1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Am I the only one that's finding it ironic that Lotion is now talking about "Greyness" as a defense for his position when he was anything but 'grey" for most of this thread?

-Polaris

Oh, you dellusional little man.

Trying to twist this now will do you no good. Lying will do you no good.

I was grey from the start. I never contested that it was moralyl questionable to lock up mages. I never contesed that the Chtnry had it's failings and plenty of black sheep. I never contest the Circle system was not the only choice ever.
The only thing I claimed is that the circle system is a safe system adn the chantry isn't as evil as some think.

Grey it was, grey it remain.
You (and Lob) on the other hand, have done nothing but rave agaisnt both in any way, shape or form. You had only negatives for the system.

You claim it is objective truh that it's morally, practicly and effectivey broken. That it doesn't do it's job right and wil lend in a massive disaster.
How do YOU have the GALL to claim moral greyness, the very same thing you denied from your first sentance.

No..it is very celar to anyone who reads this thread that you have lost this argument.
You have failed to provide a moral dillema, by turnign the issue into a no-brainer.

Enjoy your faliure..I know I am.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Yes, the circle system will result in a war that will tear Thedas apart. I don't think that part should be in doubt any longer. However, the sad fact is that sometimes an act of changing a bad system for the better can trigger the revolt/war/problems that the change was supposed to prevent.

Basically there is a choice here between putting the day of reckoning off or not doing so.[/qutoe]

Death is death. As yo said in this very same thread a few posts ago.
So in term of strife, both systems are at least equal (wait..they're not..you're also claiming the chantry is making the death toll larger)


[quote]
I also point out that the change I am advocating has NOT been presented as an option in the game (at least not yet). If you are going to talk about morally grey choices then you need to restrict yourself to choices offered IN THE GAME.

Right now the choice in the game seems to be the current circle system or total emancipation of mages all at once. While I do think the mages need to be emancipated, I have serious issues with the "all at once" because that can also create much unnecessary strife.

-Polaris[/quote]

Nice try. But taht's not what this is about. You now tehy to avoid the argument by claiming it's not a choice in the game, so we shoudln't discuss it. No, no...

This is a DA2 discussion forums. We are talkign abotu the reality of Thedas setting and what we might do in DA2 (side with templars or mages) and what will happen.

And trying to backpedal won save you. In your earlier post you were going about a gradual system ( the transition period) ...so no.

[elfdwarf]

all i'm saying

free mages or prison mages doesn't matter still cause chaos

let see many choice effect world dragon age 2 till break war. >

maybe might be more chaos in future of dragon age from your choices

[Lord Cheetah]

sooooo, if mages are free they won't get ideas of blood magic, then i guess i was wrong, sorry man



In haven, they use a different kind of blood magic, they seem too use the power from the dragon to empower their spells, but it isn't a very good alternative i think, seeing how they have to make sacrifices to the dragon itself, how do you think the dragon got his power in the first place anyway, and maybe you went straight to the urn but if you look in the houses, you might just notice how much the people of haven value their privacy, a dead body on an altar ain't exactly nothing.



The dalish dont got very much mages, and those mages use the power of nature (this may seem different in gameplay ofcourse) That old apprentice of wynne was a circle mage, but he fled because he found himself discriminated by humans (humans, not by circle or templars, just the humans), but the chantry doesnt want to risk a mage escaping because any mage (usually not the dalish ones) can be a blood mage.



There hasn't been a dalish mage that also was a blood mage i know, with exception of velanna and zathrian because of gameplay reasons. The problem is that the whole world isn't made up by forests so it be stupid for circle mages to practice keeper magic cuz it aint effective for them.



i'm not sure about Rivain though, i guess i look it up right now, don't expect everyone to read all the codexes, we also have a life besides this

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

The difficulty is that most people that have been "educated" by the chantry DO believe the circle is needed for security whether it is true or not. How to deal with that while at the same time asking mages to accept change gradually is a very, very difficult thing.

The point is this: I believe I have made a very strong case the circle system is not only unnecessary but harmful. The fact that you are whining about a purely meta-argument means I've largely "won" my point on this.

You are full of BS and you've lsot this argument, and oyu're now trying to deflect the issue. What "metagaming"?

You said yourself it's all logical and obvious, and supported by the codex.  All things and documents you find during play. All information you character has. That's not metagaming.

Nor is it a meta-argument. Remeber, you claimed that what you say is an objective truth, with evidence to back it up. With all that intails.

It means there is only one rational, "right" choice, only one truth - your truth.
And according to yyour truth, there is no moral dillema in the choice.

You've lost the argument. Patheticly at that. Squirming around now won't help you.

However, even so, you still have to show that in game to the people of Thedas and still have to try to change it in a way that won't blow up in your face. If you don't think that isn't a grey issue (and very much a security issue since the transition will be a security nightmare), then you sir, are not paying attention.

Choices are made based on knowledge and reasonable assumptions.
You claim one choice is CLEARY and UTTERLY superior to another.

You yourself claim that it cannot blow up in your face WORSE than the chantry-templar war (WW3 or armageddon, as you called it)

There is no real moral dillema.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

DG stated specificly that the templa-mage issue is meant to be grey. Grey as in "no clear moral victor". No clear solution to the issue. No clear side to pick. Of course, some people may prefer to pick one of h the other, but that's on purely sbbjective issues.

People are allowed to point out if they find a system morally reprehensible and ineffective, Lotion.

They can find as reprehensible as they want. As long as they do theri homework, and don't claim it's a objective truth of the setting, I don't care.

For the reast...we'll, I'm pretty much ignoring you. Re-hasehd argumets that dont' even merit a response (again).

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Am I the only one that's finding it ironic that Lotion is now talking about "Greyness" as a defense for his position when he was anything but 'grey" for most of this thread?

-Polaris

Oh, you dellusional little man.

Is there a point arguing with you, Lotion? Because you refuse to listen to anyone when they articulate their position and you clearly value the Chantry position above anything else. Ian's already disproved your points several times over.

Lord Cheetah wrote...

sooooo, if mages are free they won't get ideas of blood magic, then i guess i was wrong, sorry man

Some of us disagree with the slavery/imprisonment of mages by the Chantry. And templars use blood magic, you do realize that, right?

Lord Cheetah wrote...

In haven, they use a different kind of blood magic, they seem too use the power from the dragon to empower their spells, but it isn't a very good alternative i think, seeing how they have to make sacrifices to the dragon itself, how do you think the dragon got his power in the first place anyway, and maybe you went straight to the urn but if you look in the houses, you might just notice how much the people of haven value their privacy, a dead body on an altar ain't exactly nothing.

Haven is populated by a Cult of Andraste, another sect from the one that was popularized by the first Emperor of Orlais. Their sacrifices have to do with their mindset and not on blood magic - it's not inherently evil. Grey Warden mages have used blood magic against the darkspawn.

Lord Cheetah wrote...

The dalish dont got very much mages, and those mages use the power of nature (this may seem different in gameplay ofcourse) That old apprentice of wynne was a circle mage, but he fled because he found himself discriminated by humans (humans, not by circle or templars, just the humans), but the chantry doesnt want to risk a mage escaping because any mage (usually not the dalish ones) can be a blood mage.

Aenirin didn't like the Circle. A former rape victim, Fiona (in the Calling) doesn't find the Circle any better than her previous life (as a rape victim).

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

DG stated specificly that the templa-mage issue is meant to be grey. Grey as in "no clear moral victor". No clear solution to the issue. No clear side to pick. Of course, some people may prefer to pick one of h the other, but that's on purely sbbjective issues.

People are allowed to point out if they find a system morally reprehensible and ineffective, Lotion.

They can find as reprehensible as they want. As long as they do theri homework, and don't claim it's a objective truth of the setting, I don't care.

People in the storyline find it reprehensible, that's why they try to overthrow it. They even compare the Chantry system to the slave-masters of the Tevinter Imperium (Broken Circle).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

For the reast...we'll, I'm pretty much ignoring you. Re-hasehd argumets that dont' even merit a response (again).

Should we all ignore you from now on because you continue to fail to prove that the Circle system is effective, why while we continue to point out how it's flawed? Because given the apparent Templar/Mage war in DA2 that seems to be inevitable, I don't see how the system has succeeded.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

(From other thread. Chantry is corrupt and evil and anyone not seeing that is blind and brainwashed.)

Except that the devlopers specificy say you're wrong on that.

Where? I am very interested to see how they keep justifying slaying or inprisoning innocent people. This Chanty stuff and "new world order" is just broken,* and big changes is needed to fix it.

Other than that, what devs say doesn't change logic. Killing is killing even if 1000 devs would say killing is just helping people to get to heaven.

DG stated specificly that the templa-mage issue is meant to be grey. Grey as in "no clear moral victor". No clear solution to the issue. No clear side to pick. Of course, some people may prefer to pick one of h the other, but that's on purely sbbjective issues.

And I ask oyu - if you're agaisnt imprisoning people (for whatever the reason) who didn't do anything - what would you do if your neighbour town becomes the epicenter of a deadly virus. when the army comes to set up the quarantene, will you fight them?

Hahahahaha, devs are humans.They are no gods. Devs make a lot of mistakes. Lobotomizing, slaying, and imprisoning people because of their inherit abilities and who have done no crime other than make-believe crime to be a mage is no grey ground.

To make-believe the opposite the chantry portrays mages like they would already be abdominations and terrible monsters, which they are not. And if a mage is so suspectible to become abdomination, how come there does not roam abdominations in the circle all the time? And why only mages would want to summon abdominations to kill people when any commoner could kill anytime people?

The common folks doesn't care much of mages. The bandits after Tower of Ostagar almost laughed when they saw two mages, in case PC was a mage, and one warrior, and a war dog. In the Dalish slums, there were Mages outside and the Elves were not scared of them but rather gathered close by. Where is the terrible fear of mages and abdominations? Clearly the citizens live in a "brave new world" where magic is phenomenen to live with, and they are reasonable enough to understand mages are not time bombs who would turn anytime to abdomination.

Mage does not mass kill people "just because he can" in the same way commoners don't do it. Mages are no freaking blood thirsty murderers tossing abdominations around or shapeshifting into one every now and then. Mages are a great asset to the society, and they would be greatly appreciated. People would deffo understand that there are good responsible mages and bad mages. And they would not blame good mages for being a mage any more than they blame a merchants to be evil because one merchant dropped a bomb on market place.

Horribly broken is all I can say if this chantry was meant to be "grey area".



Edit: This mage hatred indicates devs has played warriors in WoW and got repeatedly pwnt by frost mages rofl.

Modifié par moilami, 25 janvier 2011 - 02:24 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Abominations and Blood Magic is not make-believe though.



The whole discussion boils down to: is the freedom of a few, worth the safety of many.

No matter how you try and spin it. Once an Abomination is loose, it is a terrible threat. No matter how you spin it, mages like the Baroness is a terrible threat. Not (neccesarily) to nations, but to the commoners.

Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations and Blood Magic is not make-believe though.

The whole discussion boils down to: is the freedom of a few, worth the safety of many.
No matter how you try and spin it. Once an Abomination is loose, it is a terrible threat. No matter how you spin it, mages like the Baroness is a terrible threat. Not (neccesarily) to nations, but to the commoners.
Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

That abdomination is the biggest make-believe the devs could make to invent the circle and chantry. Yet Connor incident happened, abdominations roam everywhere, and there is no end seen to it. The name of the quest (ironically and accidentally) say it better than well: Broken Circle. It is not working. That freaking system to slay mages in different ways and make the chicken of them feel special* and be obedient is not working. It is terrible broken.

Completely another issue is then this that mages are slayed and tortured because of their inherit abilities before any crime has happened. That happens in the brave new world where magic exists and as such would be part of the world like anything else with pros and cons, iincluding but not limited to bombs, cannons, and swords.

There is two completely different issues.



* Added a word I lolled when playing a mage, and to what I lol every time I see circle mage.

I really wish they could make a MMORPG of this setting. Naturally I would play genlock emissary though and not a wild mage, but even if the game would suck it would rule to beat circle mages.

Modifié par moilami, 25 janvier 2011 - 03:25 .

[Erani]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations and Blood Magic is not make-believe though.

The whole discussion boils down to: is the freedom of a few, worth the safety of many.
No matter how you try and spin it. Once an Abomination is loose, it is a terrible threat. No matter how you spin it, mages like the Baroness is a terrible threat. Not (neccesarily) to nations, but to the commoners.
Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

I guess it depends on what it's meant by "mages' freedom". Are we talking about freedom to run around unaccountable with uncontroled power? Or are we talking about freedom from the Chantry/being leashed like rabid dogs?
Mages like Wynne, Irving, and others with strong willpower will never become abominations. So what's the problem with having the mages under supervision of a mage council made up of strong and respectable mages? I mean, only a mage can understand the true dangers and conflicts of being one. The Chantry and Templars are by nature, in my opinion, unable to be objective and fair in their treatment of mages. You can't help or rule what you don't understand.
Sure, mages can't run around becoming abominations and killing inoccent people. The real question is: are people safer from abominations under the current status quo (the Chantry supervises the Circle) than if the mages ruled themselves?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Blood Magic is the reason why mages can't be trusted to govern mages. It will only take one Blood Mage to learn mind control, then use it on anyone in the council, and things will start to snowball.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 25 janvier 2011 - 04:50 .

[IanPolaris]

Again I find it rather Ironic that Lotion is now hanging his hat on "circle is best because it is grey" argument when he's been anything but grey himself.

As for the arguement, the very fact that Lotion is trying to make the argument means he's lost the debate!  A fairly strong claim but consider.  If he could honestly and forthrightly point out all the benefits of the "security" of the circle system, and show with little doubt with hard evidence that indeed overall it does indeed save lives, then he would be emphasizing those point.  Indeed when he (thought) he had the rhetorical upper hand on these points earlier in the thread, he did just that.

Now suddenly in the last five pages, he's making the 'grey' issue his central one.  Why?  Because he's lost the other points and now is trying an openly meta-gaming argument that goes something like this, "So OK, if the circle is all bad and all, then the Devs must of made a mistake since it was supposed to be a hard moral choice.  We know the Devs never make a mistake.  Therefore the circle system isn't as bad as your evidence suggests."

I am simplifying it, but that's the nutshell of Lotion's argument.

1.  Just because the circle is bad and alternatives are better, does NOT mean it's going to be easy or better to get to those alternate systems.  Transition periods are inherently dangerous and often problematic and involve their own moral choices.

2.  Lotion is assuming the Devs are infallible when all of us know perfectly well that they are not.  Heck, I don't even think the Devs themselves regard themselves as infallible.  It makes just as much sense to assume that the Devs left more clues (for those of us that really, really dig) that the circle system is really unnecessary than they perhaps intended.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blood Magic is the reason why mages can't be trusted to govern mages. It will only take one Blood Mage to learn mind control, then use it on anyone in the council, and things will start to snowball.

Of course the Templars are soo good at finding and controlling bloodmagic.  *cough* Jowan *cough*, *cough* Uldred *cough*

In fact bloodmagic is seems relatively easy to learn and if not common then at least isn't rare and there is no way to shut that knowledge down.  Furthermore not all bloodmagic is mind-control magic.

Given that, you have your own people with bloodmagic and you research defenses agaisnt it (esp bloodmagic).  Adralla certainly did so.  Mind-control magic does not seem to be an "I win" butten anyway that the chantry is making it out to me.  Very dangerous and probably should be illegal (it is even in Tevinter after all), but Uldred had mind-control magic, but he wasn't able to just control minds with the flick of a wrist.  He had to beat the subject down into submission first.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

No.  Lob and I are saying it's a false dichotomy and ultimately (when you cross compare) denying the mages freedom can reasonably be seen as costing more lives than ultimately not granting it.

The difference is you are afraid to try to change into something better (and there is valid reason to be afraid of change because change is always messy) while Lob and I feel that the long term benefits outweigh any shortterm problems.

-Polaris

[moilami]

Erani wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations and Blood Magic is not make-believe though.

The whole discussion boils down to: is the freedom of a few, worth the safety of many.
No matter how you try and spin it. Once an Abomination is loose, it is a terrible threat. No matter how you spin it, mages like the Baroness is a terrible threat. Not (neccesarily) to nations, but to the commoners.
Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

Mages like Wynne, Irving, and others with strong willpower will never become abominations. So what's the problem with having the mages under supervision of a mage council made up of strong and respectable mages?

Wynne have a deal with a demon she calls "spirit" (was it spirit or not, none can know, could as well be Desire Demon, most probable, which I call Desire Goddess). Mage test in circle is bull****. If one succeeds in it it doesn't mean one could never be possessed (apparently many mages who succeeded in test were later possesed in "broken circle". Also if a mage failed in test, it doesn't mean he would be a bad mage. He could just had been badly prepared, like every circle mage). Mages like all people are not Stone Made. They change as the time goes by.

(You wrote a good post, not saying that, but no council restricts my rights plotting a deal with Desire Goddess to have sex from her.)

Modifié par moilami, 25 janvier 2011 - 05:06 .

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...
Wynne have a deal with a demon she calls "spirit" (was it spirit or not, none can know, could as well be Desire Demon, most probable, which I call Desire Goddess). Mage test in circle is bull****. If one succeeds in it it doesn't mean one could never be possessed (apparently many mages who succeeded in test were later possesed in "broken circle". Mages like all people are not Stone Made. They change as the time goes by.

(You wrote a good post, not saying that, but no council restricts my rights plotting a deal with Demon Goddess to have sex from her.)

All true.  I wouldn't have used Wynne as an example either.  That said, all the examples you cite (including Wynne) got 'possessed' when under great physical and emotional stress, after the Veil was already torn, and after being beaten down both physically and mentally (Wynne was dying when she got her 'faith' spirit).  In short, you have all the risk factors going against them.  I also remind you that many became abominations by a very difficult and complex mind-control bloodmagic ritual so that isn't precisely fair either.

The basic fact remains.  Except under extreme (and very rare) circumstances, Mages don't spontaneously become abominations.  Either the mage has to let the demon in (and even basic education can put the kybosh on that....even basic demonology would have given Conner enough info to recognize the desire demon for what she was and resist her clarion call....as Conner himself makes clear when you talk with him just before you have to kill him), OR the mage initialtes a battle of wills with a demon (generally to summon it) and loses.  The point is that the 'inherent' abomination rate of well adjusted mages living in society as respected members thereof seems to be vanishingly rare.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Polaris, Adralla wasn't a blood mage. You claim she were, even though the only bits of lore we got on her clearly states she wasn't one. You are using an extremely flawed logic to back up your own claim in this case. Saying she has intricate knowledge about blood magic makes her a blood mage. By that logic, a historian who specialize in national socialism is one aswell. He must be right? He knows a lot about them..... I really hope you can see how flawed that logic is.

So no, Adralla wasn't a Blood Mage.



The Templars did know Jowan was a Blood Mage. So I fail to see your argument there. Yes they couldn't track him down, but that was becasue he destroyed his phylactery. And apparently the Templars also knew about numerous Blood Mages in the Circle, they just didn't know that Uldred was the leader of this Shadow Circle. ALl in all Templars seems to perform the job of rooting out Blood Magic pretty well. Sometimes they just get all outclassed by their opponents from time to time. But then they just call for backup.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Polaris, Adralla wasn't a blood mage. You claim she were, even though the only bits of lore we got on her clearly states she wasn't one. You are using an extremely flawed logic to back up your own claim in this case. Saying she has intricate knowledge about blood magic makes her a blood mage. By that logic, a historian who specialize in national socialism is one aswell. He must be right? He knows a lot about them..... I really hope you can see how flawed that logic is.
So no, Adralla wasn't a Blood Mage.

Yes she was.  She had knowledge of bloodmagic which makes her a bloodmage.  The Codex (written from the Chantry PoV) tries to fudge it by saying she had the academic knowledge, but knowledge is knowledge.  If you know how to use bloodmagic (and Adralla did), she is in fact a bloodmage.  Certainly if you tried the "I am just doing the academic study of bloodmagic", the Templars would be....less than sympathetic shall we say?

The Templars did know Jowan was a Blood Mage. So I fail to see your argument there. Yes they couldn't track him down, but that was becasue he destroyed his phylactery. And apparently the Templars also knew about numerous Blood Mages in the Circle, they just didn't know that Uldred was the leader of this Shadow Circle. ALl in all Templars seems to perform the job of rooting out Blood Magic pretty well. Sometimes they just get all outclassed by their opponents from time to time. But then they just call for backup.

They did NOT know Jowan was a bloodmage.  They heard unsubstantiated hearsay evidence that he was, and they were going to act on that.  Also where are you getting the idea that the Templars knew there were several bloodmages in the tower because it's not from the game lore!  In fact by Grefoire's own admission, the Templars were caught completely unprepared!  [Now Irving OTOH did know aboiut Uldred using bloodmagic as a honey-trap, but that was Irving being stupid.]

-Polaris

[Erani]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Blood Magic is the reason why mages can't be trusted to govern mages. It will only take one Blood Mage to learn mind control, then use it on anyone in the council, and things will start to snowball.

But the Chantry strategy of "let's kill every blood mage" hasn't worked very well so far, has it? I guess you could say it "works" on every blood mage the Templars kill, but I'm not even gonna start on how many apostates are in hiding. Besides, my point was that those mages with greater willpower and inner strength (such as Irving etc) are highly resistant to mind control, so the notion of some lil no name blood mage using mind control on anyone in the council is pretty improbable.
Also, more research should be done on blood magic, so that there are more ways to fight/neutralize it without having to resort to slaughter. There's no proof (or at least none I've seen) than there'd be more blood mages or abominations under a Circle Council than currently under the Chantry.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations and Blood Magic is not make-believe though.

The whole discussion boils down to: is the freedom of a few, worth the safety of many.
No matter how you try and spin it. Once an Abomination is loose, it is a terrible threat. No matter how you spin it, mages like the Baroness is a terrible threat. Not (neccesarily) to nations, but to the commoners.
Ian and Lob says that mages' freedom is worth a few lost lives. Lotion and I say it isn't.

You and Lotion failed to prove any lives are saved by the Chantry's systematic dehumanization and imprisonment of mages. People are advocating treating mages like real people, properly instructing them, and having a taskforce of mages and non-mages to police everyone. Currently, the Chantry demonizes all mages, and the templars can kill people on suspicion of being a mage. It's a broken system that mages continue to rebel against, and apparently it's going to result in an all-out war in DA2.

[moilami]

IanPolaris wrote...

moilami wrote...
Wynne have a deal with a demon she calls "spirit" (was it spirit or not, none can know, could as well be Desire Demon, most probable, which I call Desire Goddess). Mage test in circle is bull****. If one succeeds in it it doesn't mean one could never be possessed (apparently many mages who succeeded in test were later possesed in "broken circle". Mages like all people are not Stone Made. They change as the time goes by.

(You wrote a good post, not saying that, but no council restricts my rights plotting a deal with Demon Goddess to have sex from her.)

All true.  I wouldn't have used Wynne as an example either.  That said, all the examples you cite (including Wynne) got 'possessed' when under great physical and emotional stress, after the Veil was already torn, and after being beaten down both physically and mentally (Wynne was dying when she got her 'faith' spirit).  In short, you have all the risk factors going against them.  I also remind you that many became abominations by a very difficult and complex mind-control bloodmagic ritual so that isn't precisely fair either.

(I know all those points, and I suspect only demons are powerful enough to do that bloodmagic ritual). There is something else in that possession ritual too because the demon possessing the cat was unable to possess the girl, even though the Desire Goddess would surely been able to talk the girl to accept the possession (note also how the Desire Goddess talked she liked the girl and wanted to keep her. Did The Desire Goddess really think so?) So it seems there certainly is some kind of additional "hidden trigger" you don't have control of and which needs to be triggered in order to become possessed (or alternatively the method used in circle tower you described and of which I am glad you noticed).

What matters also is mages wont want to become possessed because it is effectively a suicide. Take Connor for example. He could be saved, yes, but mages can't count on that nor risk being part-time possessed and therefore in practise part-time dead while risking losing their physical body completely by the actions of demon doing the possession. Also regarding Connor, at the moment it is unclear how Connor got his mind back at times. Was he able to do it somehow or did the demon let him access his physical body and then repossessed him?

IanPolaris wrote...

The basic fact remains.  Except under extreme (and very rare) circumstances, Mages don't spontaneously become abominations.  Either the mage has to let the demon in (and even basic education can put the kybosh on that....even basic demonology would have given Conner enough info to recognize the desire demon for what she was and resist her clarion call....as Conner himself makes clear when you talk with him just before you have to kill him), OR the mage initialtes a battle of wills with a demon (generally to summon it) and loses.  The point is that the 'inherent' abomination rate of well adjusted mages living in society as respected members thereof seems to be vanishingly rare.

Hmm, I don't know how mages could become spontaneously abdominations. I am sorry but I can't even imagine how it could be possible. On the other hand there is strong evidence mages can't become abdominations even if they wanted. Other than that I agree. Connor is only good example how uneducated mages hidden from Chantry make easy targets for demons, even if they would be only childs.


(Little bit unstuctured posting from my side but since you are supposed to read it only once and I am not writing a schoolbook it shall do.)


Edit: As ridiculous as it may sound, but that "hidden trigger" could be love and death. Connor loved his father and wanted to save him from death. The girl loved the cat and wanted to save it from death. Both ended up to be possessed. Anyway those two emotions when strong enough and combined could trigger hidden "self-sacrificial" trigger bypassing unconscious self-defence mechanism.

Modifié par moilami, 25 janvier 2011 - 06:20 .

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Polaris, Adralla wasn't a blood mage. You claim she were, even though the only bits of lore we got on her clearly states she wasn't one. You are using an extremely flawed logic to back up your own claim in this case. Saying she has intricate knowledge about blood magic makes her a blood mage. By that logic, a historian who specialize in national socialism is one aswell. He must be right? He knows a lot about them..... I really hope you can see how flawed that logic is.
So no, Adralla wasn't a Blood Mage.

The Templars did know Jowan was a Blood Mage. So I fail to see your argument there. Yes they couldn't track him down, but that was becasue he destroyed his phylactery. And apparently the Templars also knew about numerous Blood Mages in the Circle, they just didn't know that Uldred was the leader of this Shadow Circle. ALl in all Templars seems to perform the job of rooting out Blood Magic pretty well. Sometimes they just get all outclassed by their opponents from time to time. But then they just call for backup.

Phylactery is interesting. It could be used in Free World as a method to track down those mages who have become "rogue".

[Sir JK]

Guys... put the Chantry is more/less effective argument to rest. Neither side can come to any conclusion because there is no evidence in either direction. Saying the the Chantry saves more lives/prevents abominations/whatever more effectively is a baseless claim.

However. Saying that the Chantry's method is ineffective/less effective/that other cultures manages equally well or better is also a baseless claim. Lack of proof that the Chantry is better is not proof that non-Chantry is better or even equally good.

Essentially... lack of proof is just that: lack of proof. No more, no less.



So we can neither say the Chantry is better or worse at this. And no... that others have a better view of mages and/or that we have heard of no abiminations or whatever among them is not evidence. It is something that warrants looking into. It is something that can lead to the discovery of evidence (if it exists), but it is not on it's own evidental of anything.



If you want to judge the Chantry, judge it based on how it treats it's wards/prisoners. It cannot however be said wether it is more or less effective than the other cultures. Not without hard numbers. That goes for both directions.

You may of course make assumptions or speculate. But then say so, so others are on the same page.



Just so you know... taking a lack of evidence as indication of something is considered to be very bad science.