EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The "establsihed lore in Origins" does in no way at all, exclude possession while awake, as an impossibility.
It does in the way it was done in DA2 though.
-Polaris
If Anders had not been responsible would this have changed your view?
Débuté par
Gervaise
, sept. 28 2011 07:42
#151
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 08:25
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
It does in the way it was done in DA2 though.
-Polaris
Retour en haut
#152
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 08:39
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
No it doesn't.
Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 septembre 2011 - 08:39 .
#153
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 08:45
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No it doesn't.
Sure it does and Lob has patiently explained why it does.
-Polaris
#154
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 08:46
Gervaise
-
- Members
- 4 532 messages
Just putting in my two pennies. Thrask's daughter is called Olivia by the way - may be they were trying to give you an alternative source for 'O' in those letters to Quentin (though how a young apprentice could have got those books is questionable) I know she died in Act 1 and Quentin is Act 2 but that lair of his was pretty messy so who knows how long that message had been there. Anyway I digress.
I think it was pretty clearly established in DAO that mages could be dangerous and there were definite dangers if a young mage was left to manage for themselves as might well happen when a family tried to hide them without sufficient knowledge to train them. This might lead you to think that the Circle was the only way. However, this was balanced out by showing Morrigan, who seemed to have a healthy respect for demons having been trained by someone who was herself in some way possessed. Even the mage who was tortured into accepting possession by Uldred actually had to consciously agree to it.
Most of the mages I encountered in DA2 I could accept as being the way the were as a result of the thinness of the fade and their own stupidity in their interaction with it. Since quite a number of non mages also seemed a little unhinged, it might be assumed that the location was at fault rather than just the mages. You could even argue that was why the Arishok finally flipped after previously seeming one of the saner inhabitants of the city. On the other hand, if Hawke was a mage, why were they immune to the effects when no one else was?
The bit that I too found one step too many was the idea that you simply had to put a mage under emotional pressure and they would become possessed, almost sub-consciously. If that were the case, then if mages were generally free they would be going off bang all over the place, because the Dragon Age world is a brutal place. In any case, how far is considered to be sufficient to push them over the edge. A child being badly bullied by its peers might be under a great deal of emotional stress - are we to believe that they would then be at risk of possession? Or a mage being attacked by, say, wolves, instead of Templars? Neither Olivia or that mage at the end were using magic at the time so there was no obvious contact with the Fade (apart from the thin veil). I for one would like the developers to clarify on this one because if the impression given by DA2 is correct then you could argue mages would be better off cloistered from the world for their own safety as much as anyone else's because I assume that the majority of mages do not want to become abominations and there are too many potential emotional triggers encountered elsewhere.
I think it was pretty clearly established in DAO that mages could be dangerous and there were definite dangers if a young mage was left to manage for themselves as might well happen when a family tried to hide them without sufficient knowledge to train them. This might lead you to think that the Circle was the only way. However, this was balanced out by showing Morrigan, who seemed to have a healthy respect for demons having been trained by someone who was herself in some way possessed. Even the mage who was tortured into accepting possession by Uldred actually had to consciously agree to it.
Most of the mages I encountered in DA2 I could accept as being the way the were as a result of the thinness of the fade and their own stupidity in their interaction with it. Since quite a number of non mages also seemed a little unhinged, it might be assumed that the location was at fault rather than just the mages. You could even argue that was why the Arishok finally flipped after previously seeming one of the saner inhabitants of the city. On the other hand, if Hawke was a mage, why were they immune to the effects when no one else was?
The bit that I too found one step too many was the idea that you simply had to put a mage under emotional pressure and they would become possessed, almost sub-consciously. If that were the case, then if mages were generally free they would be going off bang all over the place, because the Dragon Age world is a brutal place. In any case, how far is considered to be sufficient to push them over the edge. A child being badly bullied by its peers might be under a great deal of emotional stress - are we to believe that they would then be at risk of possession? Or a mage being attacked by, say, wolves, instead of Templars? Neither Olivia or that mage at the end were using magic at the time so there was no obvious contact with the Fade (apart from the thin veil). I for one would like the developers to clarify on this one because if the impression given by DA2 is correct then you could argue mages would be better off cloistered from the world for their own safety as much as anyone else's because I assume that the majority of mages do not want to become abominations and there are too many potential emotional triggers encountered elsewhere.
#155
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 08:51
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
The problem is is if DA2 is correct the human civilization (or humanity and elves in general) should have never survived because the primitive world is even more brutal than Thedas of today, and that means you should have had mages going "meatball" pretty much every generation in every tribe....no one would have survived! Even if they did, you would expect to see a univerasl hatred and mistrust of magic like the Qunari have, and you do not. Even with humans you do not...the Chantry had to manufacture it in the wake of an Empire ruled by bloodmages after a thousand years of religious indoctrination.
-Polaris
-Polaris
#156
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:44
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
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
So does every single possession that we can name break the "established lore"? Edit: That is every possession that we know significant details of.
Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 09:46 .
#157
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:46
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
phaonica wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
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
So does every single possession that we can name break the "established lore"?
Those two do and for valid reasons I've already specified. Both cases you mention are unique.
-Polaris
#158
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:52
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
You don't take them seriously because you refuse to recognize that human weakness/stupidity is part of the reason why mages are dangerous. And because you think mages being dangerous contradicts the lore.LobselVith8 wrote...
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.
Neither the mages at Ostagar nor Aeonar prove that mages can only be possessed while their consciousnesses are in the fade.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.
#159
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:53
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Those two do and for valid reasons I've already specified. Both cases you mention are unique.
-Polaris
No they don't. They do not break established lore any more or less than every other possession we see in the game, for the valid reasons I've already specified.
#160
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:55
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
The lore is well established. A demon can only take over a mage if:
1. The mage allows it OR the mage fails a battle of wills against a summoned demon.
2. The spirit of the mage is in the same plane as the demon OR the mage deliberately opens himself up (again by summoning a demon).
That's pretty much it. DA2 plays fast and loose with a lot of lore just to make the mages look worse than they really are. It's especially notworthy that not all maleficar summon demons, but you'd think so if you just played DA2.
-Polaris
1. The mage allows it OR the mage fails a battle of wills against a summoned demon.
2. The spirit of the mage is in the same plane as the demon OR the mage deliberately opens himself up (again by summoning a demon).
That's pretty much it. DA2 plays fast and loose with a lot of lore just to make the mages look worse than they really are. It's especially notworthy that not all maleficar summon demons, but you'd think so if you just played DA2.
-Polaris
#161
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 09:56
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
phaonica wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Those two do and for valid reasons I've already specified. Both cases you mention are unique.
-Polaris
No they don't. They do not break established lore any more or less than every other possession we see in the game, for the valid reasons I've already specified.
You haven't specified any valid reasons.
-Polaris
#162
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:02
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
The lore is well established. A demon can only take over a mage if:
1. The mage allows it OR the mage fails a battle of wills against a summoned demon.
2. The spirit of the mage is in the same plane as the demon OR the mage deliberately opens himself up (again by summoning a demon). [/quote] And you still haven't sourced either of these things. We know that these are ways a demon can be summoned, but we don't know if they are the *only* ways.[/quote]
The lore is well established. A demon can only take over a mage if:
1. The mage allows it OR the mage fails a battle of wills against a summoned demon.
2. The spirit of the mage is in the same plane as the demon OR the mage deliberately opens himself up (again by summoning a demon). [/quote] And you still haven't sourced either of these things. We know that these are ways a demon can be summoned, but we don't know if they are the *only* ways.[/quote]
#163
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:03
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
phaonica wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Those two do and for valid reasons I've already specified. Both cases you mention are unique.
-Polaris
No they don't. They do not break established lore any more or less than every other possession we see in the game, for the valid reasons I've already specified.
You haven't specified any valid reasons.
-Polaris
Validity is a matter of opinion, it seems.
#164
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:11
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
The problem is is if DA2 is correct the human civilization (or humanity and elves in general) should have never survived because the primitive world is even more brutal than Thedas of today, and that means you should have had mages going "meatball" pretty much every generation in every tribe....no one would have survived!
That is entirely possible. However, that doesn't make it lore breaking.
#165
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:15
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
phaonica wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
The problem is is if DA2 is correct the human civilization (or humanity and elves in general) should have never survived because the primitive world is even more brutal than Thedas of today, and that means you should have had mages going "meatball" pretty much every generation in every tribe....no one would have survived!
That is entirely possible. However, that doesn't make it lore breaking.
Actually it does. If the world described in the lore can not exist, then there is a lore violation/inconsistancy somewhere. In this case it's obvious. Mages are not nearly as prone to becoming abominations (and/or abominations are nearly as dangerous) as the Chantry (and Bioware) want you to think.
-Polaris
#166
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:30
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Mages are not nearly as prone to becoming abominations (and/or abominations are nearly as dangerous) as the Chantry (and Bioware) want you to think.
-Polaris
So the Mages which Bioware created could not possibly be as dangerous as Bioware says they are in the world that Bioware created?
#167
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:33
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
No. Because that would collide with what Polaris is trying to make us believe. And of course, Polaris is the highest authority in Thedas lore.
#168
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 10:47
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
phaonica wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Mages are not nearly as prone to becoming abominations (and/or abominations are nearly as dangerous) as the Chantry (and Bioware) want you to think.
-Polaris
So the Mages which Bioware created could not possibly be as dangerous as Bioware says they are in the world that Bioware created?
Actually yes. Either Bioware is wrong or the world is fundamentally inconsistant to the point where it breaks willing suspension of disbelief. Without willing suspension of disbelief you have no story, only epic fail.
So yes, Bioware is constrained by their own lore and by basic logic and consistancy if they want to be taken seriously.
-Polaris
#169
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 11:05
EmperorSahlertz
-
- Members
- 8 809 messages
Huh? So BioWare can't decide how dangerous mages are, in a world they have created? Who do you think you are?! To even think that you are justfied to make such a claim, is unbelievably arrogant.
BioWare has compelte control over their own world. They (and by god only they, and certainly not you) are the final and ONLY authority on how mages are in their world.
Countless works of fantasy have had extremely unrealistic premisses. Like for instance how any sort of civilization eer developed with creatures the like of Dragons to prey on humans. But that is acceptable, simply becasue that is the way it is. Also, countless other fantasy works have had mages infinitly more dangerous than the amges Thedas presents (Warhammer Fantasy jumps to mind), yet their society also developed just fine.
IT IS FICTION. If you can't accept a work of fantasy's premisses honestly, then the fantasy genre is nothing for you.
BioWare has compelte control over their own world. They (and by god only they, and certainly not you) are the final and ONLY authority on how mages are in their world.
Countless works of fantasy have had extremely unrealistic premisses. Like for instance how any sort of civilization eer developed with creatures the like of Dragons to prey on humans. But that is acceptable, simply becasue that is the way it is. Also, countless other fantasy works have had mages infinitly more dangerous than the amges Thedas presents (Warhammer Fantasy jumps to mind), yet their society also developed just fine.
IT IS FICTION. If you can't accept a work of fantasy's premisses honestly, then the fantasy genre is nothing for you.
#170
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 11:10
phaonica
-
- Members
- 3 435 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Actually yes. Either Bioware is wrong or the world is fundamentally inconsistant to the point where it breaks willing suspension of disbelief. Without willing suspension of disbelief you have no story, only epic fail.
So yes, Bioware is constrained by their own lore and by basic logic and consistancy if they want to be taken seriously.
-Polaris
Your natural rights are facts, and your conclusions are the only ones that any educated and moral person would make. You are the highest authority on not only real life philosophy, sociology, politics, history, etc in both the real world and Bioware's world, neither of which you made. And you make possibly the most condescendingly arrogant arguments I have seen on this board so far. I'm finished with this argument. Get over yourself.
Modifié par phaonica, 30 septembre 2011 - 11:11 .
#171
Posté 30 septembre 2011 - 11:24
Killjoy Cutter
-
- Members
- 6 005 messages
Part of the problem is that DA:O and DA2 show us a different level of danger and risk in magic, and we only get the skeleton of an explanation as to why.
#172
Posté 01 octobre 2011 - 12:59
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
I think Origins barely showed the risk of magic, any mages you'd meet were somehow nice and kind + the dangers of Connor were completely accidental and could be "cured" with help of the Circle of Magi. The worst mages you'd meet weren't "evil" because of their abilities to do whatever the hell they want, they were "evil" because they were just bad people (slaver/ect/ect). The Templar seem almost pointless when watching the Circle except for a mean of mages telling you how bad they are.
Dragon Age 2 did a good job of showing what people with incredible power would do, it shows you some good mages and shows you that mages can be equally deranged as normal people. They've also shown how bad Templar could be, otherwise we wouldn't have people consider Kirkwall the worst Circle to be at.
In Origins, mages were little innocent snowflakes that had to be freed because they did no harm with magic.
In Dragon Age 2, mages are "normal" people and can be equally insane and stupid.
Dragon Age 2 did a good job of showing what people with incredible power would do, it shows you some good mages and shows you that mages can be equally deranged as normal people. They've also shown how bad Templar could be, otherwise we wouldn't have people consider Kirkwall the worst Circle to be at.
In Origins, mages were little innocent snowflakes that had to be freed because they did no harm with magic.
In Dragon Age 2, mages are "normal" people and can be equally insane and stupid.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:00 .
#173
Posté 01 octobre 2011 - 01:05
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
I think Origins barely showed the risk of magic, any mages you'd meet were somehow nice and kind + the dangers of Connor were completely accidental and could be "cured" with help of the Circle of Magi. The worst mages you'd meet weren't "evil" because of their abilities to do whatever the hell they want, they were "evil" because they were just bad people (slaver/ect/ect). The Templar seem almost pointless when watching the Circle except for a mean of mages telling you how bad they are.
Dragon Age 2 did a good job of showing what people with incredible power would do, it shows you some good mages and shows you that mages can be equally deranged as normal people. They've also shown how bad Templar could be, otherwise we wouldn't have people consider Kirkwall the worst Circle to be at.
In Origins, mages were little innocent snowflakes that had to be freed because they did no harm with magic.
In Dragon Age 2, mages are "normal" people and can be equally insane and stupid.
We don't meet a single NPC mage that isn't an insane idiot in DA2. Even DG admitted they went overboard there.
-Polaris
#174
Posté 01 octobre 2011 - 01:15
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
We don't meet a single NPC mage that isn't an insane idiot in DA2. Even DG admitted they went overboard there.
-Polaris
"Sane" Mages:
Feynriel
Bethany
Alain
Emile (though he's insane if he thought anybody would hook up with him without trying to get into his money)
Ella
Solivitus
Total: 5(6).
"Sane" Templar:
Thrask
Wesley
Cullen (though by most of your standards, he doesn't fit here)
Agatha
Emeric
Total: 4(5).
Oh dear, it looks like both sides are almost identical. Oh no, the poor mages!
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:16 .
#175
Posté 01 octobre 2011 - 01:28
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 987 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
We don't meet a single NPC mage that isn't an insane idiot in DA2. Even DG admitted they went overboard there.
-Polaris
"Sane" Mages:
Feynriel
Bethany
Alain
Emile (though he's insane if he thought anybody would hook up with him without trying to get into his money)
Ella
Solivitus
Total: 5(6).
"Sane" Templar:
Thrask
Wesley
Cullen (though by most of your standards, he doesn't fit here)
Agatha
Emeric
Total: 4(5).
Oh dear, it looks like both sides are almost identical. Oh no, the poor mages!
Keran for the Templars, and I'd also add into it Olivia (Thrask's daughter) who spontaneously became an Abomination for no reason. Prior to that, she was sane. There's also Merrill and personally I'll throw in Orsino prior to him going all Harvestino for no reason for the pro-mage people.
