1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Erani]

Sir JK wrote...

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..

True. However, saying that the Chantry's treatment of mages is unfair and intolerant is not baseless. We may not have proof that one system or the other saves more lives, but just the fact that the Chantry sees all mages as sub-human worthy of fear and disgust (this was clearly observed in DAO) should be enough to say that the Chantry can't possibly be good supervision for the Circle/mages in general.

Modifié par Erani, 25 janvier 2011 - 07:16 .

[IanPolaris]

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

Actually that's not true.  If a theory (which in the scientific sense is a model) predicts a phenomena and you fail to see that phenomena, that counts as evidence against the theory.  It's not ironclad, but the people proposing the theory has to explain why the experimental data didn't correspond wih the expected result.

This is from a professional physicist talking.  Absense of something in experimental trials can be evidence and it not ipso facto "bad science".  Please stop saying it is.

-Polaris

Edit:  As a very technical and specific example, the "Standard Model" of particle physics predicts that there should have been exactly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter created when the universe began.  However, we don't see anywhere near the amount of antimatter in nature that we 'should' (and indeed the antimatter we do see tends to be restricted to high energy phenomena and tends to be short lived).  This is considered evidence against the standard model (which is how phycisits even though they use it and it works very well, know that it's not ultimately the correct theory).  Just one rather technical example of how 'lack of something' DOES indicate something in a "good" scientific sense.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 25 janvier 2011 - 07:22 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

I strongly disagree with this.  I grant that the case against the circle isn't ironclad but that's a far cry from saying that no evidence exists.  If you say something has to be true, and that something has predictable effects that should be seen, then the absence of those effects IS evidence against your statement.  It's not ironclad, but it's a strong leading indicator.

That's the case here.  If the abomination issue really were as severe as the Chantry wants you to believe, then we should  see the "footprint" of that in every culture in Thedas.  We do not.  We see it only in places that repress and villify magic.

-Polaris

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

There is one very big difference. There is a system where innocent people are slain and hunted just because of their inherit abilities. For me, the alternative system would be something much worse before I could even consider support this current chantry system.


Edit: And if I would be ignorant I would just have a room in the circle living in welfare and study nature of Desire Goddesses.

Edit: Wondering how many mages do that. Maybe it is me who does not have a clue.

Edit: Dunno if I should change my sig to say "Morrigan to the Chantry!"

Edit: Just remembered there would be chantry sisters in chantry and other females. Maybe if some rules would be just changed, like sexual relationships allowed in the circle. I think I begin to see the benefits of chantry in great detail now.

Modifié par moilami, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:41 .

[Sharn01]

Making a request to Lotion to stop referring to mages as a disease or ticking timebombs, they are not accurate anologies. A deadly virus always spreads and always causes death, from all evidence we have seen this is an uncommon to extremely rare occurance with mages. Ticking timebombs always explode, just like the previous anology, its rare or extremely rare for a mage to become an abomination.



You may as well make an anology that says every home without built in grounding wires in the wiring will start fires, the fact is the vast majority of people lived over half a century without grounding wires and fires are not much less common today then they where before the change, grounding wires are safer without a doubt, but telling someone "your home will burn to the ground, its just a matter of time", is not a true statement.

[moilami]

Sharn01 wrote...

Making a request to Lotion to stop referring to mages as a disease or ticking timebombs, they are not accurate anologies. A deadly virus always spreads and always causes death, from all evidence we have seen this is an uncommon to extremely rare occurance with mages. Ticking timebombs always explode, just like the previous anology, its rare or extremely rare for a mage to become an abomination.

You may as well make an anology that says every home without built in grounding wires in the wiring will start fires, the fact is the vast majority of people lived over half a century without grounding wires and fires are not much less common today then they where before the change, grounding wires are safer without a doubt, but telling someone "your home will burn to the ground, its just a matter of time", is not a true statement.

(Disease and ticking timebombs xD Excellent populism. This mage/chantry is actually the best RP related discussion I have seen. Should roll a mage in DA and come here RP this is a tavern or some other place people gather.)

[EmperorSahlertz]

Polaris, I may have found that cultural footprint of demons you have asked for. The custom of burning your dead. All the nations of Thedas burns their dead (except for the Dalish, but they are nomadic). Mainly for the reason that being eaten by the undead love of your life, sucks. This is one indication of demons (and magic itself) having left a pronounced footprint on the cultures of Thedas. Except for the Dalish, but as I mentioned, they are nomadic, and thus the emperative to burn the dead lessens, as they won't be there when/if the corpse is possessed anyway.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Polaris, I may have found that cultural footprint of demons you have asked for. The custom of burning your dead. All the nations of Thedas burns their dead (except for the Dalish, but they are nomadic). Mainly for the reason that being eaten by the undead love of your life, sucks. This is one indication of demons (and magic itself) having left a pronounced footprint on the cultures of Thedas. Except for the Dalish, but as I mentioned, they are nomadic, and thus the emperative to burn the dead lessens, as they won't be there when/if the corpse is possessed anyway.

Except that prevents corpses from being inhabited by demons rather than a cultural imprint brought on by any incidents involving abominations.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris

Actually that's not true. If a theory (which in the scientific sense is a model) predicts a phenomena and you fail to see that phenomena, that counts as evidence against the theory. It's not ironclad, but the people proposing the theory has to explain why the experimental data didn't correspond wih the expected result.



This is from a professional physicist talking. Absense of something in experimental trials can be evidence and it not ipso facto "bad science". Please stop saying it is.

In biomedicine it is considered to be weak evidence though. It can as easily have been caused that you missed it or measured the wrong thing. You are right in that something cannot be true unless it is proven, but it can not also be false for as long as the opposite have not been proven.

Edit: As a very technical and specific example, the "Standard Model" of particle physics predicts that there should have been exactly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter created when the universe began. However, we don't see anywhere near the amount of antimatter in nature that we 'should' (and indeed the antimatter we do see tends to be restricted to high energy phenomena and tends to be short lived). This is considered evidence against the standard model (which is how phycisits even though they use it and it works very well, know that it's not ultimately the correct theory). Just one rather technical example of how 'lack of something' DOES indicate something in a "good" scientific sense.

You're right, it was a poor choice of words to say it was not indicative of something. It is indeed indicative that something is amiss with the theory or that the experiment failed to measure the thing intended to be measured.



It does not, however mean that an alternate hypothesis is true.

In this case. The fact that other cultures view mages in more positive light can be taken as indicative to the hypothesis: the circles are the only proper way to control mages. This statement is indeed false.

It does not mean: Other cultures have better traditions than the circle. It is insufficient for this purpose.

I strongly disagree with this. I grant that the case against the circle isn't ironclad but that's a far cry from saying that no evidence exists. If you say something has to be true, and that something has predictable effects that should be seen, then the absence of those effects IS evidence against your statement. It's not ironclad, but it's a strong leading indicator.



That's the case here. If the abomination issue really were as severe as the Chantry wants you to believe, then we should see the "footprint" of that in every culture in Thedas. We do not. We see it only in places that repress and villify magic.

Yes, Polaris. You are right that it can be used to disprove certain predicted results. It cannot however prove, on it's own, that one thing is better compared to another. Because you need evidence for both in that case. In this case, it is not enough to show that other cultures view mages in better light/that there is no evidence that the circle improves anything. You also have to show evidence that the other cultures are indeed better at it.



Comparations have to be proven both ways. Not just one.

moilami wrote...

There is one very big difference. There is a system where innocent people are slain and hunted just because of their inherit abilities. For me, the alternative system would be something much worse before I could even consider support this current chantry system.

This statement however I have no problems with. It is a value statement based on how it does it, rather than a effectiveness comparison.

Sharn01 wrote...

Making a request to Lotion to stop referring to mages as a disease or ticking timebombs, they are not accurate anologies. A deadly virus always spreads and always causes death, from all evidence we have seen this is an uncommon to extremely rare occurance with mages. Ticking timebombs always explode, just like the previous anology, its rare or extremely rare for a mage to become an abomination.

Not even deadly viruses always kill or always spread, But I agree, a disease is a poor analogy. Ticking timebomb is however a metaphor. Perhaps not the most accurate one.



A better metaphor is that a mage is a powderkeg. They don't have to explode and if treated carefully they probably never will. But every once in a while someone will be not be careful enough and disaster strikes.

The problem is and have always been that not every mage will be a problem, but any mage may be.... and you cannot tell them apart until disaster strikes.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Polaris, I may have found that cultural footprint of demons you have asked for. The custom of burning your dead. All the nations of Thedas burns their dead (except for the Dalish, but they are nomadic). Mainly for the reason that being eaten by the undead love of your life, sucks. This is one indication of demons (and magic itself) having left a pronounced footprint on the cultures of Thedas. Except for the Dalish, but as I mentioned, they are nomadic, and thus the emperative to burn the dead lessens, as they won't be there when/if the corpse is possessed anyway.

That doesn't really follow, though.  IRL most cultures (not all but most) practice cremation (often alongside other methodes).  The reason of course has nothing to do with magic (obviously since there is no magic IRL) but disease.  Dead bodies that aren't properly buried and prepared breed pestilance.  I see no reason why Thedas would be any different and so I don't see this as a compelling 'footprint'.

-Polaris

[Akizora]

Whenever religion sets the law there is a heavy agenda underneath, the chantry is for all intents and purposes a religion. They believe mages to be at fault for the blight and that mages must be put under control, here is where I believe things go wrong. Mages are hated, feared and treated by disgust because of the chantrys teachings that they are evil, even if the person didn't choose to become what they are. A templar probably knows different, or maybe he doesn't - seperating church and state would be a start to give mages a better life.

I do think mages need to be under control, the power they wield is destructive and they are essentially ticking bombs if they are too weak. Maybe they should try to find a way to cut off a mages power WITHOUT making them tranquil, but whatever happens it's clear that the majority of the world is probably safer with mages under control.

When I play and put myself in the role of a mage I hate the tower, the chantry and the templars for forcing me into seclusion and essentially a form of slavery where they decide what I can and cannot do. It would also be called imprisonment, but if you don't obey the circle they will make you tranquil - so that would to me be slavery. However when I play a warrior or rogue I might consider it as explained above, unless I'm unreasonable in which case I want them all dead cause I think they're a terrible danger to the world.

[IanPolaris]

The thing is though that no one says that mages shouldn't be regulated (be under control) as it were. The question is whether the circle system is the best or even optimum way of doing it, and that's especially important given that the circle system is obvously a regressive system that breeds anomisty and even hatred on both sides.



Given that other cultures do just fine without the circle system, and don't self-destruct, I have grave, grave doubts to put it mildly.



-Polaris

[Akizora]

IanPolaris wrote...

The thing is though that no one says that mages shouldn't be regulated (be under control) as it were. The question is whether the circle system is the best or even optimum way of doing it, and that's especially important given that the circle system is obvously a regressive system that breeds anomisty and even hatred on both sides.

Given that other cultures do just fine without the circle system, and don't self-destruct, I have grave, grave doubts to put it mildly.

-Polaris

We don't know much about how often Dalish mages become abominations or if Qunari mages succumb to it, perhaps they both even have rituals that "block" demons from entering them. It will be interesting to learn more about mages since DA2 appears to be delving deeply into mages.

[IanPolaris]

Akizora wrote...

We don't know much about how often Dalish mages become abominations or if Qunari mages succumb to it, perhaps they both even have rituals that "block" demons from entering them. It will be interesting to learn more about mages since DA2 appears to be delving deeply into mages.

Here's the thing.  We don't know much about the Dalish true, but we do know that the Dalish don't apparently have this problem, nor do the cultists of Haven, nor do the Witches of Rivvain (who actually practice limited possession which seems very risky), nor the Chasind, nor did the Kingdom of the Dales, Ancient Tevinter, nor even Chantry societies for the first 200 years.

It seems as though were magic is accepted and mages are a contributing part of society, we don't see this toxic dynamic and somehow none of them suffered from the spontanous destruction via abomination that the Chantry would want us to believe.

No one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated.  We strongly question the Chantry's methodes and frankly if the Chantry should be the one doing it at all.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

In all honesty. All of your stated examples, of cultures "doing just fine" with mages amongst the common people, are almost exterminated.

Dalish- Reduced to wandering nomads. Few in numbers. Certainly not the force they used to be.

Chasind- A bunch of barbarians living in the Korcari wilds. Not much is known about them, but they don't seem to be a threat against Ferelden, so they can't be all that.

Haven- Heavily isolasionistic, and extremely few in number.

Rivain- The tradition of their seers are most certainly dying. Influence from both the Chantry and the Qun will see to that.



Actually, the only nations which seems to "do jsut fine" are the ones who oppress their mages.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In all honesty. All of your stated examples, of cultures "doing just fine" with mages amongst the common people, are almost exterminated.
Dalish- Reduced to wandering nomads. Few in numbers. Certainly not the force they used to be.

Not because of magic though.  The Chantry did an Exalted March of very questionable legality (the Chant was literally rewritten to permit it as the sisters in Denerim will tell you).  Prior to that the Dales were not only a powerful and thriving kingdom, but had even brought Orlais to it's knees before Orlais appealed to the Chantry for help.

Indeed because of the hunter-gather lifestyle, we should see more impact if "mages go bad" suddenly and for no apparent reason as the Chantry would have us believe because the social groups are so much smaller.

So the Dalish are doing just fine as it applies to mages and magic (the topic here).

Chasind- A bunch of barbarians living in the Korcari wilds. Not much is known about them, but they don't seem to be a threat against Ferelden, so they can't be all that.

They were a dire threat at one time but have since (somewhat) civilized themselves (at least decided to be better neighbors).  I note that Ostagar was built to stem Chasind Invasions so the Chasind were and could be again "all that".

Again, nothing to do with magic.

Haven- Heavily isolasionistic, and extremely few in number.

By choice lest you forget.   Again nothing to do with magic except again to note that being few in number, we'd expect the abomination "footprint" to be even greater.

Rivain- The tradition of their seers are most certainly dying. Influence from both the Chantry and the Qun will see to that.

Again, that has nothing to do with magic.  Mages going "bonkers" isn't creating Rivain's problems.  Magically intolerant neighbors are.

Actually, the only nations which seems to "do jsut fine" are the ones who oppress their mages.

Sure because they actively hunt and suppress (by extreme bloodshed if necessary) those that don't.  Thus this is a completely bogus argument.  You can't pummel a society into the ground and then blame it for it's condition with any sort of logical reason and consistancy yet this is what you are attempting to do.

Edit:  To clarify why it's bogus, it's bogus because the reason the societies mentioned have problems has nothing to do with magic and abominations (the topic here) and indeed if the abomination problem were as severe and prevelent as the Chantry tries to claim, these soceites quite honestly probably shouldn't even exist....but they do.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 26 janvier 2011 - 10:33 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well, perhaps the Dalish lost the Exalted March because they were weakened by abominations. And weren't the Chant altered concurrent with the Exalted March? THe Exalted March itself was reasonable enough (if war can be reasonable).

Isn't most of the CHasind what is now Ferelden? (or is that the Avvars?). And the very fact that Ostagar is allowed to fall into disrepair and ruin, shows that the CHasind aren't considered a threat anymore.

Rivain's problem has everything to do with magic. They got an old tradition of letting their mages become possessed. The CHantry and Qun do not like this. So yes, magic is the cause of Rivains problems. Or rather, the different views on magic.



All of the problems may not be caused by magic. But it is interesting to note that the societies with free mages, all have a hard time, and do not do "just fine". So a pattern may be there, buried in the data. Hard to tell with the limited data we got so far. Perhaps time will tell.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Polaris, I may have found that cultural footprint of demons you have asked for. The custom of burning your dead. All the nations of Thedas burns their dead (except for the Dalish, but they are nomadic). Mainly for the reason that being eaten by the undead love of your life, sucks. This is one indication of demons (and magic itself) having left a pronounced footprint on the cultures of Thedas. Except for the Dalish, but as I mentioned, they are nomadic, and thus the emperative to burn the dead lessens, as they won't be there when/if the corpse is possessed anyway.

Except that prevents corpses from being inhabited by demons rather than a cultural imprint brought on by any incidents involving abominations.

Semantics. It is because of the threat of corpse possession, instead of mage possession. It is still a cultural footprint brought on by demons.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

I do not listen to lies, if that is what you mean.
You and Ian disproved nothing, only avoided the issues or repeated the same old mantra, putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala I cna't hear you".
Nobody proves htat better than you.

How many times have I shot down your arguments with impunity? (for example, the redicolous  "Haven didn't blow up is proof abominations aren't that dangerous")  And you repat the same argument, again and again.
From now on I'm calling you Noober.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:01 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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).

SOME poeple in the game find it reprehensible.
And it's clear the system isn't taking the moral high road. It's taking the safe road.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Didn't we cover this allready? Oh yes, we did...3 tiems actually. Adn 3 times you have been proven utterly wrong.

So how about you stop with the obvious lies about me and acept the fact that you put the foot in your mouth. You dug your own grave....now lie down please...

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."

BWHAHAHAHAA...oh man.

So after you utterly failed to defend you arguments, you now want to resort to this?

Claiming that you're the winner by default, because I DARED to actually point out how your broken arguments break the whole point and atmosphere of the mage-templar dillema?

Noting is more telling of your failure than the fact that you're not actually debating with me anymore OR defending your own argument - no, you are basicly reduced to making a plea to those who read the forums, in a last ditch attempt to convice them that you're right, hoping they would vindicate you.
"Oh, I know this lookes bad, but see, he's only beating me because he lost. He is totally defeated, really...Otherwise he wouldn't have resorted to the hammer. Trust me on that. Please!"

You realised how horrible the foundations of your whole line of reasoning were and are now grasping for straws. Pathetic.

Note, my funny friend, that you haven't actually won any of the previous arguments...there was no realy need for me to "resort" to this line of reasoning, but given that you pretty much ignored regular counter-arguments like they don't exist, it was fitting to bring out the big guns.

But the be fair, the "big guns" came to me a fewdays ago, just as I was going to sleep. I could have used them earlier, but the more you denied anything good about the circle, the deeper you sank.
Maybe I should have waited a bit more.

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

Yes, you're very good at simplyfiyng and letting out all the important details...especially when it suits you.

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.

And as you already claimed yourself, the negatives of the "transition period" pale in comparison to the negatives of the "eeeeevil circle system". A horrible-earth shattering war, continuation of opression and injustice etc, etc...

Tough choices mean that the pros and cons most be roughly balanced on both sides.
You have provided no such  balance. At all.

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.
s

Of course they aren't infallible.
But given how central the mage-templar dynamic is to the whole DA setting, This wouldn't be a minor mistake. This would be a major f***-up.
And I don't think something like that wouldn't get past them easily.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:58 .

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...
A better metaphor is that a mage is a powderkeg. They don't have to explode and if treated carefully they probably never will. But every once in a while someone will be not be careful enough and disaster strikes.
The problem is and have always been that not every mage will be a problem, but any mage may be.... and you cannot tell them apart until disaster strikes.

Every female is a powderkeg. They don't have to explode and if treated carefully they probably never will. But every once in a while someone will be not be careful enough and disaster strikes.
The problem is and have always been that not every female will be a problem, but any female may be.... and you cannot tell them apart untill disaster strikes.

Modifié par moilami, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sharn01 wrote...

Making a request to Lotion to stop referring to mages as a disease or ticking timebombs, they are not accurate anologies. A deadly virus always spreads and always causes death, from all evidence we have seen this is an uncommon to extremely rare occurance with mages. Ticking timebombs always explode, just like the previous anology, its rare or extremely rare for a mage to become an abomination.

I will make any analogy I see fitting. And those are...for reason I specified earlier. If you ever bothered to read further.

The comparison with a virus is accurate in the areas it is doing the comparison.

Just like when a virus breaks out, you do not know who is infected and who isn't, with the mages you don't know which one will turn into an abomination or will become a blood mage.

Which is why you quarantene the whole area and keep everyone from the inital contamination zone from moving and mixing with poeple you know are not infected. You're trying to prevent large-scale death.
Mages, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Mages, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Humans, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.


Edit: (Thus was decided in the security council constituting of all other races than humans.)

Modifié par moilami, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:37 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Mages, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.

Humans, being a small group that is dangerous to both themselves and others can be physicly contained. And thus they are.


Edit: (Thus was decided in the security council constituting of all other races than humans.)

In order for a group to be physicly contained, it has to be small enough for it to be practicly possible in the first place. (magers are very rare...somethig like 1 in ever 100 humans, if not even mroe rare)

Humans aren't a minority , nor do all posses the inherent danger of a mage.

If both of the above conditions are met..then yes, that would indeed be possible.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:53 .