1283 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

So you are saying that demons sometimes don't want to take over mages by force?  Really?  That undercuts just about everything else you've been saying since....well....ever.

Demons want to live in our world.  That's the defining characteristic OF a demon (Pride or other), so unless you are going to say that Mouse wasn't a demon, you really need to rethink your whole post.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

Riona45 wrote...

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

I was a bit suprised that I would need to clarify, as the two are demonstrably not synonymous. The post I was replying to suggested either morrigan was indicative of mages who had not recieved circle training in avoiding possession or had not recieved any anti demon training at all, depending on how you read the previous post. She's a fairly poor indicator of the first and not at all of the latter, but I was being largely facetious in cropping his quote.

I'm not entirely sure how that was read as if I was applying the term to all apostates, but it's funny, that's sort of analogous to my problem with these threads as a whole. Taking something that's limited to specific cases and assuming it's applicable in general.

Take the abomination thing. Ian wants, and quite rightly, evidence of the Chantries claim that demonic possession can happen through force. We have three examples, and none of these work this way. Based upon this we can say there is doubt that force is an option, but we cannot say for certain that it is not.

edit: why does the previous page play an audio clip from beavis and butthead?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 14 février 2011 - 03:04 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

So you are saying that demons sometimes don't want to take over mages by force?  Really?  That undercuts just about everything else you've been saying since....well....ever.

Demons want to live in our world.  That's the defining characteristic OF a demon (Pride or other), so unless you are going to say that Mouse wasn't a demon, you really need to rethink your whole post.

It undercuts what? Nothing.

Demons want to live in our world.
That doesn't mean they have no patiance and go at it like brainless zombies after braiiiinz.
It also assumes all demons are like drug addicts with zero self-control.

And we have seen that the inhabitants of the Fade are a strange bunch.

OR maybe...the PRIODE demon is too PROUD to take you over by force!
If anything, what Justice said kinda confirms that the demons/spirits take on the specific human aspects.

Fomr rage demon being full of rage, rash and seemingly least intelligent, to prodeand desire demons being the most complex and dangerous.

[Haussier]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It undercuts what? Nothing.

Demons want to live in our world.
That doesn't mean they have no patiance and go at it like brainless zombies after braiiiinz.
It also assumes all demons are like drug addicts with zero self-control.

And we have seen that the inhabitants of the Fade are a strange bunch.

OR maybe...the PRIODE demon is too PROUD to take you over by force!
If anything, what Justice said kinda confirms that the demons/spirits take on the specific human aspects.

Fomr rage demon being full of rage, rash and seemingly least intelligent, to prodeand desire demons being the most complex and dangerous.

Well from everything that i've seen a mage has to "let" a demon in, whatever it's rank. I mean if mouse, in the mage origin, could have just taken you without permission he would have. Then we have the whole uldred (a pride abomination) torturing mages to break their wills so he can force a whatever demon down their throuts. He was at that for weeks on end at the least. Even the whole flemeth thing, where flemeth goes about weakening the will of her mortal daughter so she can take the body thing stands out.

The only time I remember a demon forcing itself on anything is Anders cat from the tower heh. Oh and lets not forget the trees, i'm sure they weren't willing in those cases.

In conclusion I would have to say demons have to use trickery, coercion, or torchure to claim a living vessel. Just finding a person and hoping on is not enough.

ps I have to say Gorthaur X's point on page 47 holds more weight than the whole, "it's for the good of the people stihck." I have to tack on that preventing mage rule by maligning them seems to be the main reason though.

Modifié par Haussier, 14 février 2011 - 04:11 .

[BallaZs]

To be honest, I usually dislike playing as a mage in most game, but they were indispensable in DA:O.

I like mages, but not as my main character.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

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

I was a bit suprised that I would need to clarify, as the two are demonstrably not synonymous.

I find it odd that you seem to take issue with people not clarifying their views when you don't feel the need to do the same.

Ziggeh wrote...

The post I was replying to suggested either morrigan was indicative of mages who had not recieved circle training in avoiding possession or had not recieved any anti demon training at all, depending on how you read the previous post. She's a fairly poor indicator of the first and not at all of the latter, but I was being largely facetious in cropping his quote.

Actually, neither point was one I was trying to make.

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm not entirely sure how that was read as if I was applying the term to all apostates, but it's funny, that's sort of analogous to my problem with these threads as a whole. Taking something that's limited to specific cases and assuming it's applicable in general.

So you find it to be an issue, but do the same yourself?

[the_one_54321]

Ziggeh wrote...
I was a bit suprised that I would need to clarify, as the two are demonstrably not synonymous.

All untrained mages are appostates, not all appostates are untrained mages. It fits within the argument. Just... I think the "mage sympathizers" don't actually want this to be a logical argument. They want it to be a conjectural argument based on basic rights. Which I still don't think holds up. My main gripe with this dissagreement, however, is that some seem to be trying to stand on strict logical arguments but don't understand the nature of or difference between logical arguments and conjecture.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I find it odd that you seem to take issue with people not clarifying their views when you don't feel the need to do the same.

I said untrained mages. By untrained mages I meant mages who had not been trained. I'm not sure how that lacked clarity. What I take issue with is inaccurate use of language. Such as "clearly" as a purely rhetorical term.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, neither point was one I was trying to make.

I assumed as much, but your statement lacked clarity. See, it's important!

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm not entirely sure how that was read as if I was applying the term to all apostates, but it's funny, that's sort of analogous to my problem with these threads as a whole. Taking something that's limited to specific cases and assuming it's applicable in general.

So you find it to be an issue, but do the same yourself?

And where have I done this?

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Just... I think the "mage sympathizers" don't actually want this to be a logical argument. They want it to be a conjectural argument based on basic rights. Which I still don't think holds up.

I think I'd enjoy that more. Though I suspect I'd be out of my depth. I had a fun morning trying to work out how things like Lockean property rights change in a fantasy setting with the potential literal presence of a creator.

the_one_54321 wrote...
My main gripe with this dissagreement, however, is that some seem to be trying to stand on strict logical arguments but don't understand the nature of or difference between logical arguments and conjecture.

It's the subjective usage that bugs the pedant in me. Applying different standards of evidence and argument to elements depending upon whether they support the position. It turns it into a competition rather than a discussion.
Admittedly the resulting misunderstandings have extended these threads far beyond the life they might otherwise hold.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
I was a bit suprised that I would need to clarify, as the two are demonstrably not synonymous.

All untrained mages are appostates, not all appostates are untrained mages. It fits within the argument. Just... I think the "mage sympathizers" don't actually want this to be a logical argument. They want it to be a conjectural argument based on basic rights. Which I still don't think holds up. My main gripe with this dissagreement, however, is that some seem to be trying to stand on strict logical arguments but don't understand the nature of or difference between logical arguments and conjecture.

Not even that is true.  A child picked up by the Templars is a circle mage by definition (a raw apprentice but legally a circle mage) and is still untrained (obviously).  Given what we see from the performance of circle mages comparied with your own PC or even some apostates, I wonder just how much real training circle mages really get.  Loghain wonders the same thing when you take him with Wynne in Return to Ostagar.  Loghain has lively things to say about the combat effectiveness of the circle mages in fact.

-Polaris

[odovoro]

somewhat cause i think they make battle a bit easy and that's not a good thing for me at least

Modifié par odovoro, 14 février 2011 - 08:03 .

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So you find it to be an issue, but do the same yourself?

And where have I done this?

Riona45 already addressed this.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Riona45 already addressed this.

Except I wasn't suggesting all apostates are untrained. Just the untrained ones. So how am I applying limited sample data universally?

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Riona45 already addressed this.

Except I wasn't suggesting all apostates are untrained. Just the untrained ones. So how am I applying limited sample data universally?

I suppose the problem was that your comments lacked clarity, because that's how it came across.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

I wonder just how much real training circle mages really get.  Loghain wonders the same thing when you take him with Wynne in Return to Ostagar.  Loghain has lively things to say about the combat effectiveness of the circle mages in fact.

I imagine there's quite a conflict between the extent the Chantry want them able to fight on the battlefield and the extent they want them able to fight the templars.

[Dave of Canada]

I think the new Anders story shows how "negligible" an abomination is.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I think the new Anders story shows how "negligible" an abomination is.

Not really, although I do think the Devs are realizing (too late) that they have done too much talking about abominmations and not enough showing.  As I understand it, in the case of Anders, it was a voluntary decision and the spirit was not (yet) a demon (it was a spirit of Justice).

So it doesn't prove or even show anything.

-Polaris

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
As I understand it, in the case of Anders, it was a voluntary decision and the spirit was not (yet) a demon (it was a spirit of Justice).

Actually, thak you for outlining this. Although it's the opposite of what you likely wanted to accomplish, what you have actually given here is an irrifutable example of a mage being possessed by a demon against his will.

Anders gave consent to be possessed by a spirt of justice. He did not give consent to be inhabited by a demon of vengence.

Later, without having given consent, Anders becomes possessed by a demon of vengence.

I know, I know, he "gave consent" so don't bother bringing that one up. It's obvious and you already mentioned it. But look closely at what the agreement is/was. These things are very specific. There is no implied extension that Anders is also consenting to host whatever Justice chooses to become. What happened is a concrete example of a possession that is explicitly against the host's will, because the two events are separate. 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 14 février 2011 - 11:55 .

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
As I understand it, in the case of Anders, it was a voluntary decision and the spirit was not (yet) a demon (it was a spirit of Justice).

Actually, thak you for outlining this. Although it's the opposite of what you likely wanted to accomplish, what you have actually given here is an irrifutable example of a mage being possessed by a demon against his will.

Anders gave consent to be possessed by a spirt of justice. He did not give consent to be inhabited by a demon of vengence.

Later, without having given consent, Anders becomes possessed by a demon of vengence.

I know, I know, he "gave consent" so don't bother bringing that one up. It's obvious and you already mentioned it. But look closely at what the agreement is/was. These things are very specific. There is no implied extension that Anders is also consenting to host whatever Justice chooses to become. What happened is a concrete example of a possession that is explicitly against the host's will, because the two events are separate. 

Then it doesn't apply.  Anders GAVE CONSENT.  Game Over.  Invalid counterexample.  Akso there is no demon of vengeance.  Demons are rage, hunger, sloth, desire, and  pride.

-Polaris

Edit:  Also without further information, you still don't know if the relationship between Anders and Vengeance is still consensual.  From what I understand from the limited spoiler information it is, so it STILL doesn't apply.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 février 2011 - 11:57 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
As I understand it, in the case of Anders, it was a voluntary decision and the spirit was not (yet) a demon (it was a spirit of Justice).

Actually, thak you for outlining this. Although it's the opposite of what you likely wanted to accomplish, what you have actually given here is an irrifutable example of a mage being possessed by a demon against his will.

Anders gave consent to be possessed by a spirt of justice. He did not give consent to be inhabited by a demon of vengence.

Later, without having given consent, Anders becomes possessed by a demon of vengence.

I know, I know, he "gave consent" so don't bother bringing that one up. It's obvious and you already mentioned it. But look closely at what the agreement is/was. These things are very specific. There is no implied extension that Anders is also consenting to host whatever Justice chooses to become. What happened is a concrete example of a possession that is explicitly against the host's will, because the two events are separate. 

Then it doesn't apply.  Anders GAVE CONSENT.  Game Over.  Invalid counterexample.  Akso there is no demon of vengeance.  Demons are rage, hunger, sloth, desire, and  pride.

-Polaris

Edit:  Also without further information, you still don't know if the relationship between Anders and Vengeance is still consensual.  From what I understand from the limited spoiler information it is, so it STILL doesn't apply.

It is described as the demonic spirit of vengeance, it even goes so far as  to say that Anders must fight the demon within himself for control. So it would seem that whatever is going on, is not what Anders agreed to in the first place.
And those Demons you listed are just some of the ones known. The way Justice describes them, a demon is just a spirit perverted by its own purpose. Just like he himself becomes a spirit of Vengeance instead of Justice, after possessing Anders.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
It is described as the demonic spirit of vengeance, it even goes so far as  to say that Anders must fight the demon within himself for control. So it would seem that whatever is going on, is not what Anders agreed to in the first place.
And those Demons you listed are just some of the ones known. The way Justice describes them, a demon is just a spirit perverted by its own purpose. Just like he himself becomes a spirit of Vengeance instead of Justice, after possessing Anders.

Doesn't matter.  Anders did give consent and thus it's an invalid counterexample.  Demons do not seem to be able to take over mages by force at the drop of a hat.  The Mage has to let them in (which Anders certainly did.....idiot that he is).  Clearer now?  Also a demonic spirit is not necessarily a demon.  It sounds like a spirit in the middle of transformation.

I note that Conner didn't agree to turn Redcliff into a charnal house either, but that was irrelevent too.  What matters is the initial consent.

Unless you can show me that mages can be forcibly possessed by demons at anything like a dangerous rate (which is what the Chantry claims) under normal condition (i.e. veil is not sundered), then the non-agreession problem and objection to the Chantry Circle Tower System stands.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Oh, just in case anyone is wondering, if DA2 gives me half a chance, I will almost certainly back the mages circles against the Templars, but I will also almost certainly kill Anders if I have the opportunity since he is an abomination.



-Polaris

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
Then it doesn't apply.  Anders GAVE CONSENT.  Game Over.  Invalid counterexample.

This is you: *fingers in ears*" lalalalalalalalalanotlisteningtoyoulalalalalallalaallalalanotlistening!!!!!"

Anders did not give consent to be a host to a demon. Two separate events. And now you just sound like you're mad that you got the specific example in the game that you asked for.

IanPolaris wrote...
Demons do not seem to be able to take over mages by force at the drop of a hat.

And this in specific is why your objection to Anders as an appropriate example is completely bogus. It doesn't matter when or how. All that matters is that it can happen. Anders doesn't want a demon in him. The demon is there against his will. That's it. There is nothing else. No other situation or concept is even minutely relevant or worth bringing up.

Unless you can say and prove "Anders wants a demon inside him" then non-agression is invalid.

Note, not that Anders wanted a spirit in him. Not Anders agreed to be a host for a spirit. You must show specific evidence that "Anders wants a demon inside of him" or else whatever you have to offer is 100% irrelevant.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 15 février 2011 - 12:50 .

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Anders did not give consent to be a host to a demon. Two separate events

Mmm, while I agree he didn't consent to Vengeance, as it was created within him, it's not a case where the demon has taken possession by force, which I would say is what we're looking for. The vanders situation is possibly unique, given justices nature.

Not that Uldred isn't an example of taking possession by force, but we're discounting that because it's inconvenient.

[IanPolaris]

One,



Anders GAVE CONSENT to permit Justice ****** Vengence to take up residence. END OF DISCUSSION!



What happens afterwords is totally irrelevant. Anders did NOT become an abomination by force. Period. What part of consent don't you understand?



-Polaris