1283 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You realize you didn't even quote something I actually said, right?

Sorry about that. I fixed it.

[Ziggeh]

Taiyama wrote...

I'm not arguing that something doesn't  need to be done about the mage problem, obviously. I am simply advocating that one should not violate the non-aggression principle while doing so. Otherwise one cannot logically hold property rights as something to be enforced. The particulars of different worlds may change but logic and reason do not, and there are only two logically consistent methods to pursue.

I'm not saying that the situation changes the logic (though I think that's potentially true as the nature of the individual is different, but that's beside my point), but that the same standards aren't necessarily applicable because the base state is aggression.

[the_one_54321]

What is the logical support for the non-aggression principle when the other side can become aggressive even if it does not intend to? Mages don't often choose to become abominations.

[Guywhoiam]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What is the logical support for the non-aggression principle when the other side can become aggressive even if it does not intend to? Mages don't often choose to become abominations.

I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

[the_one_54321]

weirdopo wrote...
I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

The fact that it can happen without consent is all it takes to invalidate the non-aggression principle.

[Guywhoiam]

the_one_54321 wrote...

weirdopo wrote...
I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

The fact that it can happen without consent is all it takes to invalidate the non-aggression principle.

Alright, I guess I can't argue with that. You have won this round.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Taiyama wrote...

Regardless, it does not MATTER that we have nothing comparable in real life. I'm assuming everyone here accepts the intersubjective consensus that Lockean use-rights are the way to determine property boundaries. So either the mages have justified property rights to their own bodies, or they do not. If we do not accept the former we contradict ourselves, which makes the whole debate meaningless (again, see that link on Argumentation Ethics--or if you can't read it, just go google "Hoppe Argumentation Ethics").

I'm not arguing that something doesn't  need to be done about the mage problem, obviously. I am simply advocating that one should not violate the non-aggression principle while doing so. Otherwise one cannot logically hold property rights as something to be enforced. The particulars of different worlds may change but logic and reason do not, and there are only two logically consistent methods to pursue.

This is the reasoning of a dedicated Libertarian.

I applaud you, sir.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

weirdopo wrote...
I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

The fact that it can happen without consent is all it takes to invalidate the non-aggression principle.

I contest this.  We have no evidence either in the game or game lore that says that mages can spontaneously and against their will be possessed by demons unless:

1.  The Veil is sundered (which is not the normal case)...and in that case anyone can be possessed potentially against their will.

2.  The Mage voluntarily enters a contest of will against a demon (or demons) in the fade and loses (which is what summoning seems to be).

Also no one has shown that the natural abomination rate is anything other than vanishingly miniscule and certainly not enough to violate the non-agression principle.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But I admit, I got no hard proof for this.
But you got no proof the reinforcements couldn't arrive in time.
There's NO WAY to tell EITHER WAY. None.

There's no proof that reinforcements arrived in time, it's as simple as that.

And no proof that they didn't.
You cannot claim the opposite. Basicly, you cannot claim that the abominations would run loose without the Warden.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You got no proof the prior annulments weren't warranted. Not ot mentio nthat unwarranted annulmets are just stupid. Frist of all, it requires permission fro mthe Grand Cleric, and secondly, it really doesn't benefit the Chantry in any way.

I pointed out there's no proof they were warranted. You made it seem as though they were, which is more speculation being used as proof on your part.

Adn you didn't prove killing D'Sims was uunwarranted. Or that Aenerin wasn't a blood mage. Or that the Cahtnry really had nothing on Morrigan.
See hte friggin point?
If you got no proof - make no claims.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You can't prove anything yourself, yet you are the one screaming for change.

If you want to change a system that the poeple in TheDas accept, then you better have good reason behind it. Reasons backed up by PROOF.

I based my stand on what we currently know, Lotion. The History of the Circle codex, The History of the Chantry Part Four codex, the murder of the [non-mage] D'Sims by templars, Morrigan's bounty with no evidence to support the claim of her being a blood mage, the apparent lack of evidence involving Aneirin, and the fact that we keep seeing abominations resulting from the templars oppression of mages, but this is all academic. I have repeated my position, and I see no reason to change it when none of the evidence supports your claim that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary.

You based your stand on what you think you know..what you interpret.

As I and many others pointed out, everything you mentioned is NOT definite and not clear proof. Several poeple on this forums provided alternate interpretations and explanations - and you refuse to evven accept they exist. Because their very existance undermines the security of your position.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Taiyama wrote...
I'm not arguing that something doesn't  need to be done about the mage problem, obviously. I am simply advocating that one should not violate the non-aggression principle while doing so. Otherwise one cannot logically hold property rights as something to be enforced. The particulars of different worlds may change but logic and reason do not, and there are only two logically consistent methods to pursue.

Bah. There would be more than enough people who wuld disagree with that.
Humans are very variable and we have different tnoughts on different issue.

[Eclipse_9990]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

Um yeah they do, but your so wrong its hilarious. The only way a mage or anyone can be possessed by a demon. Is if the're awake in the fade, and/or  a demons right in front of them. A mage spamming his powers, or simply being there isnt going to make a demon appear.. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 12 février 2011 - 12:06 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Adn you didn't prove killing D'Sims was uunwarranted. Or that Aenerin wasn't a blood mage. Or that the Cahtnry really had nothing on Morrigan.
See hte friggin point?
If you got no proof - make no claims.

He was pretending to be a mage healer so he should die? Locked up for fraud maybe, but killed on the spot? What are you thinking? 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 12 février 2011 - 12:04 .

[atheelogos]

weirdopo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What is the logical support for the non-aggression principle when the other side can become aggressive even if it does not intend to? Mages don't often choose to become abominations.

I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

wow..... just wow........ That's an extreme thing to say. I recently played the first game and I don't remember any mages who wanted to become an abomination. Did you play the first game? All the mages I can remember were forced to become one.

[Eclipse_9990]

atheelogos wrote...

weirdopo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What is the logical support for the non-aggression principle when the other side can become aggressive even if it does not intend to? Mages don't often choose to become abominations.

I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

wow..... just wow........ That's an extreme thing to say. I recently played the first game and I don't remember any mages who wanted to become an abomination. Did you play the first game? All the mages I can remember were forced to become one.

Well technically before you fought uldred, the mage needed to be tortured, and only after he nodded yes after Uldred said "do you accept the gift that I offer?" did they make him into an abomination. 

[Browneye_Vamp84]

i'm totally against playing a mage.. just cause i like the feeling of hand to hand or blade to blade combat, but i have been playing mage and seeing the way it looks on DA2... meh

[atheelogos]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

weirdopo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What is the logical support for the non-aggression principle when the other side can become aggressive even if it does not intend to? Mages don't often choose to become abominations.

I think mages do indeed choose to become abominations because the daemon promises them that it will make them more powerful. There are of course, intenses where a mage would not want to be abomified. But I think the majority do. Personally.

wow..... just wow........ That's an extreme thing to say. I recently played the first game and I don't remember any mages who wanted to become an abomination. Did you play the first game? All the mages I can remember were forced to become one.

Well technically before you fought uldred, the mage needed to be tortured, and only after he nodded yes after Uldred said "do you accept the gift that I offer?" did they make him into an abomination. 

So being tortured into submission equals wanting to become an abomination?

By that logic a soldier tortured into giving the enemy intel wanted to betray his country.

Please don't sit there and defend his silly comment. What he said was wrong plane and simple.

And what you said was a horrid simplification of the situation. You failed to take into account their feelings and true beliefs. Do you think they would have chosen to become abominations without the torture? I don't think so.

Conclusion: An overwhelming amount of Mages, maybe even all mage, do not actively seek to become abominations.

Modifié par atheelogos, 12 février 2011 - 12:49 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

That doesn't mean they can become abominations at the drop of a hat though, whatever the Chantry would like you to believe.  Also not all magic requires an explicit connection to the fade.  Darkspawn perform magic from using their taint which is akin to bloodmagic.

-Polaris

[atheelogos]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

That doesn't mean they can become abominations at the drop of a hat though, whatever the Chantry would like you to believe.  Also not all magic requires an explicit connection to the fade.  Darkspawn perform magic from using their taint which is akin to bloodmagic.

-Polaris

I thought they got they're magic from the same place as us....

[IanPolaris]

atheelogos wrote...
Conclusion: An overwhelming amount of Mages, maybe even all mage, do not actively seek to become abominations.

I agree with this.  Perhaps I can explain a bit where Eclipse is coming from though because it actually sounds like you are in closer agreement than you might think.

I DO think that mages do not want to become abominations, especially those that understand they are facing a demon and understand that becoming an abomination means losing their own sense of identity (essentially a form of suicide). 

That means, however, that at some level the demon does have to be invited in as eclipse suggests either by trickery (see Conner) or because the mage idiotically leaves himself open by forcing a confronation with a demon in the fade that he can't win (Uldred).

As for the scene in the Harrowing Chamber, remember that the veil was already thin at the tower to swart with.  Also remember that Abomination-Uldred was performing a very complicated bloodmagic mind-control rite that apparently doesn't work unless the mage's will has already been beaten down to a pulp.  It's this mind-control ritual that provides the 'consent' and it's very much a special case.

In short, the scene just reinforces what I've been saying for a long time now.  It's almost impossible to turn a mage into an abomination unless that mage wants to or is tricked into it.  What Abomination Uldred had to do with all the factors favoring him including a sundered veil should reinforce just how rare and difficult a spontaneous abomination is (as in virtually non-existant).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

atheelogos wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

That doesn't mean they can become abominations at the drop of a hat though, whatever the Chantry would like you to believe.  Also not all magic requires an explicit connection to the fade.  Darkspawn perform magic from using their taint which is akin to bloodmagic.

-Polaris

I thought they got they're magic from the same place as us....

Nope.  Genlocks are basically mutated dwarves complete with dwarven magic resistance but they can cast spells just fine using the taint.

-Polaris

[atheelogos]

IanPolaris wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

That doesn't mean they can become abominations at the drop of a hat though, whatever the Chantry would like you to believe.  Also not all magic requires an explicit connection to the fade.  Darkspawn perform magic from using their taint which is akin to bloodmagic.

-Polaris

I thought they got they're magic from the same place as us....

Nope.  Genlocks are basically mutated dwarves complete with dwarven magic resistance but they can cast spells just fine using the taint.

-Polaris

fascinating. Is there a codex entry on that somewhere? Cuz if there is I think I missed it.

[IanPolaris]

atheelogos wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen.

Mages have a constant connection to the Fade. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to do magic.

That doesn't mean they can become abominations at the drop of a hat though, whatever the Chantry would like you to believe.  Also not all magic requires an explicit connection to the fade.  Darkspawn perform magic from using their taint which is akin to bloodmagic.

-Polaris

I thought they got they're magic from the same place as us....

Nope.  Genlocks are basically mutated dwarves complete with dwarven magic resistance but they can cast spells just fine using the taint.

-Polaris

fascinating. Is there a codex entry on that somewhere? Cuz if there is I think I missed it.

It's in "The Calling".  The Architect taught a first enchanter (I forget which one off hand) the secret of darkspwan magic without telling him about the taint connection in order to spread the taint across all of Thedas and thus supposedly end the need for blights.  Of course the fact it would kill most of the people infected was of the utmost indifference to the Architect.  I seem to recall this was confirmed elsewhere as well.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's no proof that reinforcements arrived in time, it's as simple as that.

And no proof that they didn't.
You cannot claim the opposite. Basicly, you cannot claim that the abominations would run loose without the Warden.

Actually, my comments steamed from your claim:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No..reinforcements are called and they definatively arrive if you select the option to cull the tower.

And even IF the tower had compltely fallen, it would be the first such case (all other annulments were sucesfull) in 700 years.
I'd call that a good track record.

You can't claim that they would definitely arrive on time, Lotion, when there's no evidence to support such a comment.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I pointed out there's no proof they were warranted. You made it seem as though they were, which is more speculation being used as proof on your part.

Adn you didn't prove killing D'Sims was uunwarranted. Or that Aenerin wasn't a blood mage. Or that the Cahtnry really had nothing on Morrigan.
See hte friggin point?
If you got no proof - make no claims.

I addressed that there's no evidence supporting that Aneirin is a maleficar, as well as no one in canon treating it as true; I addressed that Morrigan never displays any blood magic abilities like Jowan does, making the bounty on her for being a blood mage suspect; and the Magnificent D'Sims wasn't a real mage, so his death was not warranted for being an illegal mage. You continually ignore that templars have magic disabling abilities, and if they interpreted any movement on his part to his a threat, they could have used these abilities to nullify any danger to themselves.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I based my stand on what we currently know, Lotion. The History of the Circle codex, The History of the Chantry Part Four codex, the murder of the [non-mage] D'Sims by templars, Morrigan's bounty with no evidence to support the claim of her being a blood mage, the apparent lack of evidence involving Aneirin, and the fact that we keep seeing abominations resulting from the templars oppression of mages, but this is all academic. I have repeated my position, and I see no reason to change it when none of the evidence supports your claim that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary.

You based your stand on what you think you know..what you interpret.

As I and many others pointed out, everything you mentioned is NOT definite and not clear proof. Several poeple on this forums provided alternate interpretations and explanations - and you refuse to evven accept they exist. Because their very existance undermines the security of your position.

How are the codex entries not proof? That makes no sense.

If you mean what we can infer based on information we're provided, we have no evidence to support the templars labelling Aneirin has a maleficar, and nobody treats it as accurate. We have nothing to support the claim that Morrigan is a blood mage. We know D'Sims wasn't a mage, and that templars have abilities to nullify magical ability. To me, it seems to be a consistent pattern of templars being able to kill people based on what they think rather than what they know. If I see a pattern of templars being able to kill people based on what they think is true as opposed to know they know to be true, why should I assume otherwise?

Regarding the comment about abominations happening as a direct result of the Chantry and its templars, I refer you to the entry in the Abomination codex, the Rite of Anulment codex, and the abomination army from A Broken Circle. You argue that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary, and when I see how they keep bringing on abominations into the world rather than preventing them, I have to disagree with you.

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

]fascinating. Is there a codex entry on that somewhere? Cuz if there is I think I missed it.

It's in "The Calling".  The Architect taught a first enchanter (I forget which one off hand) the secret of darkspwan magic without telling him about the taint connection in order to spread the taint across all of Thedas and thus supposedly end the need for blights.  Of course the fact it would kill most of the people infected was of the utmost indifference to the Architect.  I seem to recall this was confirmed elsewhere as well.

-Polaris

First Enchanter Remille.

You might also be thinking of Avernus in Warden's Keep, who is also exploring the abilities one can unlocked because of the taint within Grey Wardens.