1019 réponses à ce sujet

[Btingly]

I support the Chantry 100%.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If there's nothing to suggest Morrigan is a blood mage, I don't see why we should assume she is one any more than Finn is.

Finn might be one. How the hell should I know?
But again, why do you then assume the opposite? And again, why do you expect the Chantry to assume everything you do?
Moreso, why would the Chantry claim she's a blood mage if she's not? What do they gain from it? If she's a maleficar (and she is), they can just as easily hunt her for that.

Because there's no information to support such an accusation? And since they're hunting her for being a "blood mage" and not a maleficar, it calls the validity of their bounty into question.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I back up my stand with codex entries: the History of the Circle, the History of the Chantry Part Four, the heresay section of the Abomination codex, and the Rite of Anulment codex. I've provided examples to support where I stand with this issue. You're the one going through leaps and bounds to justify what the Chantry does and their actions against the Magnfiicent D'Sims, the mages of the Circles, and now putting a bounty on Morrigan for being a blood mage when there's nothing to even suggest she's one. I'm asking for evidence to support the claim that Morrigan is a blood mage, or anything supporting the claim that the templars have made.

Leaps and bound? It goes by another name..."common sense" .. or "reason". Look it up.
You can list the names of codexes all the day, but for the most part, they don't prove what you think they do. I cna use those very same codexes as arguments for the other side of this debate.

So no. You really havn't proven anything to anyone.

They prove that your claims aren't accurate, Lotion. There's no proof to support the Chantry controlled Circles when we see from their history that their inception and imprisonment has nothing to do with blood mages or abominations.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't matter whether it's blood magic or not, because it doesn't make her any more of a blood mage than Finn's ritual to find the Eluvian makes him one.

In your eyes.
But what she is in your eyes is not what's important for this discussion.

And we're back to there being no proof that she's a blood mage, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean when I disprove one of your ridiculous claims and all you have to retort is "reading comprehension?" Maybe if you stopped making inaccurate claims about Morrigan I wouldn't keep proving that you're incorrect.

Oh brother. You're hopeless.

What I meant by that bolded quote was that oyu keep contesting that the Dark Ritual is not blood magic adn the Cahtnry can't use it as evidence...and yet nobody was claiming that the Cahntry is using it as evidence or has any knowledge of it whatsoever.
Yet here we are, several pages after that has been clarified for you - twice - and you stil lkeep fighting an argument NO ONE EVER MADE.:D:D:lol::lol:

Odd that you say no one has ever made it, and yet you keep bringing it up to support your baseless claim that Morrigan is a blood mage in the eyes of the Chantry.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 février 2011 - 02:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The comments are accurate. You're just too stubborn to notice.

And if Gaider's comments can't be taken directly, why should Hammiltons be?  He doesn't really say the Chantry are tyranical dictators, if you read carefully. Again, hypocrisy at work. Either treat all dev quotes qith the same weight, or don't bring them up at all.

Greagoir and Lily's comments aren't accurate, they're indocturinated to think of mages as cursed because that's what they were taught. Mages should be properly instructed on the use of their abilities, but they aren't cursed and they shouldn't be imprisoned because of their powers.

As..so everyone who thinks differently is indoctrinated? Dear Lord..Maker.
Something being a blessing or a curse should nto always be takes literaly.
Magic is a blessing and a cruse - it's something most poeple on the forms here would agree.
A blessing - because it gives you great pwoer.
A curse - because it comes at a terrible price (possesion, need to restrict that power)

As for the Hamilton quote, how can you say it doesn't relate to the Chantry when the quote has him saying its a dictatorship in direct reference to the Magi boon being turned down and the mages not being freed?

I can, the same way you can say the Gaider quote doesn't reference the abominations before the Circle.
The Hamilton quote, the comparison isn't direct. And it does work in some ways, but no all ways.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I'm getting tired of your baseless claims of providing Ian wrong when nothing is further from the truth. You never proved him wrong about his arguments and flip-flopped between saying the Chantry was the best system in place and saying Ian couldn't even disagree with you because the story was "morally grey."

And I'm tired of your ignorance.
Go back and read.

I did counter Ians claims..both the social footpring and the super-berserker ones.

I provided SEVERAL examples of societies where the social footprint would not show. This completely debunks his assertion that the lack social footprint is evidence.

And the bersker thig was all too easy to debunk.

Also, no on the Chantry thing. If you ever knew how to read, you'd notice that I clearly guarded myself from such accusation by clearly defining what the world "best" means in the context. "Best" in what way? From which perspective?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Consent is not a "word" thing. It's a will thing.
Kitty didn't have consent  - if she did, Amelia would have been possesed from the start. A human child body is far better than a cat one.

If she gave consent in the first place, that's the entire problem. It's likely why she can be possessed unless she "breaks the contract" and says she won't possess her.

Again, possesion doesn't work by a word contract. You dont' say "Ok, poses me" and suddenly the demon gets priviliged acess to your brain.
Again - if Amelia gave consent before, why wasn't she already possesed? Why would the demon wait?

It possesed Amelia by force once it had no other choice - the player basicly drove the demon into a corner here.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ian proved NOTHING. You are a moron who doesn't know how to read. Sicne when does an army sacking a town equal a SINGLE WARRIOR destroying a city.
Even to your broken mind it should be obvious that that just doesn't happen.

Why do you have to resort to name-calling when people disagree with you? Why can't you engage me in discussion without resorting to such tactics?

Because how else do I call someoen who fails logic and reasoning on such a basic level and insists on trolling?
How do I engage you in discussion when you avoid discussion in favor of not reading what the other guy writes, and repeating yourself endlesly?

[Teknor]

If Chantry was a secular organization it would have my support but religious fanaticism is as bad as magical devastation.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If there's nothing to suggest Morrigan is a blood mage, I don't see why we should assume she is one any more than Finn is.[/quote]

Finn might be one. How the hell should I know?
But again, why do you then assume the opposite? And again, why do you expect the Chantry to assume everything you do?
Moreso, why would the Chantry claim she's a blood mage if she's not? What do they gain from it? If she's a maleficar (and she is), they can just as easily hunt her for that. [/quote]

Because there's no information to support such an accusation? And since they're hunting her for being a "blood mage" and not a maleficar, it calls the validity of their bounty into question.[/quote]

Answer the bolded and underlined part please... Do not avoid the question.

And yea...there's no information supporting that she isn't one. Especailyl given that a lot about Morrigan remain a mistery, and she's been away for a time. But instead of waiting to find out more, your oppinion is already formed.



[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Leaps and bound? It goes by another name..."common sense" .. or "reason". Look it up.
You can list the names of codexes all the day, but for the most part, they don't prove what you think they do. I cna use those very same codexes as arguments for the other side of this debate.

So no. You really havn't proven anything to anyone. [/quote]

They prove that your claims aren't accurate, Lotion. There's no proof to support the Chantry controlled Circles when we see from their history that their inception and imprisonment has nothing to do with blood mages or abominations.[/qutoe]

No, they don't prove that...You just think it does.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't matter whether it's blood magic or not, because it doesn't make her any more of a blood mage than Finn's ritual to find the Eluvian makes him one.[/quote]

In your eyes.
But what she is in your eyes is not what's important for this discussion. [/quote]

And we're back to there being no proof that she's a blood mage, Lotion.[/quote]

And we're back to that not being the crux of the issue.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Oh brother. You're hopeless.

What I meant by that bolded quote was that oyu keep contesting that the Dark Ritual is not blood magic adn the Cahtnry can't use it as evidence...and yet nobody was claiming that the Cahntry is using it as evidence or has any knowledge of it whatsoever.
Yet here we are, several pages after that has been clarified for you - twice - and you stil lkeep fighting an argument NO ONE EVER MADE.:D:D:lol::lol:

[/quote]

Odd that you say no one has ever made it, and yet you keep bringing it up to support your baseless claim that Morrigan is a blood mage in the eyes of the Chantry.[/quote]

I don't.. Reading comprehension.

Look at what I write, insted of what you think I do.

At no point did I say that the DR is Chantry's evidence for the Morrigan hunt. I dare you to find a quote where I said that. Go ahead, fish it out....

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 février 2011 - 02:42 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



As..so everyone who thinks differently is indoctrinated? Dear Lord..Maker.

You mean when the members of the Chantry think people are cursed, and it's taught to them by a religious order that treats mages as sub-human, denies them basic rights, and imprisons them because of a nonviolent protest mages held centuries ago? I see no reason not to point out that it's indocturination when Lily outright says that the Chantry teaches her that mages are cursed.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Something being a blessing or a curse should nto always be takes literaly.

Magic is a blessing and a cruse - it's something most poeple on the forms here would agree.

A blessing - because it gives you great pwoer.

A curse - because it comes at a terrible price (possesion, need to restrict that power)

Except Greagoir and Lily make it explicit in their language about mages, so it should be taken literally when they literally use those words. Lily says as much in the Magi Origin when she reveals Initiates are taught about the dangers "those cursed with magic pose." What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're cursed?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



I can, the same way you can say the Gaider quote doesn't reference the abominations before the Circle.

The Hamilton quote, the comparison isn't direct. And it does work in some ways, but no all ways.

You're confusing your discussion with Ian with me. Ian challenged you on the Gaider quotes in the argument you had with him in another thread. Ian used those same. I didn't challenge Gaider's reference to templars not being evil, since I don't recall anyone ever using such language in the debate. I took Gaider to task for attacking people for holding a viewpoint, and making inaccurate statements about why they wouldn't support oppression. Gaider's comment focused on the fans, and that was what I took issue with. As for the Hamilton quote, it's a completely different context that focused on someone asking him why the Magi boon was turned down, and he used dictatorship to explain the relationship between the Circle and the Chantry. I don't see how you can say that the Hamilton quote isn't a direct reference to the Chantry relationship to the Circle being a dictatorship when the quote itself makes it clear that it is.

Lotion Soronnar

And I'm tired of your ignorance.

Go back and read.



I did counter Ians claims..both the social footpring and the super-berserker ones.

No, you didn't. You didn't counter those claims, Ian ended up providing the accuracy of those claims to another person and the discussion moved on from there.

Lotion Soronnar



I provided SEVERAL examples of societies where the social footprint would not show. This completely debunks his assertion that the lack social footprint is evidence.

No, the discussion moved on after Ian was challenged on the validity of the claims he was making, and he proved his claims to the person in question.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



And the bersker thig was all too easy to debunk.

Which must explain why you didn't debunk any of Ian's arguments and are only now claiming to have done so when he's already left the discussion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Also, no on the Chantry thing. If you ever knew how to read, you'd notice that I clearly guarded myself from such accusation by clearly defining what the world "best" means in the context. "Best" in what way? From which perspective?

Except you put yourself on the side of the Chantry, and have done so in similar arguments for over a year now. Clearly you put yourself on the side of the Chantry and attacked people for taking an opposing view. I don't see why people can't find the imprisonment of innocent people wrong or wondering why there's no evidence to support this action in the Chantry's own history. That's the crux of the problem: there's no proof to validate that imprisoning innocent people and denying them basic rights is the most effective means of dealing with mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, possesion doesn't work by a word contract. You dont' say "Ok, poses me" and suddenly the demon gets priviliged acess to your brain.

Again - if Amelia gave consent before, why wasn't she already possesed? Why would the demon wait?



It possesed Amelia by force once it had no other choice - the player basicly drove the demon into a corner here.

Possession through an agreement with a mortal is a contract, per the Desire Demon's own words when you confront her about her contract with Connor in the Fade. The fact that the Desire Demon can't possess Amelia after she agrees not to possess her, and you refuse her claim to possess her once the trap is taken down, illustrates this point.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Because how else do I call someoen who fails logic and reasoning on such a basic level and insists on trolling?

How do I engage you in discussion when you avoid discussion in favor of not reading what the other guy writes, and repeating yourself endlesly?

It's not trolling when I disagree with your views on the Chantry, Lotion. I have no issue discussing this with you, but I don't see the need to call people names instead of making valid points. If you can't maintain your composure, I don't see the point in discussing this issue.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If there's nothing to suggest Morrigan is a blood mage, I don't see why we should assume she is one any more than Finn is.[/quote]

Finn might be one. How the hell should I know?
But again, why do you then assume the opposite? And again, why do you expect the Chantry to assume everything you do?
Moreso, why would the Chantry claim she's a blood mage if she's not? What do they gain from it? If she's a maleficar (and she is), they can just as easily hunt her for that. [/quote]

Because there's no information to support such an accusation? And since they're hunting her for being a "blood mage" and not a maleficar, it calls the validity of their bounty into question.[/quote]

Answer the bolded and underlined part please... Do not avoid the question. [/quote]

How is it avoiding the question when I point out that there's no evidence or scene to support this in DA:O or Witch Hunt? Even in the deleted scene where the Warden betrayed Morrigan to the templars, she never used blood magic to escape. As for why the Chantry would make such a claim, probably to get people to hunt her down and kill her.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And yea...there's no information supporting that she isn't one. Especailyl given that a lot about Morrigan remain a mistery, and she's been away for a time. But instead of waiting to find out more, your oppinion is already formed. [/quote]

Because there's nothing to support the Chantry's claim here. You're welcome to give them the benefit of the doubt, Lotion, but I don't see why I should when there's nothing to even support this claim.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They prove that your claims aren't accurate, Lotion. There's no proof to support the Chantry controlled Circles when we see from their history that their inception and imprisonment has nothing to do with blood mages or abominations.[/quote]

No, they don't prove that...You just think it does. [/quote]

History of the Chantry Part Four shows it was because of Drakon's religious views that the Circle of Magi was established, and History of the Circle reveals it was because of a peaceful protest that mages are now taken from their families and imprisoned. I don't see how you think you can dispute the codex entries on these issues, Lotion.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't matter whether it's blood magic or not, because it doesn't make her any more of a blood mage than Finn's ritual to find the Eluvian makes him one.[/quote]

In your eyes.
But what she is in your eyes is not what's important for this discussion. [/quote]

And we're back to there being no proof that she's a blood mage, Lotion.[/quote]

And we're back to that not being the crux of the issue. [/quote]

It is the issue when the templars placed a bounty on her for being a blood mage and we have nothing to even suggest she is one.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oh brother. You're hopeless.

What I meant by that bolded quote was that oyu keep contesting that the Dark Ritual is not blood magic adn the Cahtnry can't use it as evidence...and yet nobody was claiming that the Cahntry is using it as evidence or has any knowledge of it whatsoever.
Yet here we are, several pages after that has been clarified for you - twice - and you stil lkeep fighting an argument NO ONE EVER MADE.

[/quote]

Odd that you say no one has ever made it, and yet you keep bringing it up to support your baseless claim that Morrigan is a blood mage in the eyes of the Chantry.[/quote]

I don't.. Reading comprehension.

Look at what I write, insted of what you think I do.

At no point did I say that the DR is Chantry's evidence for the Morrigan hunt. I dare you to find a quote where I said that. Go ahead, fish it out....[/quote]

I read what you write, that's the problem. Whether you're inaccurately using the term "villagers" to describe elves living in a city or making a claim about Morrigan that leaves out the context of why she's adovcating a position, I honestly read what you write. You make it seem like Morrigan wants to kill innocent villagers for the sake of it and completely remove the scenerio that the characters are in. Morrigan doesn't kill innocent villagers, she doesn't even advocate killing villagers - it's focused on a blood ritual that enpowers the Warden which involves city elves, and it's all about stopping the Blight and the Archdemon. You like to make points that leave out important facts to make your case.

Furthermore, you're using the dark ritual to support your claim that Morrigan could be a blood mage, but considering Finn knows a ritual that can also be considered blood magic and he's as pro-Chantry and pro-Circle as we've seen so far, I honestly don't find it compelling evidence for anyone to consider Morrigan a blood mage because she knows a ritual that's all about carnal contact and maintaining the taint within an "unborn child."

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 février 2011 - 03:50 .

[Naughty Bear]

At first i thought the Chantry was some charity shop or a homeless shelter. Chantry doesn't sound very religious to me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean when the members of the Chantry think people are cursed, and it's taught to them by a religious order that treats mages as sub-human, denies them basic rights, and imprisons them because of a nonviolent protest mages held centuries ago? I see no reason not to point out that it's indocturination when Lily outright says that the Chantry teaches her that mages are cursed.[/quote]

No, when people see mages as what they are - blessed and cursed is an approprite description.
Mages are not treated as sub-human. They are confined and have SOME rights restricted. That's a far cry from your "horrible, horrible fate" tirade.

And no, it's not indoctrination. The basic teaching of the Chantry show no such thing. Altouhg that there may be some people who will interpret things differently is a given. The Catholic Church in RL was  not fully unified in its' teachings. Some pople got the wrong ideas.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Something being a blessing or a curse should nto always be takes literaly.
Magic is a blessing and a cruse - it's something most poeple on the forms here would agree.
A blessing - because it gives you great pwoer.
A curse - because it comes at a terrible price (possesion, need to restrict that power) [/quote]

Except Greagoir and Lily make it explicit in their language about mages, so it should be taken literally when they literally use those words. Lily says as much in the Magi Origin when she reveals Initiates are taught about the dangers "those cursed with magic pose." What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're cursed?[/quote]

No, they don't make it explicit. Gregoirs words are especially clear on this.
Not to mention that he aslo calls the magic a blessing.
What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're blessed?



[quote]
As for the Hamilton quote, it's a completely different context that focused on someone asking him why the Magi boon was turned down, and he used dictatorship to explain the relationship between the Circle and the Chantry. I don't see how you can say that the Hamilton quote isn't a direct reference to the Chantry relationship to the Circle being a dictatorship when the quote itself makes it clear that it is.[/quote]

So NOW, it's all cotext thing. When I talk about context, then it's all ignored? Sorry, no dice.
I disagree with you and say that the quote is not a direct reference. The quote doesn't make it clear.
There's no thing you can say or do that will change that (save for direct Word of God).
As such, it is useless to continue debating it.
End of discussion.




[quote]
No, you didn't. You didn't counter those claims, Ian ended up providing the accuracy of those claims to another person and the discussion moved on from there.[/quote]

I did. You don't read.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar

I provided SEVERAL examples of societies where the social footprint would not show. This completely debunks his assertion that the lack social footprint is evidence. [/quote]

No, the discussion moved on after Ian was challenged on the validity of the claims he was making, and he proved his claims to the person in question.[/quote]

Ian completely ignored my examples, never adressing or responding to them. He simply moved on, and he proved nothing. So I don't know what you're taljking about, hwne it's clear quite a few peopel are still denying Ians claims.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And the bersker thig was all too easy to debunk. [/quote]

Which must explain why you didn't debunk any of Ian's arguments and are only now claiming to have done so when he's already left the discussion.[/quote]

I have debunked them, but you're too lazy to go back and read. Or you deliberately ignore them, because you hang onto Ian as a lifeline, and realizing it's broken would be a terrible jolt of truth?


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, no on the Chantry thing. If you ever knew how to read, you'd notice that I clearly guarded myself from such accusation by clearly defining what the world "best" means in the context. "Best" in what way? From which perspective? [/quote]

Except you put yourself on the side of the Chantry, and have done so in similar arguments for over a year now. Clearly you put yourself on the side of the Chantry and attacked people for taking an opposing view. I don't see why people can't find the imprisonment of innocent people wrong or wondering why there's no evidence to support this action in the Chantry's own history. That's the crux of the problem: there's no proof to validate that imprisoning innocent people and denying them basic rights is the most effective means of dealing with mages.[/quote]

We've been over this before. You cleary have absolutely nothing to add to this debate, since you constantly keep repeating yourself again and again, long after everyone iws bored to hell with you.

I'm arguing agaisnt you. Because I don't like you OR your arguments OR the way you argue.
Any time you make a BS arguiment, I will counter. It just so happens you are agaisnt the Chantry.
If oyu were for hte chantry nad were makign the smae BS claims, I would still be against you.

And no, there's nothing wrong with finding imprisoment wrong. What is wrong is the way you're arguing. Your selective view of evidence. Your simplification of things and holding of strong views, easily condeming the Chantry wihout enough evidence.
You say there's no direct evidence. I say there's enough indirect ones.
The world of DA is not ours. Circumstances are different, so our own morality (which is born from our circumstances) cannot be directly applied to it. You'd tear down the Chantry without having a better system to replace it with (and no, you don' have one. Idealistic ideas are not a system)



[quote]
Possession through an agreement with a mortal is a contract, per the Desire Demon's own words when you confront her about her contract with Connor in the Fade. The fact that the Desire Demon can't possess Amelia after she agrees not to possess her, and you refuse her claim to possess her once the trap is taken down, illustrates this point.[/quote]

No. Possesion is not a word on a piece of paper. There is no faustian "contract". Verbal or otherwise.
You seem to think that giving consent means the demon can posses you at any time after that (let's say a week or month), and that consent cannot be taken back again.
Possesesion is a thing of a moment.
Amelia is possesed if she agrees OR if you attack the demon and it forcibly posseses her (when it's explicitly clear Amelia doeswn't want it) in order to fight you.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Because how else do I call someoen who fails logic and reasoning on such a basic level and insists on trolling?
How do I engage you in discussion when you avoid discussion in favor of not reading what the other guy writes, and repeating yourself endlesly? [/quote]

It's not trolling when I disagree with your views on the Chantry, Lotion. I have no issue discussing this with you, but I don't see the need to call people names instead of making valid points. If you can't maintain your composure, I don't see the point in discussing this issue.[/quote]

What should I call enless repeats of the same post then? Inspired debating?
I've seen Yehowah witnesses that were less of a bore than you are.

OR what should I call your constant misquoting of me? Putting words in my mouth? Acusing me of thing I didn't do? That's as big of as insult to me as any name calling.

[AegisTemplar]

The size of these quotes is awe inspiring.

[Augustei]

Why do people keep saying "They say my powers are a curse" If they are quoting Gregoir then this is rediculous because he clearly says "Your powers are both a gift and a curse".... Which they are because mages are more likely to attract demons.. which he says. People who are misquoting Gregoir like that. Just stop... Its wrong.. Your Wrong.

I mean if you are referring to a codex or someone else then, for all I know maybe your right... But if your quoting Gregoir then.. just no

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 22 février 2011 - 08:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Finn might be one. How the hell should I know?
But again, why do you then assume the opposite? And again, why do you expect the Chantry to assume everything you do?
Moreso, why would the Chantry claim she's a blood mage if she's not? What do they gain from it? If she's a maleficar (and she is), they can just as easily hunt her for that. [/quote]

Because there's no information to support such an accusation? And since they're hunting her for being a "blood mage" and not a maleficar, it calls the validity of their bounty into question.[/quote]

Answer the bolded and underlined part please... Do not avoid the question. [/quote]

How is it avoiding the question when I point out that there's no evidence or scene to support this in DA:O or Witch Hunt? Even in the deleted scene where the Warden betrayed Morrigan to the templars, she never used blood magic to escape. As for why the Chantry would make such a claim, probably to get people to hunt her down and kill her.[/quote]

Not answering the question and talking about something else IS avoiding the question. By definition.

Again.. maleficars are tracked down and killed just as blood mages. So why make up false charges when you already got sufficient real ones?
And again..Morrigan was away for some time. She could have learned some blood magic in that time. Or she might have done some magic the Chantry classifies as blood magic, regardless if you or Morrigan think it really is blood magic.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And yea...there's no information supporting that she isn't one. Especailyl given that a lot about Morrigan remain a mistery, and she's been away for a time. But instead of waiting to find out more, your oppinion is already formed. [/quote]

Because there's nothing to support the Chantry's claim here. You're welcome to give them the benefit of the doubt, Lotion, but I don't see why I should when there's nothing to even support this claim.[/quote]

And there's no proof they are wrong. Nobody is saying you should belive either side..In fact, the only smart thing to do is hold both sides under suspicion, untill more information trickles in.
But you are the one already entrentched in your oppinion. You are the one CLAIMING they are wrong. you are the one constantly taking the position of factual knowledge, wihout actaully having it.

I remain open for both outcomes - remember, I never said the templars ARE right. I said they MIGHT be right.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, they don't prove that...You just think it does. [/quote]

History of the Chantry Part Four shows it was because of Drakon's religious views that the Circle of Magi was established, and History of the Circle reveals it was because of a peaceful protest that mages are now taken from their families and imprisoned. I don't see how you think you can dispute the codex entries on these issues, Lotion.[/quote]

I can dispute what you draw from them. The Codex entreis are writen fro mspecific POV's, are short, with lots of holes left. They are not the total and absolute truth on the matter. And interpretations of specific sentances differ.
Again, I can and I do dispute you.




[quote]
It is the issue when the templars placed a bounty on her for being a blood mage and we have nothing to even suggest she is one.[/quote]

I disagree. We do have..Morrigans own words suggest she might be labaled as such. By the Chantry.
I cannot stress enogh that your labels are not important here.
It is not important if YOU think the DR or some other magic Morrigan performs is blood magic or not. The only thing that matters for this discussion is what the Chantry calssifies as blood magic. And Morrigan clearly knows at least one magic the Chatnry would classify as such. Can you say for sure she doesn't know more? Can you prove she didn't perform it after Origins?



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I don't.. Reading comprehension.

Look at what I write, insted of what you think I do.

At no point did I say that the DR is Chantry's evidence for the Morrigan hunt. I dare you to find a quote where I said that. Go ahead, fish it out....[/quote]

I read what you write, that's the problem. Whether you're inaccurately using the term "villagers" to describe elves living in a city or making a claim about Morrigan that leaves out the context of why she's adovcating a position, I honestly read what you write. You make it seem like Morrigan wants to kill innocent villagers for the sake of it and completely remove the scenerio that the characters are in. Morrigan doesn't kill innocent villagers, she doesn't even advocate killing villagers - it's focused on a blood ritual that enpowers the Warden which involves city elves, and it's all about stopping the Blight and the Archdemon. You like to make points that leave out important facts to make your case.

Furthermore, you're using the dark ritual to support your claim that Morrigan could be a blood mage, but considering Finn knows a ritual that can also be considered blood magic and he's as pro-Chantry and pro-Circle as we've seen so far, I honestly don't find it compelling evidence for anyone to consider Morrigan a blood mage because she knows a ritual that's all about carnal contact and maintaining the taint within an "unborn child."[/quote]

You don't read what I write.

And no, I don't say she wants to kill the city elves "for hte sake of it". Empowering the Warden is irrelevant. Immoral is immoral, even moreso for the pitiful gain it provides. GW killing innocent popel, and Morrigna cheering him on, IS a excellent show of her lack of morals.

And again - Finn and Morrigan's rituals - we know too little. They may seem similar or the same to YOU. But that is not important. Chantry definitions are imporant. Not yours. Maybe the Chatnry would label Finn a blood mage too. OR maybe they consider the two rituals nothing alike.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean when the members of the Chantry think people are cursed, and it's taught to them by a religious order that treats mages as sub-human, denies them basic rights, and imprisons them because of a nonviolent protest mages held centuries ago? I see no reason not to point out that it's indocturination when Lily outright says that the Chantry teaches her that mages are cursed.[/quote]

No, when people see mages as what they are - blessed and cursed is an approprite description.
Mages are not treated as sub-human. They are confined and have SOME rights restricted. That's a far cry from your "horrible, horrible fate" tirade.

And no, it's not indoctrination. The basic teaching of the Chantry show no such thing. Altouhg that there may be some people who will interpret things differently is a given. The Catholic Church in RL was  not fully unified in its' teachings. Some pople got the wrong ideas. [/quote]

Cursed isn't an appropriate term for people who have abilities that have been used to fight darkspawn during the Blights and save the Andrastian nations from the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. And you can claim that it's not indocturination all you want, but when multiple people refer to mages as cursed, it's clearly a sign that the Chantry has indocturinated people against mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Greagoir and Lily make it explicit in their language about mages, so it should be taken literally when they literally use those words. Lily says as much in the Magi Origin when she reveals Initiates are taught about the dangers "those cursed with magic pose." What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're cursed?[/quote]

No, they don't make it explicit. Gregoirs words are especially clear on this.
Not to mention that he aslo calls the magic a blessing.
What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're blessed? [/quote]

The fact that multiple people with the Chantry are referring to mages as cursed makes my point clear. You're welcome to defend them all you want, but there's no reason an entire group of people need to be labelled as cursed by the Chantry.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

As for the Hamilton quote, it's a completely different context that focused on someone asking him why the Magi boon was turned down, and he used dictatorship to explain the relationship between the Circle and the Chantry. I don't see how you can say that the Hamilton quote isn't a direct reference to the Chantry relationship to the Circle being a dictatorship when the quote itself makes it clear that it is.[/quote]

So NOW, it's all cotext thing. When I talk about context, then it's all ignored? Sorry, no dice.
I disagree with you and say that the quote is not a direct reference. The quote doesn't make it clear.
There's no thing you can say or do that will change that (save for direct Word of God).
As such, it is useless to continue debating it.
End of discussion. [/quote]

The quote is a direct reference to the Chantry and is clear in its distinction. I don't see how you can dispute this when the dev uses dictatorship to explain why the Magi boon was turned down.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

No, you didn't. You didn't counter those claims, Ian ended up providing the accuracy of those claims to another person and the discussion moved on from there.[/quote]

I did. You don't read. [/quote]

I find it amusing that you claim to have done so long after Ian left this discussion, and when none of the posts you made support your claim.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

No, the discussion moved on after Ian was challenged on the validity of the claims he was making, and he proved his claims to the person in question.[/quote]

Ian completely ignored my examples, never adressing or responding to them. He simply moved on, and he proved nothing. So I don't know what you're taljking about, hwne it's clear quite a few peopel are still denying Ians claims. [/quote]

Ian directly addresses your posts, Lotion. He moved on long after this discussion was over.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Which must explain why you didn't debunk any of Ian's arguments and are only now claiming to have done so when he's already left the discussion.[/quote]

I have debunked them, but you're too lazy to go back and read. Or you deliberately ignore them, because you hang onto Ian as a lifeline, and realizing it's broken would be a terrible jolt of truth? [/quote]

You debunked nothing, Lotion.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except you put yourself on the side of the Chantry, and have done so in similar arguments for over a year now. Clearly you put yourself on the side of the Chantry and attacked people for taking an opposing view. I don't see why people can't find the imprisonment of innocent people wrong or wondering why there's no evidence to support this action in the Chantry's own history. That's the crux of the problem: there's no proof to validate that imprisoning innocent people and denying them basic rights is the most effective means of dealing with mages.[/quote]

We've been over this before. You cleary have absolutely nothing to add to this debate, since you constantly keep repeating yourself again and again, long after everyone iws bored to hell with you. [/quote]

That must be why you keep claiming you won an argument with Ian that never happened in this universe.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm arguing agaisnt you. Because I don't like you OR your arguments OR the way you argue.
Any time you make a BS arguiment, I will counter. It just so happens you are agaisnt the Chantry.
If oyu were for hte chantry nad were makign the smae BS claims, I would still be against you. [/quote]

I don't hate the Chantry, I simply don't find any support for the oppression of the mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And no, there's nothing wrong with finding imprisoment wrong. [/quote]

Imprisoning innocent people is wrong.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What is wrong is the way you're arguing. Your selective view of evidence. Your simplification of things and holding of strong views, easily condeming the Chantry wihout enough evidence.
You say there's no direct evidence. I say there's enough indirect ones.
The world of DA is not ours. Circumstances are different, so our own morality (which is born from our circumstances) cannot be directly applied to it. You'd tear down the Chantry without having a better system to replace it with (and no, you don' have one. Idealistic ideas are not a system) [/quote]

Multiple people have provided alternative systems to replace the Chantry system in a myraid of threads on this issue.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Possession through an agreement with a mortal is a contract, per the Desire Demon's own words when you confront her about her contract with Connor in the Fade. The fact that the Desire Demon can't possess Amelia after she agrees not to possess her, and you refuse her claim to possess her once the trap is taken down, illustrates this point.[/quote]

No. Possesion is not a word on a piece of paper. There is no faustian "contract". Verbal or otherwise.
You seem to think that giving consent means the demon can posses you at any time after that (let's say a week or month), and that consent cannot be taken back again. [/quote]

The words of the Desire Demon using the term "contract" when she discusses Connor demonstrate that you're mistaken.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It's not trolling when I disagree with your views on the Chantry, Lotion. I have no issue discussing this with you, but I don't see the need to call people names instead of making valid points. If you can't maintain your composure, I don't see the point in discussing this issue.[/quote]

What should I call enless repeats of the same post then? Inspired debating?
I've seen Yehowah witnesses that were less of a bore than you are. [/quote]

Like when you endlessly claim that you won arguments against Ian that never happened?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

OR what should I call your constant misquoting of me? Putting words in my mouth? Acusing me of thing I didn't do? That's as big of as insult to me as any name calling.
[/quote]

You mean when I provided quotes and links to what you've previously said? I back up what I said with proof, Lotion. All you do is resort to childish name-calling instead of having an adult conversation about this issue.

[Augustei]

Who says they are cursed? Besides the crazy lady.... And Gregoir doesn't count

Imprisoning innocent people is wrong.

Didn't you say you saved the anvil of the void? =P

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 22 février 2011 - 03:50 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]XxDeonxX wrote...

Why do people keep saying "They say my powers are a curse" If they are quoting Gregoir then this is rediculous because he clearly says "Your powers are both a gift and a curse".... Which they are because mages are more likely to attract demons.. which he says. People who are misquoting Gregoir like that. Just stop... Its wrong.. Your Wrong.

I mean if you are referring to a codex or someone else then, for all I know maybe your right... But if your quoting Gregoir then.. just no
[/quote]

When you have multiple people referring to mages as cursed - Greagoir, Keli, Lily - then it's a reasonable claim to make.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

How is it avoiding the question when I point out that there's no evidence or scene to support this in DA:O or Witch Hunt? Even in the deleted scene where the Warden betrayed Morrigan to the templars, she never used blood magic to escape. As for why the Chantry would make such a claim, probably to get people to hunt her down and kill her.[/quote]

Not answering the question and talking about something else IS avoiding the question. By definition.

Again.. maleficars are tracked down and killed just as blood mages. So why make up false charges when you already got sufficient real ones?
And again..Morrigan was away for some time. She could have learned some blood magic in that time. Or she might have done some magic the Chantry classifies as blood magic, regardless if you or Morrigan think it really is blood magic. [/quote]

Except the templars aren't putting a bounty on Morrigan for being a maleficar, they're putting a bounty on her for being a blood mage. And there's nothing to show that she's a blood mage in DA:O or Witch Hunt.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Because there's nothing to support the Chantry's claim here. You're welcome to give them the benefit of the doubt, Lotion, but I don't see why I should when there's nothing to even support this claim.[/quote]

And there's no proof they are wrong. Nobody is saying you should belive either side..In fact, the only smart thing to do is hold both sides under suspicion, untill more information trickles in.
But you are the one already entrentched in your oppinion. You are the one CLAIMING they are wrong. you are the one constantly taking the position of factual knowledge, wihout actaully having it.

I remain open for both outcomes - remember, I never said the templars ARE right. I said they MIGHT be right. [/quote]

Lack of evidence doesn't constitute evidence, Lotion. You're welcome to give them the templars the benefit of the doubt, but I see no reason why the rest of us should when there's nothing to support this claim.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

History of the Chantry Part Four shows it was because of Drakon's religious views that the Circle of Magi was established, and History of the Circle reveals it was because of a peaceful protest that mages are now taken from their families and imprisoned. I don't see how you think you can dispute the codex entries on these issues, Lotion.[/quote]

I can dispute what you draw from them. The Codex entreis are writen fro mspecific POV's, are short, with lots of holes left. They are not the total and absolute truth on the matter. And interpretations of specific sentances differ.
Again, I can and I do dispute you. [/quote]

They're written from the Chantry POV, and never so much as bother to include blood mages or abominations as the reason for the creation of the Circle of Magi or the imprisonment of mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It is the issue when the templars placed a bounty on her for being a blood mage and we have nothing to even suggest she is one.[/quote]

I disagree. We do have..Morrigans own words suggest she might be labaled as such. By the Chantry.
I cannot stress enogh that your labels are not important here.
It is not important if YOU think the DR or some other magic Morrigan performs is blood magic or not. The only thing that matters for this discussion is what the Chantry calssifies as blood magic. And Morrigan clearly knows at least one magic the Chatnry would classify as such. Can you say for sure she doesn't know more? Can you prove she didn't perform it after Origins? [/quote]

We have Morrigan's word that she knows a particular ritual that involves carnal contact, not that she's a blood mage. There's no more proof that she's a blood mage than Finn is.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I read what you write, that's the problem. Whether you're inaccurately using the term "villagers" to describe elves living in a city or making a claim about Morrigan that leaves out the context of why she's adovcating a position, I honestly read what you write. You make it seem like Morrigan wants to kill innocent villagers for the sake of it and completely remove the scenerio that the characters are in. Morrigan doesn't kill innocent villagers, she doesn't even advocate killing villagers - it's focused on a blood ritual that enpowers the Warden which involves city elves, and it's all about stopping the Blight and the Archdemon. You like to make points that leave out important facts to make your case.

Furthermore, you're using the dark ritual to support your claim that Morrigan could be a blood mage, but considering Finn knows a ritual that can also be considered blood magic and he's as pro-Chantry and pro-Circle as we've seen so far, I honestly don't find it compelling evidence for anyone to consider Morrigan a blood mage because she knows a ritual that's all about carnal contact and maintaining the taint within an "unborn child."[/quote]

You don't read what I write.

And no, I don't say she wants to kill the city elves "for hte sake of it". Empowering the Warden is irrelevant. Immoral is immoral, even moreso for the pitiful gain it provides. GW killing innocent popel, and Morrigna cheering him on, IS a excellent show of her lack of morals.

And again - Finn and Morrigan's rituals - we know too little. They may seem similar or the same to YOU. But that is not important. Chantry definitions are imporant. Not yours. Maybe the Chatnry would label Finn a blood mage too. OR maybe they consider the two rituals nothing alike. [/quote]

Morrigan isn't cheering anyone on, you're misconstruing the events OF Caladrius' blood ritual to suit your own vision of DA. You're also outright lying that she lacks morals, so I don't see why I - or anyone reading this thread - should take any of your claims seriously.

As for blood magic - considering the templars themselves use it to find mages but don't consider it as such, and there's nothing to indicate that they'd ever find out about a clandestine moment between Morrigan and the Warden-Commander, I don't see why I should give the templars the benefit of the doubt when there's a lot of suspicion surrounding the attempted murder of a fourteen year old Aneirin and the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage.

[The Archon]

I support the Chantry, it's not evil in its views. The reason they have control over mages is because they don't want another Tevinter Imperium.

Having so many mages unleashed upon the world without control over them will end up in disaster, most likely. Sure, some mages are nice but there is still a lot of mages who would gladly go at the chance to dominate the world with their powers. I also don't think that if the Chantry let all mages free the mages would give up their grudge against them, a large portion would probably end up killing Templars for controlling them for many years.

Modifié par The Archon, 22 février 2011 - 03:56 .

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Who says they are cursed? Besides the crazy lady.... And Gregoir doesn't count

Imprisoning innocent people is wrong.

Didn't you say you saved the anvil of the void? =P

I'd rather see this thread die because there's no new ground being touched on here. To answer your question and hopefully put this discussion to rest because it's become entirely meaningless, I don't compare sparing a device that can literally save the dwarven people from extinction with the oppression of an entire group of people because of a centuries old protest they held in a cathedral. They're not the same. We already know the Dalish clans have mages who are free, we know there are free mages in the Chasind tribes and in the nation of Rivain, and there's no evidence the mages of the Dales or Arlathan were restricted in any fashion.

[LobselVith8]

The Archon wrote...

I support the Chantry, it's not evil in its views. The reason they have control over mages is because they don't want another Tevinter Imperium.

Having so many mages unleashed upon the world without control over them will end up in disaster, most likely. Sure, some mages are nice but there is still a lot of mages who would gladly go at the chance to dominate the world with their powers. I also don't think that if the Chantry let all mages free the mages would give up their grudge against them, a large portion would probably end up killing Templars for controlling them for many years.

Why do people say that if mages are free, there will be another Tevinter Imperium? We have history to show otherwise. We know there were mages in Arlathan (see: Witch Hunt) and they weren't anything like the Imperium. Present day Thedas has free mages among the Dalish clans and Chasind tribes, and neither group are trying to rule the world with their powers. Rivain is a nation where their mages aren't under Chantry or templar control, and the Dales was nothing like the Tevinter Imperium. I don't think oppressing a group of people because they held a protest (see: History of the Circle codex as written by a Chantry scholar) is reasonable.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
When you have multiple people referring to mages as cursed - Greagoir, Keli, Lily - then it's a reasonable claim to make.

Greagoir says its both a gift and a curse, which it is because mages are more likely to attract demons, Keli is unhinged by the situation in the circle and half the people she used to know are dead. Lily is the only real example there

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 22 février 2011 - 04:25 .

[Shinimas]

jelf rs wrote...

The Chantry is a necessary evil if you ask me. Just like many other "similar things" in real life.
Religion is not evil, but the Chantry and "similar things in real life" are.

Religion and church aren't necessary in real life.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Cursed isn't an appropriate term for people who have abilities that have been used to fight darkspawn during the Blights and save the Andrastian nations from the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches. And you can claim that it's not indocturination all you want, but when multiple people refer to mages as cursed, it's clearly a sign that the Chantry has indocturinated people against mages.[/quote ]

1) Magic is a curse AND blessing. It is a proper description. The most fitting one. You are the only one complaining about it.
2) you're overblowing the mages influence in the marches. They re a mighty asset, but they hardly won the war by themselves.

And no. Not indoctrination. Cursed is a term that is not always used in it's literal sense. Not to mention that people reffering to mages as cursed is a sign of nothing. If fits, and people have reasons to call mages that wihout ever having heard of the Chantry.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, they don't make it explicit. Gregoirs words are especially clear on this.
Not to mention that he aslo calls the magic a blessing.
What kind of mindset do you think people will have about mages when you instruct everyone that they're blessed? [/quote]

The fact that multiple people with the Chantry are referring to mages as cursed makes my point clear. You're welcome to defend them all you want, but there's no reason an entire group of people need to be labelled as cursed by the Chantry.[/quote]

Again with the Chantry thing. People can call mages cursed easily from their own knowledge and experience. It is a term that's wildly used. Heck, I could call you cursed...because you bring pain to all those who read your posts.
See, it fits.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So NOW, it's all cotext thing. When I talk about context, then it's all ignored? Sorry, no dice.
I disagree with you and say that the quote is not a direct reference. The quote doesn't make it clear.
There's no thing you can say or do that will change that (save for direct Word of God).
As such, it is useless to continue debating it.
End of discussion. [/quote]

The quote is a direct reference to the Chantry and is clear in its distinction. I don't see how you can dispute this when the dev uses dictatorship to explain why the Magi boon was turned down.[/quote]

No. It's not clear. It doesn't say what you think it does.


[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
I find it amusing that you claim to have done so long after Ian left this discussion, and when none of the posts you made support your claim.[/quote]

The posts support my claim...are you too afraid to go back and read?
Do you really want me to go back and mine my own quotes and put you to shame again?


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Ian completely ignored my examples, never adressing or responding to them. He simply moved on, and he proved nothing. So I don't know what you're taljking about, hwne it's clear quite a few peopel are still denying Ians claims. [/quote]

Ian directly addresses your posts, Lotion. He moved on long after this discussion was over.[/quote]

no, he didn't.
You Sir, a liar. And a pathetic one at that...



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I have debunked them, but you're too lazy to go back and read. Or you deliberately ignore them, because you hang onto Ian as a lifeline, and realizing it's broken would be a terrible jolt of truth? [/quote]

You debunked nothing, Lotion.[/quote]

It's easy to claim there is no light when keeping your eyes deliberately closed.
If at least you had the decency to admit you are wrong.
but instead, such wilfull ignorance...It doesn't paing you in a good light mind you. but then agian, this whole thread doesn't.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And no, there's nothing wrong with finding imprisoment wrong. [/quote]

Imprisoning innocent people is wrong.[/quote]

Captain Obvious, is that you?





[quote]
Multiple people have provided alternative systems to replace the Chantry system in a myraid of threads on this issue.[/quote]

Sistems that were out of touch with reality I might add. Systems that ignore logistics, social, political, economical and cultural problems.
Everyone can come up with ideas. Ideas that actually could work require a lot more thougt and planing.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. Possesion is not a word on a piece of paper. There is no faustian "contract". Verbal or otherwise.
You seem to think that giving consent means the demon can posses you at any time after that (let's say a week or month), and that consent cannot be taken back again. [/quote]

The words of the Desire Demon using the term "contract" when she discusses Connor demonstrate that you're mistaken.[/quote]

Nope. You're so hung up on words and literal meanings.
constantly...Here's one word for you.
"Charges"..used in the blurb about DA2 and mages & templars. That does imply oversight (if you go literal), does it not?


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What should I call enless repeats of the same post then? Inspired debating?
I've seen Yehowah witnesses that were less of a bore than you are. [/quote]

Like when you endlessly claim that you won arguments against Ian that never happened?[/quote]

Arguments that I have made - FACTUAL. PROVABLE. UNDENIABLE.
Ian didn't adress them. Does that count as "won"...I dont' know. Does it?

But I cna't recall if it's in the thread or the mages one.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

OR what should I call your constant misquoting of me? Putting words in my mouth? Acusing me of thing I didn't do? That's as big of as insult to me as any name calling.
[/quote]

You mean when I provided quotes and links to what you've previously said? I back up what I said with proof, Lotion. All you do is resort to childish name-calling instead of having an adult conversation about this issue.[/quote]

Except you got no proof. You provide a quote of mine that DOESN'T say what you think you say. And then people laugh at you for such shoddy debating. You are so quick to read things you want to hear or think the other person said, that you dont' pay attention to what the person actually said.

I will have an adult conversation ith you if you start actualy reasoning like an adult...you know - thinking and reading before posting.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 février 2011 - 04:41 .

[The Archon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Archon wrote...

I support the Chantry, it's not evil in its views. The reason they have
control over mages is because they don't want another Tevinter Imperium.

Having so many mages unleashed upon the world without control over them will  end up in disaster, most likely. Sure, some mages are nice but there is still a lot of mages who would gladly go at the chance to dominate the world with their powers. I also don't think that if the Chantry let all mages free the mages would give up their grudge against them, a large portion would probably end up killing Templars for controlling them for many years.

Why do people say that if mages are free, there will be another Tevinter Imperium? We have history to show otherwise. We know there were mages in Arlathan (see: Witch Hunt) and they weren't anything like the Imperium. Present day Thedas has free mages among the Dalish clans and Chasind tribes, and neither group are trying to rule the world with their powers. Rivain is a nation where their mages aren't under Chantry or templar control, and the Dales was nothing like the Tevinter Imperium. I don't think oppressing a group of people because they held a protest (see: History of the Circle codex as written by a Chantry scholar) is reasonable.

Yes, there was mages in Arlathan. But if you look at the Elves, they did not even FIGHT the Imperium when they invaded, and that proves why they never bothered to try and conquer the world.

Chasind aren't exactly organized to found a magocracy and like the Dalish are a minority. I also very much doubt that they have advanced knowledge of magic, like The Circle.

Dalish are also a minority and peaceful, but most of them are very hostile towards Humans and if they were to become a major nation again, a large massing would probably end up trying to conquer all of Thedas, due to what
happened with Elvhenan and The Dales. The Dalish have also lost A LOT of their history, they didn't even know what an Eluvian was or how to use it, something they made. It's quite possible that they lost alot of their advanced magic.

Rivain are also a peaceful nation, they hold no hostilities towards Elves and they do not worship the Maker (but Tevinter didn't either, so this opinion is void), thus having no reason to form a magocracy.

The Dales, were peaceful aswell and just wanted to shut themselves off from Humans and not get involved with them, they had no reason to conquer because they had gained new land.

Modifié par The Archon, 22 février 2011 - 04:50 .

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
When you have multiple people referring to mages as cursed - Greagoir, Keli, Lily - then it's a reasonable claim to make.

Greagoir says its both a gift and a curse, which it is because mages are more likely to attract demons, Keli is unhinged by the situation in the circle and half the people she used to know are dead. Lily is the only real example there

The fact that all of them use the word makes all of them prime examples of Chantry indocturination against mages.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]XxDeonxX wrote...

Why do people keep saying "They say my powers are a curse" If they are quoting Gregoir then this is rediculous because he clearly says "Your powers are both a gift and a curse".... Which they are because mages are more likely to attract demons.. which he says. People who are misquoting Gregoir like that. Just stop... Its wrong.. Your Wrong.

I mean if you are referring to a codex or someone else then, for all I know maybe your right... But if your quoting Gregoir then.. just no
[/quote]

When you have multiple people referring to mages as cursed - Greagoir, Keli, Lily - then it's a reasonable claim to make.[/quote]

No, no it is not.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
magic to escape. As for why the Chantry would make such a claim, probably to get people to hunt her down and kill her.[/quote]
Not answering the question and talking about something else IS avoiding the question. By definition.

Again.. maleficars are tracked down and killed just as blood mages. So why make up false charges when you already got sufficient real ones?
And again..Morrigan was away for some time. She could have learned some blood magic in that time. Or she might have done some magic the Chantry classifies as blood magic, regardless if you or Morrigan think it really is blood magic. [/quote]

Except the templars aren't putting a bounty on Morrigan for being a maleficar, they're putting a bounty on her for being a blood mage. And there's nothing to show that she's a blood mage in DA:O or Witch Hunt.[/quote]

You aren't reading...



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And there's no proof they are wrong. Nobody is saying you should belive either side..In fact, the only smart thing to do is hold both sides under suspicion, untill more information trickles in.
But you are the one already entrentched in your oppinion. You are the one CLAIMING they are wrong. you are the one constantly taking the position of factual knowledge, wihout actaully having it.

I remain open for both outcomes - remember, I never said the templars ARE right. I said they MIGHT be right. [/quote]

Lack of evidence doesn't constitute evidence, Lotion. You're welcome to give them the templars the benefit of the doubt, but I see no reason why the rest of us should when there's nothing to support this claim.[/quote]

This isn't the court. You aren't privy to all the evidence.
Or when you read in the newspapers that the police is after X for robbing a bank, do you go "The police is evil! I didn't see evidence!"
Again, another thing that is useless to debate with you. You are impervious to reason.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I can dispute what you draw from them. The Codex entreis are writen fro mspecific POV's, are short, with lots of holes left. They are not the total and absolute truth on the matter. And interpretations of specific sentances differ.
Again, I can and I do dispute you. [/quote]

They're written from the Chantry POV, and never so much as bother to include blood mages or abominations as the reason for the creation of the Circle of Magi or the imprisonment of mages.[/quote]

And we have been over this before. Other peopel pointed out exactly why drawing such conslusions is premature. They already put a hole in that boat.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I disagree. We do have..Morrigans own words suggest she might be labaled as such. By the Chantry.
I cannot stress enogh that your labels are not important here.
It is not important if YOU think the DR or some other magic Morrigan performs is blood magic or not. The only thing that matters for this discussion is what the Chantry calssifies as blood magic. And Morrigan clearly knows at least one magic the Chatnry would classify as such. Can you say for sure she doesn't know more? Can you prove she didn't perform it after Origins? [/quote]

We have Morrigan's word that she knows a particular ritual that involves carnal contact, not that she's a blood mage. There's no more proof that she's a blood mage than Finn is.[/quote]

Morrigan: "it is old magic. Some would label is a blood magic.".. or something like that.

You claim there's nothing to be suspicious about. But it's clear there's plenty.



[quote]
Morrigan isn't cheering anyone on, you're misconstruing the events OF Caladrius' blood ritual to suit your own vision of DA. You're also outright lying that she lacks morals, so I don't see why I - or anyone reading this thread - should take any of your claims seriously.[/quote]

I dont' see why anyone - anywhere - should ever take you seriously.


[quote]
As for blood magic - considering the templars themselves use it to find mages but don't consider it as such, and there's nothing to indicate that they'd ever find out about a clandestine moment between Morrigan and the Warden-Commander, I don't see why I should give the templars the benefit of the doubt when there's a lot of suspicion surrounding the attempted murder of a fourteen year old Aneirin and the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage.[/quote]

You're not reading again. Again, brining up the DR and Chantr'ys proof.
Again missing the point by LIGHTYEARS.

what the templars use to track mages is NOT classified as blood magic by te Chantry. You may think it is blood magic and it's hypocritical, but that's irrelevant. From a legal stanpoint, blood magic is what the Chantry classifies as such.

[Insom]

I don't mind the chantry. Mages need to be leashed for the good of mankind.