326 réponses à ce sujet

[Jacks-Up]

MS3825 wrote...

Thank you. At least I know that you aren't watching "The History Channel" where I got my information from so there's no chance of it going the way "The Discovery Channel" did and won't be dumbed down like that was.

Did the history channel teach you to be a Hitler sympathizer as well?

[Rhys Cordelle]

A nuke? Well, my options are far more limtied. Some tools are practicly designed with no "good" use for them

Soooo not true. They work wonders at blowing up incoming meteors, reactivating the core of  the earth, jump starting the sun, and you could even take out a mega shark and a giant octopus with them! Don't you watch any movies?

Alex Savchovsky wrote...

Let me repeat myself (although I hate to do that). A power is NOT evil by itself - because "evil" is a moral category which as no meaning outside of a sentient mind. It's the user's intention and acts which put that power to "good" or "evil" use.

People see evil differently. You've defined evil as a moral category, that exists only within the minds of sentient beings (and I agree). Now Jacks-up, do you agree with this definition? Or if not, how do you define evil? Semantics are important when debating.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Jacks-Up wrote...

MS3825 wrote...

Thank you. At least I know that you aren't watching "The History Channel" where I got my information from so there's no chance of it going the way "The Discovery Channel" did and won't be dumbed down like that was.

Did the history channel teach you to be a Hitler sympathizer as well?

Holding the belief that Hitler wasn't evil doesn't make you a Hitler sympathizer by default. There's a whole lot of shades of grey in between black and white you know

[Jacks-Up]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

MS3825 wrote...

Thank you. At least I know that you aren't watching "The History Channel" where I got my information from so there's no chance of it going the way "The Discovery Channel" did and won't be dumbed down like that was.

Did the history channel teach you to be a Hitler sympathizer as well?

Holding the belief that Hitler wasn't evil doesn't make you a Hitler sympathizer by default. There's a whole lot of shades of grey in between black and white you know

it doesn't help.

[Rhys Cordelle]

It doesn't have to help. And are you going to offer a definition of evil for us?

[The Angry One]

Jacks-Up wrote...

MS3825 wrote...

Thank you. At least I know that you aren't watching "The History Channel" where I got my information from so there's no chance of it going the way "The Discovery Channel" did and won't be dumbed down like that was.

Did the history channel teach you to be a Hitler sympathizer as well?

You know, you're the reason Godwin's Law exists.

I think we should all leave this troll alone.

[Jacks-Up]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

It doesn't have to help. And are you going to offer a definition of evil for us?

http://www.google.ca...le&ved=0CAcQkAE

Happy?

[Original182]

Blood magic is evil in Ferelden. Not just the Chantry, but even the Circle of Magi agree it is evil.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Jacks-Up wrote...
Happy?

With an ambiguous list of definitions which you haven't personally identified with? Why wouldn't I be happy?

If evil is simply morally questionable behavior, then evil is purely subjective. If that's the definition we're working with then it's not particularly useful.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Original182 wrote...

Blood magic is evil in Ferelden. Not just the Chantry, but even the Circle of Magi agree it is evil.

The Circle has been wiped out with a Rite of Anullment 17 times in the last 700 years. Of course you would think blood magic is evil when it puts your entire order at risk of death by the Chantry.

[Jacks-Up]

Original182 wrote...

Blood magic is evil in Ferelden. Not just the Chantry, but even the Circle of Magi agree it is evil.

Yeah I know but some people just can't seem to get that in there head.   Why who knows it's pretty obvious the intent of blood Magic is evil but....

[Rhys Cordelle]

Godwins Law:



"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ****s or Hitler approaches 1."



In case anyone was wondering.

[Jacks-Up]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...
Happy?

With an ambiguous list of definitions which you haven't personally identified with? Why wouldn't I be happy?

If evil is simply morally questionable behavior, then evil is purely subjective. If that's the definition we're working with then it's not particularly useful.

Well let me pick the first 2 for you than.

# morally objectionable behavior
# morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"

[Original182]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...

Original182 wrote...

Blood magic is evil in Ferelden. Not just the Chantry, but even the Circle of Magi agree it is evil.

The Circle has been wiped out with a Rite of Anullment 17 times in the last 700 years. Of course you would think blood magic is evil when it puts your entire order at risk of death by the Chantry.

Chantry propaganda again.
The Chantry will not invoke the Rite of Anullment just because the mages look at the Chantry in a manner that displeases them. It is invoked when the situation is very dire, like what Uldred did.
Blood magic is evil because it is dangerous. That is why it is outlawed, not just because "the Chantry says so".

[The Angry One]

Jacks-Up wrote...

Original182 wrote...

Blood magic is evil in Ferelden. Not just the Chantry, but even the Circle of Magi agree it is evil.

Yeah I know but some people just can't seem to get that in there head.   Why who knows it's pretty obvious the intent of blood Magic is evil but....

Okay seriously I try to ignore this, but what? How can magic have an intent? Do you even read what you type?
Blood magic is only evil because Chantry dogma says it is so. The same Chantry that performs several evil acts with impunity. Of course you seem to think that kidnapping and torture for whatever reason are evil, but genocide and nation destruction aren't. <_<

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

Chantry propaganda again.
The Chantry will not invoke the Rite of Anullment just because the mages look at the Chantry in a manner that displeases them. It is invoked when the situation is very dire, like what Uldred did.

Or simply when the mages are no longer under their thumb.
The irony is, Uldred's actions are a result of Chantry oppression. Treat people like dangerous rebels and they'll act like dangerous rebels.

Blood magic is evil because it is dangerous. That is why it is outlawed, not just because "the Chantry says so".

Regular magic is dangerous too. What's your point?

[Original182]

The Angry One wrote...
Okay seriously I try to ignore this, but what? How can magic have an intent? Do you even read what you type?
Blood magic is only evil because Chantry dogma says it is so.

Just because the Chantry says so, doesn't make it entirely false. Doesn't make it true either. That kind of thinking is very cynical. You'll then have to show WHY blood magic is not evil. Saying that it is not evil because the Chantry are automatically wrong is a very poor argument.

I think Blood Magic is evil, because a forum poster named The Angry One thinks it's not. See what I did there?

The same Chantry that performs several evil acts with impunity. Of course you seem to think that kidnapping and torture for whatever reason are evil, but genocide and nation destruction aren't. <_<

Please give examples of the evil acts that the Chantry did. From the Codex. And tell me why it means blood magic is not evil.

[Original182]

The Angry One wrote...
Or simply when the mages are no longer under their thumb.
The irony is, Uldred's actions are a result of Chantry oppression. Treat people like dangerous rebels and they'll act like dangerous rebels.

Even if there is Chantry oppression, that does not give you the license to kill everyone in the Mages Circle. You should be responsible for your own actions. Wynne was "oppressed" as well, but you don't see her go worshipping demons and killing everyone.
Uldred's actions are not the fault of the Chantry. Stop automatically pinning everything on the Chantry.

Regular magic is dangerous too. What's your point?

Blood magic is even more dangerous. Like consorting with demons. Thus what happened to the Mages Circle.
There is dangerous, and then there is dangerous.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Original182 wrote...

Chantry propaganda again.
The Chantry will not invoke the Rite of Anullment just because the mages look at the Chantry in a manner that displeases them. It is invoked when the situation is very dire, like what Uldred did.
Blood magic is evil because it is dangerous. That is why it is outlawed, not just because "the Chantry says so".

I assume you mean anti Chantry propaganda?

The Chantry will invoke the Rite of Anullment on the whim of the Revered Mother. That's all. It is one persons decision, based on a situation that they do not witness first hand. To think that kind of power would never be abused is naiive.

Blood magic allows mages to perform more powerful acts than they otherwise could purely with mana. Blood magic itself isn't evil, as others have pointed out, and the use of blood magic can only reasonably be deemed evil when you factor in the intentions of its user.

Would using blood magic to kill the archdemon be evil?

[Jacks-Up]

Regular magic is dangerous too. What's your point?

A kitchen knife is dangerous but they don't require you to register it like a gun. 

We give our Law enforcement offers Guns but not RPG's or viles with the Ebola virus in them to threaten criminals with.

[The Angry One]

Original182 wrote...

Just because the Chantry says so, doesn't make it entirely false. Doesn't make it true either. That kind of thinking is very cynical. You'll then have to show WHY blood magic is not evil. Saying that it is not evil because the Chantry are automatically wrong is a very poor argument.

I think Blood Magic is evil, because a forum poster named The Angry One thinks it's not. See what I did there?

The point is the ONLY source that say that blood magic is truly 100% evil is the Chantry. Nothing else.
The Chantry are discredited because they're a bunch of oppressive, dogmatic liars.

The only concrete proof we have is the actions of it's users, which show iresponisbility/downright evil (Uldred), callous amorality in a world where such is common but a true desire to improve the situation (Avernus) and obstensibly good (Jowan).
You can call Jowan a naive fool who made stupid decisions all you like, but in the end he's a good man who takes responsibility for his actions.

Please give examples of the evil acts that the Chantry did. From the Codex. And tell me why it means blood magic is not evil.

Destroying the elven homeland, attempting to oppress the dwarves in the epilogue, forcibly addicting their templars to lyrium to keep them under control, oppressing the mages, spreading lies and dogma.
Does all that mean blood magic is not evil? No. It means anything the Chantry says about what's evil and what isn't is worth precisely nothing.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Original182 wrote...

Please give examples of the evil acts that the Chantry did. From the Codex. And tell me why it means blood magic is not evil.

The exalted march?

[The Angry One]

Jacks-Up wrote...

Regular magic is dangerous too. What's your point?

A kitchen knife is dangerous but they don't require you to register it like a gun. 

We give our Law enforcement offers Guns but not RPG's or viles with the Ebola virus in them to threaten criminals with.

Prove that blood magic is that much more dangerous than regular magic, even though a regular mage can in fact become an abomination and summon demons.
Yes, a blood mage can control people. That's why you regulate it, not ban it outright and make people do it in secret.

For that matter why is Entropy legal but not Blood magic? Both are similar in a lot of ways, right down to subverting a target's mind.

[Jacks-Up]

Rhys Cordelle wrote...



Blood magic allows mages to perform more powerful acts than they otherwise could purely with mana. Blood magic itself isn't evil, as others have pointed out, and the use of blood magic can only reasonably be deemed evil when you factor in the intentions of its user.

Would using blood magic to kill the archdemon be evil?

Read below

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
In other words, yes blood mages have done Bad Things. But so has the Chantry, and so has almost every group in the game. Avernus' actions were amoral, yes. But they weren't done for the sake of being evil.

And what is done for that case? You're not making an argument for yourself here. No one, even the most evilest people in human history, did stuff just to be evil. They all had their warped reasons.

Magic is a tool, but not all tools are qual. I can use an axe for many things. A nuke? Well, my options are far more limtied. Some tools are practicly designed with no "good" use for them. High-level blood magic is made to dominate and drain.

[Alex Savchovsky]

Original182 wrote...You'll then have to show WHY blood magic is not evil. Saying that it is not evil because the Chantry are automatically wrong is a very poor argument.

BTW, I already did.
I said that no power is evil or good by nature, and I also said why is that. And what did I get? "It's evil because it's dangerous". Huh? Climbing mountains is dangerous, is it evil? Flying into the space is dangerous, is it evil? Even the armies are dangerous - but I don't recall someone shouting at Loghain "booo, maleficarum!!". Although he DID kill lots of people, including a king, with a single command.