1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight Commander]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

So if an apostate is corned after killing a whole family they can use blood magic?

Wow.   Just . . . wow.

If I were you I'd stop.

It's an example. Is there a problem here
Oh and how about you read the rest of what I said and then give me a good reason to "stop".

Modifié par Knight Commander, 20 mai 2012 - 12:58 .

[dragonflight288]

So if an apostate is corned after killing a whole family they can use blood magic? NO it doesn't make it ok and have you seen what an abomination is why do you think it's called one. Also using your own blood for power is just evil, look at the stuff mages do with that power. I never said Meredith was not "normal" before the sword but im willing to bet that none of this would of happend if she was her old self. No we can't know anything about the other regions, it is Biowares job to tell us what is happening we have absolutly no idea. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absesnce" is just rubbish its a videogame Bioware will most likely not add big events about other countries. Lastly Tevinter has slaves look how much Fenris hates the mages they were not nice "owners".

You may say it's an example...please point out in the game where a mage killed an entire family and then resorted to blood magic after getting hunted down? The templars are needed for rogue mages, no question.

But when Meredith ordered the death of every man, woman, and child in the Circle, from the elderly to young children for an act that none of them did, you can't blame them for being desperate.

Meredith was looking for an excuse to annul the circle, and at the time she forces the champion to choose who to support, at that very moment, there is no proof whatsoever that any of the mages inside the circle are evil blood mages or abominations. They were driven to desperation by an army of zealots ready to murder them all in cold blood.

How's that for a reason. When a mage is a criminal, you'll find every mage supporter is all for calling in the templars and hunting them down. When the templars are the ones killing mages for doing nothing....

[Silfren]

Knight Commander wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

If a first enchanter will turn into a "abomination" and use blood magic willingly means I can never trust another mage again. It proves they're just ticking time bombs, if backed into a corner they will resort to blood magic or turn into a abomination. No normal human, elf, or dwarf has that kind of "last resort option". Blood magic is illegal for a reason. Orisno evens betrays you after you support him. Now I know I will get some "disapproving responses", but compared to Meredith he is more wrong than she ever was (before being corrupt by the red lyrium sword). I also felt that I needed to repay her after she saves your life in the end of act 2. Also even you guys know that she would have not attacked you if you supported the templars at the end if she never had that red lyrium sword. Last thing we have know idea what is "really" going on in all the other countries/provinces whatever you want to call them so don't try to back up your statements with them.

If you have a problem with mages turning to blood magic or turning into abominations when backed into a corner, the solution would probably be to...not back them into a corner.

Seriously, why do so many people think there's something wrong with a mage resorting to desperate measures when pushed into a desperate situation? 

Expecting a mage to adhere to certain rules of morality that EVERYBODY is expected to live by in order to make society possible, that's one thing.  But expecting a mage to die in order to prove how moral they are...that's not reasonable in the least.  You simply cannot point to what a mage does when pushed to the extreme limits of desperation, and claim it proves that they cannot be trusted in a more ordinary situation. 

No, I don't know that Meredith wouldn't have turned on my Hawke without the lyrium sword.  We didn't play that story, it doesn't exist; but we do have lore that points to Meredith being extreme even before the sword showed up.  It is not unreasonable to think she would have decided to turn on us at the end--especially a Mage!Hawke. 

We CAN actually point to other regions to back up our statements.  Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  That may change in the future, when and if we see other parts of Thedas, but going with what we have now, there are plenty of reasonable assumptions that could be made.  The utter lack of abominations pouring out of Tevinter is nothing but a giant refutation of Chantry propaganda. 

So if an apostate is corned after killing a whole family they can use blood magic? NO it doesn't make it ok and have you seen what an abomination is why do you think it's called one. Also using your own blood for power is just evil, look at the stuff mages do with that power. I never said Meredith was not "normal" before the sword but im willing to bet that none of this would of happend if she was her old self. No we can't know anything about the other regions, it is Biowares job to tell us what is happening we have absolutly no idea. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absesnce" is just rubbish its a videogame Bioware will most likely not add big events about other countries. Lastly Tevinter has slaves look how much Fenris hates the mages they were not nice "owners".

Being cornered after killing a whole family is something of a different matter from being cornered JUST for being a mage outside of the Circle.  The two situations are in no way comparable.  And any thinking person knows damn well the second situation is the one I had in mind.  Of course I don't think it's okay for a mage to simply be permitted to go on a killing rampage for the sheer love of killing.  

Until we have more information, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the lack of any news about Tevinter or any other society of free mages being reduced to a smoking ruin, and the utter lack of any abominations or demons streaming into Ferelden or Kirkwall from such locales, means that neither of those things is happening. 

We are told time and again that mages are so unstable and so prone to possession, that any free mage is a catastrophe waiting to happen, and that this justifies the Circle.  Therefore it DOES follow that if we are to take that as a fact, we should be hearing reports of disaster from Tevinter, Rivain, and other places with free mages.  We do not, and therefore we can reasonably guess that the problem is not so big as we've been led to believe.  It is not quite so simple as "well we don't know because the writers haven't told us."  Yes, that is true.  HOWEVER, for the setting, within the story, it absolutely DOES follow that we would expect to hear regular news about problems from Tevinter if the danger were as dire and ever-pressing as the Chantry would have us believe.  You can bet the Chantry and its templars would leap upon the chance to have real, tangible proof.

Your final sentence is has nothing to do with the rest of my points.  Whether or not Tevinter practices slavery, Fenris hates mages, and slave-owning mages are nice people...none of those things are relevant to what I was discussing. 

Edit: Wanted to point out something:  Dragon Age is not merely a video game.  It is a a story, told through the vehicle of a video game.  And the wonderful thing about stories is that we can glean as much information about what's going on in the world from what is NOT said as we can from what is.  Quite frankly sometimes silence on an issue speaks louder than anything else.  It is on that basis that it can be asserted that mages aren't so dangerous as we've been told: there are free mages all over the damn place, in societies where mages are free, apostates hiding themselves in societies where they are not, and mages who are able to live free because they've gained special dispensation through some means.  It does rather stand to reason that if mages were ticking time bombs, that being wealthy would be irrelevant, as would being the Hero of Ferelden or a Companion of the Hero of Ferelden.  It's not enough to say "oh well we just don't know whether Tevinter has problems or not because the Devs haven't told us."

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[TEWR]

Knight Commander wrote...

Lastly Tevinter has slaves look how much Fenris hates the mages they were not nice "owners".

Of course they weren't. The Magisters enslave everyone, mage and non-mage alike.

Tevinter is a society that since its inception has been built on the premise of "We rich folk can do everything and abuse the poor who do what we are too lazy to do".

The rest of Thedas has abandoned that idea. You'll encounter a few sects that still believe Tevinter is the right way to go, but the majority of Thedas -- Mage and non-mage alike -- believe that Tevinter is never the answer.

I'll never understand how a person can claim a mage is automatically wrong if he's forced into a desperate situation with no grounds for that situation in the first place.

You push us into desperate acts and then use that as evidence against us! -- Orsino

If a person is going to abuse, rape, and threaten a Mage until they become an Abomination just to justify your stance that "Mages are bad", then the Mage is hardly at fault. A Mage only has a few options in those situations:

1) Continue to be abused
2) Kill themselves
3) Turn to blood magic to defend themselves, where they'll either be made Tranquil or killed because let's face it... a Mage's word would probably be less then ****.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Lastly Tevinter has slaves look how much Fenris hates the mages they were not nice "owners".

Of course they weren't. The Magisters enslave everyone, mage and non-mage alike.

Tevinter is a society that since its inception has been built on the premise of "We rich folk can do everything and abuse the poor who do what we are too lazy to do".

The rest of Thedas has abandoned that idea. You'll encounter a few sects that still believe Tevinter is the right way to go, but the majority of Thedas -- Mage and non-mage alike -- believe that Tevinter is never the answer.

I'll never understand how a person can claim a mage is automatically wrong if he's forced into a desperate situation with no grounds for that situation in the first place.

You push us into desperate acts and then use that as evidence against us! -- Orsino

If a person is going to abuse, rape, and threaten a Mage until they become an Abomination just to justify your stance that "Mages are bad", then the Mage is hardly at fault. A Mage only has a few options in those situations:

1) Continue to be abused
2) Kill themselves
3) Turn to blood magic to defend themselves, where they'll either be made Tranquil or killed because let's face it... a Mage's word would probably be less then ****.

Re: the underlined portion.  This is actually a not-too-uncommon attitude you'll see in real life.  There are some people who honestly believe that it's always wrong to do something labeled in non-desperate situations as immoral, even when its the only way to save your life or someone else's life.  It definitely has its roots in absolutist religious morality (even in people who won't admit it, because it's often an unconcious internalization), an expression of the idea its better to die a saint than live as a sinner.  You may die, but at least you'll be rewarded in heaven for your morality, and looked upon favorably as a hero of morality by the people who get to deal with your corpse.  It's where you'll find people who make no distinction between different sorts of killing--it's always murder, even when done in self-defense.

Thank all thats holy more progressive societies don't apply absolutist morality to their justice systems.

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[dragonflight288]

@ Etheral

to build up on what Silfren said.

Having studied philosophy for a short while at college, I can explain a few of the philosophies that would say even if you're in a desperate situation, it would be better to do nothing because they believe a greater harm would occur if someone did something in survival.

Take Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Essentially, if it's perfectly fine for someone to do it to you, then it's also perfectly fine for you to do it to someone else. And if it's immoral for it to be done to you by someone else, then it is also immoral for you to do it to anyone else. No exceptions.

Kant outright said lying is forbidden, because part of the imperative is treating every man, woman, and child with respect and as people with their own opinions. The moment you use them, whether for a greater good or for your own personal ambition, it's no longer moral. And lying, even for good causes, is using someone for your own ends, so we ought not lie, ever.

Not my personal beliefs, but I've studied enough philosophy to be aware of those kinds of beliefs in the world, and why people would see it as such.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Mostly snipped...

Not my personal beliefs, but I've studied enough philosophy to be aware of those kinds of beliefs in the world, and why people would see it as such.

Philosophy is great stuff, ain't it?  Although if I never have to study the Shadow Cow Allegory of the Cave again, I'll die a happy, happy woman.

This morning I read a great essay comparing the Circle system of Thedas with Foucalt's theory on asylums.  Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out.

[Knight Commander]

Well i didn't expect all these reply's so soon haha, but using my first example was probably not the best one so i apologize. Though I never thought every mage was evil heck I like them I just agree with the templars more after having fenris in my party and him telling me all this terrible stuff it made me dislike mages a lot more. Same with the magistrates son in act 1 there was no demon controlling him he did it because he was insane. I still agree with most of what I said but I can man up and say that you guys did catch me on some stuff that I exaggerated so all I can say is good job mates.
PS I still like templars more but that is just one opinion and Meredith as i said before she would have never done what she did if it wasn't for that sword.

Modifié par Knight Commander, 20 mai 2012 - 06:17 .

[Silfren]

Knight Commander wrote...

Well i didn't expect all these reply's so soon haha, but using my first example was probably not the best one so i apologize. Though I never thought every mage was evil heck I like them I just agree with the templars more after having fenris in my party and him telling me all this terrible stuff it made me dislike mages a lot more. Same with the magistrates son in act 1 there was no demon controlling him he did it because he was insane. I still agree with most of what I said but I can man up and say that you guys did catch me on some stuff that I exaggerated so all I can say is good job mates.
PS I still like templars more but that is just one opinion and Meredith as i said before she would have never done what she did if it wasn't for that sword.

You cannot categorically say that Meredith would have acted differently without the sword, since we didn't play that game.  If you are so convinced, it would make sense to offer an argument as to why, rather than to just keep repeating the claim over and over. 

Re: the magistrate's son.  You say yourself there was no demon involved, so why do you mention him here?  He has no relevance to the question of mages, not being a mage himself.

Fenris's commentary on mages applies to a specific environment of mages, not mages throughout the world.  One can hardly expect Fenris not to be biased--I don't fault him for his hatred of mages, but I also understand that it is indeed biased.  It is not in the least bit reasonable or logical to look at his opinion of mages in Tevinter and apply it to mages throughout the world.

[Knight Commander]

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Well i didn't expect all these reply's so soon haha, but using my first example was probably not the best one so i apologize. Though I never thought every mage was evil heck I like them I just agree with the templars more after having fenris in my party and him telling me all this terrible stuff it made me dislike mages a lot more. Same with the magistrates son in act 1 there was no demon controlling him he did it because he was insane. I still agree with most of what I said but I can man up and say that you guys did catch me on some stuff that I exaggerated so all I can say is good job mates.
PS I still like templars more but that is just one opinion and Meredith as i said before she would have never done what she did if it wasn't for that sword.

You cannot categorically say that Meredith would have acted differently without the sword, since we didn't play that game.  If you are so convinced, it would make sense to offer an argument as to why, rather than to just keep repeating the claim over and over. 

Re: the magistrate's son.  You say yourself there was no demon involved, so why do you mention him here?  He has no relevance to the question of mages, not being a mage himself.

Fenris's commentary on mages applies to a specific environment of mages, not mages throughout the world.  One can hardly expect Fenris not to be biased--I don't fault him for his hatred of mages, but I also understand that it is indeed biased.  It is not in the least bit reasonable or logical to look at his opinion of mages in Tevinter and apply it to mages throughout the world.

Alright so in act 2 Meredith saves your life and acts like a normal person but when she gets that sword you can just tell that she has changed. Even though she did not like the mages she was more cruel to them than she was before and even if you sided with the templars she becomes jealous of you and treats you like dirt. Yes Meredith was a not a great person but you get to know her if playing someone who supports templars. I read somewhere that the magistrate and his son were both mages so thats why I said that. You mentioned Tevinter and so I replied by saying that Fenris hated them. Tevinter is a big majority of the mages he even says that behind closed doors all the mages use blood magic for power. He told me this when I brought him to the gallows in act 1 btw.  He even said that their leader whatever the rank is called uses blood magic. Also i'm not labeling every mage in the world bad the post before this I even said I liked them.

Modifié par Knight Commander, 20 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[Silfren]

Knight Commander wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Well i didn't expect all these reply's so soon haha, but using my first example was probably not the best one so i apologize. Though I never thought every mage was evil heck I like them I just agree with the templars more after having fenris in my party and him telling me all this terrible stuff it made me dislike mages a lot more. Same with the magistrates son in act 1 there was no demon controlling him he did it because he was insane. I still agree with most of what I said but I can man up and say that you guys did catch me on some stuff that I exaggerated so all I can say is good job mates.
PS I still like templars more but that is just one opinion and Meredith as i said before she would have never done what she did if it wasn't for that sword.

You cannot categorically say that Meredith would have acted differently without the sword, since we didn't play that game.  If you are so convinced, it would make sense to offer an argument as to why, rather than to just keep repeating the claim over and over. 

Re: the magistrate's son.  You say yourself there was no demon involved, so why do you mention him here?  He has no relevance to the question of mages, not being a mage himself.

Fenris's commentary on mages applies to a specific environment of mages, not mages throughout the world.  One can hardly expect Fenris not to be biased--I don't fault him for his hatred of mages, but I also understand that it is indeed biased.  It is not in the least bit reasonable or logical to look at his opinion of mages in Tevinter and apply it to mages throughout the world.

Alright so in act 2 Meredith saves your life and acts like a normal person but when she gets that sword you can just tell that she has changed. Even though she did not like the mages she was more cruel to them than she was before and even if you sided with the templars she becomes jealous of you and treats you like dirt. Yes Meredith was a not a great person but you get to know her if playing someone who supports templars. I read somewhere that the magistrate and his son were both mages so thats why I said that. You mentioned Tevinter and so I replied by saying that Fenris hated them. Tevinter is a big majority of the mages he even says that behind closed doors all the mages use blood magic for power. He told me this when I brought him to the gallows in act 1 btw.  He even said that their leader whatever the rank is called uses blood magic. Also i'm not labeling every mage in the world bad the post before this I even said I liked them.

You're saying that NOW, but you weren't saying it before, so you can hardly blame me for calling you out when your posts DID very much lump all mages together and made logical fallacies in regards to mage behavior. Also, just bringing up that Fenris hates Tevinter because someone MENTIONS Tevinter is...kind of silly, if what Fenris thinks is irrelevant to the point being made.

it's important to understand that Fenris is speaking from a position of contempt when he says what he does about mages and blood magic.  He has no f*cking clue at all what mages will act like outside of Tevinter.  It is the whole of his experience with mages prior to meeting up with Hawke, so it makes sense for him to believe that all mages will ultimately turn to blood magic, because that's what he's seen in a land where slavery is legal and there are no restrictions to prevent magical abuses...but it doesn't mean he's right. When he makes his comment about blood magic he isn't relating a fact he objectively knows to be true, but blurting out a biased, emotionally-laden opinion.

Anyway, about Meredith.  I note that you say she acts like a normal person.  I must point out that a person doesn't have to be insane to be extremely paranoid and take an extremist position.  There is no reason to suggest that simply because she "acts like a normal person" in one scene that that means she totally would not have called for the Right of Annulment without the sword. 

We hear PLENTY about Meredith being excessive in her brutality toward the mages before the lyrium idol is even found.  There's a reason why a lot of people think that the finale could have gone exactly the same way without the idol--Meredith's pre-existing and well-known aggressive stance on mages, and her paranoia, would have been sufficient to provide for a character who ultimately believed that she was surrounded by blood mages and blood mage thralls.  Some of the bits of lore about her personality and extremism take place before the Deep Roads expedition and before Bartrand has the idol.  So it is not inconceivable in the least that she could have snapped without it to drive her insane.  We see that that was precisely Taraohne's plan, after all--to infiltrate the templar ranks and sow chaos to the point that Meredith didn't know who to trust. 

Far as I know, the only thing you learn about Meredith by siding with the templars is that her background made her a really sh!tty choice for a Knight Commander.  So no, I don't agree.  I think the idol exacerbated existing paranoia.  And given that she doesn't go REALLY insane until the very end, I'm not sure that it can be claimed she would have not called for the Right of Annulment without the idol.  We do see mentions that she had already called for it previously, and we have no idea, I think, just when she got her hands on the idol, so we can't assume she called for Annulment only after she got it.

[John Renegade]

You see, I understand that people may see the circle as a bad idea for the various reasons mentioned, however even though many here are 'moderates' and do not openly want mages to roam free without any supervision, I can't see how even that proposed supervision could work without causing any trouble.

By supervision. you mean 'being able to go where I wish to, like any other citizen, while being under guard', right? Well, how will you then deal with a situation when a mage is sitting in a pub, peacefully drinking his beer, just like many other people there do, all the while being surrounded by his templar buddies (and he might actually consider them to be his friends) and suddenly he turns into an abomination - maybe even under the influence of a pride demon.

This abomination starts to wreck everything in its way, bringing the whole pub down and killing several bystanders, while templars are trying to destroy it. How would you justify deaths of those civilians? By pointing out the right of mages to be 'free'?

And what if the templars didn't manage to put that abomination down? It could just freely wander the local village or city, instead of being contained to the circle tower.

This situation would occur fairly frequently and I see no way you could prevent that from happening.


P.S.: If you try to counter-argument by saying that 'freedom isn't free' and for example our civilization had to accept the risk of death by a car crash to be able to reap the benefits of quick travel, I would like to point out that the decision to take that risk was made by the passengers, not the car companies.

Similarly, mages don't get to decide whether they pose an 'acceptable' risk. That's the job of the common citizens, the civilian bystanders in that pub, who got their guts torn apart against their will.

Modifié par John Renegade, 20 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

You see, I understand that people may see the circle as a bad idea for the various reasons mentioned, however even though many here are 'moderates' and do not openly want mages to roam free without any supervision, I can't see how even that proposed supervision could work without causing any trouble.

By supervision. you mean 'being able to go where I wish to, like any other citizen, while being under guard', right? Well, how will you then deal with a situation when a mage is sitting in a pub, peacefully drinking his beer, just like many other people there do, all the while being surrounded by his templar buddies (and he might actually consider them to be his friends) and suddenly he turns into an abomination - maybe even under the influence of a pride demon.

This abomination starts to wreck everything in its way, bringing the whole pub down and killing several bystanders, while templars are trying to destroy it. How would you justify deaths of those civilians? By pointing out the right of mages to be 'free'?

And what if the templars didn't manage to put that abomination down? It could just freely wander the local village or city, instead of being contained to the circle tower.

This situation would occur fairly frequently and I see no way you could prevent that from happening.


P.S.: If you try to counter-argument by saying that 'freedom isn't free' and for example our civilization had to accept the risk of death by a car crash to be able to reap the benefits of quick travel, I would like to point out that the decision to take that risk was made by the passengers, not the car companies.

Similarly, mages don't get to decide whether they pose an 'acceptable' risk. That's the job of the common citizens, the civilian bystanders in that pub, who got their guts torn apart against their will.

You posit a scenario of a mage RANDOMLY turning into an abomination, and assert that it WOULD happen frequently.  The problem is that many of us reject this premise, not seeing that it is a likely scenario based on the available lore.

[John Renegade]

So what is the available lore? Mage can get possessed in his sleep while being in the same pub, maybe catching his templar friends by even bigger surprise... it could theoretically happen to you if you failed your harrowing.

EDIT: Oh, and what is the point of harrowing then, if the mages cannot get possessed in unpredictable situations? What are those exact situations when a mage can get possessed? Where do you take that certainty? Any quotes?

Modifié par John Renegade, 20 mai 2012 - 07:58 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

You posit a scenario of a mage RANDOMLY turning into an abomination, and assert that it WOULD happen frequently. The problem is that many of us reject this premise, not seeing that it is a likely scenario based on the available lore.

Indeed. I believe David Gaider said that -- short of a demon being in the physical realm where it can forcibly possess someone or summoned by a blood mage, where it can do the same thing -- an Abomination can only be created through a verbal bargain.

meaning a Mage has to go "Sure demon, I'll hand my body and soul over to you! Come on in!"

And those generally only happen when the Mage is placed in such desperate circumstances that they don't care anymore -- like Olivia and the Mage at the endgame.

So unless the demon has a physical presence -- be it through crossing the Veil or being summoned by blood magic -- an Abomination can only be created through a willing bargain.

John Renegade wrote...

So what is the available lore? Mage can get possessed in his sleep while being in the same pub, maybe catching his templar friends by even bigger surprise... it could theoretically happen to you if you failed your harrowing.

See above.

Silfren wrote...
It is the whole of his experience with mages prior to meeting up with Hawke, so it makes sense for him to believe that all mages will ultimately turn to blood magic, because that's what he's seen in a land where slavery is legal and there are no restrictions to prevent magical abuses...but it doesn't mean he's right. .

Regarding the bolded, it's true far more then what we might think. I recall an interesting Gaider quote that said the Templars in Tevinter don't have Templar abilities and are pretty much just guardsmen.

I'm not sure if Asunder has said anything to corroborate such a thing, but Gaider did say something like that long ago on the forums.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2012 - 08:06 .

[dragonflight288]

By supervision. you mean 'being able to go where I wish to, like any other citizen', right? Well, how will you then deal with a situation when a mage is sitting in a pub, peacefully drinking his beer, just like many other people there do, all the while being surrounded by his templar buddies (and he might actually consider them to be his friends) and suddenly he turns into an abomination - maybe even under the influence of a pride demon.

A valid concern that Gaider had addressed.

A mage can't go POOF, and suddenly be an abomination. They have to make a verbal deal with a demon. That is a requirement, or they have to lose a battle of wills in the fade. But it's a very physical confrontation. The mage sitting in the bar is not in the fade, and would only turn into an abomination if they already were one. That is established lore.

Some parts of DA2 broke the lore, but that is exactly what Gaider said. As such, I'm ignoring game-play elements in favor of the lore and established facts. So the mage in the bar won't spontaneously turn into an abomination, unless they summoned the spirit and made a deal, or came across a demon already on this side of the veil, cut off from the fade, and then made a deal or lost a confrontation, or just loses a battle of wills while in the fade.

[Knight Commander]

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Well i didn't expect all these reply's so soon haha, but using my first example was probably not the best one so i apologize. Though I never thought every mage was evil heck I like them I just agree with the templars more after having fenris in my party and him telling me all this terrible stuff it made me dislike mages a lot more. Same with the magistrates son in act 1 there was no demon controlling him he did it because he was insane. I still agree with most of what I said but I can man up and say that you guys did catch me on some stuff that I exaggerated so all I can say is good job mates.
PS I still like templars more but that is just one opinion and Meredith as i said before she would have never done what she did if it wasn't for that sword.

You cannot categorically say that Meredith would have acted differently without the sword, since we didn't play that game.  If you are so convinced, it would make sense to offer an argument as to why, rather than to just keep repeating the claim over and over. 

Re: the magistrate's son.  You say yourself there was no demon involved, so why do you mention him here?  He has no relevance to the question of mages, not being a mage himself.

Fenris's commentary on mages applies to a specific environment of mages, not mages throughout the world.  One can hardly expect Fenris not to be biased--I don't fault him for his hatred of mages, but I also understand that it is indeed biased.  It is not in the least bit reasonable or logical to look at his opinion of mages in Tevinter and apply it to mages throughout the world.

Alright so in act 2 Meredith saves your life and acts like a normal person but when she gets that sword you can just tell that she has changed. Even though she did not like the mages she was more cruel to them than she was before and even if you sided with the templars she becomes jealous of you and treats you like dirt. Yes Meredith was a not a great person but you get to know her if playing someone who supports templars. I read somewhere that the magistrate and his son were both mages so thats why I said that. You mentioned Tevinter and so I replied by saying that Fenris hated them. Tevinter is a big majority of the mages he even says that behind closed doors all the mages use blood magic for power. He told me this when I brought him to the gallows in act 1 btw.  He even said that their leader whatever the rank is called uses blood magic. Also i'm not labeling every mage in the world bad the post before this I even said I liked them.

You're saying that NOW, but you weren't saying it before, so you can hardly blame me for calling you out when your posts DID very much lump all mages together and made logical fallacies in regards to mage behavior. Also, just bringing up that Fenris hates Tevinter because someone MENTIONS Tevinter is...kind of silly, if what Fenris thinks is irrelevant to the point being made.

it's important to understand that Fenris is speaking from a position of contempt when he says what he does about mages and blood magic.  He has no f*cking clue at all what mages will act like outside of Tevinter.  It is the whole of his experience with mages prior to meeting up with Hawke, so it makes sense for him to believe that all mages will ultimately turn to blood magic, because that's what he's seen in a land where slavery is legal and there are no restrictions to prevent magical abuses...but it doesn't mean he's right. When he makes his comment about blood magic he isn't relating a fact he objectively knows to be true, but blurting out a biased, emotionally-laden opinion.

Anyway, about Meredith.  I note that you say she acts like a normal person.  I must point out that a person doesn't have to be insane to be extremely paranoid and take an extremist position.  There is no reason to suggest that simply because she "acts like a normal person" in one scene that that means she totally would not have called for the Right of Annulment without the sword. 

We hear PLENTY about Meredith being excessive in her brutality toward the mages before the lyrium idol is even found.  There's a reason why a lot of people think that the finale could have gone exactly the same way without the idol--Meredith's pre-existing and well-known aggressive stance on mages, and her paranoia, would have been sufficient to provide for a character who ultimately believed that she was surrounded by blood mages and blood mage thralls.  Some of the bits of lore about her personality and extremism take place before the Deep Roads expedition and before Bartrand has the idol.  So it is not inconceivable in the least that she could have snapped without it to drive her insane.  We see that that was precisely Taraohne's plan, after all--to infiltrate the templar ranks and sow chaos to the point that Meredith didn't know who to trust. 

Far as I know, the only thing you learn about Meredith by siding with the templars is that her background made her a really sh!tty choice for a Knight Commander.  So no, I don't agree.  I think the idol exacerbated existing paranoia.  And given that she doesn't go REALLY insane until the very end, I'm not sure that it can be claimed she would have not called for the Right of Annulment without the idol.  We do see mentions that she had already called for it previously, and we have no idea, I think, just when she got her hands on the idol, so we can't assume she called for Annulment only after she got it.

Ok, I never said I hated mages I just said that I could never trust one. I mean come on if a mage will use blood magic once they will most likely use it again. It's human nature to want power and blood magic gives you a ton of power. I talked about Tevinter since they're a big majority of mages (in the fantasy world) which I already said. They're also the only place that has a chantry and is controlled by mages. If mages are to escape the circle what do you think that they will do, most likely go to Tevinter since it is mage controlled. For Meredith I know she was disrepecting the mages but like I said she acted normal before that sword. By that I mean her normal mage disliking self but not her new insane self in act 3. It is obvious that she was paranoid and it is obvious that the sword made her snap. I mean when you fight her she is completly insane she even is red and looks like she is being controlled. There is a difference on how she acts between acts even though Hawke meets her at the end of act 2. Also I don't think she would have called the right at the end of the game if she was her normal self. With her new insane self in act 3 it made her more edgy and more likely to argue with Orisno. We never see them actually argue over who is right or wrong till after she gets the sword. Yes i'm sure they argued before and i'm sure they both had their own rights and wrong but it all comes down to if you like templars or mages more to actually pick a side. To be honest I don't think any of this would have happend if not for Hawke and Anders. I know this is a little of topic but did Anders really have to commit that terrorist crime at the end? Also I know people saying it wasn't a terroist act but it obviously was he killed many innocents that were in that chantry and caused the mage-templar war. Last thing we didn't see the whole chantry so there mostl likely more people in there and the explosion radius was larger than the chantry.

[John Renegade]

The mage sleeps every night, every night is a potential battle of wills. How can you be sure he'll succeed and not turn over his body to a demon without the templars knowing it? Maybe even the demon showing itself later - like in the case of Connor.

EDIT: Oh, and when I said the problems would be frequent, I ment (I must again use a car comparison) 'car crush frequent' - as in 'it happens often enough, but most of your car driving license owning friends probably still live'. That doesn't make the deaths by car accidents happen any less often.

Modifié par John Renegade, 20 mai 2012 - 08:15 .

[Knight Commander]

@The Ethereal Writer Redux, A quick question did Feynriel willingly let a demon in him? Sorry I forgot haven't played the game in a while.

[TEWR]

Only if you restore his mind to an appropriate level of sanity and trick him into thinking that it's what he needs to do.

He then lets his guard down, thinking things are safe. The demon takes advantage of this moment of approval and possesses him.

So yes, Feynriel willingly let the demon possess him, but due to the trickery of Hawke.

[TEWR]

John Renegade wrote...

The mage sleeps every night, every night is a potential battle of wills. How can you be sure he'll succeed and not turn over his body to a demon without the templars knowing it? Maybe even the demon showing itself later - like in the case of Connor.

Because that line of thought operates under the false illusion that trained mages are idiots when they're in the Fade during their sleep -- which allows them to be fully aware of what's going on.

You really think someone would willingly turn over their mind, body, and soul to a demon when they have no reason to?

If a Mage has food, friends, shelter, love, and relative liberty then they have no reason to turn into an Abomination. Take away the food, the friends, the love, and liberty and replace those things with starvation, torture, rape, abuse, and proclamations of how Mages are evil and cursed and need to die then you will see Mages turn themselves over to demons.

Because they have nothing left anymore.

Connor made a deal with a demon to save his father, because he had only just begun to be taught by Jowan about the basics and therefore didn't know that demons are bad. Jowan had just started to teach him to control his powers, but was found out for his poisoning of the Arl and was subsequently thrown in prison.

And really, I kinda blame Isolde -- and Loghain -- for what happened to Redcliffe more then Jowan. And I mean after the poisoning, not the stuff that happened before. She knew her son was a mage and she hired Jowan to teach Connor, yet she threw Jowan in prison upon discovering his act.

I mean, sure Jowan needed to be punished -- though he does make up for his deeds later on and was deserving of a better fate. But Connor still should've had lessons being taught to him. No lessons means greater chance of possession.

Of course, I'm sure Isolde felt like she couldn't trust Jowan anymore to teach Connor. Still, Jowan could've taught Connor from the dungeons.

Not the best place for a school lesson, but it's better then nothing.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 mai 2012 - 08:36 .

[John Renegade]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Because that line of thought operates under the false illusion that trained mages are idiots.

You really think someone would willingly turn over their mind, body, and soul to a demon when they have no reason to?

If a Mage has food, friends, shelter, love, and relative liberty then they have no reason to turn into an Abomination. Take away the food, the friends, the love, and liberty and replace those things with starvation, torture, rape, abuse, and proclamations of how Mages are evil and cursed and need to die then you will see Mages turn themselves over to demons.

Because they have nothing left anymore.

You really think it works that way?

1) The demons can be very persuasive. You have no GUARANTEE that possessions won't happen.

2) A shocking fact: Common people don't often live idyllic life. Mages are people => mages can have problems like any other mortals => they may look for solutions to those problems.

How many times has a crime been committed which was done to 'fix' something, let's say a family situation got out of hand and a murder was supposed to 'solve' it?

Having a personal demon in that moment of your life, a moment when you don't think clearly and want to kill someone desperately, that can be invaluable. Or what about a demon actually willing to get your family out of their poor status and saving the starving little sister of yours, who each day begs for a piece of bread? The demon would actually do it, it would save your little sister and your crying baby brother. It would maybe even allow you a few years of life with your whole family in peace - and then, one day, it would consume you.

If you start talking again about issues like poverty or family, I would like to remind you that those are problems of a whole society, not just mages. Oh, and by the way, wouldn't treating mages preferably to the common folk be a discrimination? What an irony...

Modifié par John Renegade, 20 mai 2012 - 08:41 .

[dragonflight288]

You really think it works that way?

1) The demons can be very persuasive. You have no GUARANTEE that possessions won't happen.

2) A shocking fact: Common people don't often live idyllic life. Mages are people => mages can have problems like any other mortals => they may look for solutions to those problems.

How many times has a crime been committed which was done to 'fix' something, let's say a family situation got out of hand and a murder was supposed to 'solve' it?

Having a personal demon in that moment of your life, a moment when you don't think clearly and want to kill someone desperately, that can be invaluable. Or what about a demon actually willing to get your family out of their poor status and saving the starving little sister of yours, who each day begs for a piece of bread? The demon would actually do it, it would save your little sister and your crying baby brother. It would maybe even allow you a few years of life with your whole family in peace - and then, one day, it would consume you.

If you start talking again about issues like poverty or family, I would like to remind you that those are problems of a whole society, not just mages. Oh, and by the way, wouldn't treating mages preferably to the common folk be a discrimination? What an irony...

If we decided to speak of guarantees, then we'd slaughter every newborn child of the human race and effectively kill us. It is guaranteed that everyone will have problems in life. It is guaranteed that everyone will have some personality flaw or weakness that an be preyed upon. This is true for every single person.

What stops a normal person from going crazy and killing everyone around them because they lay the blame for all their problems on someone else's shoulders? Only sanity, a sense of realism, and what they had been taught growing up, added in to their own free will.

Want to know someone else besides demons who can be persuasivie? Con-artists. They can rob you of everything you hold dear. Manipulative shadow operatives (spies for countries) need to be persuasive in order to lie or convince others of their cause. Cult leaders, if they couldn't persuade people, there wouldn't be a cult. And many people have been brought into a cult and murdered because they believed it helped solve the worlds problems.

There are no guarantees, but if you sit on your hands and do nothing, or do everything to take away the right to have a family, a sense of worth while growing up, you are guaranteeing that many of the people being watched will be feeling more desperate than they would otherwise, and resentful on top of that. And that guarantees an increased risk of possession.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, except taxes and death. The only true certainty outside of that is that nothing is certain.

Those who support mages cannot offer guarantees, but neither can those who support templars. And the current system has proven to be broken and won't work. And I also highly doubt the mages will ever agree to go into it again. So a new system is pretty much a requirement at this point.

[John Renegade]

Sanity? Sense of realism? And what if you - just for a few moments - lose them?

An average person can make life miserable if he acts out of his emotions and not reason. He may even kill someone. But no average person in real world has the potential to turn into a killing machine that can wreck entire cities only because he had a weak moment.

Bottom line: Mages are not average people. They'll never be. They are capable of being extremely destructive weapons, and do you know what we do with those in reality? We lock them up. Tight.

Dangerous things and people are kept under guard. Very dangerous things and people are kept guarded even better. That's the fact of life.

Modifié par John Renegade, 20 mai 2012 - 09:46 .