1194 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

John Renegade wrote...
Tevinter may be safe, but at what cost? Even a few lives is too much.

This I don't get.  How can even a "few lives" be too much?  What if it were fewer lives than lost to diseases that the free mages might have cured?  Or lives lost to droughts that mages might have ended?  Or mage lives lost to zealous Templars that may never have had to happen?

Life is dangerous.  Why is danger from mages SO much worse than any other danger that no risk is acceptible?  It makes no sense to me that anyone thinks it's ok to declare that they utterly refuse to deal with any risk from any given source.  Especially when they are actually dealing with it every day (apostates and maleficar are actually all over) and just want to believe they are safe.

[GavrielKay]

John Renegade wrote...
How exactly would you make a mage harmless?

I can't make anyone harmless.  Even a Tranquil could be ordered to murder you in your sleep.  You can be killed by a pet dog.  Or a fire, or disease, or brain aneurysm.  And even if you're alone, you can still die from any number of causes.  Why this determination to make the risk of magic somehow more risky than the risk of anything else?

Life isn't harmless, plain and simple.

[John Renegade]

To specify: How would you nullify the explosive abilities of mages which can make them medieval weapons of mass destruction?

People could carry ill individuals to Anders, they can carry them to the Circle tower. The other problem is that even if those few good healers would have a full templar squad with them as a precaution, the non-healer mages would still be locked up.

Modifié par John Renegade, 21 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

The problem is that you're making a lot of conclusions about how the magisters feel and behave regarding their subjects. The old tevinter existed for a long time as a 'stable society'.

'They don't have to care about the general populace.' So, what exact way of protection you propose, that could protect all civilians from harm? And I vould like a clear description, nothing vague, please. Also, you should mind the resources available, many people forget to consider them.

And regarding my first sentence, don't call me hypocrite for my statements about possible tevinter magisters' attitudes earlier. I was just offering you a possible alternative to show you that magisters don't have to have only that kind of attitude that you think they have.

Seriously?  YOU wrote a post scoffing at me about my statement on Tevinter, basing it on your assertion that Tevinter Magisters likely don't care about the masses, and now you have the audacity to lecture me for allegedly having only that kind of attitude that [I] think they have?

First off, I do not think that all magisters only have the one attitude.  Don't put words in my mouth.  The fact that I didn't take that post to go into elaborate, lengthy detail doesn't mean you can extrapolate from it.  I was addressing your point, and making another one.  It wasn't the time or place to be writing an essay on the general opinions and beliefs of Magisters from the ancient past up until today.  But it's really nice to see you lecturing me for something I did NOT do, a post right after YOU did. 

Anyway, what I actually did was specifically point out that the Tevinters don't have to give a rat's ass about the general population to realize that it is prudent to to avoid having abominations running around loose.  Abominations running wild does not bode well for a city's infrastructure, and I don't think any Tevinter Magisters are interested in watching the Imperium fall down around their ears. 

Protections?  Well.  We know that there are runes that can be used to nullify magic.  We see this laid out explicitly in the Mage!Warden origin in DA:O.  We also know that at least one Magister from Tevinter studied blood magic in enough depth to come up with protections against every form of mind domination, a way to defend against Somniari mages, and counter-spells to demonic summons.  See the Litany of Adralla.

Whatever can be said about Tevinter--and a lot can be said, don't misunderstand me--by all accounts it is a place of advanced magical knowledge and research, and something is going on there to keep abominations and demons from destroying the place.  Bear in mind that the Veil has to be ultra thin there, if it even still exists at all.  Which means that there HAS to be something in place to keep demons from pouring in and spilling out into the rest of Thedas.  There's no way for that not to be the case without creating a plot hole large enough to fly a 747 through.  Unless you want me to believe that abominations and demons are indeed wreaking havoc on the Imperium and it's just coincidence that nobody else in all of Thedas has heard or seen any news about this.  Not Feyrniel, not Wynne, not Brother Genitivi, no one.

I think we have enough evidence in game to suggest that research is needed.  The Litany alone tells us that there ARE protections available.  There is no good reason not to invest more time, money, and effort into further research to expand upon what we have.

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

Well, I'm not saying that chantry is or isn't correct about abominations, I never said I agree with them about everything. My point is that you don't know, what means the magisters use to kill the abominations. Tevinter may be safe, but at what cost? Even a few lives is too much.

You see, if the writers told us a concrete and viable procedure, which would allow for mages to be free AND not to endanger anyone else, I would agree with you on this issue. Problem is, there is no such procedure. You can't tell me any possible scenario, which has basis in the lore of the game, that would allow mages and everyone else to coexist peacefully next to each other. If you think you can, please, tell me. How exactly would you make a mage harmless?

Say rather that one hasn't been found or adequately explored.  We don't know that one does not exist at all. 

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

John Renegade wrote...
Tevinter may be safe, but at what cost? Even a few lives is too much.

This I don't get.  How can even a "few lives" be too much?  What if it were fewer lives than lost to diseases that the free mages might have cured?  Or lives lost to droughts that mages might have ended?  Or mage lives lost to zealous Templars that may never have had to happen?

Life is dangerous.  Why is danger from mages SO much worse than any other danger that no risk is acceptible?  It makes no sense to me that anyone thinks it's ok to declare that they utterly refuse to deal with any risk from any given source.  Especially when they are actually dealing with it every day (apostates and maleficar are actually all over) and just want to believe they are safe.

He's insinuating that it may be that Tevinter Magisters may keep abominations and demons contained at the cost of slaves' lives.

I agree that it would not be okay to slaugher, say, a dozen people in order to drive a demon back across the Fade, or whatever.  But I'm not prepared yet to assume that that is how Tevinter keeps itself safe.  Seems to me the mention would have been made if that were the case.

[robertthebard]

John Renegade wrote...

To specify: How would you nullify the explosive abilities of mages which can make them medieval weapons of mass destruction?

People could carry ill individuals to Anders, they can carry them to the Circle tower. The other problem is that even if those few good healers would have a full templar squad with them as a precaution, the non-healer mages would still be locked up.

How is it that rogues aren't running around the city square, day and night, backstabbing anything that moves?  Should we now lock up all rogues because they have the potential to do just that?

Bethany put it better than anybody:  "You have a sword, why aren't you killing people right now?".  So we are to trust armed people that may be lunatics, but not mages that may be lunatics.  There is a measure of hypocrisy to that idea that is astounding.  You see, it doesn't matter if a rogue or a fighter guts you, or a mage implodes you, dead is dead, and if somebody has the potential to make you dead, they should be locked up.  You're going to need a bigger prison.

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Forceful possession does exist yes. I haven't claimed otherwise (see the previous page). But it only happens when a demon is in the physical realm, either from crossing a thin Veil or being summoned through blood magic.

Was more in answer to those which were saying mages just had to ignore the demons and they went away.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

John Renegade wrote...
Tevinter may be safe, but at what cost? Even a few lives is too much.

This I don't get.  How can even a "few lives" be too much?  What if it were fewer lives than lost to diseases that the free mages might have cured?  Or lives lost to droughts that mages might have ended?  Or mage lives lost to zealous Templars that may never have had to happen?

Life is dangerous.  Why is danger from mages SO much worse than any other danger that no risk is acceptible?  It makes no sense to me that anyone thinks it's ok to declare that they utterly refuse to deal with any risk from any given source.  Especially when they are actually dealing with it every day (apostates and maleficar are actually all over) and just want to believe they are safe.

He's insinuating that it may be that Tevinter Magisters may keep abominations and demons contained at the cost of slaves' lives.

I agree that it would not be okay to slaugher, say, a dozen people in order to drive a demon back across the Fade, or whatever.  But I'm not prepared yet to assume that that is how Tevinter keeps itself safe.  Seems to me the mention would have been made if that were the case.

I guess we don't have the lore to say it isn't possible that the mages do some kind of blood ritual to avoid possession...  however that would contradict the Chantry saying blood magic makes it worse.  Anyway, if blood mages were really as susceptible to possession as the Chantry claims, it's hard to imagine there being enough people to sacrifice if that were the "protection" method.

My guess on how it is accomplished would be more along the lines of better mental discipline from actual training rather than fear mongering and perhaps use of things like the Litany.

[Dave of Canada]

GavrielKay wrote...

Life is dangerous.  Why is danger from mages SO much worse than any other danger that no risk is acceptible?

Because mages are far more dangerous? Willingly or unwillingly, mages are capable of far more devastation than any other "life is dangerous" thing. Magic is inherently more powerful than anything else, capable of raising the dead or controlling other's minds.

Do you think the nobles of Ferelden were perfectly fine when they found out the Grey Wardens used blood magic to control them in order to lead a revolt against their king? Do you not see the potential where that could lead to far worse consequences?

What about situations like Kinloch Hold, would that be perfectly fine occuring in the middle of Denerim? Would the folks see "life is dangerous, oh well" or will they see the disaster that mages caused?

It makes no sense to me that anyone thinks it's ok to declare that they utterly refuse to deal with any risk from any given source.

Makes no sense to me that people want mage equality when, by their very nature, they're not equal.

Especially when they are actually dealing with it every day (apostates and maleficar are actually all over) and just want to believe they are safe.

Except they're not safe, some maleficars are controlling the minds of thugs to use them as their own personal army and some apostates turn into abominations and cause far worse than whatever the maleficars do. The few "happy" apostates which blend in still pose a major threat and they're usually still hunted down by the Templar.

GavrielKay wrote...

*snip*

Life isn't harmless, plain and simple.

 

Wish I could simpilfy everything as such.

robertthebard wrote...

How is it that rogues aren't running around the city square, day and night, backstabbing anything that moves?  Should we now lock up all rogues because they have the potential to do just that?

Considering a rogue's capabilities is far from what mages are capable of, including the whole cannot-be-possessed act, this comparison makes no sense. Bethany had no point in her comment, they're not comparable at all.

[rapscallioness]

I can't support either side. Sigh. Both have the potential to severely abuse their power. In very nasty ways.

A Templar with any kind of power, or prominence, can impact just as many lives in a negative way as a rampaging abomination. Sometimes even more so.

And some mages willingly turn to demons for the power. It's disgusting all the way around.

At the same time there are good and decent people on both sides.

Such is life. I don't have the answer for this one. They're both dangerous if the desire for power corrupts them.

I have no love for Orsino. He knew what he was messing with, and did it anyway. Even shared knowledge with that thing that murdered Hawke's mother in so vulgar a way. Perhaps if O. hadn't shared that knowledge with that guy.....

Meredith--who I alos have no love for---messed with powers she didn't understand. Was it ignorance, or arrogance that made her do so? Or both?

They both betrayed you. Everybody betrays Hawke.

So, if DA3 is about the mage vs. templar thing, I'm going to be in a pickle. Because they're both like some weird mirror image of each other. With the underlining theme being the potential for the abuse of power. Whatever form that power takes.

Neither faction is all good, or all bad....I hope they don't try and force me to pick sides again. Cuz that's really a futile endeavor.

[Dave of Canada]

@Rapscallioness: I assume you'd fall in line with the Divine and the Seekers, then. They're mostly the "neutral" party after Asunder.

[rapscallioness]

Dave of Canada wrote...

@Rapscallioness: I assume you'd fall in line with the Divine and the Seekers, then. They're mostly the "neutral" party after Asunder.

Are they? I'm not really familiar with Asunder. Is that a DA book? Or..

And I don't want to be neutral. I'd love to have a "cause" haha. I tried to find something to tip the scales for me, but just when I thought I had my mind made up...some nasty stuff went down. I was like wait, I need to rethink this.

Heck, maybe a Warden again. I wonder if a Seeker is going to be the PC in DA3. I think I'd prefer leaving that option up to me as a player. As to what faction I  would like to align myself with. If any.

At the end of DA2, all I wanted to do was hop on that pirate ship and take off. Let them all burn.

[Dave of Canada]

rapscallioness wrote...

Are they? I'm not really familiar with Asunder. Is that a DA book?

Yes.

And I don't want to be neutral. I'd love to have a "cause" haha. I tried to find something to tip the scales for me, but just when I thought I had my mind made up...some nasty stuff went down. I was like wait, I need to rethink this.

Divine seeks to change the status quo, much to the chagrin of the Lord-Seeker. She doesn't want to see mages completely freed but she's basically showing mage sympathy and working towards helping out their situation, which is what prompts the Templar to quit the Chantry and hunt the mages on their own.

Any "Divine" faction would probably be about rebuilding the status quo, probably more in line with the Divine's sympathetic view.

[robertthebard]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Considering a rogue's capabilities is far from what mages are capable of, including the whole cannot-be-possessed act, this comparison makes no sense. Bethany had no point in her comment, they're not comparable at all.

Ninja edit, maybe:

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?

Then the Templars are just as worthy of being tranquil as the mages.

Modifié par robertthebard, 22 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[rapscallioness]

Dave of Canada wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

Are they? I'm not really familiar with Asunder. Is that a DA book?

Yes.

And I don't want to be neutral. I'd love to have a "cause" haha. I tried to find something to tip the scales for me, but just when I thought I had my mind made up...some nasty stuff went down. I was like wait, I need to rethink this.

Divine seeks to change the status quo, much to the chagrin of the Lord-Seeker. She doesn't want to see mages completely freed but she's basically showing mage sympathy and working towards helping out their situation, which is what prompts the Templar to quit the Chantry and hunt the mages on their own.

Any "Divine" faction would probably be about rebuilding the status quo, probably more in line with the Divine's sympathetic view.

Oooh, that sounds like a good book. I might have to check that out.

I can't believe the Templars quit the Chantry. I think I remember Cassandra and Varric alluding to something like that.

There are still going to be difficult choices ahead. At least, I hope so. Truth is, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Thanks for the heads up, Dave. (I think I'm gonna go playa little DA right now --laterz)

[Dave of Canada]

Considering Templar are basically just foot soldiers trained in anti-magic abilities which don't impact the rest of society, not really.

[robertthebard]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Considering Templar are basically just foot soldiers trained in anti-magic abilities which don't impact the rest of society, not really.

Really?  That's not the impression I'm left with in DA 2.  In fact, I'm a little shakey on the exact line, but Alistair will tell the PC in party camp dialog that Templars are an army.  So we have an army of lyrium addicted Templars in control of a tower full of mages.  We have powermad tyrants like Sir Alrik(sp) and his Tranquil Solution, but there's nothing to see there, right?  Abuses of power are evident, on both sides, but that doesn't mean one side is more justified in abusing their power than the other.

[dragonflight288]

Considering Templar are basically just foot soldiers trained in anti-magic abilities which don't impact the rest of society, not really.

And yet Meredith, just a soldier for the chantry (and Alistair calls the templars an army...which are used whenever an exalted march is called) she also became the defacto viscount of Kirkwall and was able to keep the nobles from doing anything to help run the city, and then proceeded to try and kick Aveline out of the captaincy so she could solidify power.

Yup...just a foot soldier.

[Darkmeadow90]

In the terms of cars and car accidents saying that everyone made the choice to have them and accepted the dangers is utterly false. Car accidents (usually the very worst ones) can involve pedestrians. Someone on foot didn't make a choice like the person behind the wheel did, and yet you don't see huge activist groups saying "lets ban cars they're so dangerous!" the choice to keep them was made by society as a whole, not on an individual level. The education about, and the protection from magic is a similar problem. The Chantry does not have a humane workable answer to this problem. Most mage supporters understand and acknowledge the need for mage education. saying that all mage sympathizers want absolute freedom from responsibility is a false and equally extremist position.

(edited for typo)

Modifié par Darkmeadow90, 22 mai 2012 - 02:11 .

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Considering a rogue's capabilities is far from what mages are capable of, including the whole cannot-be-possessed act, this comparison makes no sense. Bethany had no point in her comment, they're not comparable at all.

Ahem.  Non-Mages CAN be possessed.  Ths is one thing on which the lore is abundantly clear.  

[Silfren]

rapscallioness wrote...

I can't support either side. Sigh. Both have the potential to severely abuse their power. In very nasty ways.

A Templar with any kind of power, or prominence, can impact just as many lives in a negative way as a rampaging abomination. Sometimes even more so.

And some mages willingly turn to demons for the power. It's disgusting all the way around.

At the same time there are good and decent people on both sides.

Such is life. I don't have the answer for this one. They're both dangerous if the desire for power corrupts them.

I have no love for Orsino. He knew what he was messing with, and did it anyway. Even shared knowledge with that thing that murdered Hawke's mother in so vulgar a way. Perhaps if O. hadn't shared that knowledge with that guy.....

Meredith--who I alos have no love for---messed with powers she didn't understand. Was it ignorance, or arrogance that made her do so? Or both?

They both betrayed you. Everybody betrays Hawke.

So, if DA3 is about the mage vs. templar thing, I'm going to be in a pickle. Because they're both like some weird mirror image of each other. With the underlining theme being the potential for the abuse of power. Whatever form that power takes.

Neither faction is all good, or all bad....I hope they don't try and force me to pick sides again. Cuz that's really a futile endeavor.

I don't think Orsino can be said to have betrayed Hawke.  He didn't know what the research was being used for, and his act at the end was, in my mind, an act of desperation based on the fact he saw his people being cut down left and right, it had nothing whatsoever to do with Hawke personally.

[Silfren]

rapscallioness wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

@Rapscallioness: I assume you'd fall in line with the Divine and the Seekers, then. They're mostly the "neutral" party after Asunder.

Are they? I'm not really familiar with Asunder. Is that a DA book? Or..

And I don't want to be neutral. I'd love to have a "cause" haha. I tried to find something to tip the scales for me, but just when I thought I had my mind made up...some nasty stuff went down. I was like wait, I need to rethink this.

Heck, maybe a Warden again. I wonder if a Seeker is going to be the PC in DA3. I think I'd prefer leaving that option up to me as a player. As to what faction I  would like to align myself with. If any.

At the end of DA2, all I wanted to do was hop on that pirate ship and take off. Let them all burn.

Ha.  The Seekers and Divine are most assuredly NOT neutral.  Yes, Asunder is a DA book, set a year after the events of Kirkwall. Since this IS the spoiler tagged forum, I'll go ahead and say it: the Divine comes out in support of mage reform, to the extent that the Lord-Seeker, head of the Seekers of Truth, breaks from the Chantry after declaring the Nevarran Accord to be void, to wage war on mages.  Neither party can be said to be neutral at all in Asunder, but especially not the Seekers. 

I don't think starting the game as a particular class would have any bearing at all on what path you chose in the game.  The way the story has been set up leaves a perfect opportunity for a Seeker PC to decide to support the Divine and the Chantry, or the Seekers themselves, or to allign with some other faction.  There is potential, after all, for the Chantry to be split into two main factions, as well as the Seekers and Templars.

Modifié par Silfren, 22 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Considering Templar are basically just foot soldiers trained in anti-magic abilities which don't impact the rest of society, not really.

Given that Cullen points out that the templars are Kirkwall's largest standing army and would be the ones to lead its defense, no.  Given that Alistair says "The Chantry would tell you that templars exist simply to defend.  But don't let them fool you.  They're an army," and given HOW he says it, especially given he was in training to be a templar, no.  
Given that templars would have been part of the the Chantry's Exalted Marches, no. 

[Silfren]

Darkmeadow90 wrote...

In the terms of cars and car accidents saying that everyone made the choice to have them and accepted the dangers is utterly false. Car accidents (usually the very worst ones) can involve pedestrians. Someone on foot didn't make a choice like the person behind the wheel did, and yet you don't see huge activist groups saying "lets ban cars they're so dangerous!" the choice to keep them was made by society as a whole, not on an individual level. The education about, and the protection from magic is a similar problem. The Chantry does not have a humane workable answer to this problem. Most mage supporters understand and acknowledge the need for mage education. saying that all mage sympathizers want absolute freedom from responsibility is a false and equally extremist position.

(edited for typo)

Yep.  Pedestrians choose to live with the dangers of cars each and every day.  (And in my neighborhood, quite a lot them have a great deal more faith in my brakes than I do, given how nonchalantly so many will cross against lights even when a car is bearing down on them).  They couldn't be said to consciously be choosing to flirt with danger, but it is a choice they tacitly make every time they cross a highway.  Cars ARE dangerous, and they kill a LOT of people.  But they've become a part of society that we all have chosen to live with by accepting a certain level of risk, because even under the best of circumstances, **** still can happen, and we choose to accept that possibility every day of our lives.