No, it's not. Psychopathy is a matter of brain chemistry and structure. That is something you are born with. One can develop mental illnesses that cause their actions to resemble those of psychopaths, but they are not psychopaths.
[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]
I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here. What defines a psychopath is their condition...regardless of whether they obey the law they are still a psychopath; the law I was talking about was not an arbitrary concept, I was talking specifically about the laws their nation upholds. Although psychopaths can also curb their behaviour by bearing in mind "laws" that a parental figure or even they have established that could be as simple as "don't hurt other people". But the only reason a psychopath will follow them is because they believe that there is an either real or even abstract consequence for their breaking. Regardless, one of the characteristics of psychopaths is an almost complete lack of concern for the future. So they still might break them.
[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]
What causes their dangerous behaviour is their own biology. They are incapable of empathy and they have little concern for the consequences of their actions, for others or themselves. They frequently act on impulse; when a human is threatened he has the instinct to respond, often violently, but because of his morality or whatever other reason, he will not respond in that way. If a psychopath is threatened, or irritated, they are liable to respond as violently as their instinct tells them to, without any concern for what will happen to them, or indeed the person they are beating to death.
[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]
I don't mean power in an abstract sense, I mean power in a physical sense. All mages are capable of wondrous and deadly things as an inherent part of their nature. Yes, some are more powerful than others but that just exarcebates the issue. You just need a taste of power. The fact that you are surrounded by people more powerful than yourself will drive you to acquire more power. Yes, this is not the case with ALL mages, but it is natural behaviour. It is what western society lives on, surrounded by people that are richers than you, it expects you to aspire to try and become richer than them.
[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]
Because all mages are powerful...All mundanes are powerless...Mages can wield the Fade, mundanes are merely themselves. They have only abstract power that they create for themselves. Mages have power inherently. Therefore, they are more likely to seek more.
[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]
No. Power corrupts. Whether your personal power is to freeze a man to death by blinking or to make all the decisions for a bann, both are powerful. I know which one I would think demonstrated more power and was more likely to corrupt.
[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]
Can you provide sources for mages not being able to fraternise and that they have barely changed in 1000 years? I find that hard to believe. Feel free to give me an example of one Circle, as we have seen, they vary considerably.
[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]
We differ in our opinions. Blood Magic is massively destructive to all. Summoning a creature of utter malevolence, regardless of whether one can control it or not, is unforgivable. The fact that you are presented with the capability of unwillingly draining the life another person to fuel more destruction, and be able to take over someone's mind. Irrelevant of what that power would do to you, anyone who seeks out that power is unquestionably a terrible individual. That or an incredibly stupid one.
[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]
Yeah what's that? That was no argument to defend what the mages did.
[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]
The Templars are indoctrinated by the Templars. The Knight-Divine supercedes all orders made of the Templars except those made by the Divine herself.
[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]
Templars aren't military. They aren't an army. They are guards and hunters. Wouldn't the Templars being "inspired" be bad for the mages? And I think that the reason the priests are not commanding over the Templars is because the Templars command that the Templars. That is just the way it has always been. The Templar Order consists of Templars are answers to none other than the Divine.
[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]
Yes, even you, the person who has been arguing so fervently in the mages' favour.
[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[
Yeah, that's more or less what I said. At least a year's preparation for the Harrowing.
[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]
Oh, no, the argument is not "there's no point equipping a mage since he's always going to fall victim to a demon", the argument is "there's no point equipping a mage since he's always going to seek out a demon". Mages need to be watched.
[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? <_<
[/quote]
Ugh. I said supervision, they should watch the Harrowing to prevent any zealotry or "over-eagerness" by the Templars.
Modifié par 5trangeCase, 29 avril 2012 - 02:27 .
Retour en haut
Many powerful mages don't even want to destroy the world.
