1283 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

Indeed.  The change happened after consent was given, so no forcible possession took place.

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

That's not true and that's not fair.  I've discussed Uldred many times.

1.  Uldred happened when the Veil was thin (and we know the rules are different when the veil is thin).
2.  Uldred engaged a bunch of demons in a forcible contest of wills in the fade (by summoning them) and LOST.  He KNEW the risks of engaging a demon in that kind of combat and losing (and Avernus fully admits to those risks as well when you challenge him on it), but that was a VOLUNTARY risk, so you can't say that this was an out-of-the-blue forcible possession either.  Uldred rolled the dice putting his soul deliberately at risk and lost.  That's very different from what the Chantry is claiming.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 15 février 2011 - 01:02 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Chantry doesn't claim that Abominations happen often. They admits that Abominations are rare. So why do you keep pretending that they say Abominations are common?

[the_one_54321]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

You don't need forceful possession. You only need possession against the mages will. Anders did not consent to be the host of a demon.

Polaris is trying to say that consent is perpetually binding which it is not. Furthermore, one could conjecture that Anders was in fact possessed forcefully, as the transition from spirit to demon did itself happen against his will.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry doesn't claim that Abominations happen often. They admits that Abominations are rare. So why do you keep pretending that they say Abominations are common?

The Chanty obviously believes (or rather they claim to believe anyway) that abominations happen enough that locking away all mages in what is obviously and clearly a regressive system and denying them all legal rights is better than the alternative.

That is an extraordinary moral claim and the Chantry has done nothing to show that it's justificed.  When I say that abominations are rare, I mean vanishingly rare.  Furthermore the Chantry would have you believe that any mage for any reason could at any time become a demonic abomination by forcible possession.   However, all the game evidence and game lore seems to show that this simply is not true.  A mage either has to voluntarily let the demon in OR the mage has to deliberately put his own soul in direct jeapordy by entering spiritual combat with the demon (i.e. summoning).  Even the ritual Uldred performed only worked where the veil was thin, where the mage's will had already been beaten down to virtually nothing by conventional torture, and even then it took a powerful, lengthy, and complex bloodmagic mind-control ritual to pull off.

In short, the Chantry's moral claim for the Circle Tower System is dubvious at best.  Indeed based on the Codex Entry "History of the Circle" I would venture that the Divine, Senor Grand Clerics, and even Knight Vigilant know perfectly well the Circle Tower System isn't about abominations or protection at all.  It's about power and control specifically over mages.  The Chantry has made it perfectly clear they'd rather kill all mages then see them free.
Even Wynne says as much.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You don't need forceful possession. You only need possession against the mages will. Anders did not consent to be the host of a demon.

Polaris is trying to say that consent is perpetually binding which it is not. Furthermore, one could conjecture that Anders was in fact possessed forcefully, as the transition from spirit to demon did itself happen against his will.

I am saying that consent is perpetually binding because it is.  Once you consent to having a spirit possess you, there is no going back.  That was true not just of Anders, but Conner and Wynne as well.  As for Anders being possessessed forcibly, he is not.  He MADE A DEAL with Justice.  Just because things didn't work out as intended does not make this a forcible possession.

Sorry, but it just doesn't no matter how much in your heart of hearts you want it to, it doesn't qualify.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  In order to invalidate the nonagression principle, you DO need forcible possession.  You need to show that mages can spontaneously become a threat to others at a meaningful rate by some means other than their own volition.  Anders became what he did from his own volution so his case doesn't count.  The reason volition is important is because it's volition that forms the crux of the non-agression pact between individuals and the society in which they live (and vice versa).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 15 février 2011 - 01:24 .

[the_one_54321]

That's very nice conjecture.

Oh, and Wyne never agreed to be host to a spirit. It just happened when she was dying.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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

That's not true and that's not fair.

I agree, and I apologise, it just struck me as funny.

I think it's evidence that force is possible (which we knew from the conversation in redcliffe), but I agree the circumstances change it from what you're talking about: forced random possession. Personally I'm not entirely convinced they occur randomly at all.

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  Uldred happened when the Veil was thin (and we know the rules are different when the veil is thin).

Where does it say it's thin? It's not something I remember coming across.

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  Uldred happened when the Veil was thin (and we know the rules are different when the veil is thin).
2.  Uldred engaged a bunch of demons in a forcible contest of wills in the fade (by summoning them) and LOST.  He KNEW the risks of engaging a demon in that kind of combat and losing (and Avernus fully admits to those risks as well when you challenge him on it), but that was a VOLUNTARY risk, so you can't say that this was an out-of-the-blue forcible possession either.  Uldred rolled the dice putting his soul deliberately at risk and lost.  That's very different from what the Chantry is claiming.

Also all very nice conjecture, but completely irrelevant to whether or not Uldred was forcably possessed.
Someone who walks into a lions den to fight the lions is stupid. That doesn't make the lions any less dangerous.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That's very nice conjecture.
Oh, and Wyne never agreed to be host to a spirit. It just happened when she was dying.

Wynne did WILLINGLY take the aid the spirit offered and so let it in so she could survive.  That makes it voluntary.  I note that it also happened when the Veil was thin as well (which changes the rules anyway).


-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry doesn't claim that Abominations happen often. They admits that Abominations are rare. So why do you keep pretending that they say Abominations are common?

The Chanty obviously believes (or rather they claim to believe anyway) that abominations happen enough that locking away all mages in what is obviously and clearly a regressive system and denying them all legal rights is better than the alternative.

That is an extraordinary moral claim and the Chantry has done nothing to show that it's justificed.  When I say that abominations are rare, I mean vanishingly rare.  Furthermore the Chantry would have you believe that any mage for any reason could at any time become a demonic abomination by forcible possession.   However, all the game evidence and game lore seems to show that this simply is not true.  A mage either has to voluntarily let the demon in OR the mage has to deliberately put his own soul in direct jeapordy by entering spiritual combat with the demon (i.e. summoning).  Even the ritual Uldred performed only worked where the veil was thin, where the mage's will had already been beaten down to virtually nothing by conventional torture, and even then it took a powerful, lengthy, and complex bloodmagic mind-control ritual to pull off.

In short, the Chantry's moral claim for the Circle Tower System is dubvious at best.  Indeed based on the Codex Entry "History of the Circle" I would venture that the Divine, Senor Grand Clerics, and even Knight Vigilant know perfectly well the Circle Tower System isn't about abominations or protection at all.  It's about power and control specifically over mages.  The Chantry has made it perfectly clear they'd rather kill all mages then see them free.
Even Wynne says as much.

-Polaris

Abominations is not teh reason Mages are locked away. It is one of them, yes. But it is not the only reason. Magic is the reason they are locked away. Magic in all its aspects.
And sicne you don't seem to realize. In the entry "History of the Circle" there is mention of negotiations between the Chantry and the Mages. Do you know what they talked about? No. Could they indeed have been talking about teh dangers of magic? Yes. Can tehy have talked about a need to segregated mages from society? Yes. Do we know? No. Does the entry thus tell the whole story? No, it does not.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 15 février 2011 - 01:30 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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

That's not true and that's not fair.

I agree, and I apologise, it just struck me as funny.

I think it's evidence that force is possible (which we knew from the conversation in redcliffe), but I agree the circumstances change it from what you're talking about: forced random possession. Personally I'm not entirely convinced they occur randomly at all.

The only time that force seems to work is when the Veil is thin AND when the Mage deliberately forces a confronation in the fade with a demon (or demons)  generally by summoning it.  In short, it's the mage's voluntary actions (and this is the key part) that make those rare cases of forcible possessions possible.  When I say "forcible possessions' otherwise, I really mean random forcible possessions though not fault of the mage.

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  Uldred happened when the Veil was thin (and we know the rules are different when the veil is thin).

Where does it say it's thin? It's not something I remember coming across.

When you go to Soldier's Peak and if you visited the Circle Tower First, you will comment that the Veil is thin at Soldier's Peak (after the first visions) just like it was at the Circle Tower.  Also if your mage does the US, King Alistair (or Queen Anora) at your funereal will comment that the Veil is too thin at the current tower.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You don't need forceful possession. You only need possession against the mages will. Anders did not consent to be the host of a demon.

Depends what we're trying to prove. I agree with you that being tricked doesn't make something consensual, but there is a specific type of possession that's defined by forceful entry, that destroys the person within. Connor could be saved because he wasn't taken by force, while Uldred could not because he was (presumably the other mages too, but that would have been problematic in gameplay terms).

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  Uldred happened when the Veil was thin (and we know the rules are different when the veil is thin).
2.  Uldred engaged a bunch of demons in a forcible contest of wills in the fade (by summoning them) and LOST.  He KNEW the risks of engaging a demon in that kind of combat and losing (and Avernus fully admits to those risks as well when you challenge him on it), but that was a VOLUNTARY risk, so you can't say that this was an out-of-the-blue forcible possession either.  Uldred rolled the dice putting his soul deliberately at risk and lost.  That's very different from what the Chantry is claiming.

Also all very nice conjecture, but completely irrelevant to whether or not Uldred was forcably possessed.
Someone who walks into a lions den to fight the lions is stupid. That doesn't make the lions any less dangerous.

Actually the Voluntary nature of Uldred's actions is critical here.  In order for you to say the social non-agression agreement doesn't apply, you need to PROVE that mages are a realistic danger to themselves and others in spite of themselves.  That is, you need to show that abominations happen at a meaningful rate regardless of what the mages do.

Therefor the Uldred possession doesn't count.  Uldred only got possessed because he made himself deliberately vunerable by summoning too many demons and botching it.....a completely voluntary (and stupid) action.  This example then in no way counts as evidence against the social non-agression principle.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

When you go to Soldier's Peak and if you visited the Circle Tower First, you will comment that the Veil is thin at Soldier's Peak (after the first visions) just like it was at the Circle Tower.  Also if your mage does the US, King Alistair (or Queen Anora) at your funereal will comment that the Veil is too thin at the current tower.

Would that not be because of all the killing and demon malarky, rather than the cause of?

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

You don't need forceful possession. You only need possession against the mages will. Anders did not consent to be the host of a demon.

Depends what we're trying to prove. I agree with you that being tricked doesn't make something consensual, but there is a specific type of possession that's defined by forceful entry, that destroys the person within. Connor could be saved because he wasn't taken by force, while Uldred could not because he was (presumably the other mages too, but that would have been problematic in gameplay terms).

I will help you out.  What "the_one" is trying to prove is that abominations happen without consent, and thus the social non-agression pact (which was explained several pages ago but reflects an agreement that we live in society by it's rules as long as society agrees not to inflict harm on our own private persons without cause...such as preemptive imprisonment...and when this pact is broken, then essentially all the gloves can come off...with predictable poor results).  There was a philosopher about 10 pages back on this thread that explained it much better.

The only time you can void this social non-agression pact is if you can show that mages simply by being what they are are dangerous enough to be treated as non-humans, and that means that he has to show that abominations happen WITHTOUT the volunatary actions of said mages (at least some of the time).  He has yet to show a single case.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When you go to Soldier's Peak and if you visited the Circle Tower First, you will comment that the Veil is thin at Soldier's Peak (after the first visions) just like it was at the Circle Tower.  Also if your mage does the US, King Alistair (or Queen Anora) at your funereal will comment that the Veil is too thin at the current tower.

Would that not be because of all the killing and demon malarky, rather than the cause of?

Who can say?  Certainly I'd say that Uldred's revolt caused the sunder to occure, but when?  We do know the Veil was sundered already by the time that Wynne was attacked by the demon (since that apparently happens just before you arrive).  Otherwise, the timeline is sketch which is why I point to Uldred's volunatary choice to summon demons knowing it puts him at risk (something Avernus confirms btw).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry doesn't claim that Abominations happen often. They admits that Abominations are rare. So why do you keep pretending that they say Abominations are common?

The Chanty obviously believes (or rather they claim to believe anyway) that abominations happen enough that locking away all mages in what is obviously and clearly a regressive system and denying them all legal rights is better than the alternative.

That is an extraordinary moral claim and the Chantry has done nothing to show that it's justificed.  When I say that abominations are rare, I mean vanishingly rare.  Furthermore the Chantry would have you believe that any mage for any reason could at any time become a demonic abomination by forcible possession.   However, all the game evidence and game lore seems to show that this simply is not true.  A mage either has to voluntarily let the demon in OR the mage has to deliberately put his own soul in direct jeapordy by entering spiritual combat with the demon (i.e. summoning).  Even the ritual Uldred performed only worked where the veil was thin, where the mage's will had already been beaten down to virtually nothing by conventional torture, and even then it took a powerful, lengthy, and complex bloodmagic mind-control ritual to pull off.

In short, the Chantry's moral claim for the Circle Tower System is dubvious at best.  Indeed based on the Codex Entry "History of the Circle" I would venture that the Divine, Senor Grand Clerics, and even Knight Vigilant know perfectly well the Circle Tower System isn't about abominations or protection at all.  It's about power and control specifically over mages.  The Chantry has made it perfectly clear they'd rather kill all mages then see them free.
Even Wynne says as much.

-Polaris

Abominations is not teh reason Mages are locked away. It is one of them, yes. But it is not the only reason. Magic is the reason they are locked away. Magic in all its aspects.
And sicne you don't seem to realize. In the entry "History of the Circle" there is mention of negotiations between the Chantry and the Mages. Do you know what they talked about? No. Could they indeed have been talking about teh dangers of magic? Yes. Can tehy have talked about a need to segregated mages from society? Yes. Do we know? No. Does the entry thus tell the whole story? No, it does not.

So you are admitting that mages are locked away so the Chantry can control magic?

Thank you.  That's all I wanted to hear......

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

In order for you to say the social non-agression agreement doesn't apply, you need to PROVE that mages are a realistic danger to themselves and others in spite of themselves.  That is, you need to show that abominations happen at a meaningful rate regardless of what the mages do.

I disagree with "in spite of themselves" and "meaningful rate".

I don't think it matters how it happens, provided it's not willfully allowing agression. For example if in the mage origin you had tried to save "mouse", it wouldn't be an aggressive act on the wardens part, but would have led to aggression.

And I think any level of abomination based aggression raises the default state from non agressive to not non aggressive.

[Balitant]

Have to say.... This is dedication on you parts guys.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

In order for you to say the social non-agression agreement doesn't apply, you need to PROVE that mages are a realistic danger to themselves and others in spite of themselves.  That is, you need to show that abominations happen at a meaningful rate regardless of what the mages do.

I disagree with "in spite of themselves" and "meaningful rate".

I don't think it matters how it happens, provided it's not willfully allowing agression. For example if in the mage origin you had tried to save "mouse", it wouldn't be an aggressive act on the wardens part, but would have led to aggression.

And I think any level of abomination based aggression raises the default state from non agressive to not non aggressive.

I don't parse your objections.  As for "meaningful rate" I admit that linguistically it sounds vague but in principle a number could be put on this.  Frankly I am extremely skeptical that random involuntary abominations happen at all, but I am willing to allow for a one-in-billion chance.  A one-in-billion especially in a midaeval society would not be a meaningful rate I think.  As for "in spite of themselves" what language would you prefer.  My point is that as long as abominations only seem to happen because of an active choice by the mage (unless the Veil is sundered and even then only under extreme duress and mind-control magic that is realistically extremely rare at best) then the non-agression social pact stands (and thus the CIrcle Tower System is morally invalid).

That doesn't mean that magic shouldn't be regulated, nor does it mean that those that become abominations by volutary actions don't need to be dealt with, but it must be done within the context of the social non-agression pact (just as criminals are so handled).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry doesn't claim that Abominations happen often. They admits that Abominations are rare. So why do you keep pretending that they say Abominations are common?

The Chanty obviously believes (or rather they claim to believe anyway) that abominations happen enough that locking away all mages in what is obviously and clearly a regressive system and denying them all legal rights is better than the alternative.

That is an extraordinary moral claim and the Chantry has done nothing to show that it's justificed.  When I say that abominations are rare, I mean vanishingly rare.  Furthermore the Chantry would have you believe that any mage for any reason could at any time become a demonic abomination by forcible possession.   However, all the game evidence and game lore seems to show that this simply is not true.  A mage either has to voluntarily let the demon in OR the mage has to deliberately put his own soul in direct jeapordy by entering spiritual combat with the demon (i.e. summoning).  Even the ritual Uldred performed only worked where the veil was thin, where the mage's will had already been beaten down to virtually nothing by conventional torture, and even then it took a powerful, lengthy, and complex bloodmagic mind-control ritual to pull off.

In short, the Chantry's moral claim for the Circle Tower System is dubvious at best.  Indeed based on the Codex Entry "History of the Circle" I would venture that the Divine, Senor Grand Clerics, and even Knight Vigilant know perfectly well the Circle Tower System isn't about abominations or protection at all.  It's about power and control specifically over mages.  The Chantry has made it perfectly clear they'd rather kill all mages then see them free.
Even Wynne says as much.

-Polaris

Abominations is not teh reason Mages are locked away. It is one of them, yes. But it is not the only reason. Magic is the reason they are locked away. Magic in all its aspects.
And sicne you don't seem to realize. In the entry "History of the Circle" there is mention of negotiations between the Chantry and the Mages. Do you know what they talked about? No. Could they indeed have been talking about teh dangers of magic? Yes. Can tehy have talked about a need to segregated mages from society? Yes. Do we know? No. Does the entry thus tell the whole story? No, it does not.

So you are admitting that mages are locked away so the Chantry can control magic?

Thank you.  That's all I wanted to hear......

-Polaris

Uhm... I never said they didn't do just that. I have always been saying they SHOULD do that. Magic is dangerous. It is only logical to lock it away.
But nice job at squirming out of replying to my post.

[Veex]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't parse your objections.  As for "meaningful rate" I admit that linguistically it sounds vague but in principle a number could be put on this.  Frankly I am extremely skeptical that random involuntary abominations happen at all, but I am willing to allow for a one-in-billion chance.  A one-in-billion especially in a midaeval society would not be a meaningful rate I think.  As for "in spite of themselves" what language would you prefer.  My point is that as long as abominations only seem to happen because of an active choice by the mage (unless the Veil is sundered and even then only under extreme duress and mind-control magic that is realistically extremely rare at best) then the non-agression social pact stands (and thus the CIrcle Tower System is morally invalid).

I feel like trying to state a percentage with what little of Thedas' history we can possibly know is a bit futile. Were the number of abominations, blood mages, or other aggressive magics higher before the Chantry was formed? I can't recall exactly, but I was under the impression that during the height of the Tevinter Imperium much of the world of Thedas was ruled by their oppressive magisters.

I think it would be essential to have an accurate history of life preceding and during the Chantry's reign before we can even begin to argue what is just and unjust, much less the percentage of abominations occuring.

[IanPolaris]

Veex wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't parse your objections.  As for "meaningful rate" I admit that linguistically it sounds vague but in principle a number could be put on this.  Frankly I am extremely skeptical that random involuntary abominations happen at all, but I am willing to allow for a one-in-billion chance.  A one-in-billion especially in a midaeval society would not be a meaningful rate I think.  As for "in spite of themselves" what language would you prefer.  My point is that as long as abominations only seem to happen because of an active choice by the mage (unless the Veil is sundered and even then only under extreme duress and mind-control magic that is realistically extremely rare at best) then the non-agression social pact stands (and thus the CIrcle Tower System is morally invalid).

I feel like trying to state a percentage with what little of Thedas' history we can possibly know is a bit futile. Were the number of abominations, blood mages, or other aggressive magics higher before the Chantry was formed? I can't recall exactly, but I was under the impression that during the height of the Tevinter Imperium much of the world of Thedas was ruled by their oppressive magisters.

I think it would be essential to have an accurate history of life preceding and during the Chantry's reign before we can even begin to argue what is just and unjust, much less the percentage of abominations occuring.

Veex,

More information would always be preferable, but I think we can make some observations and some look at some leading indicators from those observations.  You note that Thedas was ruled by oppresive magisters for much of the ancient age, yet they obviously seemed to have little difficulty in dealing with abominations (the magisters were evil for the most part yes, but not insane).

More to the point for nearly 200 years after the Imperium was defeated and the Chantry was an onoging concern (even after the Templars were created even!), it still wasn't considered necessary to place mages in ghettos for public safety.  Mages only got segretated after an open powerplay by an clearly nutty Divine (Ambrosia II) and it was either accept Exile or be slaughtered in an exalted march.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Veex wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't parse your objections.  As for "meaningful rate" I admit that linguistically it sounds vague but in principle a number could be put on this.  Frankly I am extremely skeptical that random involuntary abominations happen at all, but I am willing to allow for a one-in-billion chance.  A one-in-billion especially in a midaeval society would not be a meaningful rate I think.  As for "in spite of themselves" what language would you prefer.  My point is that as long as abominations only seem to happen because of an active choice by the mage (unless the Veil is sundered and even then only under extreme duress and mind-control magic that is realistically extremely rare at best) then the non-agression social pact stands (and thus the CIrcle Tower System is morally invalid).

I feel like trying to state a percentage with what little of Thedas' history we can possibly know is a bit futile. Were the number of abominations, blood mages, or other aggressive magics higher before the Chantry was formed? I can't recall exactly, but I was under the impression that during the height of the Tevinter Imperium much of the world of Thedas was ruled by their oppressive magisters.

I think it would be essential to have an accurate history of life preceding and during the Chantry's reign before we can even begin to argue what is just and unjust, much less the percentage of abominations occuring.

Veex,

More information would always be preferable, but I think we can make some observations and some look at some leading indicators from those observations.  You note that Thedas was ruled by oppresive magisters for much of the ancient age, yet they obviously seemed to have little difficulty in dealing with abominations (the magisters were evil for the most part yes, but not insane).

More to the point for nearly 200 years after the Imperium was defeated and the Chantry was an onoging concern (even after the Templars were created even!), it still wasn't considered necessary to place mages in ghettos for public safety.  Mages only got segretated after an open powerplay by an clearly nutty Divine (Ambrosia II) and it was either accept Exile or be slaughtered in an exalted march.

-Polaris

Back then it was deemed neccesary to outlaw magic entirely. All the mages were allowed to do, was lit the eternal fire. So even back then, Mages and magic were a concern.