629 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Urzon wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Both parties are to be blamed. But you are taking my quote out of context. I was referring to mage incapability to resist blood magic's temptation which you acknowlodge.  

That is why the mages cannot be trusted with magic. For the same  reason that you have stated. The temptation to use blood magic is too great. I purposely use that scenario to show how easy it is for people to resort to powerful illegal method. 

Would you resist the urge to grab a shot gun that is laying beside you (because using it's illegal), if a group of armed men are about to kill you?

No, because they are about to kill you!

That mage isn't just going to sit there and die thinking, "I'm about to be another nameless mage who's death is going to be covered up, and my killers are just going to wake away from this to live their lives. But at least i'm dieing with morals, that will show them!".

In a life or death situation, most people are going to use any means available to live another day. For mages, that includes resorting to blood magic if they are rendered helpless and about to die.

I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 mai 2012 - 05:23 .

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...


You may use all the lore to back up your argument but it still doesn't change how the elves feel towords the humans. I'm not talking about the orlesian invaders only. I'm talking about all humans.  I get the impression the elves even hate my Aeducan for no apparent reason. It make no difference playing as Aeducan or Cousland when I visited the Dalish. 

They don't hate Dwarves. Zathrian says that their anger is misguided when they lash out at you, IIRC. You have to understand the position they're in and the attitude about their skills they hold.

They're in a pretty bleak situation. Werewolves are killing and infecting the clan, which is going to make them rather volatile. They're upset. They're not able to think rationally because emotions are getting the best of them.

And even then, that only applies to a very select few Dalish. Sarel is hostile towards anyone because of his emotions getting the better of him. The rest are very open with any Warden. Gheyna will talk freely with the Warden without scorn or condemnation in her voice, Lanaya will do the same and even politiely ask Human Wardens if Humans feel sorry for what they did to the Elves, and so on and so forth.

It's pretty clear that Sarel is the only one that's a douche to Wardens. That guard you meet? She's a guard. It's her job to be pretty upfront with people coming near them. But she bears no real ill will towards the Human Warden, even if she's not one to readily believe the Human Warden has business with the Dalish.

You are mistaken. I have no home. Ferelden belong to Ferelden's people a long time ago. The war between man and elves had long past. I don't hold any grudge against the human But the same things can not be said to general elven population. They'll most likely going to shoot any shemlens they see running in their forest without questioning like Tamlen. 

Tamlen's an idiot. You can't say all Dalish will act like Tamlen, the man who is the very definition of "Shoot first, ask questions later".

Marethari even commends a Dalish Warden for letting the humans go, saying it was the correct and right thing to do.

And as for slavery. Some of them are forced. Some voluntarily sell themselves at alienage. I can pity for those who are forced into slavery but I do not condone the act of selling oneself as slave. But hey, that's how the city elves live. So why blame the human Ferelden when some of them voluntarily want to be a slave?  

Okay, first off I never once blamed Fereldans for the current condition of the Elves. If that's supposed to be directed at me then you're well on your way to a big ol' strawman.

I do however blame the Chantry, which is not even remotely the same thing.

And you want to know why? Because the Chantry's responsible for them living in filthy squalor! Being forced to live as second-class citizens at best is what the Chantry did after the Exalted March of the Dales, and the priests of the Chantry view that as a generous act of charity.

And I call bull**** on that being a generous act.

What's worse is that they were forbidden from worshipping their gods anymore and the Canticle of Shartan was stricken from the Chant of Light. As a result, many people remain ignorant of just how Andraste freed the slaves of the Tevinter Imperium. Elves were vital to the Imperium's defeat.

Not liking history doesn't make it any less true -- Scholar Gertek

Oh and finally, the only Elves that sell themselves into slavery are those in the Imperium IIRC. Reason being it allows their families the option to no longer be slaves. You see a case of this with Fenris, where he competed in a tournament where the grand prize was lyrium abilities and for his family to be freed.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

Turning to blood magic =/= automatic possession.

[Urzon]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

And that is how templar arguments usually win. They have the upperhand against mages, and the only way for mages to get an advantage to defend themselves is resorting to blood magic and demons. Which is then easy to paint all of the mages as evil or dangerous. Since those magics are "forbidden", and they can resort to them anytime.

The templars don't need demons to turn into monsters, as show in your own example. They were messing around with her, torturing her, beating her, probably about to rape her as well. They use their abilities to render all her magic useless, and when she is about to die she cries out for help; the only one there to answer her is a demon.

Really sad when you think about it.

[Silfren]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Silfren wrote...
When a person is faced with the immediate threat of death, they cannot be expected to think of the world at large.  It is human nature to be focused on your own survival.  You may think of the people in your immediate circle of loved ones who depend on you, but you're not bloody likely to be thinking about anyone else.  

You're not thinking about this realistically.  When an armed and armored soldier is running at you with a drawn sword, and they clearly intend to run you through with it, you are simply not going to be thinking about anything but your own immediate survival.  You aren't going to take the time to think about people fifty feet away from you or two miles away, much less the world at large.  Your thoughts are most likely going to be some variation on "OHSH*TGONNADIE!!!!!!!!!!  HELP WHAT DO I DO!?????????????????"

Realistically, I don't turn into monster. I retain my humanity and aware of the consequences. That's the different.  

Silfren wrote...

So you can dispense with just dismissing my entire point as being just about my thinking only about power.  For the discussion at hand, I was talking about a specific situation of a person in a life or death scenario.  

The fact is, most people are not going to be thinking about moral ideologies.  Basic human survival instinct is a hard thing to overcome, and most people won't have the willpower or the desire to overwhelm that survival drive with personal moral codes.  Nor should they be expected to.  It's not wrong to want to save your own life by any means necessary, and when you've got about three seconds to make a decision that will make the difference in whether you're alive ten seconds from now, you can't be expected to spend the time deliberating over the morality of your choice.

Anyway, you also overlooked a key point about blood magic I raised.  It isn't always about spells specific to blood magic.  There's more to blood magic than "the school of blood magic spells," after all.   Blood can fuel spells from any other school of magic in the same way that lyrium does.  So you talking about trusting your arcane magic over "pathetic blood magic" completely ignores that you can USE blood to POWER those "arcane magic" spells.  After all, if you expend your supply of mana and don't have lyrium on hand to replace it, blood is your only other option besides waiting for your native mana supply to refill itself.  And if you're in the middle of fighting for your life, you don't have the luxury of waiting for that to happen.  

The problem with blood magic is, the risk of possesion by a demon. The more you use blood magic, the higher the risk.To me, once being possessed, it make no difference than me becoming a monster. I rather kill myself if that happen. Because life has no meaning if I loose my humanity. Humanity is more important than slight advantage of blood magic.

Which lead to my question: Can an abomination return to their former self or be cured by others?

This is already proven.  See Connor, son of Arl Eamon of Redcliffe, formerly the abomination behind the Attack At Nightfall.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Urzon wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

And that is how templar arguments usually win. They have the upperhand against mages, and the only way for mages to get an advantage to defend themselves is resorting to blood magic and demons. Which is then easy to paint all of the mages as evil or dangerous. Since those magics are "forbidden", and they can resort to them anytime.

The templars don't need demons to turn into monsters, as show in your own example. They were messing around with her, torturing her, beating her, probably about to rape her as well. They use their abilities to render all her magic useless, and when she is about to die she cries out for help; the only one there to answer her is a demon.

Really sad when you think about it.

See. This is what make the Aequitarians different from Isolationists and Libertarians. I don't trust blood magic and demons. Blood magic + demon is not ethical.

You know what I thought about that mage girl?

If only she would give me a few seconds to kill those S.O.B I could have save her. Instead, She forced me to killed her. And how is that suppose to make me feel better? I feel guilty but I realize it's not my fault. I have to defend my companions. So who is to be blamed?

The Templars could easily been taken down by anyone. Even the most stupid thugs can stab the Templars from behind. The templars can easily be removed. But what about the mages? You cannot help them if they cannot help themselves like that mage girl. So yes I blame her too. for forcing me to do things I don't want to. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 mai 2012 - 06:07 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...


This is already proven. See Connor, son of Arl Eamon of Redcliffe, formerly the abomination behind the Attack At Nightfall.

Apparently they have to be mutated to qualify as an Abomination in his book.

But to be serious, I think what he's really asking is can the mutation be reversed in the more blatant abominations if they're cured rather then can being possessed itself be reversed.

To which I'd say theoretically yes. We already know that Abominations can be cured, from both Connor, Marethari's words on the topic, and apparently Asunder. I haven't seen or read anything about mutated Abominations being cured, but I do have a theory on the topic:

The mutation occurs when the souls of both the demon and the Mage clash and try to defeat each other. When the soul of the Mage is more or less incapable of fighting back, there's a sort of energy burst in the Mage.

But if you willingly submit to the demon -- either immediately or if you fight the demon but then surrender -- your form is retained and you don't don a meatball flesh suit.

Or something along those lines.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 mai 2012 - 06:17 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...


This is already proven. See Connor, son of Arl Eamon of Redcliffe, formerly the abomination behind the Attack At Nightfall.

Apparently they have to be mutated to qualify as an Abomination in his book

But to be serious, I think what he's really asking is can the mutation be reversed in the more blatant abominations rather then can being possessed itself be reversed.

To which I'd say theoretically yes. We already know that Abominations can be cured, from both Connor, Marethari's words on the topic, and apparently Asunder.

I'm not the best at remembering all the details of a book I read months ago, but I don't recall any abominations being cured in Asunder.  Tranquility was reversed, but that obviously is a different kettle of fish.

Closest thing to it I is what happens to Wynne.  Pretty big spoiler here, but this IS a spoiler-permitted forum, so: Wynne was still carrying around her spirit--and of course by the Chantry's definition she is an abomination--and she somehow sent it into the body of a dead woman, who was restored to life as a result.  Pretty interesting when you think about it, since all other instances of spirits or demons possessing corpses involves...animated corpses, not a true resurrection.  But I don't recall any meatbag abominations being restored to their formerly human selves.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

I'm not the best at remembering all the details of a book I read months ago, but I don't recall any abominations being cured in Asunder. Tranquility was reversed, but that obviously is a different kettle of fish

From what the wiki has led me to believe, Pharamond was possessed and became an Abomination. And Wynne's efforts cured his possession, while the possession itself cured his Tranquility.

But I haven't read the book to know if that's the case.

[Silfren]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

When you're facing a life or death situation--in a typical example faced by mages in Kirkwall, via a templar running toward you with a sword aimed at your chest--you don't have time to consider the prospects of what might happen to you or anyone else as a result of your attempt to fight back.  Nor should you be expected to, because hey, madman running directly at you with a sword aimed at your chest, you've got about three seconds to any kind of action, whatever it turns out to be.  That isn't time to consider which options you SHOULD be taking, and whether the effort to save yourself will make life bad for others.  There just isn't time for all that moral deliberation, and most people are going to act to save their own lives purely out of instinctual reflex.  Excepting those people who end up so paralyzed with fear and shock that they end up impaled on the end of the sword before they are able to register what's happening, of course.  But that's what you're refusing to accept: most people are going to want to save themselves out of pure instinctual reflex. 

YOU apparently would sooner die than sacrifice your morals. That's great and wonderful, but most people are either not strong enough to make that kind of self-sacrifice, or just flat out don't WANT to, morals be damned.  As I've said, survival instinct is a powerful thing, and it takes a conscious, deliberate act of will to overcome it.  Barring certain factors, most people simply don't want to die.  I'd wager that precious few want to die from sudden violence.

Blood magic won't inevitably turn you into a monster.  There is more to blood magic than summoning demons.  Again, blood is often nothing more than a tool to provide the power for "approved" spells.  

Answer this question directly, please.  If a mage is fighting for her life, and she has exhausted her mana and has no lyrium to ingest, is she morally forbidden from using HER own blood in defense of her life?

To change the situation a bit, what about a mage who is actively fighting to defend the lives of others, and runs out of her supply of mana, but again has no lyrium?  Do you expect her to give up the fight and let those she is defending die rather than use her own blood to try and save them?

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I'm not the best at remembering all the details of a book I read months ago, but I don't recall any abominations being cured in Asunder. Tranquility was reversed, but that obviously is a different kettle of fish

From what the wiki has led me to believe, Pharamond was possessed and became an Abomination. And Wynne's efforts cured his possession, while the possession itself cured his Tranquility.

But I haven't read the book to know if that's the case.

Dang it.  I shall have to just re-read the thing, I think.  I blew through it pretty fast the first time.  I remember the fight with the demon, but not Pharamond actually being possessed by it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...


This is already proven. See Connor, son of Arl Eamon of Redcliffe, formerly the abomination behind the Attack At Nightfall.

Apparently they have to be mutated to qualify as an Abomination in his book.

But to be serious, I think what he's really asking is can the mutation be reversed in the more blatant abominations if they're cured rather then can being possessed itself be reversed.

IIRC; once someone becomes FULLY possesed, there is no going back.
"You" are gone and cannot be brought back.

Connor wasn't fully possesed. He made a pact and thus they could save him.

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...


This is already proven. See Connor, son of Arl Eamon of Redcliffe, formerly the abomination behind the Attack At Nightfall.

Apparently they have to be mutated to qualify as an Abomination in his book.

But to be serious, I think what he's really asking is can the mutation be reversed in the more blatant abominations if they're cured rather then can being possessed itself be reversed.

IIRC; once someone becomes FULLY possesed, there is no going back.
"You" are gone and cannot be brought back.

Connor wasn't fully possesed. He made a pact and thus they could save him.

Oh, he was fully possessed.  He was possessed in a fundamentally different way from Wynne and Anders, but he was fully possessed.  The game explictly spells out that he was possessed and considered an abomination per the Chantry's position on such things. 

What Irving says is that there is a chance to reverse possession in someone who willingly made the deal, but not when someone was forcibly overwhelmed.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Silfren wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.

When you're facing a life or death situation--in a typical example faced by mages in Kirkwall, via a templar running toward you with a sword aimed at your chest--you don't have time to consider the prospects of what might happen to you or anyone else as a result of your attempt to fight back.  Nor should you be expected to, because hey, madman running directly at you with a sword aimed at your chest, you've got about three seconds to any kind of action, whatever it turns out to be.  That isn't time to consider which options you SHOULD be taking, and whether the effort to save yourself will make life bad for others.  There just isn't time for all that moral deliberation, and most people are going to act to save their own lives purely out of instinctual reflex.  Excepting those people who end up so paralyzed with fear and shock that they end up impaled on the end of the sword before they are able to register what's happening, of course.  But that's what you're refusing to accept: most people are going to want to save themselves out of pure instinctual reflex.  

YOU apparently would sooner die than sacrifice your morals. That's great and wonderful, but most people are either not strong enough to make that kind of self-sacrifice, or just flat out don't WANT to, morals be damned.  As I've said, survival instinct is a powerful thing, and it takes a conscious, deliberate act of will to overcome it.  Barring certain factors, most people simply don't want to die.  I'd wager that precious few want to die from sudden violence.

They' already dead the moment they turn into mutated abomination. So what is the point of choosing that option?

Silfren wrote...

Blood magic won't inevitably turn you into a monster.  There is more to blood magic than summoning demons.  Again, blood is often nothing more than a tool to provide the power for "approved" spells.

That is not what I see in Kirkwall. Every single mages I encounter turn into abominotion with no difficuty including Orsino.  What you claimed only theory. Practically it doesn't appear that way. 

Silfren wrote...

Answer this question directly, please.  If a mage is fighting for her life, and she has exhausted her mana and has no lyrium to ingest, is she morally forbidden from using HER own blood in defense of her life?

She already acted immorally by practising the forbidden arts in the first place. 

Silfren wrote...


To change the situation a bit, what about a mage who is actively fighting to defend the lives of others, and runs out of her supply of mana, but again has no lyrium?  Do you expect her to give up the fight and let those she is defending die rather than use her own blood to try and save them?

She already study blood magic so what's the point in answering that? What she did is already wrong in the first place. Non bloodmage will resort to anything to defend herself and blood magic is not an option.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 mai 2012 - 06:54 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. Again. You keep thinking magic = everthing is possible. This is not true.

Not everything possible, but a lot more than "submit or die" is possible.  The point was to speculate using actual game lore as a basis. 

So insted of using confirmed facts as a basis for decision making, let's use speculation?

There's no way for you to tell mroe than "submit or die" is possible.
You can claim even LESS that it's feasable.
You mention the rite of Tranquality as a solution, but you really think mages would like that option?
And you really think the populace at large would be content with your other theoretical solution?

Unless the solution isn't FEASABLE, then it's pointelss and useless.

Also, the right of Tranquility IS used. Obviously someone came up with it at some point. So if anything, that proves someone looked for another option other than "kill the mage". Otehrwise it would not exist.

Yep, and did they keep trying to make it less drastic once they figured it out?  We'll never know unless the writers say something, but my point was that if there is a way to alter the mages' link to the fade, then perhaps there are variations on the severity of that alteration.

You again assume it is possible to make it "less drastic" and the research didn't hit an dead end of "it's simply not possible".
You project your wishfull thinking into the wordl of TheDas, instead of working with what we are given.

I don't have to think a deseased man guility of anything shoot him. Is it his fault he is deseased? No. That doesn't change the fact he is dangerous.
Yet if he came close to your family, you'd shoot him.

That's a very bad assumption.  I'd get inside, lock the doors and call the authorities.  Why on Earth would you assume I'd go for the most violent and final option?

And if there's no door to lock?
You'd go for the most violent option if that was the ebast way to protect your family.
Similary, you now understand why mages are locked up and not killed. Because the Cahtnry doesn't want the most violent option, evne if it is the most secure one.

As long as there is a mage, and he is in public, he is a danger to everyoen around him. Period. This is a fact.

That's no more true than it would be about any random person.  Anyone can snap or be a hidden threat.

Wrong.
Anyone cannot turn into a monster DESPITE WHAT HE WANTS.
Anyone cannot manipulate minds and wipe out villages.

It is you who are missing the point. The kingdom doesn't have to fall for thousands of innocents to die.
The Chantry isn't wrong.

The Chantry is wrong that all mages drunk on power and blood magic will turn to demons and wind up destroying everything.  Because Tevinter is that, and isn't destroyed.

Except  I don't recall the claims of Armageddon.
Mages are dangerous. Mages raunning around free WILL cause death and destruction. Enough to bring down a kindgom? Probably not. Who knows.

[GavrielKay]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
See. This is what make the Aequitarians different from Isolationists and Libertarians. I don't trust blood magic and demons. Blood magic + demon is not ethical.

I'm pretty sure no one is arguing that becoming an abomination is a good thing.  The case is two fold:  1) blood magic is not the same as possession and 2) lots of things are acceptable when under attack that woudln't be otherwise.

You have said several times that the mages need to be locked up until they can somehow prove that they aren't dangerous.  I say it's the Templars who should be locked up until they prove they aren't monsters.

What sort of person believes in his heart that mages are dangerous, and then tortures them?  If you think a mage is a ticking time bomb, why would you prod her?  If an abomination is so destructive, why would you push a mage so far that they quit caring what happens to themselves as long as they can strike back at their tormentor?  Surely if mages really were so dangerous as to be completely unsafe around the public, it's a bad idea to whip them until they break?

When the Chantry summarily executes any Templar caught tormenting a supposedly dangerous mage, then I'll have more respect for their rules.  So long as they don't respect them internally, why should anyone suffering under their domination care?  If you push someone until they have nothing left to lose, then it's your fault when something bad happens, not the person whose psyche you wrecked.

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You project your wishfull thinking into the wordl of TheDas, instead of working with what we are given.

If you aren't interested in my topic that's fine.  But I think there is plenty of room to think about how things could be different.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Silfren wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
In case of mages, ti's an open and shut case.

Because you say so?  Naw, but it ain't.  However certain you may be, we have evidence that directly contradicts it.  It is not a foregone conclusion that mages are inherently dangerous to such an extent that the Circle system in its present incarnation is the only possible method to contain the alleged problem.

No, because it is so.

There's more than enough evidence that clearly and wihout doubt shows just how dangerous mages are.
Mages ARE inherently dangerous. They aren't like normal people.
Normal people can't get possesed at any time.
Normal people wont' go on a murder spree even if they don't want it.
Normal people can't throw fireballs around.
Normal people can't mind control. Heck, this ALONE is enough to warrant locking up all mages.


A mage is undeniably, demonstrably, uncategoricly, defiantely, provenly far more dangerous than any loony from the loony bin.
No sane citizen of TheDas would want them roaming free.

You cannot categorically say that we can do this, because it is demonstrably false.

I can. It all depends on the laws and power structure in question.

Firstly, we DO have lore from various characters directly stating that the Chantry outright forbids research into certain areas, regardless of any potential benefit, so that alone carries implication aplenty that there have been few attempts, and any there have been have been conducted outside the purview of the (white) Chantry.
Though granted it is not absolutely conclusive, it is still not
unreasonable to assume from the existing lore that these methods have
not been attempted.

A wise precaution. Some things are better left untouched.
And there is no clear text tellign exactly in detail what areas and what specificly is forbidden, so you are again, projecting.

It is not ridiculous.  Redcliffe happened because Isolde was afraid of losing her son, and because the thought of his being a mage humiliated and shamed her.

Redcliffe happened becasue CONNOR WAS A MAGE. Period.

Trying to pretend that Isolde's sheer terror over losing her son to the Circle forever had no role in what took place...that is what's ridiculous.

Trying to pretend mages turning into abomniations and having so much power didn't have a role in the shaping of the circle system..that is ridicolous.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 09 mai 2012 - 07:17 .

[Urzon]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The Templars could easily been taken down by anyone. Even the most stupid thugs can stab the Templars from behind. The templars can easily be removed. But what about the mages? You cannot help them if they cannot help themselves like that mage girl. So yes I blame her too. for forcing me to do things I don't want to. 

The templars can't be taken down by everyone. Even against non-magical foes, they are still highly trained warriors. Not to mention, they are heavily armored warriors. So, the "most stupid thugs" can't stab them from behind. Just because our rogue Warden/Hawke and their companions can do it, doesn't mean everyone and their mother can kill templars. Most of the reason they can even backstab a templar, is just gameplay mechanics.

And for the bolded part, really? Do you think there is a "How to gank a templar 101" class in the Circle or something?

They Chantry wouldn't allow mages to learn something that can be activally used against them. It is one of the many reasons why the Chantry doesn't allow the teaching of blood magic. It is because the templars can't counter blood magic like they can magics fueled by mana and lyrium. It's also why the mages don't learn any martial skills in the Circle. So it's easier for the templars to control them if there is a fight or if they rebel.

[Silfren]

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...


[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
I already answered that. Using illegal shotgun is one thing. Using illegal magic and turn into abomination is another thing. Shotgun don't turn me into monster. blood magic can turn me into monster.

If I am to turn into monster for survival, then I may as well died because it make no difference anyway since I already loose my humanity.
[/quote]

When you're facing a life or death situation--in a typical example faced by mages in Kirkwall, via a templar running toward you with a sword aimed at your chest--you don't have time to consider the prospects of what might happen to you or anyone else as a result of your attempt to fight back.  Nor should you be expected to, because hey, madman running directly at you with a sword aimed at your chest, you've got about three seconds to any kind of action, whatever it turns out to be.  That isn't time to consider which options you SHOULD be taking, and whether the effort to save yourself will make life bad for others.  There just isn't time for all that moral deliberation, and most people are going to act to save their own lives purely out of instinctual reflex.  Excepting those people who end up so paralyzed with fear and shock that they end up impaled on the end of the sword before they are able to register what's happening, of course.  But that's what you're refusing to accept: most people are going to want to save themselves out of pure instinctual reflex.  

YOU apparently would sooner die than sacrifice your morals. That's great and wonderful, but most people are either not strong enough to make that kind of self-sacrifice, or just flat out don't WANT to, morals be damned.  As I've said, survival instinct is a powerful thing, and it takes a conscious, deliberate act of will to overcome it.  Barring certain factors, most people simply don't want to die.  I'd wager that precious few want to die from sudden violence.[/quote]

They' already dead the moment they turn into mutated abomination. So what is the point of choosing that option?
[/quote]

It's a desperate bid for survival.  They aren't dead the moment they turn into an abomination.  They're only dead when/if that abomination is killed by someone.  Again, it's a bid for survival at all costs.  People aren't thinking about being an unthinking abomination at the time, they're focused purely on staying alive.  


[quote]Silfren wrote...

Answer this question directly, please.  If a mage is fighting for her life, and she has exhausted her mana and has no lyrium to ingest, is she morally forbidden from using HER own blood in defense of her life?[/quote]
She already acted immorally by practising the forbidden arts in the first place. 
[/quote]

Er, that's a completely nonsensical response.  What I can't figure out is whether you're deliberately skewing things or the language barrier is muddling the issue.

[quote]Sacred Fantasy wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...


To change the situation a bit, what about a mage who is actively fighting to defend the lives of others, and runs out of her supply of mana, but again has no lyrium?  Do you expect her to give up the fight and let those she is defending die rather than use her own blood to try and save them?[/quote]
She already study blood magic so what's the point in answering that? What she did is already wrong in the first place. Non bloodmage will resort to anything to defend herself and blood magic is not an option.  [/quote]

If blood can be used to power regular, non-blood magic spells, it could be argued that you don't have to study the school of blood magic just to use your own blood as fuel. 

Quit dodging and just answer the question.  Leave aside whether it is good or bad to study blood magic: is it wrong to use your own blood to power spells in the defense of other people's lives when you don't have access to lyrium and your mana is exhausted?  It isn't enough to say a non blood mage will resort to anything to defend herself when I'm pointing out that part of the problem for this scenario is that her mana is gone and she has no lyrium, so the only means she has to power her magic is blood.  Are you of the opinion she should let people in her protection die rather than use her blood to defend them?  Yes or no.

Modifié par Silfren, 09 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. Again. You keep thinking magic = everthing is possible. This is not true.

Not everything possible, but a lot more than "submit or die" is possible.  The point was to speculate using actual game lore as a basis. 

So insted of using confirmed facts as a basis for decision making, let's use speculation?

You know, in the very bit you just quoted, she specified speculation based on actual game lore. 

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Redcliffe happened becasue CONNOR WAS A MAGE. Period.

No, it is not PERIOD.  There is more to Connor's story than just that he was a mage.  Isolde was afraid of losing him forever.  She states, "If they knew Connor had magic, they'd take him away!" in an extremely distraught voice.  This makes it extremely clear that she couldn't bear the thought of losing her son, since it involved not only Connor being taken away, but his not being able to come back, not being able to inherit his father's lands or titles, not being able to see his family again, etc.  (Yes, we do see that Arl Eamon visit Connor in the Circle, but the available lore indicates that this is unusual, based on the Arl's power and authority, and clearly not something Isolde expected, given her palpable fear over the idea).  She also states "I was not going to lose my son.  Not to...to magic!"

The disaster at Redcliffe didn't happen just because Connor was a mage.  It happened because his mother was afraid of losing him should it become public knowledge that he was a mage to the extent that she went out of her way to keep the knowledge secret from Connor's own father, and sought out an incompetent apostate to train him.  Pretending that Connor's being a mage was the sole factor in what happened is disingenuous.  

Had Isolde believed Connor could simply go for training, with the understanding that he would be allowed to come back when his studies were done, and that she would be able to see him as much as she wished, or had there been a system whereby Connor could be trained by an in-house mage so that he could learn his abilities in the comfort of his home, then Isolde would not have been so determined to keep his mageness a secret.  Moreso had she not been indoctrinated by the Chantry into believing that magic was a dirty, evil, and shameful thing that marked a person as inherently evil. 

That deep-seated terror, of magic itself and the natural maternal fear of not wanting to lose her son, are what caused the disaster in Redcliffe.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
See. This is what make the Aequitarians different from Isolationists and Libertarians. I don't trust blood magic and demons. Blood magic + demon is not ethical.

I'm pretty sure no one is arguing that becoming an abomination is a good thing.  The case is two fold:  1) blood magic is not the same as possession and 2) lots of things are acceptable when under attack that woudln't be otherwise.

1. Blood magic is not the same as Possession. Practising blood magic however increase the risk of getting possessed. They're related.

2. That depend on which side are you talking.  And we're going back to the same old argument. If you continue to insist on this, then I have to stop here.

GavrielKay wrote...

You have said several times that the mages need to be locked up until they can somehow prove that they aren't dangerous.  I say it's the Templars who should be locked up until they prove they aren't monsters.

What sort of person believes in his heart that mages are dangerous, and then tortures them?  If you think a mage is a ticking time bomb, why would you prod her?  If an abomination is so destructive, why would you push a mage so far that they quit caring what happens to themselves as long as they can strike back at their tormentor?  Surely if mages really were so dangerous as to be completely unsafe around the public, it's a bad idea to whip them until they break?

They don't need to be whipped to make them break. They can break anytime and anywhere without triggering any warning. It's all depends on the demon.

GavrielKay wrote.

When the Chantry summarily executes any Templar caught tormenting a supposedly dangerous mage, then I'll have more respect for their rules.  So long as they don't respect them internally, why should anyone suffering under their domination care?  If you push someone until they have nothing left to lose, then it's your fault when something bad happens, not the person whose psyche you wrecked.

First of all, The templars are human. They can be reasoning like Knight Commander Gregoire. Mutated abomination and even abomination like Anders cannot be reasoning. ( I am referring to Anders's acts on terrorism )

Second, You have the better chance to protect yourself from changing into mutated brainless harvester or any bullcrap monster within the Circle. The mages and Templars are there to help you. 

Third. Not all templars are that bad. Just look at Cullen and former templar Alistair. Just like the mages, it's not fair for you to lump all templars are evil.

Forth, I have no idea what's with all this hatred towards chantry. I can understand  why the elves hate the Chantry, thanks to The Ethereal Writer Redux's long explanation. ( I love history I don't know why I hate Thedas history. ).  I don't care for chantry law but I do believe blood magic is bad. And I do believe in The Circle. There're a lot of nice folks at Ferelden's Circle  They're part of my Amell's family. it's hard for me to leave them.  So here the things. The Chantry is supported by monarchs in most part of Thedas. The common folks like Leliana and Sebastian are devout Chantry's follower. Terrorism is not a way to go. It's like bombing the the vaticans in Rome during midddle age. You are not against the Church but against the entire European Kingdoms loyal to the Pope. And I'm sure you know the consequences.  Hmm... this remain me something else. Some people like to be regular character. So here is the chance of playing regular character like Hawke. You can't change the story. You can't do anything. . 

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Trying to pretend mages turning into abomniations and having so much power didn't have a role in the shaping of the circle system..that is ridicolous.

In those words, I've never claimed that those factors didn't have A ROLE in the shaping of the Circle system.  But I'm just playing semantics now, since you framed your statement with words vague enough to let me play fast and loose with interpretation and I'm feeling snarky enough to do so. 

I think those factors did play A ROLE in the shaping of the Circle system.  As in, I think those dangers exist, but not to the grievous, world-shattering extent the Chantry would have us believe.  I think those factors were overstated by the Chantry in order to justify the creation of the Circle system.  

What this entire thread is intended to be about is discussing what alternatives to the Circle could be in place if it were not an option to imprison them.  It isn't about going over the reasons why the Circle system was created. 

I simply do not think the existing lore supports the belief that mages and magic are so inherently dangerous that the Circle system as it formerly existed is the only possible means to deal with potential calamity.  

Fact: Despite the fact that the lore does indicate that templars either can't defend against blood magic or have a harder time doing so, we DO have the Litany of Adralla, which defends against "blood magic mind domination" and by extension, demonic possession.  The same codex that discusses the Litany also points out that Adralla who invented it also came up with ways to defend against demonic summons, a counter to EVERY form of mind control, and defense against dream walkers.  So it does appear that we have some known means of defense, and the existence of such indicates there could be more.  

Fact: The Chantry does not permit research, even when that research could lead to beneficial means of defending against abominations, demons, and blood mages.  Y'know, those things the Chantry abhors and claims to want to protect people from?

Fact: Tevinter isn't in a total state of collapse, but is a thriving city.  Given the extent to which magic is practiced there, it also must have a thin or completely-gone Veil.  Yet abominations and demons have yet to decimate the city and rampage throughout the rest of Thedas.  So it appears that Tevinter has methods for preventing those things or at least effectively countering them before they can wreak havoc. 

There's more, but those facts are sufficient to lend credence to the belief that the Circle is neither the only nor even the best option.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Urzon wrote...
They Chantry wouldn't allow mages to learn something that can be activally used against them. It is one of the many reasons why the Chantry doesn't allow the teaching of blood magic. It is because the templars can't counter blood magic like they can magics fueled by mana and lyrium. It's also why the mages don't learn any martial skills in the Circle. So it's easier for the templars to control them if there is a fight or if they rebel.

I don't care about the Chantry. Research can be done in the Circle. The mages can do research outside the Circle with permission like Finn. The Chantry prevent to study demonology and still it doesn't stop Irving to study demonology. So why bother with the Chantry? Knight Commander Gregoire maybe pricky but he is not that unreasonable like Meredith.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 09 mai 2012 - 08:07 .