[quote]5trangeCase wrote...
No, it's not. Psychopathy is a matter of brain chemistry and structure. That is something you are born with.[/quote]
But since the composition and structure of the brain itself is also determined by one's lifelong experiences (constantly provided by one's sense-apparatus in reaction to external stimuli), probably as much as, or, more accurately, on top of one's genetic make-up, I know for certain that what you're saying is only part of the equation. So, at this point, the least you can do is point me to some research data that objectively verifies what you're saying.
[quote]One can develop mental illnesses that cause their actions to resemble those of psychopaths, but they are not psychopaths.[/quote]
Again, what determines whether one is a psychopath or not is largely based on that person's observable behavioral patterns. Whether that is caused by one's generic make-up or whether that is influenced in some way by childhood trauma, some mental disease, etc., doesn't change the fact that one has exhibited psychopathic tendencies. Largely, I'm willing to bet that current science cannot in certaintly answer what actually causes psychopathy.
[quote]I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here.[/quote]
I missed a "not" at the beginning of the second sentence. Not getting too much into it, I think a better word than "law" is "morality," not because it's any less arbitrary, but because it fits the situation better, in my opinion.
[quote]What defines a psychopath is their condition...
<big snip>[/quote]
I'm thinking the conversation is becoming sidetracked at this point, if it has not already become so. Keeping that in mind, I'm going to address some things selectively.
[quote]What causes their dangerous behaviour is their own biology.[/quote]
There is a case to be made that all behavior is caused by one's biology. What is not entirely clear is what exactly determines one's "current" biological compositon (the functioning of the brain, for instance).
[quote]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.[/quote]
Probably the essential point here is that a psychopath's reaction is out of proportion to the threat he is facing. If a person threatens another in such a way that it is apparent to the latter that he's going to lose his life, then a violent response from the latter is what is to be naturally expected. Even though this is glaringly obvious, I think it needs to be said.
Now, let's get back to some basics: to what made you bring up psychopathy in the very first place. I have some disagreements there, which I should note again. The issue is that a psychopath is identified on the basis of his violent behavior. One does not diagnose him to be a psychopath based on his brain chemistry - it is based on violent behavior, or based on some crime, or some such. The action precedes the categorization; and the categorization itself is along negative lines, because he is known to have exhibited at least one case of psychotic behavior (or perhaps he has a history, which I believe is more how the categorization works).
A mage may not have exhibited any destructive behavior, other than having shown an aptitude for doing magic. Howerver, you'd still categorize him as a "beast." That is the fundamental difference between the two, and it is a substantial difference. You said that the attitude toward mages is the same as that toward psychopaths, while they may not be similar in fact. So I'd have to question the rationale of the person having such an attitude, rather than discussing the merits of such comparisons.
[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.[/quote]
To do what, exactly? You make any "power" sound like some kind of narcotic.
[quote]The fact that you are surrounded by people more powerful than yourself will drive you to acquire more power.[/quote]
Really? That's how you feel? That's... illuminating. So I'm guessing you might be avoiding any such associations. In any case, wouldn't that be a good argument against putting all mages in one place; since the lesser mages would automatically aspire for more power, simply looking at the more powerful ones? Or is there something wrong with what you're saying?
[quote]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]
I'm somewhat lost here. So, being rich is akin to having "power," in your mind, which must eventually lead to corruption? What I know for certain is that being rich surely increases one's "purchasing power." As I said earlier, you're using the word "power" in different senses, and taking them all down the road of "power corrupts."
[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]
Your whole argument all this while has simply been this: having power (of whatever nature) would naturally lead one to seek more of it, and abuse it (since the one wielding the said "power" becomes corrupted by it). Why would one buy into such an argument, I wonder.
[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]
Good for you then. I'm not following you down that road. I'd rather analyze the each situation, for whatever it is worth, before making up my mind.
[quote]Can you provide sources for mages not being able to fraternise[/quote]
Here. I think I might have drawn some inferences that perhaps aren't true. The point remains that a mage is left at the mercy of the arbitrary dictates of whoever's in charge - whose permission the mage has to seek to marry, and so on.
[quote]and that they have barely changed in 1000 years?[/quote]
I cannot substantiate this fully, but I indirectly concluded this. There is a
particular reference to how the Chantry doesn't allow research into demonic possession. I've indicated my disgust toward harrowing earlier (although I'm not sure when harrowing actually came to be). The RoA has been carried out some 18 times in 700 years (that is all mages in some 18 Circles have been annihilated, down to the last mage), and we've been part of a couple of them ourselves. Tranquility - the efficacy and morality of which is apparently being questioned only now, by the present Divine herself. I belive these are all actions/solutions that are brought about by one's fears and dogmatic beliefs. My contention is that there has to be significant effort to seek for better methods, better tools to handle the threats at hand, which so far I've not seen in the game world.
[quote]I find that hard to believe. Feel free to give me an example of one Circle, as we have seen, they vary considerably.[/quote]
Asunder (the latest novel by David Gaider) takes you into the world of the White Spire. Other than that a playthrough with the mage origins in DA:O might help, although I've not done it myself.
[quote]We differ in our opinions.[/quote]
And not just on this. And more likely in our attitudes also.
[quote]Blood Magic is massively destructive to all. Summoning a creature of utter malevolence, regardless of whether one can control it or not, is unforgivable.[/quote]
It has not yet been established that blood magic always involves demons.
[quote]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.[/quote]
What you perhaps need to consider is that not all blood magic is the same, and a mage doing blood magic might be using his own blood. What you're looking at are narrow applications of the field and damning blood magic as a whole.
[quote]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]
If you mean summoning demons for the explicit purpose of destroying others or for manipulating their minds, then I agree. I'd even agree with you if one merely summons a demon out of curiosity, without thinking of consequences.
[quote]Yeah what's that? That was no argument to defend what the mages did.[/quote]
Here's the thing, which I frankly think you're somehow unable to comprehend: I'd dare not tell a mage who is about to die unjustly, what actions he may or may not take to defend his own life. I'd instead question the nature of the system that has been set up apparently to defend mages from harm, as much as to defend others from the potential harm by mages. I'd question what the system has corrupted itself into, to force mages into such desperate situations. Bear in mind that I'm addressing only the particular situation you brought up.
[quote]The Templars are indoctrinated by the Templars.[/quote]
There might be some truth to that, yes. I'm largely basing my opinions on how Cullen mentions in DA2 that templars have a "divine" right of domination over mages. I do not remember whether he mentioned the Chantry, however. Also the templars are recruited from among those who have an unshakable belief in the Maker, whatever that means. Then again, knowing the templars are being routinely indoctrinated, the Chantry doesn't seem to be willing to change them.
[quote]The Knight-Divine supercedes all orders made of the Templars except those made by the Divine herself. [/quote]
There are things we don't know about the templar hierarchy, but, from what we do know, the seekers have authority over the templars.
[quote]Templars aren't military. They aren't an army. They are guards and hunters.[/quote]
Briefly, templars are the military arm of the Chantry. You can look it up on the wiki (easily googled). That they are guards and hunters is also true.
[quote]Wouldn't the Templars being "inspired" be bad for the mages?[/quote]
Pray, tell me. Inspired in what way?
[quote]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]
That is also true. But then again, how would priests commanding over the templars really help? I mean, apart from some vague reference to being inspired?
[quote]Yes, even you, the person who has been arguing so fervently in the mages' favour.[/quote]
Were my arguments merely biased toward mages, or was I arguing against the current system, which I think is flawed? Of course, you can believe whatever you want - I really cannot help you with that.
[quote]Yeah, that's more or less what I said. At least a year's preparation for the Harrowing.[/quote]
If what I said is what you also believe, then, sure. At least we agree to a degree, although my intention was to state that a continual improvement in the procedure (and to improve the conditions of mages) is necessary - one doesn't stop and say, "yes, this is the best we can do."
[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".[/quote]
There is a subtle difference between the two, sure, but neither of those can be substantiated from what we do know - for we only know about mages we've seen.
[quote]Mages need to be watched.[/quote]
Right. Watch them all you want. At least, just don't treat them like beasts from the start; treat them like beasts and beasts are what you're gonna get in the end.
[quote]Ugh. I said
supervision, they should watch the Harrowing to prevent any zealotry or "over-eagerness" by the Templars.[/quote]
Zealotry and over-eagerness? What, to kill? What the templars actually do during harrowing is watch over the mage's body when he is in The Fade, and when they spot any signs of possession they immediately and ruthlessly act. I'll ask again: what good could a priest do in such a situation, if at all he sticks around till the end?
Retour en haut
