1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Remeber that at that time no one believed that it was a real Blight. nor were they aware there were more darkspawn than predicted. As such, there was no reason to send more mages.

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.

If you can at any time turn into an abomination and slaughter your firends? Yes, I'd say it is your responsiblity to keep yourself locked away from the rest of the population.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[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]

You seem to think this.  What I am saying is that there is no way that a magical society like the Ancient Tevinter Imperium or Arlathan (to say nothing of more modern societies like the Dales, Rivvain or EVEN Andrasian societies prior to Ambrosia II) could wipe out all their mages once per generation and not have it recorded and not if not destroy then radically alter those societies.

The conclusion is obvious.  The Chantry with it's tower system is CREATING it's own abomination problem, and we see indicators of that throughout both DAO and DAA>



[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]

We know that doesn't happen with the Dalish.  We ALSO know that didn't happen with the Andrastian nations (such as Orlais) up to and including the Divine Ambrosia II.  You claim we don't have knowledge but we DO have knowledge about the Dales (Kingdom if not the tribes) and the early Chantry.  We also KNOW that the Chantry did not exile mages into the circle to protect anyone.

These make them valid counterexamples no matter how hard you try to pretend they don't.


[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]

The Dalish disagree.  So does Father Kolgrim if you talk with him along with his fellow Cultists.  (Sure they are evil but they clearly handle the mage situation far better than the Chantry does!)  For that matter the Chantry itself disagrees if you bother to read Chantry history.


[quote]
[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.
[/quote]

Once you run out of people, it's moot.

[quote]
Killing wihout willing it is NOT equal with killing of your own free will.
[/quote]

...and non-mages never get possessed or go mad.....  In short this cuts both ways.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

That doesn't happen with all cases of abominations.  Corpses happen when the veil is thin.  Big difference.  As for "equal" to having a sword, I wasn't saying they were "equal".  I was pointing out that anyone with power is going to abuse it.

If you really want to do comparisons, then take all of that, and I will set it against the Chantry's Exalted Marches. 
When you make that comparison, abominations look like a walk in the park.  Seriously.  The various Divines (Ambrosia and Renata rank as some of the worst) have caused more grief, loss of life, and abuse of power than any rogue mages or abominations ever have in the modern era (post chantry).

-Polaris



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!

[/quote]

[Huntress]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Uldered didn't sumon a demon he was the demon, Uldered was way gone before all hell was lose in the tower poor soul!

[LobselVith8]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
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

　
I can just imagine how much the templars would love that idea...
　

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
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).

Sir JK wrote...
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.

I find it interesting that so many are claiming it's impossible for non-dwarves to deal with lyrium when we have an example of one in DA:O - the Guardian. Aren't we forgetting that the Guardian, a human, was exposed to a large wall of lyrium that Oghren was said was the largest he's ever encountered, and mentions that it is affecting the entire temple, including the Ashes?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

You are right.  You ultimately failed.  Abominations only know the magic that their mage host possessed!  That is the POINT of an abomination!  Avernus tore the veil BY ACCIDENT.  So did Conner.  NEITHER were abominations when they did so (and it was the contacting of demons that did this).  No abomination either in game or in lore has the ability to sunder the veil.  Not even the Baroness as an abomination could do so.  (The Baroness is the only creature we encounter that can voluntarily sunder the veil, and she only does so as a FULL Pride demon per Justice).

-Polaris

Edit PS:  As for the harrowing chamber, the Abomination (it's no longer Uldred as it gleefully confirms) doesn't summon demons at all.  It uses a bloodmagic ritual that forces mages to 'voluntarily' accept a demon via mind-control....and apparently it only works if the mage's will has already nearly been broken by torture first.  Hardly what you are claiming (and it's done in a place where the Veil is already sundered btw).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:26 .

[Huntress]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

You are right.  You ultimately failed.  Abominations only know the magic that their mage host possessed!  That is the POINT of an abomination!  Avernus tore the veil BY ACCIDENT.  So did Conner.  NEITHER were abominations when they did so (and it was the contacting of demons that did this).  No abomination either in game or in lore has the ability to sunder the veil.  Not even the Baroness as an abomination could do so.  (The Baroness is the only creature we encounter that can voluntarily sunder the veil, and she only does so as a FULL Pride demon per Justice).

-Polaris

You mean connor right? Avernus sumon the demons by order of the warden commander. The rest is fine of course

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Bloodmagic (and thus mindcontrol magic) can not be suppressed!  It can't be supressed because you can not cut off the ability to dream and thus interact with fade spirits including demons.  That means that even if you could somehow find and destroy all bloodmagic lore in Thedas (effectively impossible anyway because pretty much every magical culture used at least some bloodmagic at some time), the demons would gleefully teach it anyway.

Given that you CAN NOT destroy this knowledge, then you need to find a way to deal with it, and control it.  Banning it solves nothing and does nothing except insure that the people you least want to have this sort of magic are the only ones that do.

That is why the Chantry's position on bloodmagic is terminally stupid (and I do mean terminally).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Huntress wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

You are right.  You ultimately failed.  Abominations only know the magic that their mage host possessed!  That is the POINT of an abomination!  Avernus tore the veil BY ACCIDENT.  So did Conner.  NEITHER were abominations when they did so (and it was the contacting of demons that did this).  No abomination either in game or in lore has the ability to sunder the veil.  Not even the Baroness as an abomination could do so.  (The Baroness is the only creature we encounter that can voluntarily sunder the veil, and she only does so as a FULL Pride demon per Justice).

-Polaris

You mean connor right? Avernus sumon the demons by order of the warden commander. The rest is fine of course

In Avernus' case he summoned (and thus contacted) too many demons too fast and too often.  He admits (when you talk with him) that it was a very risky thing to do, but the Warden Commander ordered it...and he would have done it anyway given they were out of other options.  This to clarify my point about Avernus.  It was an accident in both cases and in neither case was either an abomination.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Huntress wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Uldered didn't sumon a demon he was the demon, Uldered was way gone before all hell was lose in the tower poor soul!

Wrong.
Uldred wasn't possessed when he started the rebellion. However, once he summoned demons to his aid, one of them proved too powerful for him, and it possessed him forcibly, based on eye-witness.

And Ian, show me ONE case of a Templar not being held accountable for his actions. Oh that's right you can't, cause we NEVER get the full story. You don't know what happened to the Templars who killed D'sims. For all we know they were striped of rank and title and thrown out the Templar Order. We don't know. All we know is the parameters the Templars work within. As long as they uphold those, they won't be held accountable, because they've commited no wrong. So I can already stop you know, and tell you not to bring up Aneirin, since we don't now the whole story there either. 

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:39 .

[LobselVith8]

Since someone claimed that the opinion of a dev was the end all, be all truth for the entire DA universe, allow me to provide proof that it isn't the case. For anyone interested in how two devs can differ on opinion (emphasis mine):

Sheryl Chee wrote...

I'm really sorry some people were insulted by what I said. I didn't mean to be condescending at all.

Also, when I wrote Cullen, I hadn't heard of Twilight, so any similarities to Edward Cullen are coincidental. I did imagine him to be a young, fairly normal kid torn between his hormones and his duty. Like a more serious Alistair. Later on we decided we needed a templar survivor in the post-Uldred tower, and since people seem to enjoy it when they see people from their past, I decided to make it Cullen. In the beginning, he is sympathetic to the mages, but he comes away very changed by the things Uldred and the demons do to him.

As for the creepy stalker tendencies--er... I think that may have been started by David Gaider's little Cullen Romance snippet. I never imagined him as a creepy stalker.

DG and Sheryl had two differing opinions on Cullen. Clearly, the devs have differing opinions on characters and institutions.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Remeber that at that time no one believed that it was a real Blight. nor were they aware there were more darkspawn than predicted. As such, there was no reason to send more mages.

Except that King Cailan sent Duncan because they needed more mages. Mages in the Tower are discussing the fact that it's likely a Blight, so regardless of whether Greagoir thought it was or not - why ignore the King's need for more mages to fight the darkspawn? Duncan said he needed more mages - that was part of his reason for being there (the other being the mage recruit). Duncan was asking Greagoir for more mages on behalf of the King and blatantly ignored the King's call for more mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
If you can at any time turn into an abomination and slaughter your firends? Yes, I'd say it is your responsiblity to keep yourself locked away from the rest of the population.

You make it sound like it isn't a battle of wills, Lotion. If your accusation was always the case, why aren't all the Dalish abominations? Why weren't all the elves of the Dales or Arlathan then turned into abominations? Why isn't Haven overrrun with abominations? Why isn't Rivain merely ash and dust when their mages converge with spirits? You profess that the Chantry model is the best but it's clearly sparking a war between templars and mages that none of the other models have initiated. That speaks highly to the failure of the Chantry model for me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[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]

Who sez they didn't have big problems with abominations?
You just assume the whole kingdom would crumble if that were to happen, yet basic knowledge of human history tells us that humanity and kingdom can weather trough horrible disasters and perservere.

Take WW2 for example...dead people in the millions. Yet the humanity perservered and all the countres involved. Evne the loosing countries, that lost countlees troops and got bombed to hell, are strng and vital nations today.
So no...Jsut because they didn't crumble, doesn't mean destruction and death on such a scale wasn't a problem that's best dealth with.


[quote]
[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]

I'd jsut like my family and friends alive and well, not killed by an abomination.
Of course, you'd be singing a different tune if you were a simple villager living in TheDas.


[quote]
[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]

And prisoners rebel because they want to be free. People in quarantene try to break out because they don't want to die.
That hardly invalidates prisons or quarantenes.



[quote]
[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]

Wrong. Mages can be possesedat any time 24/7. They are at CONSTANT danger of being possesed. Well..I guess you can call "breathing" a special circumstance..

Abominations are far more powerfull than possesed corpses/animals. This is in the codex. It is not debatble.
Not to mention that you don't know the specifics of that enounter. The demon might have had hte element of surprise...the templars might have been novices.

Either way, my statements are backed up directly by lore. They are facts.


[quote]
[QUOTE]
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]

Heh..I didn't have to resort to anything. I wanted you. Because you prove me right with every post you make.


[quote]
[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]

I couldn't care less if you posted "The Chantry is hte greatest" instead of that. After 100 times, everything gets irritating.



[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]

I'm not glossing over anything. And an no point did I claim the Chantry was perfect...it has plenty of skeletons in it's closet.
But it's evident that you see everything trough a filter...because you can't acknowledge that the world of TheDas is not so black and white as you'd want it to be. You want Chantry ot be hte ultimate evil (maybe you jsut hate all religion, I don't know). But that is not the case.
DG repeated multiple times that it's not a simple issue. And you're hte one who constantly preaches "Chantry evil. Templars evil" like a broken record.

As our good Lord Jesus once said: "before trying to remove the thorn from your brothers eye, remove the log from your own."



[quote]
[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.[/quote]

Gameply mechanics and balance..power of save/load and difficulty setting. And a party of basasses.

What you say is not an argument. Lore os lore. Fluff is fluff. Tehy say you are wrong.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Remeber that at that time no one believed that it was a real Blight. nor were they aware there were more darkspawn than predicted. As such, there was no reason to send more mages.

Loghain didn't think this.  In fact in RtO, he rips Wynne a new one for the lack of support and lack of bravery the Circle Mages demonstrated.  You think Loghain wanted more mages?!  Of course he did (and in RtO says as much).  Also King Cailen wanted more mages and Duncan certainly did.  For that matter the First Enchanter also wanted to send more.

There was only one person that disagreed.  KC Gregoire speaking for the chantry, but his opinion was the only one that mattered.

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.

If you can at any time turn into an abomination and slaughter your firends? Yes, I'd say it is your responsiblity to keep yourself locked away from the rest of the population.

The Dalish don't think so.  Neither did the Chantry until well after Ambrosia II locked up mages for her own personal control of the magical workforce (protection wasn't the issue)....and this chestnut was trotted out ex-post facto to justify a regressive and dehumanizing system with no evidence that it either worked or was needed.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Didn't mages just live in the Chantries before the Circles? And all they ever did was light the Eternal Flame of every chantry. They were probably still confined to certain areas, and not as free as you'd like to believe.



Also, Anders' cat only killed three Templars. Just thought I'd correct that. /shrug

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wrong.
Uldred wasn't possessed when he started the rebellion. However, once he summoned demons to his aid, one of them proved too powerful for him, and it possessed him forcibly, based on eye-witness.

Actually we don't know for sure that Uldred wasn't possessed even then, but I will assume for the moement that he wasn't.  It still doesn't prove that abominations can sunder the veil....which makes your disease model worthless.

And Ian, show me ONE case of a Templar not being held accountable for his actions. Oh that's right you can't, cause we NEVER get the full story. You don't know what happened to the Templars who killed D'sims. For all we know they were striped of rank and title and thrown out the Templar Order. We don't know. All we know is the parameters the Templars work within. As long as they uphold those, they won't be held accountable, because they've commited no wrong. So I can already stop you know, and tell you not to bring up Aneirin, since we don't now the whole story there either. 

We have Wynne's account of Anerin and the Templars were never punished for that.  We see that an unsupported accusation can make an apprentice tranquil with no hearing involved as long as the accuser is a Templar.....no accountability there either.  In fact Gregoire isn't accountable even to Irving as the story makes painfully clear in multiple cases.

The burden of proof is on you to show that they are because the game and lore DIRECTLY contradict you here.  Templars are not shown to be accountable for their actions in the field.  Not once.  The only case where a Templar (Cullen) is held accountable is after open murder of multiple apprentice mages and only then by other templars....and that's not real accountability in my book!  Heck read the codex entry regarding the first Rite of Annulment.  The reason the Circle of Nevarra revolted was because Templars were murdering mages and getting off scott free. 

That's one example and more besides.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Didn't mages just live in the Chantries before the Circles? And all they ever did was light the Eternal Flame of every chantry. They were probably still confined to certain areas, and not as free as you'd like to believe.

Also, Anders' cat only killed three Templars. Just thought I'd correct that. /shrug

The Codex Entry, History of the Circle says otherwise.  When the mages went into exile, for the first time in human history mages were isolated from society.

Sure they worked (for the most part) in the Chantry, but there is no evidence that they were confined there as prisoners and at least implicit evidence they were not (from the same Codex entry).

-Polaris

[Huntress]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[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]

Who sez they didn't have big problems with abominations?
You just assume the whole kingdom would crumble if that were to happen, yet basic knowledge of human history tells us that humanity and kingdom can weather trough horrible disasters and perservere.

Take WW2 for example...dead people in the millions. Yet the humanity perservered and all the countres involved. Evne the loosing countries, that lost countlees troops and got bombed to hell, are strng and vital nations today.
So no...Jsut because they didn't crumble, doesn't mean destruction and death on such a scale wasn't a problem that's best dealth with.


[quote]
[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]

I'd jsut like my family and friends alive and well, not killed by an abomination.
Of course, you'd be singing a different tune if you were a simple villager living in TheDas.


[quote]
[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]

And prisoners rebel because they want to be free. People in quarantene try to break out because they don't want to die.
That hardly invalidates prisons or quarantenes.



[quote]
[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]

Wrong. Mages can be possesedat any time 24/7. They are at CONSTANT danger of being possesed. Well..I guess you can call "breathing" a special circumstance..

Abominations are far more powerfull than possesed corpses/animals. This is in the codex. It is not debatble.
Not to mention that you don't know the specifics of that enounter. The demon might have had hte element of surprise...the templars might have been novices.

Either way, my statements are backed up directly by lore. They are facts.


[quote]
[QUOTE]
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]

Heh..I didn't have to resort to anything. I wanted you. Because you prove me right with every post you make.


[quote]
[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]

I couldn't care less if you posted "The Chantry is hte greatest" instead of that. After 100 times, everything gets irritating.



[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]

I'm not glossing over anything. And an no point did I claim the Chantry was perfect...it has plenty of skeletons in it's closet.
But it's evident that you see everything trough a filter...because you can't acknowledge that the world of TheDas is not so black and white as you'd want it to be. You want Chantry ot be hte ultimate evil (maybe you jsut hate all religion, I don't know). But that is not the case.
DG repeated multiple times that it's not a simple issue. And you're hte one who constantly preaches "Chantry evil. Templars evil" like a broken record.

As our good Lord Jesus once said: "before trying to remove the thorn from your brothers eye, remove the log from your own."



[quote]
[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.[/quote]

Gameply mechanics and balance..power of save/load and difficulty setting. And a party of basasses.

What you say is not an argument. Lore os lore. Fluff is fluff. Tehy say you are wrong.

[/quote]

For a demon to posses a mage, the mage have to say yes. Mages with strong will as  First-enchanter, Wynne, Anders, Survivers from the tower and Morrigan will no bent to any demon will. Other thing Wynne is possed by a spirit and is a good spirit, Wynne call it Faith.
Not one is sure if such a thing can happen but yet,The Warden-commander get to meet another good spirit call by Justice.

Warden mage get to meet another spirit in his/her howrroing and is called Valor.

Do demon get attacted by mages? YES, do the mage have to agree to it? of course. Does the demon care if is a child or a dead body? no way!

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

It clearly isn't necessary if other nations don't adopt their methods and haven't been overrun by abominations.

Who sez they didn't have big problems with abominations?
You just assume the whole kingdom would crumble if that were to happen, yet basic knowledge of human history tells us that humanity and kingdom can weather trough horrible disasters and perservere.

Take WW2 for example...dead people in the millions. Yet the humanity perservered and all the countres involved. Evne the loosing countries, that lost countlees troops and got bombed to hell, are strng and vital nations today.
So no...Jsut because they didn't crumble, doesn't mean destruction and death on such a scale wasn't a problem that's best dealth with.

I want to address these two points.

Who sez?  The fact they exist in their current state with no ill will or unease living alongside mages sez they don't have big problems with abomiantions.  If they did, Anerin (for example) would not have been accepted as a full Dalish member so readily, and if you talk with Aveline in WH, you find that the Dalish have taken other refugees from the circle with no unease.  This contradicts the idea that they have a serious problem with abominations.  The same applies to Haven (talk to Father Kolgrim after you side with him and he goes into his views of magic and the chant of light). 

As for WW2, sure millions died, but there was a vastly greater population density and more population than in midaeval europe (around which Thedas is modeled).  That makes WW2 an invalid comparison point.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Huntress wrote...

For a demon to posses a mage, the mage have to say yes. Mages with strong will as  First-enchanter, Wynne, Anders, Survivers from the tower and Morrigan will no bent to any demon will. Other thing Wynne is possed by a spirit and is a good spirit, Wynne call it Faith.
Not one is sure if such a thing can happen but yet,The Warden-commander get to meet another good spirit call by Justice.

Warden mage get to meet another spirit in his/her howrroing and is called Valor.

Do demon get attacted by mages? YES, do the mage have to agree to it? of course. Does the demon care if is a child or a dead body? no way!

I agree but a nitpick.  A mage can also be possessed if he willingly engages a demon in the fade (i.e. combat) and loses.  That is essentially what happened with Uldred.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Since it is demons who taught Blood Magic, and probably also demonology in the first place, it stands within reason that demons can summon more demons. Also, if the demon possesses a mage capable of demonology, the demon in turn WILL be able to summon more demons. So the disease analogy still fits. And it isn't mine...



And there is no burden oof proof on me to proove that Templars are being held accountable. All the examples you just stated are wrong. The story Wynne tells us is not the full story. We don't know what happened when the Templars caught Aneirin. If Aneirin resisted capture, the Templars are ALLOWED to kill him, and thus shouldn't be held accountable for doing their duty (wether or not you agree with their duty is irrelevant). Both Irving and Greagoir decide who gets to be Harrowed and who becomes Tranquil, what Irving didn't have a say in is if Jowan was a Blood Mage or not. And again, Greagoir won't be held responsible here, because he DID NO WRONG. He fulfills his duty. And you have no flying f*** of an idea of how much proof Greagoir has gathered against Jowan. For all we know Greagoir was the eye-witness, but he didn't act sooner because he wanted to give Jowan the benefit of the doubt. Again, YOU DON'T KNOW, because we do not get the full story.

[Huntress]

IanPolaris wrote...

Huntress wrote...

For a demon to posses a mage, the mage have to say yes. Mages with strong will as  First-enchanter, Wynne, Anders, Survivers from the tower and Morrigan will no bent to any demon will. Other thing Wynne is possed by a spirit and is a good spirit, Wynne call it Faith.
Not one is sure if such a thing can happen but yet,The Warden-commander get to meet another good spirit call by Justice.

Warden mage get to meet another spirit in his/her howrroing and is called Valor.

Do demon get attacted by mages? YES, do the mage have to agree to it? of course. Does the demon care if is a child or a dead body? no way!

I agree but a nitpick.  A mage can also be possessed if he willingly engages a demon in the fade (i.e. combat) and loses.  That is essentially what happened with Uldred.

-Polaris

Oh yes thats right, but if the mage is dead, that doesn't mean he/she agree to the demon term, she/he fought and lost, the winner take the spoils. I do not mean with Uldren he was a lost  cause even before ostagar.
Demons can posses anyone/anything that can walk, thats what they need movement to feed.

Uldred demon didnt open any portal he used blood-magic as torture to brake mages will and make the transformations.

Oh and about Human history about mages, thats right Humans mages went to exile

[Huntress]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Since it is demons who taught Blood Magic, and probably also demonology in the first place, it stands within reason that demons can summon more demons. Also, if the demon possesses a mage capable of demonology, the demon in turn WILL be able to summon more demons. So the disease analogy still fits. And it isn't mine...

And there is no burden oof proof on me to proove that Templars are being held accountable. All the examples you just stated are wrong. The story Wynne tells us is not the full story. We don't know what happened when the Templars caught Aneirin. If Aneirin resisted capture, the Templars are ALLOWED to kill him, and thus shouldn't be held accountable for doing their duty (wether or not you agree with their duty is irrelevant). Both Irving and Greagoir decide who gets to be Harrowed and who becomes Tranquil, what Irving didn't have a say in is if Jowan was a Blood Mage or not. And again, Greagoir won't be held responsible here, because he DID NO WRONG. He fulfills his duty. And you have no flying f*** of an idea of how much proof Greagoir has gathered against Jowan. For all we know Greagoir was the eye-witness, but he didn't act sooner because he wanted to give Jowan the benefit of the doubt. Again, YOU DON'T KNOW, because we do not get the full story.

What reason will Wynne have to lie over such a thing? She feel guilty about it believing was her fault.

First Aneirin was 14-16 years old? He left the tower hoping to find the dalish, leaving the tower to a templar ment Malificar-blood-mage, they didn't stop him to ask him, they tryed to stop him by KILLing the young mage, thats all the proof we got.

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[QUOTE]LobselVith8 wrote...
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]
Heh..I didn't have to resort to anything. I wanted you. Because you prove me right with every post you make. [/quote]

No, sorry, I'm not looking to date anyone online. Try someone else.
[QUOTE]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Wrong.
Uldred wasn't possessed when he started the rebellion. However, once he summoned demons to his aid, one of them proved too powerful for him, and it possessed him forcibly, based on eye-witness. [/QUOTE]
Except there's a difference between the mage rebellion and the abomination outbreak.
[QUOTE]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And Ian, show me ONE case of a Templar not being held accountable for his actions. Oh that's right you can't, cause we NEVER get the full story. You don't know what happened to the Templars who killed D'sims. For all we know they were striped of rank and title and thrown out the Templar Order. We don't know. All we know is the parameters the Templars work within. As long as they uphold those, they won't be held accountable, because they've commited no wrong. So I can already stop you know, and tell you not to bring up Aneirin, since we don't now the whole story there either. [/QUOTE]

Considering how Cullen can rule the Circle in fear (and apparently this isn't cause for him to be removed from his position of authority) as the new Knight-Commander or how, for a female mage, Cullen says the line: "I'm a templar and you're a mage- it is my duty to oppose all that you are," seems to speak volumes for how little of a say mages have over their own lives.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Who sez they didn't have big problems with abominations?
You just assume the whole kingdom would crumble if that were to happen, yet basic knowledge of human history tells us that humanity and kingdom can weather trough horrible disasters and perservere.

Take WW2 for example...dead people in the millions. Yet the humanity perservered and all the countres involved. Evne the loosing countries, that lost countlees troops and got bombed to hell, are strng and vital nations today.
So no...Jsut because they didn't crumble, doesn't mean destruction and death on such a scale wasn't a problem that's best dealth with. [/quote]

Considering how abominations aren't presently ruling over Thedas, I'd say that your gloom and doom arguments about abominations don't carry much weight. Clearly, the elves of Arlathan and the Dales, the humans living in the dragon cults and of the Andrastian Chantry, and all those groups were able to deal with such threats without resorting to imprisoning part of the population merely because of how they're born.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'd jsut like my family and friends alive and well, not killed by an abomination.
Of course, you'd be singing a different tune if you were a simple villager living in TheDas. [/quote]

Maybe if I had brain bleach, I'd be singing a different tune about the Chantry's horrific and dehumanizing imprisonment of mages, but that isn't going to happen. I see why you'd write that, though. You've always taken a pro-Chantry, anti-mage view and have made your love of Chantry characters like Greagoir and Cullen loud and clear for several months. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't see why you pretend otherwise. As for the abominations, maybe if mages weren't enslaved to the Chantry with no ability to defend themselves against the templars who can kill them for outright lies and heresay, then it wouldn't happen.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And prisoners rebel because they want to be free. People in quarantene try to break out because they don't want to die.
That hardly invalidates prisons or quarantenes. [/quote]

Slaves also rebel to be free from their oppressors.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Abominations are far more powerfull than possesed corpses/animals. This is in the codex. It is not debatble [/quote]

And a possessed animal was powerful enough to kill four templars alone, and despite how powerful abominations are, they can be killed by competent fighters.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm not glossing over anything. And an no point did I claim the Chantry was perfect...it has plenty of skeletons in it's closet.
But it's evident that you see everything trough a filter...because you can't acknowledge that the world of TheDas is not so black and white as you'd want it to be. You want Chantry ot be hte ultimate evil (maybe you jsut hate all religion, I don't know). But that is not the case.
DG repeated multiple times that it's not a simple issue. And you're hte one who constantly preaches "Chantry evil. Templars evil" like a broken record. [/quote]

IanPolaris addressed how wrong you were about the quotes a few pages back, feel free to read them, and I addressed how DG specifically mentioned his opinion. His opinion about Cullen also differs from Sheryl Chee. Clearly, opinions aren't facts, despite your clear attempts to make them as such.

As for the ridiculous lies you're telling, I never said that the templars were evil or that the Chantry was evil. I have called both groups out on the mistreatment of mages, and think that what's going on is morally wrong and a recipe for a future war between Templars and Mages.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[QUOTE]LobselVith8 wrote...

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. [/quote]

Gameply mechanics and balance..power of save/load and difficulty setting. And a party of basasses.

What you say is not an argument. Lore os lore. Fluff is fluff. Tehy say you are wrong. [/quote]

You can't ignore the story because it contradicts your argument. Game mechanics are Zathrian being labelled a blood mage or why the companions don't get sick with the darkspawn blood covering them. You can't re-write the story because it contradicts your argument completely. You're ignoring how abominations haven't devastated Thedas in the past and how they were dealt with effectively because it runs counter to your pro-Chantry proclamations.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:29 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]

You seem to think this.  What I am saying is that there is no way that a magical society like the Ancient Tevinter Imperium or Arlathan (to say nothing of more modern societies like the Dales, Rivvain or EVEN Andrasian societies prior to Ambrosia II) could wipe out all their mages once per generation and not have it recorded and not if not destroy then radically alter those societies.

The conclusion is obvious.  The Chantry with it's tower system is CREATING it's own abomination problem, and we see indicators of that throughout both DAO and DAA>[/quote]

Who ever said they were wiping out all of their mages once per generation? WTF are you talking about?
And even assuming they did do that, who said it was not recorded? We only have limited information on a LOT of stuff in TheDas....absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So..no, the conclusion is not obvious at all.





[quote]
We know that doesn't happen with the Dalish.  We ALSO know that didn't happen with the Andrastian nations (such as Orlais) up to and including the Divine Ambrosia II.  You claim we don't have knowledge but we DO have knowledge about the Dales (Kingdom if not the tribes) and the early Chantry.  We also KNOW that the Chantry did not exile mages into the circle to protect anyone.

These make them valid counterexamples no matter how hard you try to pretend they don't.[/quote]

They don't. You're full if it. You keep using the "we KNOW". No...no we don't. You're extrapolating like crazy.

Show me one piece of evidence that CLEARLY shows that the countryside was safer before the circles were implemented. Just ONE piece of evidence that the Circles don't keep the death count smaller....

You can't, can you?



[quote]
The Dalish disagree.  So does Father Kolgrim if you talk with him along with his fellow Cultists.  (Sure they are evil but they clearly handle the mage situation far better than the Chantry does!)  For that matter the Chantry itself disagrees if you bother to read Chantry history.[/quote]

No they don't. No it's not clear. And no, it's not.
Again, extrapolations and wishfull thinking, not evidence.



[quote]
[quote]
[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.
[/quote]

Once you run out of people, it's moot.[/quote]

And this invalidates what I said how exactly? Oh wait - IT DOESNT!


[quote]
[quote]
Killing wihout willing it is NOT equal with killing of your own free will.
[/quote]

...and non-mages never get possessed or go mad.....  In short this cuts both ways.[/quote]

No even close. Non-mages can only be possesed under very specific circumstances and dont' present even remotely the same danger.


[quote]
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

That doesn't happen with all cases of abominations.  Corpses happen when the veil is thin.  Big difference.  As for "equal" to having a sword, I wasn't saying they were "equal".  I was pointing out that anyone with power is going to abuse it.[/quote]

Powerfull abominations can summon demons and weaken the veil. As proven by Avernus.


[quote]
If you really want to do comparisons, then take all of that, and I will set it against the Chantry's Exalted Marches. 
When you make that comparison, abominations look like a walk in the park.  Seriously.  The various Divines (Ambrosia and Renata rank as some of the worst) have caused more grief, loss of life, and abuse of power than any rogue mages or abominations ever have in the modern era (post chantry).[/quote]

Trying to steer the debate away from the original topic?
It's not applicable. Nor do you have any numbers to back that up actually..especially if you factor in the Blight...and Tevinter.

Kingdoms and large organizations are not the same as individuals. You can't really abolish faith or governance.
Not to mention that kings and devines don't butcher their friends and raise their corpses..

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 janvier 2011 - 02:29 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
 Abominations only know the magic that their mage host possessed!  That is the POINT of an abomination!

+ their own.. You keep forgeting that very important tidbit. Abominations are esentialyl demons. Demons that teach blood magec. Abominations know blood magic.

Edit PS:  As for the harrowing chamber, the Abomination (it's no longer Uldred as it gleefully confirms) doesn't summon demons at all.  It uses a bloodmagic ritual that forces mages to 'voluntarily' accept a demon via mind-control....and apparently it only works if the mage's will has already nearly been broken by torture first.  Hardly what you are claiming (and it's done in a place where the Veil is already sundered btw).

Doesn't matter what method he used, he's CLEARLY capable of "creating" more of his kind. That's the point.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Huntress wrote...
Uldered didn't sumon a demon he was the demon, Uldered was way gone before all hell was lose in the tower poor soul!

No, in the discussion with other survivors from the Broken Cricle you learn that Uldren only lost control once the fightinng between mages started. He resorted to blood magic, lost control, got possesed and THEN is where all hell really broke loose.