1283 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Morrigan is any indication, that isn't the case.

Call me Mr Picky, but I'm not sure apostates picked and trained by ancient, mysterious, supremely powerful beings are a decent indication of the general level of ability among untrained mages.

Why assume that apostates would be untrained? It's possible they could be trained, merely outside of the Chantry and the templars. As for Morrigan, she did indeed learn her craft from her mother, but regardless of Flemeth's level of power, it was her instruction that aided her daughter. Might other apostates have similar teachings? It's impossible to say; we do know that the Dalish also have the ability to change their shape in discussion between a Dalish Warden and Morrigan over her magical abilities. The teachings Flemeth taught Morrigan don't seem to be unique to them alone if others are capable of similar magical ability. Morrigan was able to use apostate teachings to see through the facade of a Sloth Demon while the Circle's own teachings weren't able to help Wynne see that she was in the Fade.

[Arkynomicon]

I don't care much for the fashion the Ferelden mages are sporting.

[Last Vizard]

Gorthaur X wrote...

I gave up trying to read the entire thread several pages ago, but really, from the evidence presented by the game, it seems most likely that the Chantry controls mages not because of their potential to do harm, but rather because of their potential to do good.

The exact likelihood of Abominations occurring in a world where mages are free may be difficult to guess, but it's much easier to see how much mages could benefit a medieval community. A single village mage can mend broken bones in moments, cure debilitating illnesses, and save lives more efficiently than even modern medicine is capable of. They can summon storms in times of drought.  They can perform, or help perform, many tasks in a fraction of the time it would take for regular people to accomplish the same. Given the freedom to coexist freely among the common populace, mages would very easily become the most beloved members - indeed, cornerstones - of any community they choose to become part of.

All of which would be great for both mages and the common people, but horrible for the Chantry and the nobility. The former doesn't want to compete against people who can actually perform the sorts of feats that priests can only tell their flock to pray for: how much reverence will you have for the church of an absent god when it was the local witch who cured your infant child's pneumonia, or healed your husband's broken leg so he could harvest the year's crop? The latter, on the other hand, doesn't want the power mages represent distributed equally among the populace. Nobility holds its position by withholding access to resources from the commoners, including the resources to take up arms against the upper classes: a villager armed with farming tools is no match against an armored soldier, much less a knight in full plate. But if some of those commoners can set people on fire with their minds? Well, consider that something as simple as the crossbow was, at one point, banned by the historical Catholic church (without much effect, mind you) for the deadly power it put in the hands of the common folk.

Mages are a threat to the status quo, and to the entrenched power of the upper classes. Not so much to the regular people.

Similar to X-men universe, once people could see the benifits that mages bring (and the wealth they would make) farthers would try to marry their daughters to Mages and this power would spread across the lower and medium levels of society.

[Last Vizard]

rage-monk wrote...

Depends on the mage (or wizard or whatever you wanna call them).

^lol Mage is god class of Fantasy world

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why assume that apostates would be untrained?

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 13 février 2011 - 03:06 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why assume that apostates would be untrained?

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

I would think that Apostates would either learn from other mages or teach themselves.
Hawkes father is an apostate. How do you think he learned how to do magic, and learn enough to be able to teach it.

I mean is that so hard to believe? 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 13 février 2011 - 03:29 .

[AlexXIV]

I favor the thought that Hawke can turn Kirkwall into a mage haven in DA2. Like the only place in all of Thedas where mages can be relatively free (relatively, since nobody can really be free, even normal people have to follow laws).

Anyway, I like the idea that Kirkwall could turn into something like the 'city of mages' of Thedas. Of course if Hawke supports the Chantry it would rather be the opposite. I believe though that it is fairly possible that mages and normal people can live together under certain circimstance that would require the mages to take care of their troublemakers who favor to abuse their magic talent for criminal purposes.

There will still have to be some sort of 'mage police' because it is obviously a bit harder to investigate or arrest a mage than a common sheep herder.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 février 2011 - 03:37 .

[Ziggeh]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

I would think that Apostates would either learn from other mages or teach themselves.
Hawkes father is an apostate. How do you think he learned how to do magic, and learn enough to be able to teach it.

I mean is that so hard to believe? 

You're arguing against a point I don't appear to be making. But let me know if I do.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 13 février 2011 - 04:11 .

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence would help.

I can't think of a more straight forward way of pointing out the evidence than I already have.

Listen, non-agression is a logical argument. Not "that's a logical outcome," Star Trek Spock brand of logic. I mean a logical argument as in using language as a form of constructing verbal equasions. Actual logical construction. It is not a conjectured argument so conjecture is not enough to uphold it. All it takes is a single counter example to invalidate, and that has been provided.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...



Why assume that apostates would be untrained?

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

That's not the point I was trying to convey. You seem to be saying that Morrigan being able to see through the Sloth Demon's facade is an isolated incident because Flemeth is her mother and instructed her, but we know based on the Dalish Warden convo and Morrigan's own conversations that others practice similar magic as Morrigan. If it isn't isolated, then other apostates might be able to accomplish the same feats as Morrigan. The Mages Collective is clearly an organization aimed to keep free mages safe from the Chantry and other dangers - so it's possible they might have garnered this type of information because they have a myraid of mages who comprise their clandestine society. It's speculation, of course, but if we're aware that at least one area of magic isn't unique to Morrigan, there's no reason to assume the rest would be, either.



As for Morrigan's knowledge, we don't have anything to stipulate that Flemeth's teachings are unique to her, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that there are similar teachings elsewhere. The Dalish Warden can reveal that his or her people perform similar magic to change shape as Flemeth taught Morrigan, and Morrigan herself admits to the Warden from any background that there are mages who perform similar magic outside of Chantry control - as traditions have been passed on for some time. If Flemeth is basing her teachings on knowledge that isn't unique to her, then I don't see why Morrigan would be a unique case.

[LobselVith8]

Wowlock wrote...

I think the oppression seems like a ''safer'' choice. Yes , I don't like the style of the Circle ( bunch of mages under templars eyes , locked in a tower ) but they have their reasons I suppose. Sane mages , probably won't be a lot in that kind of envoirmen. Imprisoned for their whole life in a tower , can really effect mages badly.

Given how Kirkwall is a center for templar activity in the Free Marches, I'd have to assume that the debate over whether it's warranted or not will be addressed by Hawke. Do we side with the templars because we believe they're keeping the peace and want the system to remain in place, or do we side with the mages because we see them being oppressed and think the system isn't warranted?

Wowlock wrote...

Should they release the 'sane' and 'in control' ones out of tower instead of them turning to Blood Magic and try to espace ? Yes. Should they leave every mage out and let them do whatever they like with their superior power ? not so much.

That seems like a lot of power to delegate to an organization that doesn't seem to particularly like mages or magic.

Wowlock wrote...

Well all I say , there are many kinds of people and some are too dangerous and should keep and eye on them but not forcing them to dark path. I know if Templars wouldn't abuse their hold on mages, ''Apostates'' would never exist ( at least not like they are now . Power crazy Blood Mage number would have been decreased )

Apostates are merely mages who aren't with the Circle, like Morrigan; I think you mean maleficarum, who practice "blood magic."

Regarding peace efforts, I don't think it's likely. There are mages who want to be free, and there are the templars and the Chantry who want the opposite. There isn't likely to be a middle ground for either group to relinquish their goals on this issue.

[Eclipse_9990]

Ziggeh wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

I would think that Apostates would either learn from other mages or teach themselves.
Hawkes father is an apostate. How do you think he learned how to do magic, and learn enough to be able to teach it.

I mean is that so hard to believe? 

You're arguing against a point I don't appear to be making. But let me know if I do.

Ah. I guess I misinterpreted your post. Nevermind.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence would help.

I can't think of a more straight forward way of pointing out the evidence than I already have.

Listen, non-agression is a logical argument. Not "that's a logical outcome," Star Trek Spock brand of logic. I mean a logical argument as in using language as a form of constructing verbal equasions. Actual logical construction. It is not a conjectured argument so conjecture is not enough to uphold it. All it takes is a single counter example to invalidate, and that has been provided.

You haven't provided valid counterexamples.  We are still waiting.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

asindre wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You can't say, "it's just the senior mages' because we know that many non-senior mages did survive and so presumably were up there (which contraindicates your statement actually).

-Polaris

But we can say it's just the circle mages and they get training to help them not get possessed by demons. An apostate without that training might be much easier to possess.

If Morrigan is any indication, that isn't the case. While Wynne's Circle training failed her when it came to realizing that she was in the Fade, Morrigan knew immediately. Clearly, her training aided her in realizing that she was dealing with a demon, and not the real Flemeth. If Morrigan's apostate status meant that she was easy to possess than the Desire Demon would have made the attempt when she is sent to rescue Connor, and that isn't the case.

To be completely fair to the circle here, I should note that Niall was the second most capable person in the fade (after your PC) and he was trained by the circle.  Honestly Wynne for her supposed "talent" with the Fade shows shocking incompetance when it comes to the Fade esp for an Enchanter of her rank.  That said, it's worth noting that Sten wasn't fooled for a moment either and he doesn't have a trace of magical talent.  Basically what seems to be important is basic training to understand that demons in the fade are NOT your friends and can appear to be as anyone in the fade.  Conner didn't have this very basic training and suffered for it (but even then had to be tricked).

-Polaris

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
You haven't provided valid counterexamples.  We are still waiting.

And this is why I called your argument willful ignorance. You have been presented with several counter examples but you're ignoring them or dismissing them without justification.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 13 février 2011 - 09:23 .

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
You haven't provided valid counterexamples.  We are still waiting.

And this is why I called your argument willful ignorance. You have been presented with several counter examples but you're ignoring them or dismissing them without justification.

It is not.  I have told you and everyone else WHY what you provide is not a valid counterexample, and you have yet to show that I am mistaken in that.  Specifically, in your first case, Conner quite explicitly gave consent.  Sure he was tricked but he did give consent.  Why was he tricked?  He wasn't properly educated!  Why wasn't he probably educated?  His mother was afraid of the Chantry Circle System!  [AND His mother was also infected by a particularly virulent form of the anti-mage Chantry bias].  Who is to blame for that?  Ultimately the Chantry?

In the second place, Uldred summoned those demons voluntarily and lost a contest of wills in so doing.  Not a random happenstance (which is what would be required to be a valid counter-example).  Likewise Abmoniation-Uldred was only able to form him mind-control ritual to make abominations after the mage's will had been physically tortured down to nothing AND the viel was already weak/torn.  Again, the very uniqueness of the case makes it an invalid counterexample as I've already explained.

You need to try again or give it up.

-Polaris

[the_one_54321]

Consent from a child is meaningless. The reason Conner wasn't educated is meaningless. His mother's role in the situation is meaningless.

It can happen. When as a result of bad judgment or trickery the notion of having given consent is irrelevant. It's the same as if it were forceful.

This is why your argument is willfully ignorant. You are closing your eyes to plainness of the counterexample put before you.



Conner was a child, was possessed, caused injury and death. Non-aggression principle is invalid. It really is as simple as that.

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
 I have told you and everyone else WHY what you provide is not a valid counterexample, and you have yet to show that I am mistaken in that.  Specifically, in your first case, Conner quite explicitly gave consent.  Sure he was tricked but he did give consent.  Why was he tricked?  He wasn't properly educated!  Why wasn't he probably educated?  His mother was afraid of the Chantry Circle System!  [AND His mother was also infected by a particularly virulent form of the anti-mage Chantry bias].  Who is to blame for that?  Ultimately the Chantry?

Just to put very specific terms on why this does not stand.
All of the above is conjecture. Pure conjecture. Not because I say it is, but because whether or not it is well reasoned none of it is actually based on strict verifiable truth. That makes it conjecture.

The non-aggression principle is a strict logical argument. So conjecture is not suitable as a justification. Therefore all of the above is not applicable.

[Riona45]

Ziggeh wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm assuming that the majority of apostates aren't in fact trained by the fabled Witch of the Wilds to fulfill some complex goal, possibly involving inhabitting her soul.

I would think that Apostates would either learn from other mages or teach themselves.
Hawkes father is an apostate. How do you think he learned how to do magic, and learn enough to be able to teach it.

I mean is that so hard to believe? 

You're arguing against a point I don't appear to be making. But let me know if I do.

Probably the part where you conflated "apostates" with "untrained mages."  At the very least, you weren't clear about it.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Consent from a child is meaningless. The reason Conner wasn't educated is meaningless. His mother's role in the situation is meaningless.

You are wrong twice over.  Talk to Irving about it, and he tells you that Conner's consent was essential!  If it weren't for Conner's consent, the ritual doesn't work, so in this case consent of a child is very meaningful and it's all the more reason why mages should be properly educated and regulated (and I've never said otherwise) from a young age.  Demons don't care about age of consent.

As for the mother, yes it's meaningful. Why?  The entire situation happens becasue the Circle Tower system violates the non-agression pact between rulers and the ruled.  You can't therefore use this as a valid counterexample to show that the principle no longer applies.  In doing so, you are assuming what you are trying to disprove and that's a classical mistake in logic.

It can happen. When as a result of bad judgment or trickery the notion of having given consent is irrelevant. It's the same as if it were forceful.
This is why your argument is willfully ignorant. You are closing your eyes to plainness of the counterexample put before you.

Conner was a child, was possessed, caused injury and death. Non-aggression principle is invalid. It really is as simple as that.

No it's not as simple as that.  No one is saying that possession can't happen, but that does not ipso facto invalidate the non-agression principle.  You have to show beyond reasonable doubt that spontaneous and unpreventable abominations happen at a sufficient rate to justify the violation of the non-agression principle and neither you nor any other Chantry apologist has come close to doing that.


-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
 I have told you and everyone else WHY what you provide is not a valid counterexample, and you have yet to show that I am mistaken in that.  Specifically, in your first case, Conner quite explicitly gave consent.  Sure he was tricked but he did give consent.  Why was he tricked?  He wasn't properly educated!  Why wasn't he probably educated?  His mother was afraid of the Chantry Circle System!  [AND His mother was also infected by a particularly virulent form of the anti-mage Chantry bias].  Who is to blame for that?  Ultimately the Chantry?

Just to put very specific terms on why this does not stand.
All of the above is conjecture. Pure conjecture. Not because I say it is, but because whether or not it is well reasoned none of it is actually based on strict verifiable truth. That makes it conjecture.

The non-aggression principle is a strict logical argument. So conjecture is not suitable as a justification. Therefore all of the above is not applicable.

The above is not conjecture, actually.  It's verifiable game-fact.  We know as a fact that Conner wasn't properly educated (unless you consider Jowan an appropriate teacher!).  Why?  Because Isolde hated and was afraid of magic.  She says so in the game, so that's another verifiable game fact.  Why was it hidden from his father?  Becuase he would "do the right thing" and lock away her son.  Again, the violation of the non-agression principle took a key role here and that is another verifiable game fact.  Was Conner tricked?  Yes, Conner in a lucid moment just before you have to kill him talks about the mean lady and she didn't mean anyone any good.  He understand he was tricked but must die to save others.  Again, verifiable in the game.

This is no conjecture as much as "one" wants you to think it is, and thus does apply.

-Polaris

[LethargicBear]

Not me.

[AndrahilAdrian]

My Hawke will be a fiirebrand, revolutionary mage working to bring down the chantry with Anders at his side...Its gonna be epic!

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
In fact you see that in your own harrowing.  Mouse is more than powerful enough a pride demon to kill you outright, but that's not good enough if you don't let him in.  The moment you tell him the gig is up, it's over...and in your case the Pride demon would rather lurk about and 'try again'....and that's a case were the Templars deliberately set you up to fail (as multiple sources in the fade including the Valor spirit tell you).

It's a PRIDE DEMON. Who knows how it thinks?

Maybe it simply WANTS to trick you, nto take you over by force? We are dealing with "creatrues" that are completely different. Does time even matter to them? Patience?

Just because the pride demon didn't attack the player in the Harrowing, doesn't it mean it couldn't have done it easily.