260 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

Because Demons need a fade connection to "possess" a body, and that can only be established in the fade itself or by another demon or an open act of demonology.

You want to source this? Or is it a conclusion that you've drawn from what you've seen so far? A Mage's action of using magic connects them to the Fade. They don't necessarily need to be *in* the Fade to be connected to it.

[IanPolaris]

In the case of Uldred, Uldred was making the connection to the demon (as part of the demon summoning ritual) and lost the battle of wills. That's much different from a mage walking down the street and suddenly becoming an abomination just because she stubbed her toe which is what DA2 incorrectly would have you believe. (If it were true then humanity never would have survived long enough to form any kind of civilization.)

The bottom line is that somehow the mage and demon have to be in the same world for possession to take place (either in the fade or physical world) or the mage has to specifically open himself up (such as summoning a demon).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

Because Demons need a fade connection to "possess" a body, and that can only be established in the fade itself or by another demon or an open act of demonology.

You want to source this? Or is it a conclusion that you've drawn from what you've seen so far? A Mage's action of using magic connects them to the Fade. They don't necessarily need to be *in* the Fade to be connected to it.

It's repeated over and over again in the DAO lore.  A demon approaches a mage while in the fade.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

In the case of Uldred, Uldred was making the connection to the demon (as part of the demon summoning ritual) and lost the battle of wills. That's much different from a mage walking down the street and suddenly becoming an abomination just because she stubbed her toe which is what DA2 incorrectly would have you believe. (If it were true then humanity never would have survived long enough to form any kind of civilization.)

The bottom line is that somehow the mage and demon have to be in the same world for possession to take place (either in the fade or physical world) or the mage has to specifically open himself up (such as summoning a demon).

-Polaris

Wow.. That doesn't sound like an incredibly stupid (and incorrect) over-simplification to you?

No. DA2 does not try to tell us taht whenever a mage "stubs their toe" as you put it. DA2 tells us that when a  mage experience extreme emotional distress (like Thrask's daughter goes through at the end of her life). THis doesn't contradict ANY sort of lore established previously.

And by the way. Whenever a mage cast ANY sort of spell they interact with the Fade, and are thus at risk. So there you have it. No lore breaking. No contradiction. Just you, and your desire to paint DA2 as anti-mage.

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

I'm not arguing that these antagonists are insane or stupid. My argument is that people in general have the capacity to go insane, make stupid decisions, make senseless conclusions. I think that there are potentially more interesting antaonists than this group, sure. But there is a difference between writing a character to be illogical, and expecting that no person is ever going to act as illogically as said character.

All these mage antagonists who are insane and stupid are illogical - that's the crux of the problem. 

I don't think it's unrealistic for people to act illogically. I don't think it's unrealistic for a *lot* of people to act illogically.

phaonica wrote...

Okay, who are you referring to that is conscious while also in the Fade?

Thrask's daughter and the unnamed mage who is being ganged up on by templars, towards the end of Act III.

Ah, okay, just checking.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And as for your question - a mage needs to lose to a demon (i.e. the Harrowing) or make a deal with the respective demon (i.e. Connor) in order to become possessed.

And if the deal is "holy crap, I'm being attacked and want to be possessed to help me survive!" why does this have to occur in the Fade?

Because a mage needs to deal with a demon, or lose to a demon, in order to be possessed.

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

In the case of Uldred, Uldred was making the connection to the demon (as part of the demon summoning ritual) and lost the battle of wills. That's much different from a mage walking down the street and suddenly becoming an abomination just because she stubbed her toe which is what DA2 incorrectly would have you believe. (If it were true then humanity never would have survived long enough to form any kind of civilization.)

The bottom line is that somehow the mage and demon have to be in the same world for possession to take place (either in the fade or physical world) or the mage has to specifically open himself up (such as summoning a demon).

-Polaris

Wow.. That doesn't sound like an incredibly stupid (and incorrect) over-simplification to you?

No. DA2 does not try to tell us taht whenever a mage "stubs their toe" as you put it. DA2 tells us that when a  mage experience extreme emotional distress (like Thrask's daughter goes through at the end of her life). THis doesn't contradict ANY sort of lore established previously.

Actually that is pretty much exactly what DA2 is trying to tell us.  Of course they DON'T tell us that the Veil is sundered in many places in DA2 and so the player is being given a dishonest view of magic in general as it applies to Thedas, and they don't say that abominations aren't supposed to be summonable (but they are in DA2).  I can go on but why bother. 

And by the way. Whenever a mage cast ANY sort of spell they interact with the Fade, and are thus at risk. So there you have it. No lore breaking. No contradiction. Just you, and your desire to paint DA2 as anti-mage.

Not by expressly piercing the veil and establishing contact with a demon they don't.  THAT is what makes demon summoning so dangerous (and why it requires bloodmagic).  Not all bloodmages are demonoogists but all demonologists are bloodmages.  It's a distinction that (like a lot of things in DA2) gets fuzzed over to make the mages look worse than they really are.  Not all bloodmages summon demons (or want to) but you'd think so if you just played DA2.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's repeated over and over again in the DAO lore.  A demon approaches a mage while in the fade.

That may be, but where is it stated that a demon can only possess a mage while the mage is in the fade?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wow.. That doesn't sound like an incredibly stupid (and incorrect) over-simplification to you?

It's not incorrect to address the lore that's established. We see mages in the Fade at Ostagar, and we read that mages being in the Fade is how the Andrastians were able to kill the Tevinter mages at Aeonar.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No. DA2 does not try to tell us taht whenever a mage "stubs their toe" as you put it. DA2 tells us that when a  mage experience extreme emotional distress (like Thrask's daughter goes through at the end of her life). THis doesn't contradict ANY sort of lore established previously.

Yet the two instances we see this happen, the mages never seemed to enter the Fade, they were still conscious in the real world.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And by the way. Whenever a mage cast ANY sort of spell they interact with the Fade, and are thus at risk.

That contradicts the lore behind why some mages turn to blood magic. Also, the two examples we see in Dragon Age 2 didn't have the mages using magic.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Did either mage seem possessed to you?  Me neither.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

It's repeated over and over again in the DAO lore.  A demon approaches a mage while in the fade.

That may be, but where is it stated that a demon can only possess a mage while the mage is in the fade?

By the lore a Demon can possess a mage that they approach in the fade (which means the mage also has to be in the fade either by being asleep (the usual case) or by projecting himself in the fade), or by being in solid form (in which case he's in the same plane as the mage) or when the mage himself establishes a connection via demonogy....or by the aid of another demon in the physical realm.

That's it.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Did either mage seem possessed to you?  Me neither.

-Polaris

Nor did Anders much of the time... Or Uldred at first for that matter. Or the Baroness. Nor did Kitty after she posssessed the child. Abominations don't all becom deformed monstosities. Nor do they all change the behavorial patern of their host. Some Abominations are evidently quite adapt at staying hidden.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

All these mage antagonists who are insane and stupid are illogical - that's the crux of the problem. 

I don't think it's unrealistic for people to act illogically. I don't think it's unrealistic for a *lot* of people to act illogically.

I don't think it makes for an engaging story to have the protagonist deal with one insane, stupid, and illogical mage antagonist after another.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because a mage needs to deal with a demon, or lose to a demon, in order to be possessed.

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Ella isn't Thrask's daughter, she's the child mage (as Bethany's letter addresses her) who is threatened with tranquility and implied rape by Ser Thrask. And I think these two examples are another example of lore-breaking abominations, as we already know one developer addressed the abominations who came out of the ground as being mere game mechanics.

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Did either mage seem possessed to you?  Me neither.

-Polaris

Do you think I could find a 20 second clip of Anders in which he didn't seem possessed? 

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Did either mage seem possessed to you?  Me neither.

-Polaris

Nor did Anders much of the time... Or Uldred at first for that matter. Or the Baroness. Nor did Kitty after she posssessed the child. Abominations don't all becom deformed monstosities. Nor do they all change the behavorial patern of their host. Some Abominations are evidently quite adapt at staying hidden.

Anders was not a true abomination (per DG not myself btw) and even then he was pretty clearly "possessed" at times and it was easily noticable especially when under stress.  As for Kitty, the little girl post possession is pretty clearly possessed (and has the reverbo voice).  The Baroness was a pride demon that got the unique ability to attain solid form in the physical world and could alter her appearence.  That's not the same thing at all either.  As for Uldred, that's a special case if there ever was one...and there is no reason to think that he was possessed in Ostagar.  In any event, an abomination would not have reacted as those mages did under those conditions.  It think it's pretty clear they were NOT possessed until that lore breaking moment.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

All these mage antagonists who are insane and stupid are illogical - that's the crux of the problem. 

I don't think it's unrealistic for people to act illogically. I don't think it's unrealistic for a *lot* of people to act illogically.

I don't think it makes for an engaging story to have the protagonist deal with one insane, stupid, and illogical mage antagonist after another.

That's fine. I don't either. That doesn't mean they aren't examples of mages who are dangerous to those around them. If I don't think that it is unrealistic for people to be dangerously stupid/insane, then I don't think it's unrealisic for mages to be dangerously stupid/insane.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because a mage needs to deal with a demon, or lose to a demon, in order to be possessed.

So where is it stated that neither Ella nor that unnamed mage in Act III have never been approached by a demon before? Or even that they hadn't already been possessed at some point before?

Ella isn't Thrask's daughter, she's the child mage (as Bethany's letter addresses her) who is threatened with tranquility and implied rape by Ser Thrask.

Gah, you're right, stupid mistake. I meant Thrask's daughter

And I think these two examples are another example of lore-breaking abominations, as we already know one developer addressed the abominations who came out of the ground as being mere game mechanics.

Just because they admitted to breaking lore, and probably broke lore in other places, that doesn't mean that this part of the lore we're arguing is broken. And you didn't answer my question.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:53 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Right.. becasue otherwise you would be proven wrong. And we can't have that. Matter of fact is: Abominations don't all turn into malformed monstrosities. Some of the are quite a dapt at hiding in plain sight. There is no buts of ifs. That is the way the lore works. I don't get why you try so hard to make us think otherwise, sicne the lore has quite clearly shown us that it isn't like what you are claimming.

The only reason "Kitty" is clearly possessed is because we already know she is. Uldred didn't seem possessed when you first talk to him (and there is no reason to think he was a special case within the world of abominations). And the Baroness is a perfect example of how a demon can hide within the form of a human.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

 That's fine. I don't either. That doesn't mean they aren't examples of mages who are dangerous to those around them. If I don't think that it is unrealistic for people to be dangerously stupid/insane, then I don't think it's unrealisic for mages to be dangerously stupid/insane.

However those are the only mage we ever see in DA2 and IMHO it's designed to make mages look worse as a group than they really are to make Meredith's genocidal order at the end seem more palatable.

-Polaris

[Killjoy Cutter]

IanPolaris wrote...
Not all bloodmages are demonoogists but all demonologists are bloodmages.  It's a distinction that (like a lot of things in DA2) gets fuzzed over to make the mages look worse than they really are.  Not all bloodmages summon demons (or want to) but you'd think so if you just played DA2.

So true. 

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

Anders was not a true abomination (per DG not myself btw) and even then he was pretty clearly "possessed" at times and it was easily noticable especially when under stress.  As for Kitty, the little girl post possession is pretty clearly possessed (and has the reverbo voice).  The Baroness was a pride demon that got the unique ability to attain solid form in the physical world and could alter her appearence.  That's not the same thing at all either.  As for Uldred, that's a special case if there ever was one...and there is no reason to think that he was possessed in Ostagar.  In any event, an abomination would not have reacted as those mages did under those conditions.  It think it's pretty clear they were NOT possessed until that lore breaking moment.

-Polaris

And Maretheri's possession was "unique", too I suppose. Funny how nearly every possession we can name is "unique" in some way, yet those two instances are for some reason lore breaking.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Right.. becasue otherwise you would be proven wrong. And we can't have that. Matter of fact is: Abominations don't all turn into malformed monstrosities. Some of the are quite a dapt at hiding in plain sight. There is no buts of ifs. That is the way the lore works. I don't get why you try so hard to make us think otherwise, sicne the lore has quite clearly shown us that it isn't like what you are claimming.

The only reason "Kitty" is clearly possessed is because we already know she is. Uldred didn't seem possessed when you first talk to him (and there is no reason to think he was a special case within the world of abominations). And the Baroness is a perfect example of how a demon can hide within the form of a human.

No, look at the possessed girl again afterwords.  Her voice inflection and manner clearly indicate possession. She has the same "reverbo" unnatural voice that possessed Conner does.  As for the Baroness, she is a DEMON, not an abomination, and she is a Demon that has somehow discovered how to take physical form without needing a body.  If that isn't unique then nothing is.  There is nothing human about the baroness, evil an hidden or otherwise.  There is no reason to think Uldred is possessed at Ostagar especially in light of Nial's eyewitness testimony that saw him get possessed during the failed tower revolt.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

phaonica wrote...

 That's fine. I don't either. That doesn't mean they aren't examples of mages who are dangerous to those around them. If I don't think that it is unrealistic for people to be dangerously stupid/insane, then I don't think it's unrealisic for mages to be dangerously stupid/insane.

However those are the only mage we ever see in DA2 and IMHO it's designed to make mages look worse as a group than they really are to make Meredith's genocidal order at the end seem more palatable.

-Polaris

Fine. So long as you recognize that that is your opinion and not a fact.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Anders was not a true abomination (per DG not myself btw) and even then he was pretty clearly "possessed" at times and it was easily noticable especially when under stress.  As for Kitty, the little girl post possession is pretty clearly possessed (and has the reverbo voice).  The Baroness was a pride demon that got the unique ability to attain solid form in the physical world and could alter her appearence.  That's not the same thing at all either.  As for Uldred, that's a special case if there ever was one...and there is no reason to think that he was possessed in Ostagar.  In any event, an abomination would not have reacted as those mages did under those conditions.  It think it's pretty clear they were NOT possessed until that lore breaking moment.

-Polaris

And Maretheri's possession was "unique", too I suppose. Funny how nearly every possession we can name is "unique" in some way, yet those two instances are for some reason lore breaking.

Meretheri and Uldred were possessed by Pride Demons and very ancient and powerful Pride demons at that.  I'd say that those are unique cases....especially when we note that Audacity (the demon that possesses Meretheri) had been seperated from the Fade for over a thousand years.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

I seem to recall a dev post on the board explainning that the more powerful the demon possessing a mage, the more likely it was to keep the mage host from mutating.

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't think it makes for an engaging story to have the protagonist deal with one insane, stupid, and illogical mage antagonist after another.

That's fine. I don't either. That doesn't mean they aren't examples of mages who are dangerous to those around them. If I don't think that it is unrealistic for people to be dangerously stupid/insane, then I don't think it's unrealisic for mages to be dangerously stupid/insane.

How aren't they examples if people can't take them seriously? They stand out more as examples of bad writing rather than the dangers of magic.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And I think these two examples are another example of lore-breaking abominations, as we already know one developer addressed the abominations who came out of the ground as being mere game mechanics.

Just because they admitted to breaking lore, and probably broke lore in other places, that doesn't mean that this part of the lore we're arguing is broken. And you didn't answer my question.

The fact that the two mages contradict what we've seen at Ostagar, and read about Aeonar, was what I was addressing. The scenes seem designed to illustrate that the mages became abominations right then and there, even though it breaks the lore established in Origins.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The "establsihed lore in Origins" does in no way at all, exclude possession while awake, as an impossibility.