controlling them. It's a bit of doube edged knife. You'd think no religious organisation should be allowed that kind of power... but think about it. The Chantry is the closest thing to the UN in thedas. It has people to contact in every city and town in Andrastian Thedas.. It is the largest and richest organisation in the world. And utlimately it preaches that all the makers children (including mages) deserve to live. Oh... and people trust the Chantry.
It's not that shabby.

Compare it with the alternatives... putting under kings makes mages subject to the powerstruggles. The circles would be one of the first things hit in every coup, every mage that does not bend the knee butchered (or just butchered to play it all safe). Then there's the fact that poorer nations like Anderfels and Ferelden might not be able to afford the Lyrium the circles demand (remember... only sold from Orzammar... most expensive material in the world). Not to mention that tyrants would probably use mages to coy their subjects... and if that wouldn't make people hate mages I don't know what would.

Putting it under mages themselves. Well... it's tricky. For one people don't trust them(will adress this momentarily). Then there is the fact that if the situation goes out of hand, the mages in command will be at greater risk than say templars. Demons do target mages first after all and can try to possess them directly through the veil.  And even if the leadership would know what the mages are going through... that does not mean they would be more lenient to other mages or less harsh than say templars (as modern Tevinter neatly demonstrates).

That's the only groups I can think of, Do you feel I missed any candidates? If so, feel free to point them out.

As for mages being trusted. The easy thing we can say here is Chantry propaganda (allthough dogma is a more appropriate word). But I can't honestly find any such. There is no official anti-mage texts as far as I can see. Nothing that condemns magic (quite the contrary... it is described as the maker's gift in some instances). Even Gregoir himself describes it as a "gift and a curse" (then proceeding to explain why it is a curse).
The only true non-subtle anti-mage sentiment from the Chantry that I can find is the Grand Cleric biting the head off Uldred. But that can just as easily simply be opinion.
If I have missed any... feel free to point it out.

Looking forward to your next response.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Then I feel like I need to point one thing out. Those non-magical means you refer to specifically here, building up a magical resistance and using them to combat abominations. It is already in place and have been for centuries. We call them the templars.

Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

Who sez they got no acountability. There is 0 proof of that. That is just your speculation.
We do have a few examples of templars in the field being dicks, but that is nothing unexpected. Similar occurances happen among the military and police, yet no one would argue that they have no acauntability.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:43 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
It is not lore forbidden.  Unless the game lore specifically says otherwise, what you do in the game is allowable.  I note (see prior post script) that many of these things aren't nearly as unique as you think (we see many Spirit healers for example and you can buy the knowledge at the Wonder's of Thedas).  You can also buy the knowlege for LotD Scout in Amaranthine....and there are at least two example of Arcane Warrior you meet in the game that had nothing to do with the lost gem/phylactery in the Brecilian Forest.  Ironically the same goes for bloodmagic.  There are many sources (not just the desire demon).

-Polaris

Edit PS:  The existance of Templars (or Templar Like Warriors) and their usefulness as part of a magical police force does not ipso facto mean that the Chantry Circle system is justified.  Indeed Templars predate the circle.

I'd chart the specialisation books down on player convenience. Just like that all weapons are affordable. That we can carry an endless supply of poultices. That no party-member ever dies. And similar.
The Arcane warrior spirit says the lore behind them is long since forgotten since the days of Arlathan... yet there are books about it. You can learn the LotD spec. from books, yet the skill that spawned this discussion is described as years of exposure. How do you get years of experience from a book you bought a week ago?
Templar resistance is lorewise described to be derived from lyrium... yet there we are. Buying the skill without taking lyrium. Noone ever reacts to you using blood magic.
Personally... I sort of dislike how available and non-consequential they are (they're about as thematic as an attribute bonus).

That said... feel free to disagree with me. But honestly, most specialisations seem to completely disregard their own lore.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Just to hammer it in...two more examples of trained knights slaughtering peasents (albeit not in the crusades) specifically during peasent uprisings (including the Peasents War).

http://www.marxists....ts-war/ch04.htm

http://books.google....d=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK

That's all I'll adress from here on out.

-Polaris

Failed argument. You're talking about whole armies there, no a SINGLE warrior.

Not to meniotn that the DA lore SPECIFICY and CLEARLY sez otherwise. The difference in power and danger is undesputable.



EDIT:
Ragarding the debate between you and JK - you bring in gameplay and blance decisions into the discussion as pure lore. That is downright redicolous.

DA:O is a game. TheDas is a setting. Games have ot take some liberties iwth the setting as a rule, because they are a very specific medium. Codex entries or parts from the novel would be a proper source to use.
Not player stats from the game.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:56 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

-Polaris

Mind that even the dwarven resistance comes from Lyrium, so no matter how you go you cannot get away from the magical resistance means addiction thing. I suppose you could employ only stoneborn dwarves (remember, surface dwarves do not have the resistance) for a magical police, but that would put the power over the mages among the dwarves instead.
As far as the lore tells us. Only lyrium can make you resistant to magic. Sadly, lyrium is addictive and detrimental to health. I don't see any way around it. But if you do feel free to point it out and we'll discuss it.

True surface dwarves lose their resistance to magic, but that doesn't mean that you need lyrium to be resistant to magic.  I cite Alistair himself who says that Templars don't need lyrium to use their anti-magical talents and he then even questions whether it even makes them more effective (which is the chantry claim).  The point here is there is more to it than simple exposure to lyrium.

As for no accountability... I'm not so sure they don't have that. We have not seen it yet no, but the seekers have been described as Chantry internal security. I think I'll have to wait until I've played DA2 until I want to discuss that.
Preliminarily I think they do have accountability, if nothing else they must be able to punish templars that do not obey orders. That said... the big question what are they accountable for? Probably not as much as we'd like them to be.

Show me one...just ONE....case where a Templar has been held accountable for his actions against mages other then Cullen (and then only in a small subset of possible endings).  You can't.  Doesn't sound like accountability to me especially when the Tempars have been so spectacularly wrong on a number of occassions (including the murder of at least one non-mage!)

As for the Chantry controlling them. It's a bit of doube edged knife. You'd think no religious organisation should be allowed that kind of power... but think about it. The Chantry is the closest thing to the UN in thedas. It has people to contact in every city and town in Andrastian Thedas.. It is the largest and richest organisation in the world. And utlimately it preaches that all the makers children (including mages) deserve to live. Oh... and people trust the Chantry.
It's not that shabby.

It's pretty shabby.  The Chantry explicitly looks after it's own power and it's own interests including rewriting history and destroying entire Kingdoms to do so.  Ask the Dalish how "not shabby" the Chantry is!  Calling the Chantry "the UN of Thedas" is a gross insult to the UN...and that's saying something given my own attitude towards the UN!   We know for a fact (because the Chantry's own history tells us this) that the Chantry only started the circles so they and only they would control the magical workforce.  Protection had zip to do with it.

So I'll take a big pass at letting the Chantry have this sort of power.

Compare it with the alternatives... putting under kings makes mages subject to the powerstruggles. The circles would be one of the first things hit in every coup, every mage that does not bend the knee butchered (or just butchered to play it all safe). Then there's the fact that poorer nations like Anderfels and Ferelden might not be able to afford the Lyrium the circles demand (remember... only sold from Orzammar... most expensive material in the world). Not to mention that tyrants would probably use mages to coy their subjects... and if that wouldn't make people hate mages I don't know what would.

Far better than the Chantry.  Under Crown control, the state would have strong incentive to treat it's mages well for all the reasons you mention.  Even now, I will bet you 100:1 odds that every king has a shadow mage force (likely bloodmages) that the Chantry doesn't know anything about.  Magic is too useful NOT to do this.  At least with the circle under state control, this can be done openly.

That said, it could be abused so safeguards should be in place which leads to.....

Putting it under mages themselves. Well... it's tricky. For one people don't trust them(will adress this momentarily). Then there is the fact that if the situation goes out of hand, the mages in command will be at greater risk than say templars. Demons do target mages first after all and can try to possess them directly through the veil.  And even if the leadership would know what the mages are going through... that does not mean they would be more lenient to other mages or less harsh than say templars (as modern Tevinter neatly demonstrates).

Manaclash is better than anything the templars have at dealing with abominations....and mages are best equipped to understand and spot abominations as soon as they happen.  I will agree that mages shouldn't be SOLELY in charge of magical education and control, but they should have a large (perhaps even majority) say since magic is best fought by other magic.

That's the only groups I can think of, Do you feel I missed any candidates? If so, feel free to point them out.

Do it like we do in the real world for people with important skills (such as those that handle classified information that could LITERALLY cause cities to go up in smoke if revealed):  Make it some combination with checks and balances.  Other societies manage this quite well after all.  Not even the Chantry started the circles to protect against abominations after all.

As for mages being trusted. The easy thing we can say here is Chantry propaganda (allthough dogma is a more appropriate word). But I can't honestly find any such. There is no official anti-mage texts as far as I can see. Nothing that condemns magic (quite the contrary... it is described as the maker's gift in some instances). Even Gregoir himself describes it as a "gift and a curse" (then proceeding to explain why it is a curse).
The only true non-subtle anti-mage sentiment from the Chantry that I can find is the Grand Cleric biting the head off Uldred. But that can just as easily simply be opinion.
If I have missed any... feel free to point it out.

Looking forward to your next response.

Talk to the Reverand Mother in Redcliff.  She is ashamed and admits that the Chantry has provfoked mobs against mages and promises she won't do it since you are helping her.  Talk to Keli about her chantry-based beliefs.  Heck talk to Duncan and he flat out states that the Chantry only barely tolerates magic (because they have to).  I could go on and on, but the chantry does indeed spout a highly anti-mage dogma that doesn't help the situation in the slightest.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Then I feel like I need to point one thing out. Those non-magical means you refer to specifically here, building up a magical resistance and using them to combat abominations. It is already in place and have been for centuries. We call them the templars.

Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

Who sez they got no acountability. There is 0 proof of that. That is just your speculation.
We do have a few examples of templars in the field being dicks, but that is nothing unexpected. Similar occurances happen among the military and police, yet no one would argue that they have no acauntability.

Military and Police are ACCOUNTABLE (UCMJ if nothing else).  There is no evidence that Templars are accountable for anything they do in the field to a mage....or even a non-mage in at least one case!

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to meniotn that the DA lore SPECIFICY and CLEARLY sez otherwise. The difference in power and danger is undesputable.

No it doesn't.  Dead is dead.  The lore does state that abomiantions are dangerous.  That is not in dispute.  However, a trained warrior is dangerous too.

Again you fail to show that the danger is enough to merit the denial of human rights to an entire group of people because of what amounts to an accident of birth.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Templar resistance is lorewise described to be derived from lyrium... yet there we are. Buying the skill without taking lyrium.

Not true.  Alistair can use templar abilities without lyrium and flat out says that lyrium is NOT required.

Noone ever reacts to you using blood magic.

Not true.  Admittedly it's not nearly as much as it should be, but the game does react.  Just for example, your conversation with the captured bloodmage is very different if you are a bloodmage yourself.  Then there is Wynne trying to turn you in..... 

Honestly, it doesn't matter.  What matters (as the Dwarves have proven), there are good, nonmagical ways that DON'T depend on the Chantry (at least not necessarily) that can be used to deal/control/regulate magic and keep society safe WITHOUT the regressive circle system.  We see many examples both currently and historically.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  That wasn't a typo above.  I said Dwarves.  Why?  Although Dwarves themselves are non-magical, they have been on the wrong side of a magical power imbalance for centuries, and yet on the battlefield more than hold their own.  The Dwarves may be losing in the long term, but that's not because of their battle tactics or ability to deal with magic without having any of their own.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:04 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
You made an 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]

Onlxy if you start from the assumption that abomination = end of hte world. Which is not true. And if that was true, then the Chantry would be even MORE right in keeping mages in the towers.




[quote]
[/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]

It's up to you to prove that other systems are better, given that you are the one who wantws to change the existing one.
There is no such proof. It doesn't exist.



[quote]
[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.[/quote]

You comparison constantly ingores not one, but several factors. Dead is dead, that is ture.

But 100 dead is NOT equal to 10 dead.
Killing wihout willing it is NOT equal with killing of your own free will.
Killing people are using their corpses to create an army is NOT equal to simply killing people.
Mind controling people (and yes, demons teach blood magic, thus abominations know blood magic) is not qual to having a sword.

So I really don't see how you cna say a abomination is euqal to a warrior.
Basic logic contradicts you. The lore contrrradicts you. Heck, the devs themselves contradict you!

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

That's fantasy, not realism. You keep treating mind control like a regular weapon. Again and again.

Repeat after me..slowly.. NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED WITH IT. THERE IS NO TRUSTED CADRE. THERE IS NO LOYAL ARMY ON YOUR SIDE.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

ULTIMATE FAIL.

If Avernus can tear the veil, so can an abomination. Remeber, and abomination has far more power than any mage. And they also know blood magic.

Point is - mages can tear the veil. Mages can summon demons. Uldered did summon a demon.

Case closed.

[Huntress]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  I have no issue with Templar-like warriors being part of a magical police force.  I have a HUGE issue addicting them to lyrium and giving them no accountability and placing them under Chantry control.

-Polaris

Mind that even the dwarven resistance comes from Lyrium, so no matter how you go you cannot get away from the magical resistance means addiction thing. I suppose you could employ only stoneborn dwarves (remember, surface dwarves do not have the resistance) for a magical police, but that would put the power over the mages among the dwarves instead.
As far as the lore tells us. Only lyrium can make you resistant to magic. Sadly, lyrium is addictive and detrimental to health. I don't see any way around it. But if you do feel free to point it out and we'll discuss it.

As for no accountability... I'm not so sure they don't have that. We have not seen it yet no, but the seekers have been described as Chantry internal security. I think I'll have to wait until I've played DA2 until I want to discuss that.
Preliminarily I think they do have accountability, if nothing else they must be able to punish templars that do not obey orders. That said... the big question what are they accountable for? Probably not as much as we'd like them to be.

Oh my dalish assasin did punish the templars in DAA, for wanting   to take Anders away, even tho  King Alistar already said was good to go, as you can see the templars neither care that a Warden-Commander and a King wanted Anders to become a Warden, sadly the templars didnt survive the punishment. Yes they do need someone to punish them, sadly won't be a Warden commander.
The seeker is more intrigue/worried about who is going to be in charge that actually punishing templars, their job is on the line of fire.