1194 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

There's an intersting double standard. There doesn't seem to be anything about being a Grey Warden that should make a mage less attractive to a demon, or more able to resist a demon

I imagine that short of the Demons being in the physical realm, the taint acts as a nullifier against the usual risks of demonic possession that a Mage must endure. Avernus does claim the Darkspawn taint is alien to the Demons of the Fade.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 27 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

There's an intersting double standard. There doesn't seem to be anything about being a Grey Warden that should make a mage less attractive to a demon, or more able to resist a demon

I imagine that short of the demons being in the physical realm, the taint acts as a nullifier against demonic possession. Avernus does claim the Darkspawn taint is alien to the Demons of the Fade.

I don't remember Avernus claiming that Wardens are immune to possession though.  And the Sloth demon certainly managed to send my Warden to the Fade.  Anders manages to get possessed well enough

Plus, if we're to believe that mages simply won't be able to resist the urge to use their power for destruction, then having the Wardens encourage mages to learn all kinds of battle spells should be a big no-no.

Anyway, I'm not saying that being a Warden should actually make a mage more susceptible to possession.  Only that with the Wardens, Dalish, Rivaini, Chasind and Tevinter all having mages who are free (and even in power in some caes) and not having massive infestations of abominiations that have torn down civilization in the game world...  well, it's a bit hard to believe that it is inevitable if mages are free.  If a single power mad mage could level a city, then why are any circles still standing?  Surely Uldred would have leveled the circle if he could have.

Obviously mages outside the circle and even outside the Chantry influence can learn to resist possession.  They apparently manage to resist the urge to level cities and mind-rape every non-mage in Thedas as well.  There are simply too many free mages in the world for them to be as universally dangerous, psychotic and rampaging as some would have us believe.

[Dave of Canada]

Grey Warden mages aren't immune to possession, however that's why there's rules on how many Grey Warden mages can be active at once.

[Knight Commander]

GavrielKay wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...
I admit mages shouldn't be treated this bad but I agree with they should never be given "total" freedom unless they're in the Grey Wardens.

There's an intersting double standard.  There doesn't seem to be anything about being a Grey Warden that should make a mage less attractive to a demon, or more able to resist a demon.

I just don't see that gamplay and even most lore supports -at all- the Chantry dogma that mages are so dangerous they must be locked up.

Given the number of (foreign or illegal) free mages already running about, if they really were that prone to demon possession or psychotic city-destroying rampages, there wouldn't be anything left of the world to protect.  The roving blood mage gangs in Kirkwall should have leveled the city if it were really that bad.

I meant that the templars can't take them away if they're in the Wardens not that there less likely to be more resistant.

[Knight Commander]

DPSSOC wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

The problem about this war will be that now most of the mages will resort to blood magic and if that happens than if they lose this war (possibly) every single mage that participated will be executed or something like that. Anyways if they want to prove that they're worth being treated as real people then how about this"stop using blood magic".

They will be executed anyway so what is the point. and i dont think the common people care if the mages are use regular magic or. to them mages are bad period. Unless their is a very strong faction willing to aid the mages i see blood magic as inevitable. And why shouldnt they use BM. its proven is effective and unlike what the chantry says it doesnt corrupt people

You are doing harm to someone (yourself or another) solely to increase you power.  That changes you.  Ignoring the obvious slippery slope towards sadism and human sacrifice, you do run into the risk of dehumanization of your fellow man; people stop being people and become batteries.

Heck a small change in my behaviour led me to dehumanize my fellow man and I was just trying to keep to a schedule.

Thank you for answering the question

[dragonflight288]

*shakes head* Wow. Dehumanizing the mages to fit a standard of security....using the exact same arguments various sociopaths used to justify genocide....wait, templars are calling for genocide on a regular basis because their leaders ARE sociopaths.

Granted, mages can be very dangerous, and an untrained mage in a powerful political position can cause a great deal of damage (Connor), but the genius of Bioware made for this situation shows that the whole mage/templar conflict can be viewed in many lenses. Did Connor tear the veil and get possessed due to a lack of training? Most certainly. Does that mean he needed to go to the Circle. Most likely. But it can also be just as easily seen as the desperation of a mother, determined not to lose her son to magic and the Circle. She would be denied all contact with her son and they would lose the heir of Redcliff. She sought him a tutor who could teach him just enough to hide his magic (although Jowan was a terrible choice) and a great deal of the exact same situation could also be blamed on the Chantry and the negative teachings on mages being cursed and hated by the Maker for merely existing. That can make the argument that the Chantry drives people to desperate measures because of its cruelty and dehumanizing of mages, not just mages becoming desperate either.

The situation is very complicated, and I am more than willing to listen to the templars, so long as they are reasonable. But I cannot in good faith support them because Meredith and Lambert both show they are willing to kill hundreds of mages completely innocent of the crimes being committed. Meredith had the guilty man right in front of her. She saw him commit the crime with her own eyes. She used it as justification to kill all the mages of the circle, who had nothing to do with it.

And Lambert wanted to kill all the mages from the beginning (or at least that's the impression I got) but only didn't because of the Divine. But when it became obvious that the head of the religious order he serves wouldn't match his views, he openly rebelled because she wasn't hardcore enough for him and proceeded to try to commit genocide for the crimes most were innocent of.

[GavrielKay]

Knight Commander wrote...
I meant that the templars can't take them away if they're in the Wardens not that there less likely to be more resistant.

I understand.  I just feel that gameplay and a lot of the lore of the game completely undermines any attempt to "prove" that mages are too dangerous to have free will.

One cannot prove that free mages will destroy everything and mind-rape everyone when there are free mages all over the place and society has obviously not crumbled.

Even the obviously "evil" mages like the blood mage gangs and Tarohne and Grace etc barely make a dent in Kirkwall let alone Thedas at large.

[Ryzaki]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Grey Warden mages aren't immune to possession, however that's why there's rules on how many Grey Warden mages can be active at once.

That and even if they were possessed they tend to be travelling with decent/great fighters so if worse comes to worse they can be cut down fairly quickly.

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

There's an intersting double standard. There doesn't seem to be anything about being a Grey Warden that should make a mage less attractive to a demon, or more able to resist a demon

I imagine that short of the demons being in the physical realm, the taint acts as a nullifier against demonic possession. Avernus does claim the Darkspawn taint is alien to the Demons of the Fade.

I don't remember Avernus claiming that Wardens are immune to possession though.  And the Sloth demon certainly managed to send my Warden to the Fade.  Anders manages to get possessed well enough

I never claimed they were immune to possession entirely. And I know Avernus didn't say anything like that either. All he said was that it was alien to the Demons of the Fade.

This guy did go 200 years without being possessed, but whether that was due to him being an exceptionally powerful mage against the demons (he obviously is powerful), never having interacted with them after retreating to research ways to defeat them (since there was a barrier erected), or because of the Taint within his system is an unknown factor.

But I'm leaning to the 2nd option -- the barrier and not having interacted with Demons.

Anyway, I said that they didn't have to worry about demonic possession from anything short of a demon being present in the physical realm -- and additionally, a blood mage summoning demons into hosts. I forgot about that one.

Meaning that they would no longer have to worry about Fade possession, based on what scant information we've been given about the Taint and Mages at the same time. This is what I'm led to believe, as of now.

Of course a Demon in the physical realm will still be able to do things to a Mage. I also never claimed they were barred from the Fade. I claimed that it acted as a nullifier. What I'm saying is that... well... imagine a Tainted Mage being tantamount to a rock to a Demon. They want living hosts, not inanimate objects. So I imagine that the Taint is masking who the Mages really are and the demon isn't sure what the Taint is doing to the Warden, so it doesn't want anything to do with the Mage.

Like... I believe there was a quote by Gaider that said because of what the RoT does, Demons are not easily attracted to the Tranquil because Demons see them as useless targets. They have to be carefully lured to them. More or less, this is the same thing I believe. Obviously, no free will loss and emotion-neutering, but the Taint is making Demons mistake the Warden Mages for being.... well.... uninteresting.

Again, as I'm led to believe based on what scant information there is. And admittedly, there is little more then nothing to go on.

They're not immune to demonic possession nor demonic anything. But from what I know and from what I can surmise, they no longer have to worry about demonic possession from demons present in the Fade. They're shielded, but not immune.

Maybe DAIII will give some revelations on what the Taint does to a Mage.

Plus, if we're to believe that mages simply won't be able to resist the urge to use their power for destruction, then having the Wardens encourage mages to learn all kinds of battle spells should be a big no-no.

Anyway, I'm not saying that being a Warden should actually make a mage more susceptible to possession.  Only that with the Wardens, Dalish, Rivaini, Chasind and Tevinter all having mages who are free (and even in power in some caes) and not having massive infestations of abominiations that have torn down civilization in the game world...  well, it's a bit hard to believe that it is inevitable if mages are free.  If a single power mad mage could level a city, then why are any circles still standing?  Surely Uldred would have leveled the circle if he could have.

Obviously mages outside the circle and even outside the Chantry influence can learn to resist possession.  They apparently manage to resist the urge to level cities and mind-rape every non-mage in Thedas as well.  There are simply too many free mages in the world for them to be as universally dangerous, psychotic and rampaging as some would have us believe.

Oh I don't disagree with everything you're arguing. I've argued as much before. I'm merely trying to posit my own personal theories on what the Taint does to a Warden, based on scant information.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 28 avril 2012 - 06:15 .

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Again, as I'm led to believe based on what scant information there is. And admittedly, there is little more then nothing to go on.

I don't think that Warden mages are allowed freedom because they are any less prone to demon possession.  I think it's because the Grey Wardens predate the Chantry and have enough clout (and ancient treaties) to remain outside Chantry jurisdiction.

Like you say, there isn't a lot of info on it, but that was my take.

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

I don't think that Warden mages are allowed freedom because they are any less prone to demon possession. I think it's because the Grey Wardens predate the Chantry and have enough clout (and ancient treaties) to remain outside Chantry jurisdiction.

Like you say, there isn't a lot of info on it, but that was my take.

Well, I wasn't responding to the "why they are free" question though, but rather just the "Are Warden Mages demon bait still or not?" question.

I know the reason why they're free from the Chantry -- and it's exactly what you said IIRC. But I'm trying to figure out if the Taint grants a Mage additional boons in regards to staving off demons.

At any rate... we have numerous examples of societies that have free mages and are still kicking as well as historical evidence of a time when the Mages were free. So the argument that free mages = Abominations rampant isn't a strong one.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 28 avril 2012 - 06:58 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]5trangeCase wrote...

I maintain that Sten was right. Mages ARE beasts that wear the faces of men.[/quote]
We're all so full of opinions.

[quote]
But they do not realise that they are beasts.[/quote]
So every mage should realize that he/she is a beast just because he/she is a mage? I'd rather tell them that their actions define who they become.

I'd think we'll be headed down a long, dark, and utterly horrible road if we start labeling people as "beasts" merely because of some of the abilities/susceptibilities they're born with.

[quote]
"Mundanes" have the potential to become serial killers, but mundanes can't topple cities with the power of their will alone.[/quote]
Depends on how you define "will." Some "mundanes" get into such positions of power that they can lead whole countries into terrible futures. But, of course, not all mundanes are like that; and, such I assume is also true for the mages.

[quote]
And that can be a mage that isn't possessed by a demon. Power corrupts, and power is intrinsically woven into the skin of every mage. A mage can be a destructive beast without a demon possessing him/her.[/quote]
You're speaking of possibilities in your first and third sentence above. You're speaking about mages who could do such things, and then proceeding ahead to brand all mages as "beasts." I'm afraid there is no sense for me to accept such reasoning.

[quote]
Mages are powerful. Power corrupts. The corruption of power leads one to seek more power. Seeking power leads to blood magic. Blood magic leads to demonic possession.[/quote]
Let's put that theory to the test, shall we?
"Wynne is a powerful mage. Power corrupts. The corruption of power leads Wynne to seek more power. Seeking power leads to blood magic. Blood magic leads to demonic possession." Therefore, Wynne must have become a power-hungry, possessed, blood mage in the end! Makes absolute sense. However, if you read Asunder, I think you'll fast become disillusioned.

Also, consider: not all mages are the same, not all of them can wield the same abilities, not all demons are the same, not all demons are attracted toward all the mages. Not every use of magic equates to wielding "power that leads to corruption" as you're so easily concluding.

[quote]
This is the cycle of the magi.[/quote]
One can go to extreme lengths to make sure that at least some of it becomes true in the end, I suppose, as opposed to it being naturally true, i.e. one can create conditions and circumstances that can lead some mages down exactly that path that you're forging for them. But then I'm afraid you won't achieve absolute success - for, try as you might to drive out all humanity from a mage, you'll still fall short of making him/her a beast.

[quote]
You place Wynne before me. You say that you cannot understand how Sten can believe that with Wynne around him. Wynne has lived in the Circle all her life. The Circle has properly conditioned her so she can master the beast within. Sten knows that there is still a beast inside her, but he won't change his opinion because she isn't a typical mage, she has tamed herself.[/quote]
So she "tamed the beast" within herself or was it largely the Circle's doing? Or perhaps you're saying that the Circle created conditions that allowed Wynne to master her abilities? Which might be somewhat true. If the Circle confined itself to merely doing that, I'd have less of a grouse with it, I suppose. But I believe the Circle to be more than that; and I object to all the things it does that doesn't advance that purpose.

And I'm not so interested in what Sten believes, but rather in why he believes it, what circumstances lead up to such believes, and so on. Also, I don't know what a "typical" mage is.

[quote]
That said, Orsino produced a brilliant argument towards Saarebas at the end of DA2.[/quote]
I also believe Orsino went quite mad toward the end. But what of it? How should that advance the argument for mutilating all mages, the way the qunari do?

Also, one counterexample is sufficient to invalidate a hypothesis. But one example isn't sufficient to validate a hypothesis.

[quote]
What do I believe is the solution? The Circle of Magi, however, I would remove the current hierarchy so there is no position above Knight Templar. The priests of the Chantry should hold all leadership within the Templar order. This is the best effort I believe towards the Gallows never happening again.[/quote]
If priests are in charge of the templar order, then the happenings at the Gallows cannot result ever again? What makes you believe that?

[quote]
On the subject of the Harrowing and the Rite of Tranquility? Let me say first of all that I believe that the Rite of Annulment is a necessary evil that should be available to the representative of the Divine within each Circle.[/quote]
In theory, the RoA is provided as a last-ditch option when all else fails. But one needs to understand why RoA is a dangerous tool to have - decision-making proceeds as much on the whims, prejudices, superstitions of those in charge, as it does based on available facts and reasoning abilities of those deciphering those facts.

Also, it is the Right of Annulment. Not Rite of Annulment.

[quote]
But yes, the Harrowing, I believe that it is a necessary evil. However, I think that all recruits to the Circle of Magi should be given at least a year of study before taking on the Harrowing, and no one younger than the age of 18 should be forced to undergo it.[/quote]
Sounds quite arbitrary to me. And I wouldn't wish such a thing as harrowing on even the person I despise the most. So, there you have my opinion on that.

[quote]
The Tranquils are a necessity, I think. There are mages who volunteer, and it should be a carefully monitored response to failure in the Harrowing.[/quote]
I have nothing against a mage who willfully wants to undergo tranquility. It is his mind, his life, his business. But I object to the dogmatic, unevolving system that perpetually limits the choices that mages have. And, since I object to the very notion of harrowing, I very much also object to any tranquility that comes as a result of that.

[quote]
Again, Chantry supervision is vital.[/quote]
I'm not sure why you added this.

[5trangeCase]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

So every mage should realize that he/she is a beast just because he/she is a mage? I'd rather tell them that their actions define who they become.

I'd think we'll be headed down a long, dark, and utterly horrible road if we start labeling people as "beasts" merely because of some of the abilities/susceptibilities they're born with.

No, I don't think it's a dark road. People are psychopaths because they are born with a condition that defines who they are. Regardless of whether psychopaths gain an understanding of a dogmatic nature of law and abide by it, they are still psychopaths, they are still dangerous. Yes, it's good that they are no longer an immediate danger and that they have found a way to exist within society, that is something we should strive towards, but they are still a hidden danger. A very slight danger, like a mage conditioned by the Circle like Wynne, but a danger nonetheless (Uldred, Orsino). Psychopaths and mages aren't the same, that's not what I'm saying, mages are potentially far more dangerous, but the attitudes towards them are similar.

Depends on how you define "will." Some "mundanes" get into such positions of power that they can lead whole countries into terrible futures. But, of course, not all mundanes are like that; and, such I assume is also true for the mages.

Oh, definitely. You know what's worse? A mage in a position of power. Mages are far more susceptible to an obsession with power than mundanes because they have a taste of power, and most a taste of fear. The fear is never going to go away, like psychopaths, it's something inherent. With psychopaths you know they could decide to kill you in between breaths, with mages, you know that they are able to kill you in between breaths. Not all mages are driven towards power, but you'd have to be a fool not to realise that the proportion is greater than with mundanes.

You're speaking of possibilities in your first and third sentence above. You're speaking about mages who could do such things, and then proceeding ahead to brand all mages as "beasts." I'm afraid there is no sense for me to accept such reasoning.

I said that they  were all essentially beasts from the very beginning. I'm not changing my stance. i was merely saying that they can tame themselves.

Let's put that theory to the test, shall we?
"Wynne is a powerful mage. Power corrupts. The corruption of power leads Wynne to seek more power. Seeking power leads to blood magic. Blood magic leads to demonic possession." Therefore, Wynne must have become a power-hungry, possessed, blood mage in the end! Makes absolute sense. However, if you read Asunder, I think you'll fast become disillusioned.

Also, consider: not all mages are the same, not all of them can wield the same abilities, not all demons are the same, not all demons are attracted toward all the mages. Not every use of magic equates to wielding "power that leads to corruption" as you're so easily concluding.

As I said later on, Wynne was a part of the Circle for decades. She is proof that the Circle works.

All mages have power, therefore they are naturally more susceptible to corruption that mundanes.

So she "tamed the beast" within herself or was it largely the Circle's doing? Or perhaps you're saying that the Circle created conditions that allowed Wynne to master her abilities? Which might be somewhat true. If the Circle confined itself to merely doing that, I'd have less of a grouse with it, I suppose. But I believe the Circle to be more than that; and I object to all the things it does that doesn't advance that purpose.

And I'm not so interested in what Sten believes, but rather in why he believes it, what circumstances lead up to such believes, and so on. Also, I don't know what a "typical" mage is.

A typical mage is a typical mage...it's not hard. And what do you believe that the Circle does that doesn't help mages control themselves? Also, I think it was largely the conditions of the Circle that allowed Wynne to train herself as well as she did.

I also believe Orsino went quite mad toward the end. But what of it? How should that advance the argument for mutilating all mages, the way the qunari do?

Also, one counterexample is sufficient to invalidate a hypothesis. But one example isn't sufficient to validate a hypothesis.

Oh, I'm not saying that it is enough to validate an entire hypothesis, I'm merely saying that it shows that regardless of the time spent in the Circle or the representative position one holds, a mage will still just fall back into the blood magic of a madman. I'm not saying I agree with this argument, but if the Circle doesn't work...You can even ignore Orsino, as soon as the Templar invoked the Right, the first thing the mages did was summon demons.

If priests are in charge of the templar order, then the happenings at the Gallows cannot result ever again? What makes you believe that?

Templars are indoctrinated to hate and fear mages. Chantry Priests are trained to do no such thing. I don't think it will make certain that the Gallows never happens again, that is not what I said. I just think that it is the best measure one has. Mages can't govern themselves, even you must see that.

In theory, the RoA is provided as a last-ditch option when all else fails. But one needs to understand why RoA is a dangerous tool to have - decision-making proceeds as much on the whims, prejudices, superstitions of those in charge, as it does based on available facts and reasoning abilities of those deciphering those facts.
Also, it is the Right of Annulment. Not Rite of Annulment.

I agree. And apologies for my miniscule error, with the Rite of Tranquility, I just assumed.

Sounds quite arbitrary to me. And I wouldn't wish such a thing as harrowing on even the person I despise the most. So, there you have my opinion on that.

It is the best function anyone has for damage control, demon-wise. A mage that survives the Harrowing can kindly be treated as a reduced danger. Unfortunately, creating mages that can defend themselves is pointless, because we have seen they will immediately seek out demons when pressured.

I'm not sure why you added this.

I was referring to supervision of the Harrowing, rather than it just being controlled by the Templars.

Modifié par 5trangeCase, 28 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[The Baconer]

5trangeCase wrote...
Oh, definitely. You know what's worse? A mage in a position of power. Mages are far more susceptible to an obsession with power than mundanes because they have a taste of power, and most a taste of fear. The fear is never going to go away, like psychopaths, it's something inherent. With psychopaths you know they could decide to kill you in between breaths, with mages, you know that they are able to kill you in between breaths. Not all mages are driven towards power, but you'd have to be a fool not to realise that the proportion is greater than with mundanes.

Of course, it is a natural reaction from being born with an inherent potential. Were it possible (assuming it isn't) for a mundane to be given the powers of a mage, would they be any different? This stigma of one's ability to realize their potential is born from mundane envy.

I said that they  were all essentially beasts from the very
beginning. I'm not changing my stance. i was merely saying that they can
tame themselves.

"Tame" of course meaning to conduct themselves at the mundanes' convenience, to willfully bow at the whims of an inferior people. What disgusting slave morality.

Modifié par The Baconer, 28 avril 2012 - 06:11 .

[GavrielKay]

5trangeCase wrote...
Oh, I'm not saying that it is enough to validate an entire hypothesis, I'm merely saying that it shows that regardless of the time spent in the Circle or the representative position one holds, a mage will still just fall back into the blood magic of a madman.

The problem with this argument is that we're dealing with a game world.  The only "facts" here are what the game presents to us in gameplay and lore.  And as far as I can see, there is no support for your statement in either.

There are many free mages in Thedas.  There have been many throughout the game world history.  If mages were actually as prone to all the bad things as you claim there would be no world left.  It simply doesn't add up that mages are that dangerous, that universally corruptible, that bestial...  there would be only a smoking ruin where Thedas used to be.

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

The problem about this war will be that now most of the mages will resort to blood magic and if that happens than if they lose this war (possibly) every single mage that participated will be executed or something like that. Anyways if they want to prove that they're worth being treated as real people then how about this"stop using blood magic".

They will be executed anyway so what is the point. and i dont think the common people care if the mages are use regular magic or. to them mages are bad period. Unless their is a very strong faction willing to aid the mages i see blood magic as inevitable. And why shouldnt they use BM. its proven is effective and unlike what the chantry says it doesnt corrupt people

You are doing harm to someone (yourself or another) solely to increase you power.  That changes you.  Ignoring the obvious slippery slope towards sadism and human sacrifice, you do run into the risk of dehumanization of your fellow man; people stop being people and become batteries.

Heck a small change in my behaviour led me to dehumanize my fellow man and I was just trying to keep to a schedule.

Doing harm to oneself is a person's personal business.  It shouldn't even be part of the equation.  And it isn't done SOLELY to incerase your own power.  

What happens when a mage is in the middle of a fight, has taxed their lyrium-based mana?  Should they just give themselves over to death rather than resort to their own blood in order to continue fighting?  Grey Warden Mages would be a good example of this.  Is a mage to simply give up and die rather than use blood to fuel their spells in order to take down darkspawn?

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...
I meant that the templars can't take them away if they're in the Wardens not that there less likely to be more resistant.

I understand.  I just feel that gameplay and a lot of the lore of the game completely undermines any attempt to "prove" that mages are too dangerous to have free will.

One cannot prove that free mages will destroy everything and mind-rape everyone when there are free mages all over the place and society has obviously not crumbled.

Even the obviously "evil" mages like the blood mage gangs and Tarohne and Grace etc barely make a dent in Kirkwall let alone Thedas at large.

It's also been claimed that alternative methods of keeping mages in check has been tried on a national level and failed, "proving" that only the Circle provides any solution at all, and this simply is not true. 

[Silfren]

5trangeCase wrote...

A typical mage is a typical mage...it's not hard.

Uh, no.  You said that Wynne is not a typical mage.  Since you brought it up, it is on you to define what you mean by a "typical" mage, and "a typical mage is a typical mage" is a bull**** political non-response.

[5trangeCase]

Silfren wrote...

5trangeCase wrote...

A typical mage is a typical mage...it's not hard.

Uh, no.  You said that Wynne is not a typical mage.  Since you brought it up, it is on you to define what you mean by a "typical" mage, and "a typical mage is a typical mage" is a bull**** political non-response.

Ok...a typical mage is someone who is born with magical talent. Nothing more, nothing less. They have not been influenced in any way by any outside school of thought or discipline. They are not a person, they are an idea, quite simply, they are a mage.

[Silfren]

5trangeCase wrote...

Silfren wrote...

5trangeCase wrote...

A typical mage is a typical mage...it's not hard.

Uh, no.  You said that Wynne is not a typical mage.  Since you brought it up, it is on you to define what you mean by a "typical" mage, and "a typical mage is a typical mage" is a bull**** political non-response.

Ok...a typical mage is someone who is born with magical talent. Nothing more, nothing less. They have not been influenced in any way by any outside school of thought or discipline. They are not a person, they are an idea, quite simply, they are a mage.

What?!  How on earth do you think this fantasy-based hypoethetical can make a solid case for anything? 

The mages of Thedas are not ideas, they are living, breathing persons.  They aren't philosophical ideas in books.  In that scenario, there's no such thing as a typical mage under your definition, as ALL mages are products of their environment, whether within Circles, or mages struggling to live free of Circles, or mages who live in societies that do not have Circles, but which see the rest of the world living with the Circle mage/apostate binary.  

Modifié par Silfren, 28 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[GavrielKay]

5trangeCase wrote...
Ok...a typical mage is someone who is born with magical talent. Nothing more, nothing less. They have not been influenced in any way by any outside school of thought or discipline. They are not a person, they are an idea, quite simply, they are a mage.

From the lore, it seems that magical ability doesn't manifest itself until around puberty...  maybe a bit younger.  By that time a person has been heavily influenced by their family, friends and environment in general.  They might have been born into a family that is devoutly Andrastian or Dalish or in Tevinter or into the Qun - any of which will play into how they react to developing magical ability.

It might be convenient to lump all mages together and call them "typical" but it doesn't ring true.

[DPSSOC]

Silfren wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...
The problem about this war will be that now most of the mages will resort to blood magic and if that happens than if they lose this war (possibly) every single mage that participated will be executed or something like that. Anyways if they want to prove that they're worth being treated as real people then how about this"stop using blood magic".

They will be executed anyway so what is the point. and i dont think the common people care if the mages are use regular magic or. to them mages are bad period. Unless their is a very strong faction willing to aid the mages i see blood magic as inevitable. And why shouldnt they use BM. its proven is effective and unlike what the chantry says it doesnt corrupt people

You are doing harm to someone (yourself or another) solely to increase you power.  That changes you.  Ignoring the obvious slippery slope towards sadism and human sacrifice, you do run into the risk of dehumanization of your fellow man; people stop being people and become batteries.

Heck a small change in my behaviour led me to dehumanize my fellow man and I was just trying to keep to a schedule.

Doing harm to oneself is a person's personal business.  It shouldn't even be part of the equation.  And it isn't done SOLELY to incerase your own power.

You misunderstand me, I'm not demonizing the act of choosing to harm yourself.  However you can't claim that choosing to start doing so, as an everyday practice, won't change you.  Furthermore it is solely about increasing your power.  Circumstances and motivations, why you need/want more power, may vary but as far as blood magic is concerned the act of harming yourself or someone else is entirely about acquiring more power.

Silfren wrote...
What happens when a mage is in the middle of a fight, has taxed their lyrium-based mana?  Should they just give themselves over to death rather than resort to their own blood in order to continue fighting?  Grey Warden Mages would be a good example of this.  Is a mage to simply give up and die rather than use blood to fuel their spells in order to take down darkspawn?

Fine examples, and I'm not saying that blood magic is bad all the time, but there's a difference between using blood magic as a matter of general practice and using it as a matter of necessity.  I'm not arguing against the use of blood magic, I'm arguing against the idea that you can start down that road and not be affected by it.  A good example of what I'm talking about is Avernus.  What were his fellow Wardens, his "volunteers" to him?  Nothing, a means to an end, through them he could master the taint and increase his longevity and hopefully find a way to defeat the demons he'd set loose.  He wasn't out to hurt people for it's own sake, he wasn't murdering people just to fuel some need for power, he just stopped seeing them as allies, colleagues, or friends and saw them as subjects.

That is the danger, that is the corruption, that blood magic, while it doesn't create it, feeds.  It's not that blood magic turns good men into monsters, it's that eventually you've got to ask yourself; if you view your own life force as disposable, a resource to be tapped as often and as deeply as necessary, then what value does anyone else's hold?

[TEWR]

@ Silfren and GavrielKay: I think you two might get a kick out of what I just read, should one refuse to do the quest Justice.

I can not turn on my templars, on the very words of Andraste for fear. No matter how justified that fear might be. -- Grand Cleric Elthina

I just read this on the wiki and Elthina will apparently flat out state that she'll support the Templars despite what they're doing.

DPSSOC wrote...

Nothing, a means to an end, through them he could master the taint and increase his longevity and hopefully find a way to defeat the demons he'd set loose.  He wasn't out to hurt people for it's own sake, he wasn't murdering people just to fuel some need for power, he just stopped seeing them as allies, colleagues, or friends and saw them as subjects.

Avernus didn't use them to master the taint and increase his longevity. At least not in his own body. He was trying to awaken the latent powers within the Taint that was in the Wardens' bodies. By day 82-93, he had killed them all but had succeeded in his goal to find new powers from the Taint.

The longevity was purely through using blood magic on himself.

Not that I'm completely disagreeing with what you're stating, but I would also take note of the fact that we don't know enough to draw a definitive conclusion on whether they were willing or if he was just a bastard.

We have implications that he was a bastard, but that's pretty much due to the presence of cages. It's a strong implication, but that's all it is. For all we know he managed to convince them to willingly be a part of his experiments, seeing as how it seems that he was the lead authority on blood magic, demons, and the Taint at Soldier's Peak.

More then likely, yes he was a bastard to his friends. But there's still the possibility that he wasn't one, even if it's a small possibility.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]5trangeCase wrote...

No, I don't think it's a dark road.[/quote]
I think you're wrong.

[quote]People are psychopaths because they are born with a condition that defines who they are.[/quote]
I'm no expert in psychology, but isn't that only partly true, or even presumed to be partly true? Circumstances, personal experiences, environment all would define a person's mental make up in the end; it's not just what a person is born with.

[quote]
Regardless of whether psychopaths gain an understanding of a dogmatic nature of law and abide by it, they are still psychopaths, they are still dangerous.[/quote]
They could be dangerous because they could pose a threat to the lives of others, more than anything else. Following some arbitrary "laws" implies more than that, meaning that's not what defines a psychopath.

[quote]
Yes, it's good that they are no longer an immediate danger and that they have found a way to exist within society, that is something we should strive towards, but they are still a hidden danger.[/quote]
All the more reason for the rest not to let down their guards. The thing with the psychopaths is that what causes their dangerous behavior is often times rooted in irrationality, something that is presently believed they cannot control - I confess to knowing very little on the subject, though.

[quote]
A very slight danger, like a mage conditioned by the Circle like Wynne, but a danger nonetheless (Uldred, Orsino). Psychopaths and mages aren't the same, that's not what I'm saying, mages are potentially far more dangerous, but the attitudes towards them are similar.[/quote]
Actually, the attitudes toward mages is somewhat similar to those shown toward wild animals in the zoo. The same cannot be said for attitudes against psychopaths, unless they actually manifest their dangerous behavior. That is the difference.

[quote]
Oh, definitely. You know what's worse? A mage in a position of power. Mages are far more susceptible to an obsession with power than mundanes because they have a taste of power, and most a taste of fear.[/quote]
Some mages in the position of power (you're using the word in so many senses) could abuse it, true, as in the magisters of Tevinter. A mage wielding dangerous spells and causing mayhem is a different proposition, and it'd do us good to keep in mind that not all mages can wield that kind of magical power. Many of the mages could be weaklings, for all we know. Generally, it is any kind of "organized enitity" that can cause great deal of grief - individuals can rarely do that.

Also, a little bit of clarification regarding why, not all mages and not all possessions are the same - not every mage can wield higher level spells/magic. Not everyone has an aptitude for it. Similarly, not every demon is interested in every mage, meaning although weaker-willed mages might tend to attract demons easily, they tend to attract weaker demons, and the abominations tend to have lesser power in the mortal realm. Powerful demons look for influential positions within the mortal realm - which is why Connor (the son of an Arl, who attracted a desire demon from across The Fade) or Uldred (an influential Senior Enchanter, who attracted a pride demon) were their targets. So what you said earlier, "that mages can topple cities" isn't true even if he/she becomes possessed.

[quote]
The fear is never going to go away, like psychopaths, it's something inherent. With psychopaths you know they could decide to kill you in between breaths, with mages, you know that they are able to kill you in between breaths. Not all mages are driven towards power, but you'd have to be a fool not to realise that the proportion is greater than with mundanes.[/quote]
Nope, why would I think that? Where is the evidence that shows that mages, by proprtion, are so power-hungry that you're making them out to be? Such comparisons are to me rather meaningless - and I'm not willing to accept the logic that just because some mages might wield dangerous spells, most mages are automatically power-hungry.

[quote]I said that they  were all essentially beasts from the very beginning. I'm not changing my stance. i was merely saying that they can tame themselves.[/quote]
I'm not asking you to change your stance - far from it. I'm just finding it really hard to swallow the statement that "mages are essentially beasts from the very beginning" since what defines a beast is how it behaves, not because it's born with some pre-condition.

[quote]
As I said later on, Wynne was a part of the Circle for decades. She is proof that the Circle works.[/quote]
I could make an argument that Wynne is a strong-willed mage who did not fail at the Circle, despite what I think are the Circle's many shortcomings.There could be more examples like her, but the point is that her case, in and of itself, isn't proof that the Circle works.

[quote]
All mages have power, therefore they are naturally more susceptible to corruption that mundanes.[/quote]
Generally, isn't it meant that having power "over others" is what actually causes the corruption, not being powerful in and of itself?

[quote]
A typical mage is a typical mage...it's not hard.[/quote]
You brought up "typical mage" in the context of mages who've not yet mastered (in your words, "tamed") their talents, unlike Wynne. I'll consider that as the definition for now.

[quote]
And what do you believe that the Circle does that doesn't help mages control themselves? Also, I think it was largely the conditions of the Circle that allowed Wynne to train herself as well as she did.[/quote]
The Circle system was set up with the explicit purpose of protecting the non-mages from mages and vice versa. It was done at a time when the Inquisition (the precursors to the present-day templars and seekers) were running amok, hunting down all mages. The Chantry intervened and organized a truce between them, giving mutual protection as the reason for forming the Circle. That was the Circle's orignal intention, and I largely see the sense in it.

Over time, it has become a rigid entity, not evolving itself to be geared toward the new realities. In fact, it has become a power-hierarchy, where the templars are routinely brainwashed to dominate over the mages, where magic is proclaimed to be a curse, where the general public is kept largely in the dark, and under the illusion that the Circle is keeping them safe, so as to reduce their own guard. (I believe the public has to better arm itself against the constant threat of mages, in the longer run.)

Coming to the treatment of mages. As I described earlier, it is little more than capturing a wild animal and bringing it into the zoo (the only difference is that mages aren't set up for show). Things such as the RoA, harrowing, set up after the inception of the Circle (I'm guessing about the harrowing), does little to inspire confidence in the mages to join voluntarily - a grave mistake by one single mage dooms them all in the case of RoA. So the concept of a "mage" as a collective entity is actually being forced by this system, binding one mage to the collective, and holding him generally responsible for the actions of his counterparts.

The numbers of the mages are being articificially controlled. By not allowing them to fraternize within the Circles, by cutting them off from the general public and from their families, they are mostly not allowed to choose partners in life.

Little to nothing has been done over the ages to advance the knowledge regarding the nature of The Fade and magic. I'd think it's crucial to know what one is up against, but here we are, approximately 1000 years later, with essentially the same set of dogmatic understanding as in the days of the inception of the Chantry.

At least that is some of it.

[quote]Oh, I'm not saying that it is enough to validate an entire hypothesis, I'm merely saying that it shows that regardless of the time spent in the Circle or the representative position one holds, a mage will still just fall back into the blood magic of a madman.[/quote]
Blood magic for self-defense is acceptable in my book. Blood magic is only bad when the quest is to seek to gain power for the purposes of malicious intentions, and when it leads to possession and demon-summoning which the mage would not be able to control later. It is another question whether a mage would stop at that initial stage of self-defense itself, but goes on to use it to do harm. Then there is a case to stop him/her.

[quote]
I'm not saying I agree with this argument, but if the Circle doesn't work...You can even ignore Orsino, as soon as the Templar invoked the Right, the first thing the mages did was summon demons.[/quote]
What were the templars expecting? For the mages to to fall dead at their command? Kirkwall is a templar stronghold, the mages were outnumbered and didn't have a fighting chance, and the RoA was invoked without just cause. All were ingredients for disaster, which is what ensued.

[quote]
Templars are indoctrinated to hate and fear mages. Chantry Priests are trained to do no such thing.[/quote]
Aren't the templars indoctrinated by the Chantry? By the very same priests you want to give more power to? Perhaps a partial solution is for the priests actually to stop telling the templars that they have a right of domination over mages.

[quote]
I don't think it will make certain that the Gallows never happens again, that is not what I said. I just think that it is the best measure one has.[/quote]
Not really. A priest can never lead a military-hierarchy. He doesn't have the aptitude for it; he'll never inspire confidence or fear or obedience, which is what such positions generally require. It mostly wouldn't work, which is why I believe the priests are not commanding over the templars.

[quote]
Mages can't govern themselves, even you must see that.[/quote]
I generally think of mages as individuals, each one distinct from the other. I do not advocate setting up any sort of power structures or governing bodies. Although, I find it amusing that you said "even you."

[quote]
I agree. And apologies for my miniscule error, with the Rite of Tranquility, I just assumed.[/quote]
I meant it most as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Sometimes it tends to incite people.

[quote]
It is the best function anyone has for damage control, demon-wise. A mage that survives the Harrowing can kindly be treated as a reduced danger.[/quote]
The point is that there is nothing kind about the harrowing itself. And I honestly believe it sets up false hopes, if it reduces one's guard in the longer run. In any case, I believe others have suggested what I think are better altenatives. One of them was to allow a senior enchanter to accompany his apprentice into The Fade for the first few times, monitor his apprentice, train him on the field, and protect him from danger. A test would probably need to be done eventually when the fledgling would need to go into The Fade alone, to face the demon on his own, but only once he's had the confidence and ability to handle such matters. When such a thing happens, and the apprentice still fails, then one'd be left with no option but to either kill the resulting abomination, or resort to tranquility. At least, that is somewhat better, I think.

[quote]
Unfortunately, creating mages that can defend themselves is pointless, because we have seen they will immediately seek out demons when pressured.[/quote]
It is all about reducing the probability of things going wrong, to allow mages a chance in the world, which cannot happen if the mages aren't trained. Advancing an argument that "there is no point in properly equipping a mage since he is anyway going to fall victim to a demon" is plainly ridiculous. Having said that, I agree that there is no certainty, in any case. But... who knows, if you build up sufficient trust in a mage, he might be standing beside you, laying down his own life to protect yours - against an abomination, a darkspawn, a qunari, you name it.

[quote]
I was referring to supervision of the Harrowing, rather than it just being controlled by the Templars.[/quote]
Priests aren't equipped to deal with demons, more likely they'd bolt at the first sign of danger. What good would that do to anyone? <_<

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

@ Silfren and GavrielKay: I think you two might get a kick out of what I just read, should one refuse to do the quest Justice.

I can not turn on my templars, on the very words of Andraste for fear. No matter how justified that fear might be. -- Grand Cleric Elthina

I just read this on the wiki and Elthina will apparently flat out state that she'll support the Templars despite what they're doing.

I don't think that is what she meant, although taken out of context that sentence is hard to understand. I think she said that she won't support the mages over the templars, which is consistent with her stance that she won't take sides.