[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Scary is a subjective and emotionally loaded term, and honestly it's that sort of language by the Chantry that's a large part of the problem. As for magic being potentially dangerous, sure. Nobody argues that. Then again, carrying a weapon is dangerous too. The only difference is that dangers of a trained warrior are more familiar than the dangers of a trained mage (and disarming a trained warrior only makes him marginally safer in non-martial company....it's attitude as much as weaponry).[/quote]
Mind however, that carrying a weapon is a social signal. It means I am armed and prepared to use it. Just like a bared blade means you have hostile intent. An unarmed man is a social signal that he intends not to fight (this is why people left their weapons in the antechamber of churches in the middle ages).
A mage is always armed however. They cannot disarm themselves.
[/quote]
A warrior (at least a trained warrior) is always armed as well. You don't have to be Jet Li to be absolutely lethal to untrained people with only your hands and feet. All warriors (even today in the 21st century) are trained in unarmed combat and so all trained warriors are dangerous and always 'armed' and that really is my point (it's as much attitutde as anything else).
[quote]
[quote]I think the Chantry does bear a large part of the current blame, but I will admit that the antimage stance came about because of the Tevinter Imperium and the abuses of the Magocracy there. It's not fair to blame all mages for the actions of a few ruling magisters, but I can easily understand why people can easily do so.[/quote]
That I agree with.
[/quote]
OK...moving on.....
[quote]
[quote]Now will there be rogue/criminal mages that resist even the most reasonable attempts at regulation? Sure. Mages are human beings (or elves but same same for this discussion) with the usual human failings which means you'll always get a few bad apples, but to suggest that the majority of mages are bad apples is beyond the pale (and right now a majority of mages....the Libertarians and Aequartians are united in their view that the circle system has to radically change...by force if necessary...and that's a majority).[/quote]
Only Libertarians wants to violently split from the Chantry (in fact, only Libertarians have that as their official policy). Aequtarians (most mages) and Loyalists are currently political allies in fact (allthough it is mentioned the libertarians and the Aequtarians are talking).
Let's look at the Fereldan tower.
We know of 7 Senior enchanters in the Feraldan tower
Uldred - Libertarian
Irving - Aequtarian and First Enchanter
Wynne - Aequitarian
Tommen - Aequitarian
Leorah - Unknown
Niall - Isolationist
Sweeney - Uknown
[/quote]
That was before Ostagar (let alone Cumberland). If you look at the Mage's Collective Codex entry, the Libertarians and Aequitarians have formed an alliance with regard to living conditions in the tower, and we are told even before Ostagar that the Aequatarians are "softening" towards the Libertarian position. I am guessing (but I think it's a good guess) that the Loyalists will discover that they just lost an ally.
As for Irving, he's definately an Aequitarian, but if you talk with him about Jowan and Lily, he seems clearly moving towards the Libertarian position. There is a certain venom in Irving when he wants to see the Chantry pay if his apprentice has to as well. Wynne may call herself an Aequitarian, but she's really a loyalist if you talk with her and need to deal with her for any length of time. As for Tommen, yes, he's definately an Aequatarian but one who's about given up hope things will change.
Note that this is all pre-broken circle. Many might not have survived (we know that Nial doesn't and Wynne might not either).
[quote]
Then Ines, the botanist from DA:A and form the way Wynne speaks about her I guess she is an Aequtarian
[/quote]
If Ines is a Aequartian then she is clearly the same type of Aequartarian that I am. Her sympathies if you talk with her are pretty clearly not what Wynne is expecting (and with the Libertarians or at least Uldred).
[quote]
This is the group Uldred decides to attack when they refuse him. Between 40 and 50 % of them Aequitarians. Remember... Tommen almost spits at Libertarians, Wynne is as far from chantry-split as one can get and Irving... Irving is a true politician. He says a lot about what he thinks but somehow you never know where he stands.
[/quote]
Wynne is a chantry apologist and proves as much pretty much the entire game. She is willing to kill your Grey Warden at the drop of a hat. No other NPC is as easy to go aggro as Wynne. As for the rest, I remind you that Uldred was able to gain a substantial following and if Wynne hasn't arrived he WOULD have carried the senior enchanters (including Irving) over to Loghain's side...so don't make it sound like Uldred was public enemy number one. Until his revolt he was not. As for why he revolted it was now or never. Stupid? Sure, but understanable. I won't defend Uldred's decision but I certainly understand it.
[quote]
[quote]
The chasind also openly practice magic and have mages alongside mundanes. Their legends say that Flemeth's Daughters originally taught them, but regardless while the Chasind aren't as positive towards magic as the Dalish, they certainly do view it with tolerance at the very least (while openly fearing Flemeth...and rightly so!) So really the Chasind fall in with the Dalish, Rivvain and the rest.[/quote]
Can I have your source for this?
[/quote]
Certainly:
Today, the Chasind are considered largely peaceful, though their ways are still primitive compared to our own. In the Korcari Wilds they live in strange-looking huts built on stilts or even built into the great treetops. They paint their faces and are split into small tribes ruled by shamans like those amongst the Avvars. There are many tales of these shamans having learned their magic from the "Witches of the Wilds," witches that inspire as much terror as they do awe and gratitude even if there is no definitive proof they exist. In particular, the tale of Flemeth, the greatest witch of the wilds, is celebrated amongst all tribes.
From Codex Entry: The Chasind.
The In-Game Lore Reference: From Ferelden: Folklore and History, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.[/i]
Clearly Chasind shamans live alongside their mundane fellows and cast spells that are reputably learned from the Witches of the Wild. The Chasind don't fear magic. They fear the Witches of the Wild, and that's perfectly reasonable!
[quote]
[quote]See a pattern here? I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well. Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.[/quote]
Hey, no cheating with the statistics.
Count the qunari as well. All cultures views that we know of must be taken into account, no matter what they think. Especially since the qunari is one of the larger of them. People that hate mages as just as important as people who praise them, because it helps us see the larger picture better.[/quote]
It's not cheating. I discount the Qun because the Qun are the most inhuman both physically and psychologically of all the thinking peoples, and they always have had an intense hatred of all magic. Becuase the Qun (apparently) have a different psychology, it's not appropriate to crosscompare with humans or elves. (Humans and elves have the same psychology really).
[quote]
Heh... on a tangent. Rivain must be one messed-up country. It boasts 4 mage traditions. classic Rivaini. Andrastian, Tevinter and Qunari.
[/quote]
Or melting pot, or witch's brew. Take your pick....
[quote]
[quote]And that's the point. The common factor in the very different societies that accept magic (and apparenlty handle it well) and those that don't is the Chantry. As the quip goes, wake up and smell the napalm.[/quote]
There's more common factors I'd say. The Dalish and the disciples are also comparatively few (disciples by being isolated, the dalish by separating themselves into clans). They are also isolationist, and have to rely on their own resources.
So know we have three common factors.
And again... don't count out the Qunari. Like it or not they do have a mage tradition (a horrible one).
[/quote]
The Qunari don't seem to have a human psychology (at least judging by Sten) so it's not appropriate to judge at least not without futher insight into Qunari thinkiing and philosophy.
No we don't have at least three common factors. The Kingdom of the Dales weren't relatively few or spread out, but they had mages living side by side. The same applies to both Arlathan and Ancient Tevinter nor for that matter does it apply to Orlais during the early chantry period. So that's not a common factor. As for being isolationist, Artlathan wasn't (and paid for it because of Tevinter...but not because of magic per se) and neither were the early Chantry nations (and the Chasind aren't isolationist either although a lot of people wish they were.....)
So we are back down to one common factor. If you do include the Qun, I would then say the common factor is a hard-core religious system that is inflexible and punishes mages for being what they are (and isolating them). The Qun and Chantry certainly share this!
[quote]
[quote]
You can use laws and regulations to reduce the rate of abominations to an acceptable rate AND you can have methods in place to deal with magical emergencies (which include abominations...but also normal possession as well) when they fail (as even the best regulatory system will from time to time). This clearly works for non-Andrasian societies and apparently even worked under the Chantry for almost two hundred years. While you might not be able to predict an abomination incident with absolute certainty, you also can't predict a warror having a stroke and going nutty and slaughting everyone around him either. What you can do is reduce the chances of this to reasonable levels.[/quote]
First of all... an acceptable rate? It sounds like we must determine how many abominations that's acceptable every year... decade... whatever.
Secondly... becoming an abomination is practically a suicide. Why would they care about laws? The demon won't ever let their host go (if they for some reason don't eat the soul... or whatever it is they do to it). Laws only work if people believe they work. Abominations care for nothing about laws... so trying to control them with laws are pointless.
[/quote]
If a mage is treated like a person, they won't have incentive to make deals with demons. It's a prevention method. As for acceptable rate, we already have several examples. Honestly when you crosscompare the Circle system isn't working and will eventually end. Like I said before, the only real question is how bloody and how arcimonious will that ending be?
[quote]
Unless you meant reducing the factors why people would volountarily take in demons. But here we come down to the problems that it will be things like children/siblings/parents/husbands/wives dying from disease. Enemy armies threatening your home. Or just situations that goes way out of hand.
I really don't see how laws would help.
[/quote]
It's EDUCATION then laws. If Conner understood that the lady in his dreams was not a nice person and was up to no good, chances are very good (just talk with him on a playthrough just before you have to kill him and he understands this....too late). Mages don't spontaneous become abominations even when their spouse, lover, child whatever is dying. The risk rate goes up, but that is where a social support network comes in. Of course the Chantry would rather take the 'easy' way out and lock away the mages and (apparently) forget about them until needed, but I hope you'd agree that this isn't the opimal way to deal with an issue. Problems don't go away just because you ignore them (which essentially is what the circle system does only worse...it aggravates them).
[quote]
Also the "this clearly works for non-andrastian societies" this is supposition. We don't know how they handle it or how well this works. Just that they have a different attititude to magic. Anything else is supposition.
I'd also like to point one thing out: templars existed before the circles did and our favourite history codex does mention magical regulation prior to the circles.
[/quote]
Yes, and notice how the Templars DON'T proclaim how many fewer abominations outside the circle there are now then there were then. They imply it sure, but they never actually say. Gotta wonder why.
Again, though, I've never had a problem with regulating magic or even a magical policeforce which might include templar like warriors....but mages need to be a part of it as well and need to have a strong voice (and perhaps even a controlling one).
As for clearly works, if it didn't these societies either wouldn't exist or they'd show the same sort of social 'footprint' that the black death did IRL Europe.
[quote]
But point in. I can accept the argument that non-andrastian societies accept mages. Sure. But saying that they are better is supposition and baseless. You may hold the opinion that this is the case, but then say so. If you want to convince me otherwise I'll have to ask you to directly source it for me
[/quote]
In one case you have mages treated humanely and in the other case you don't. That alone makes it better doncha think?
[quote]
[quote]That last one is the ONLY one that wasn't connected to the chantry. The Mage's Collective saw a problem, and used self-enforcement (deputizing crack mercs...the warden) to deal with it. Total casualties (aside from the abomination): One. That's something that the Templars can't seem to manage.[/quote]
Actually... there's two connected cases unrelated to the chantry. Connor became one because his father was poisoned and he wanted to save him (and so he made a literal devil's deal).
[/quote]
Nope. Conner is connected to the Chantry because of Jowan. Jowan was incompetant (we already knew that of course) and Jowan's very presence was caused by the inflexibility of the Chantry regarding bloodmagic (remember that until Jowan pulled it out, there was absolutely no solid evidence against Jowan....just hearsay as Irving himself admits).
[quote]
Also... the Mages collective is not sending us to police themselves. They are just sending us to find a missing member who happened to have the foresight to actually write a note. If he had been killed outright before going after his apprentice or we'd have failed to find the abomination... it would still be out there and the mages collective wouldn't have a clue.
Heck... you don't even report it to them. The quest finishes when you kill the abomination.
[/quote]
Mage's collective hires you to check up on a missing mage, just like the Park Service gets Explorer Scouts to help look for missing persons. Sounds like self-policing to me and it is a smashing success. Casualties: one.
[quote]
[quote]Also when the Veil is torn, the rules change. At that point ANYONE is subject to possession...so should we lock up everyone where the veil is torn, or do we do the logical thing and avoid (if possible) areas where the Veil is torn at least for long periods of time? Living in a place where the Veil is torn is as responsible as living in a Toxic Waste Dump.[/quote]
I agree completely here.
[/quote]
Moving on then....
[quote]
That's the PoV of the two knight commanders. The Chantry's own history debunks it.[/quote]
I think we have to agree to disagree at this point. Or would you like another lap in the merry-go-round?
[/quote]
Nah. Let's not waste the bandwidth. We are never going to agree on this point.
[quote]
[quote]
I don't accept the Chantry is reasonably corrrect in it's analysis of the dangers. If the Chantry were right, we should see an "abomination footprint" in all societies across Thedas leading to mistrust (at best) of all mages. We do not as you concede earlier. I think we should conclude that the Chantry for it's own political reasons (control of magic) is deliberately overstating the danger (viewing with alarm). We may disagree to what degree they are doing so, however.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[/quote]
OK,. moving on....
[quote]
[quote]
Early education and training with an emphasis on social acceptance and responsibility. Apprentices should learn very early what a demon is and how they will trick you in the Fade. Knowledge of possession seems to be the very best defense against it. Also mentors should keep track of mages (in a human system, phylacteries aren't so bad and probably should be used), so if an emergency (which by any reasonable projection of non-circle societies would seem to be rare...even DG admitted that a mage can go his entire life without a single possession attempt), early action and triangulation can occure. This is how we respond to natural disasters after all.[/quote]
We also build hurricane/earthquake safe buildings mind.
[/quote]
Sure and they save lives which is my point. No system (be it circle, Qunari, or what other societies practice) will ever totally elminate the possibility of a magical accident. However, the rate and damage can be reduce and I'd argue the anecdoate evidence is it can be reduced drastically if people would put their mind to it.
However, a lot of this requires social acceptance of mages and magic and I agree that won't happen overnight so while I think the circles should end, I don't think they should end all at once. I am a fan of gradual change. I emphatically am NO fan of violent and sudden change because that invariably creates unwanted and harmful reactions and so forth.....
[quote]
I'm still not sure how responsibility would help against possession though. It's not like the persons can stand trial (and in most cases, it's not really their fault. Is there?). Unless you mean for others.
[/quote]
Almost always a mage CHOSES to make a deal with a demon (although that consent may be gotten through trickery). If the mage is taught responsibility and understands what it means to face a demon in the fade possession is a lot less likely. There will always be a few idiots, but don't throw young apprentices to the wolves (demons) with no idea how to face them!
[quote]
[quote]
The best defense against bloodmagic is bloodmagic as much as it galls the Chantry (the Imperial Chantry knows this perfectly well, however). Bloodmagic should be restricted to only those of proven ability, willpower, and loyalty and likely would have to agree to be bonded for a term of service (like locksmiths are) perhaps in a Magical Order of Knighthood that would include both Mages and Templar-like Warriors.
If someone uses bloodmagic illegally, bring the boot down, hard just as if IRL someone used an Assault Rifle or other military grade weapon in civilian crimes.[/quote]
The modern Tevinter also prohibits blood magic. Or claims to anyways (which probably means that if you know a magister... or know a guy that knows a guy that knows a magister... the templars will look another way).
[/quote]
False. It's Wynne that spouts this little myth about how the Imperial Chantry forbids bloodmagic and as usual she's dead wrong (see Codex: Imperial Chantry). The Imperial Chantry forbids MIND CONTROL magic which is a tiny sub-set of bloodmagic. Wynne also calls Adralla a bard. She was not. She was a bloodmage granted asylum by the Andrastian Chantry in return for her research into how to protect against mental domination.
[quote]
The problem with blood magic is that it uses life force to power itself and well... it allows the control minds. Like say... the judge. The jailor. The man coming after you. Your witnesses.
Ultimately it boils down to a escalation on which side has the most powerful blood mage. and well... the world has already seen that. Even the Dalish and the Dwarves confirm that.
[/quote]
Sure, but you can't eliminate bloodmagic. The Demons will insure that someone is taught bloodmagic and mindcontrol magic anyway. Given it's impossible to control, the best solution is to harshly regulate it and make sure that you have the stronger bloodmages (than the criminals). Perfect solution? No, but the alternative is to put the very strongest and most problematic magic in Thedas into the hands of criminal mages and only criminal mages, and if that doesn't frighten you then nothing will.
[quote]
[quote]
Education and training from an early age seems to be the best prevention. If someone refuses to comply, then charge them for violating the law. As long as mages have a reasonable say in writing such laws and restrictions, most mages will help you corrall the offenders.[/quote]
Hilariously... this is actually what they are doing currently. Well... wether they have a reasonable say I suppose is up for debate: it's not entirely clear how much influence is wielded in the cumberland meeting and which decisions lie with mages and which ones do not. But they do have some say, that is clear (I admit it may not be enough though).
[/quote]
No they aren't. Loghain has pithy and unflattering things to say about the circle of mages and how trained they were. The Sloth Demon, Valar, and Mouse all confirm (as does Jowan who shows genuine ignorance) that mages are tossed into the harrowing BLIND (i.e.with no knowledge of demons and no lore/suggestions on how to fight them). Indeed when Irving tries to give you (his apprentice) a very quicky lesson, Gregoire harshly intervenes. Even Wilhelm of Honnleth complains bitterly about how it's unreasonable to expect mages to resist possession if they are forbidden to learn (and reserach) possession [admittedly such research would have to be done carefully and under very controlled conditions].
I strongly question just how much real education mages get in the circle.
[quote]
[quote]I interpreted it differently. I don't think Anerin has any intention of returning to the circle. I do think he knows Wynne well enough that the best way to shut her up and to smile and nod and promise as little as possible, which is just what he did. Consideration means nothing in this regard.[/quote]
I had not thought of it that way. It's an interesting take on it I admit.
[/quote]
Moving on....
[quote]
[quote]
I'm, sorry but an opinion is not a source except as an opinion. DG's opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's.[/quote]
You do know he's the person who decides what is put in the codex and what is true and what is not, though? If anyone knows more about the setting than we do, it's him. For all we know that could have been how they are intending the whole thing.
[/quote]
He may know more and when speaking as a Dev his WoG is absolute, but DG wasn't speaking in WoG mode. He was giving a personal opinion. That's not evidence.
[quote]
After all... technically all the codices, all the dialogue and everything we see in the game is his opinion as well. Since it has to pass his approval.
[/quote]
No. It's game lore developed by the authors. In the game world, that's not opinion. It's authorial fiat.
[quote]
[quote]
As I seem to recall, in that part of the Deep Roads, dwarven corpses were also being possessed. The Veil was clearly torn in that section and the rules change when the Veil is torn. Sure Fiona had to fight off being possessed, but that Demon might have tried to possess anyone. When the Veil is torn, everyone is subject to possession. We see a variation of this when you fight the Camp Shade in the Brecillian Forest. Unless you have the will to try to walk away, the Shade tries to do nasty things incuding force-deathing most of your party. It's a very similiar sort of situation.[/quote]
I was just using it as an example that force-possession does indeed exist. And the demon chose her... because she was the mage. Even demons themselves admits as much.
[/quote]
We know forced possession exists, and we do know that given a choice demons tend to prefer mages. However, I was pointing out that the Veil was thin there which meant that ANYONE could have been possessed and and forcibly possessed at that if one wasn't careful. Also (apparently) if a mage forces a confronatation with a demon and loses he risks forced possession (and you can chide Avernus on this point by saying that summoning so many demons was an unacceptable risk). However, it does not show that forced possession happens when the veil is not torn at any appreciable rate (unless the mage deliberately brings it on himself...see summoning). The accedotatal evidence strongly indicates that the rate is neglible at worst (forced possessions). Basically outside the circle system, it seems HARD for anyone (even a mage) to become possessed unless the veil is torn (but see above on that!)
[quote]
[quote]
The admittedly annecdotal evidence strongly suggests otherwise.[/quote]
But it is at most anecdotes. Was it not you who told me how unreliable hearsay can be based on Bodahn's rumour mill? Until we have seen them to be better we cannot safely say they are.
[/quote]
We can reasonably guess based on the lack of an abomination social footprint though.
[quote]
[quote]
That depends. If the choice is gruesome "Death by Templar" and quite possibly after the Templars have some fun if you are a female mage, over posssession, possession starts to look pretty good. Also some demons might well help your friends and might even be willing to work with others depending on it's own agenda. Pride demons seem the most likely to fall in this category. Demons don't always go on mindless killing sprees when they possess a body. Most do, but most is not all.[/quote]
Have you an example of one that didn't? Uldred-pride was converting enchanters. Sloth was draining Niall's life. Baroness was draining her people. Virtually every abomination in the tower was standing over corpses, as was the mage collective one. Connor-desire was butchering Redcliffe (and keeping Eamon alive but locked in a coma). Dwarven King was locked in a chamber. Is there any example of a abomination that didn't?
[/quote]
The Sloth demon wasn't on a mindless killing spree. He was indeed draining Niall's life, but he wasn't actively hunting anyone. He was acting like a honey trap collecting souls (apparently for status if you believe Nial). Sophia Dryden (technically not an abomination but still a demon possessing a human body!) doesn't go on a killing spree either and she is actually willing to bargin with you against her own kind.
Demons are not nice and fuzzy beings and for the most part mean no one any good. However, it's wrong to lump them all into the category of "mindless killers"...and dangerous to do so as well.
[quote]
[quote]
I am certain the writers won't touch any numbers with a 10 foot pole for that very reason at least not until DA2 is out which will go a long way to resolving this issue in the world.
-Polaris[/quote]
You're optimistic. I think they'll never provide them because then we could reach a consensus on which method is better. Which is why we'll never get them. It's supposed to be ambigous and impossible to tell.
[/quote]
Which is why the writers won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Perhaps I am being optimsitic that DA2 will resolve this issue. We'll soon know
-Polaris
Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 06:31 .
Retour en haut
