100 réponses à ce sujet

[WhiteKnyght]

The reason the mages developed that lust for power was because they wanted to be free of the Chantry. Meaning they are partly responsible. If they gave them more freedom they wouldn't need to worry.

[ladydesire]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The reason the mages developed that lust for power was because they wanted to be free of the Chantry. Meaning they are partly responsible. If they gave them more freedom they wouldn't need to worry.

That may explain some modern mages, but what about the Tevinter Magisters in the ancient Tevinter Imperium? There was no Chantry then, so wanting to be free of it isn't a valid explanation for them doing so; the only reason Mages in the modern Teviner Imperium are as free as they are is because the Tevinter Imperium has its own Chantry, which allows them the freedom to do whatever they want. I think the back story for Thedas is a beautiful example of the old saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[thegreateski]

Modifié par thegreateski, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .

[WhiteKnyght]

ladydesire wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The reason the mages developed that lust for power was because they wanted to be free of the Chantry. Meaning they are partly responsible. If they gave them more freedom they wouldn't need to worry.

That may explain some modern mages, but what about the Tevinter Magisters in the ancient Tevinter Imperium? There was no Chantry then, so wanting to be free of it isn't a valid explanation for them doing so; the only reason Mages in the modern Teviner Imperium are as free as they are is because the Tevinter Imperium has its own Chantry, which allows them the freedom to do whatever they want. I think the back story for Thedas is a beautiful example of the old saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I never said magic couldn't be misused. But you cant blame everyone for some corrupt dictators. That's both profiling and unjust. Just because someone is born with a talent doesn't mean they should suffer because a few idiots misused it and allegedly brought the Darkspawn upon the world.

[thesuperdarkone]

thegreateski wrote...

 

What a great idea!

[ladydesire]

The Grey Nayr wrote...


I never said magic couldn't be misused. But you cant blame everyone for some corrupt dictators. That's both profiling and unjust. Just because someone is born with a talent doesn't mean they should suffer because a few idiots misused it and allegedly brought the Darkspawn upon the world.

I agree, but giving in and learning forbidden magic isn't the way to bring about changes; there are other ways to gain more freedom hinted at if you played Awakening, which are preferable to becoming a Blood Mage. Heck, there are hints of other options if you play through the Mage Origin as well.

[moilami]

SalsaDMA wrote...

moilami wrote...

yarrum k wrote...

Anyone that uses blood magic is on a slippery slope. Powerful spells can kill allies too. At first the blood mage is careful but after a time they become a threat to friend and foe alike. The most powerful spells consume life itself.

There are artillery and bombers too, even though they can kill allies. In fact it is not uncommon for rifles to cause friendly fire kills. Where is the slippery slope?

An unskilled warrior is carefull at first but after time can become a threat to friend and foe alike. Slippery slope?

your comparison is wrong.

You can compare artillery and bombs to fireballs that have the ability to inflict friendly fire.

Specifically killing/sacrificing your own people like blood magic can just to cast a spell, however, is more comparable to walking up to one of your allies and stabbing him in the back cause you wanted his money to pay for something.

and there is ofc the mind control issue too.

No. Allies can contribute "blood" exactly in the same way as people contribute it to hospitals. It is for greater good and voluntary action. What's the difference anyway to spill blood from wounds or let the mage regain some power and stop wasting blood on the ground.

[moilami]

thesuperdarkone wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

 

What a great idea!

(Lol he is just taking notes who shall be purged first when the big wheels begin to move.)

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:37 .

[moilami]

ladydesire wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

The reason the mages developed that lust for power was because they wanted to be free of the Chantry. Meaning they are partly responsible. If they gave them more freedom they wouldn't need to worry.

That may explain some modern mages, but what about the Tevinter Magisters in the ancient Tevinter Imperium? There was no Chantry then, so wanting to be free of it isn't a valid explanation for them doing so; the only reason Mages in the modern Teviner Imperium are as free as they are is because the Tevinter Imperium has its own Chantry, which allows them the freedom to do whatever they want. I think the back story for Thedas is a beautiful example of the old saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

If "absolute power" corrupts, why Andraste did not become corrupted even though she lived closer to absolute power than anyone else we know? Was Andraste not a mage? If absolute power corrupts, should we begin to start killing kings? You are pulling words as truths to spread fear and uncertainty. But on the closer look your words have little content.

Mages are not even close to absolute power like gods are. So your power corrupts and absolute power corrups absolutely doesn't work at all. On the other hand be weak and be doomed. Mages are asset in both home front and in the real frontline. Lose the asset and find yourself living in the woods your culture in ruins. Therefore the question is simple: draw the power or be stomped on the ground.

There is no reason to fear mages other than lies and mass hysteria spread by chantry. The fact is that current experimental imprisonment of mages has failed. There are mages on the lose who are eager to do whatever to not get killed just because they refuse to become prisoners and spend their life in chantry. It will never change unless that failed experiment is ended.

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 04:00 .

[moilami]

Elithranduil wrote...

Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.
Foul and corrupt are they
Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.

The issue is not with blood magic itself but what it is typically used for. Only the most ambitious - and too often reckless - mages delve into the study of blood magic. They then abuse the ability to sway minds and influence people. Take out the mind-control aspect and blood magic suddenly becomes less offensive.

No more offensive than crushing prison or waking nightmare at least. Provided the caster is using their own life force and not the essence of slaves. In fact, blood magic could even be seen as a noble form of self-sacrifice...

Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.
Foul and corrupt are they
Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.

Is this what the Chantry says? If so, then the chantry has become so corrupted that it has even managed to contradict itself to the point of absolute ridiculousness.

"Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him." Yet chantry uses magic as an excuse to either kill all mages or inprison them for life.

"Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children."

Chantry has taken magic as weapon to slay or inprison those people with inherit abilities for magic, people who are arguably His children. The chant itself clearly say how corrupt and foul the Chantry is and why.

[ladydesire]

@moilami: We don't know for certain if Andraste was a Mage; we only know that the Tevinter Chantry believes that she was, which is part of the reason for the schism between them and the Val Royeaux based Andrastian Chantry. There are also indications that not all of Her writings are part of the Chant of Light, so it's possible that She never intended for such a thing to happen.

[WhiteKnyght]

If you look at "Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him" in another context, it can be assumed that magic in itself serves the man who wields it, the mage. It doesn't say that Mages exist to serve man and not to rule over them.

[moilami]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

If you look at "Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him" in another context, it can be assumed that magic in itself serves the man who wields it, the mage. It doesn't say that Mages exist to serve man and not to rule over them.

Yeah, it doesn't say mages exist to serve man. It says magic exist to serve man. A mage is a man and not a criminal who can be inprisoned before doing any crime. Magic exist to serve man, never to rule over him. Mages are users of magic, they use it to serve man. But chantry uses magic as an excuse to rule mages, thus chantry uses magic to rule over man, and as such is corrupt and foul as the Chant say.

[moilami]

ladydesire wrote...

@moilami: We don't know for certain if Andraste was a Mage; we only know that the Tevinter Chantry believes that she was, which is part of the reason for the schism between them and the Val Royeaux based Andrastian Chantry. There are also indications that not all of Her writings are part of the Chant of Light, so it's possible that She never intended for such a thing to happen.

What matters is that freedom is not a crime, and a law what says the opposite is corrupt, twisted, and foul. So mages are not criminals untill they have actually done something to be criminals. Using magic could be defined as a crime, but that would be against the Chant as the Chant says magic exist to serve man and therefore is clearly meant to be used.

Magic part of chant is part of chant untill proven otherwise. You can't begin to cherry pick parts of it and ignore others. If you do that you are just making your own chant.

[SalsaDMA]

moilami wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

moilami wrote...

yarrum k wrote...

Anyone that uses blood magic is on a slippery slope. Powerful spells can kill allies too. At first the blood mage is careful but after a time they become a threat to friend and foe alike. The most powerful spells consume life itself.

There are artillery and bombers too, even though they can kill allies. In fact it is not uncommon for rifles to cause friendly fire kills. Where is the slippery slope?

An unskilled warrior is carefull at first but after time can become a threat to friend and foe alike. Slippery slope?

your comparison is wrong.

You can compare artillery and bombs to fireballs that have the ability to inflict friendly fire.

Specifically killing/sacrificing your own people like blood magic can just to cast a spell, however, is more comparable to walking up to one of your allies and stabbing him in the back cause you wanted his money to pay for something.

and there is ofc the mind control issue too.

No. Allies can contribute "blood" exactly in the same way as people contribute it to hospitals. It is for greater good and voluntary action. What's the difference anyway to spill blood from wounds or let the mage regain some power and stop wasting blood on the ground.

Are you claiming that the allies of a certain bloodmage you can fight in the game are willfully blowing up in giant explosin of blood and dying in the process just to let him cast some combat spells?

Somehow I doubt it's anywhere near a voluntary 'donation'.

[moilami]

SalsaDMA wrote...

moilami wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

moilami wrote...

yarrum k wrote...

Anyone that uses blood magic is on a slippery slope. Powerful spells can kill allies too. At first the blood mage is careful but after a time they become a threat to friend and foe alike. The most powerful spells consume life itself.

There are artillery and bombers too, even though they can kill allies. In fact it is not uncommon for rifles to cause friendly fire kills. Where is the slippery slope?

An unskilled warrior is carefull at first but after time can become a threat to friend and foe alike. Slippery slope?

your comparison is wrong.

You can compare artillery and bombs to fireballs that have the ability to inflict friendly fire.

Specifically killing/sacrificing your own people like blood magic can just to cast a spell, however, is more comparable to walking up to one of your allies and stabbing him in the back cause you wanted his money to pay for something.

and there is ofc the mind control issue too.

No. Allies can contribute "blood" exactly in the same way as people contribute it to hospitals. It is for greater good and voluntary action. What's the difference anyway to spill blood from wounds or let the mage regain some power and stop wasting blood on the ground.

Are you claiming that the allies of a certain bloodmage you can fight in the game are willfully blowing up in giant explosin of blood and dying in the process just to let him cast some combat spells?

Somehow I doubt it's anywhere near a voluntary 'donation'.

No. Read again what I wrote. It is you who is casting fear, doubt, and uncertainty. The mage you mentioned has nothing to do with the question is blood magic ethical like someone chopping a head off has nothing to do with the question is a sword unethical. What does not live can't be ethical nor unethical.

Edit: By the way my blood mage never used people to power magic. He used always his own life force. I don't begin to say would Leliana or Morrigan contributed their life force to power magic, but I very much believe they would had contributed blood as they were already doing it. It was just spilled by their enemies. Especially Morrigan, pragmatical as she is, would had certainly contributed blood to save the team or make fights even more easy. But I can say I would had contributed blood. I also did it. In many many fights.

If you see a mage exploding allies you should just do what I would do if I would see a warrior chopping heads of allies. I bet it would stop and would not happen again. Mages know that too. They are not stupid idiots, even if they would not have any morality. If you would see a soldier begin to shoot his allies blindly while trying to shoot enemies, someone would stop it, and it would not happen again.

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[Louis_Cypher]

To answer the question, blood magic is clearly not as evil and unethical as the Chantry makes it out to be. Jowan is intended to be at least somewhat sympathetic, and the Dark Ritual at least potentially worthwhile. Caladrius and Uldred's use of blood magic doesn't all blood mages evil, much less all mages, any more than Arl Howe makes all nobles evil.



However, mages are inherently dangerous, both as concentrations of power, and as possible targets for possession. Conner and Uldred both prove this. Blaming the Chantry for their abuses is beside the point. Maybe Conner would have been better trained without the fear of the Chantry, but SOME children are inevitably going to by inadequately trained (in fact, without the compulsory education, probably more), and some of their fathers are going to get sick. And, in all likelihood, some mages are going to get corrupted by power (Caladrius hardly has the Chantry as an excuse). Blood Magic may be a particularly dangerous form of magic because it serves as a short-cut to power.



Nor is the current system rendering mages useless to the kingdom. There are mages available to fight the war, both at Ostagar and with the PC. There's a magic shop in Denerim. When Arl Eamon fell sick, mages tried to heal him; presumably other wealthy/noble people get the same. Could the circle system do more good and/or be more humane if it were more open, possibly yes, but that increases the risk. Conner probably did more harm than Uldred (despite being less powerful and there only being one mage present), and certainly would have if the Warden weren't there, because the Templars were able to contain Uldred.



And yes, many of the risks of mages apply to nobles as well. Part of the reason democracy is better than feudalism.

[moilami]

Louis_Cypher wrote...

To answer the question, blood magic is clearly not as evil and unethical as the Chantry makes it out to be. Jowan is intended to be at least somewhat sympathetic, and the Dark Ritual at least potentially worthwhile. Caladrius and Uldred's use of blood magic doesn't all blood mages evil, much less all mages, any more than Arl Howe makes all nobles evil.

However, mages are inherently dangerous, both as concentrations of power, and as possible targets for possession. Conner and Uldred both prove this. Blaming the Chantry for their abuses is beside the point. Maybe Conner would have been better trained without the fear of the Chantry, but SOME children are inevitably going to by inadequately trained (in fact, without the compulsory education, probably more), and some of their fathers are going to get sick. And, in all likelihood, some mages are going to get corrupted by power (Caladrius hardly has the Chantry as an excuse). Blood Magic may be a particularly dangerous form of magic because it serves as a short-cut to power.

Nor is the current system rendering mages useless to the kingdom. There are mages available to fight the war, both at Ostagar and with the PC. There's a magic shop in Denerim. When Arl Eamon fell sick, mages tried to heal him; presumably other wealthy/noble people get the same. Could the circle system do more good and/or be more humane if it were more open, possibly yes, but that increases the risk. Conner probably did more harm than Uldred (despite being less powerful and there only being one mage present), and certainly would have if the Warden weren't there, because the Templars were able to contain Uldred.

And yes, many of the risks of mages apply to nobles as well. Part of the reason democracy is better than feudalism.

I will just spit at DA universe and never touch these games after I have played DA2 through. Up to this day I could stand this Chantry nonsense and slaying people because of their inherit abilities, making freedom a crime, just because my toons never participated on it and only saw a mad world. If in DA2 there is no way to fight for freedom and justice I will stomp the game box and burn it on Midsummer fire.

[WhiteKnyght]

Mages aren't possessed against their will. Demons prey on the naive and the greedy who completely consent to it, not any person with magic. Hence why they put mages through the Harrowing to test them.



Sorry for the minor spoilers in this part of the forum, but its relevant to the discussion.



Look at Avernus, proud blood mage and summoner. he summoned enough demons in one time to set a world record and he spent centuries around them and never became possessed. But Sophia Dryden, who isn't even a mage, became possessed.



Aside from his cruel experiments on his fellow Wardens I think he's more honest than the Chantry.

[SalsaDMA]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Mages aren't possessed against their will. Demons prey on the naive and the greedy who completely consent to it, not any person with magic. Hence why they put mages through the Harrowing to test them.

I'm pretty sure the abominations encountered in DA:O near and during the boss fight after you get back from the fade and continue in the'real world' in that area are not 'willing'. The cutscene specifically show them as being subjugated against their will, and are also subjugated during the fight. The item that counters blood magic is specifically used to counter that effect.

[Louis_Cypher]

moilami wrote...
I will stomp the game box and burn it on Midsummer fire.

Perhaps, in addition to doing that, you should boycott the Bioware forums?

[moilami]

Louis_Cypher wrote...

moilami wrote...
I will stomp the game box and burn it on Midsummer fire.

Perhaps, in addition to doing that, you should boycott the Bioware forums?

No, I just remembered there are those minor things I can do. Like help mages collective and deliver lyrium potions. There is ways to fight for freedom and justice, just very minor way. I am curious to see how it is in DA2.

[ladydesire]

moilami wrote...

ladydesire wrote...

@moilami: We don't know for certain if Andraste was a Mage; we only know that the Tevinter Chantry believes that she was, which is part of the reason for the schism between them and the Val Royeaux based Andrastian Chantry. There are also indications that not all of Her writings are part of the Chant of Light, so it's possible that She never intended for such a thing to happen.

What matters is that freedom is not a crime, and a law what says the opposite is corrupt, twisted, and foul. So mages are not criminals untill they have actually done something to be criminals. Using magic could be defined as a crime, but that would be against the Chant as the Chant says magic exist to serve man and therefore is clearly meant to be used.

Yes, but at the time Andraste is supposed to have said that, the Magisters of the Tevinter Imperium were the most well known Mages and they were using magic to rule over men. If there were other Mages not aligned with the Tevinter Imperium (other than Elven Mages), there is nothing in the lore speaking of them.

Magic part of chant is part of chant untill proven otherwise. You can't begin to cherry pick parts of it and ignore others. If you do that you are just making your own chant.

Yet, isn't that what the Andrastian Chantry is doing, if they know of other texts that belong in the Chant of Light and do not include them? The Tevinter Chantry may have reversed centuries of restrictions on Mages, but only in the the Imperium itself; Qunari Mages are even more tightly controlled than Human or Elven ones. Also, there are indications that the Templars themselves are under some form of control using Lyrium, in much the same way as Mages are; there are even reports that date back to the Tevinter Era that say that heavy use of Lyrium can alter the appearance of the user such that they no longer appear human.