629 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

We do not know that there are ONLY demons of sloth, pride, etc.  Those are the known demons.  At any rate, we also know that there are ranks within each of those categories: the demon, Torpor, is called by Justice a demon of sloth.  We see a desire demon who is called Allure.  And Merrill's Pride Demon is called...crap, I can't remember.  Vengeance could easily be classed as a rage demon or a pride demon, depending on one's view of vengeance, so you cannot claim that there is no such thing.[/quote]
We do know demonic possession always ends in tragic. We have no evidence that demon would melded into a person's personality. Abomination codex's literally state than when unholy union between a demon and mage take place, abomination is created.   Therefore it does not make sense if Vengence or Justic melded into Anders's personality and not turning him into abomination. [/quote]

I think part of the problem is that for you, abomination always and only = twisted meatbag of mutated flesh.  The problem is that DA lore indicates that the Chantry views any and all possessed mages as abominations.  Case in point: Connor of Redcliffe.  Never once does he become a twisted, formless meatbag.  Yet he is still considered an abomination.  Wynne also thinks of herself as an abomination early in her recruitment, before she even admits to the Warden that she is possessed.  And Anders is repeatedly referred to as an abomination throughout DA2 by various characters.  The upshot of which is simply that the Chantry indeed does not differentiate, and by extension, neither do the templars.  

I personally think that a distinction SHOULD be made, but be that as it may, the general accepted opinion of most people of Thedas, due to Chantry indoctrination, is that possessed=abomination.  


[quote]Silfren wrote...


Also, demons actually can leave a body.  The problem is that they tend not to want to.  But the fact is, they DO have the ABILITY to do so.  The desire demon who attached herself to Connor can be made to leave him through intimidation.  She may be going under duress, but the physical action of leaving is hers alone.  

[/quote]
I have stated already a demon leaves a body by force either through ritual or some other mean. There is no evidence whatsoever that support demon would release a host peacefully.  Even if demon melded into a mage's body, it would turn the mage into twsited monster. [/quote]

Again, while this is usually the case, we have enough hints that this is not ALWAYS the case, and is thus not a foregone conclusion.  Part of the problem and confusion has to do with the fact that some possessions are Fade-only, while others are physical.  Connor was indeed possessed--this is agreed upon by everybody involved, from Alistair the templar to First Enchanter Irving, Jowan, Morrigan, and Wynne, but the demon was not within him physically.  While her case is not completely understood, I do feel it's worth pointing out that Flemeth is also said to be possessed.  It is not at all clear what kind of possession is at play here, but she is said to have a demon within her, and we can see that she is not a meatbag.  

Anyway, since we DO see that a demon can be persuaded or intimidated into leaving a body, I do think it is entirely possible for a demon to leave.  Note that I am discussing whether the demon as the ABILITY to leave, not the desire to, because the post of yours that prompted this bit of the discussion seemed to assert that you didn't think a demon COULD leave a body that was possessed.  We know in fact that that is not true, because a demon can be coerced into abandoning a body under its own power.  I think that it is actually quite possible that a demon would be willing to leave a host.  Who is to say a demon would not become bored of one body and want to experience another's?  I think you would be most likely to see this in desire demons.  

[quote]Silfren wrote...

At least I draw my my interpretations and conclusions from the lore, and I adjust them where new information requires it.  You just seem to be making sh*t up.[/quote]
You draw your interpretation and conclusion from lore?   You conclusion never agree with the reason behind the establishment of the Circle of Magi despite so many codex entries.  You even ignore the cold hard fact about the danger of abomination as stated in abomination's codex entry. 
Your  "educated guess" about the Chasind and Rivaini society are making **** up do you know that? 

[/quote]

No, they aren't.  I'm drawing my opinions about Rivain--I have said nothing about Chasind thus far in this thread, and this is the second time I have pointed that out, by the way--directly from the codex about it.  As for the rest, yes, all of my conclusions are drawn from the codices, dialogue, and other sources of DA lore, and I have demonstrated this time and again every time I reference the bit of lore from which I derive an opinion.  It's of no consequence to me that you choose to ignore those codices.

Re: the reason behind the establishment of the Circle.  What YOU are ignoring--and you are ignoring it, because I and several others have raised this point multiple times--is that the available lore is conflicting.  We have a codex that states that the mages were the ones who created the Circles, and did so in order to be free of stifling Chantry oversight that prevented them from doing anything meaningful.  It is mentioned in Asunder (and perhaps somewhere else?) that the Chantry and the Seekers of Truth worked together to form the Circles.  WIthout further explanation, what we have here are two directly contradictory claims on lore.  So you are hardly in a position to tell me I'm wrong in my opinions, especially when I have admitted UP FRONT that there is too little information clear enough to draw conclusions from.

[Silfren]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Demon is twisted evil spirit. They cannot simply leave Anders.

I don't believe that statement meant that Justice/Vengeance had left, but rather merged so closely with Anders' own personality that they were no longer two separate entities. (As Silfren said while I was typing away )

Well.. I do. I believe spirit could merged with a host but I don't believe it happen to Anders - mainly because I killed Anders.

.....Wait a second.  You've written several posts about Anders being possessed by a spirit,  and now you're saying you don't  believe Anders did merge with Justice?  This is not something to believe or disbelieve, it's part of the damn game's story.  Killing him has nothing to do with it.

[Silfren]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

But we know next to nothing about those several societies. No report on magic abuses, abominations etc.. do not equal there isn't any. 

Ah, but we can draw certain reasonable conclusions from the lack of those reports.  If the people of Rivain had serious problems with rogue mages, abominations, and demons running loose, they would be begging the Chantry to come in and do something, rather than what they ARE doing, which is refusing to allow the Chantry a foothold--and is something being done specifically because they don't want the Chantry taking their seers away.  That's not what the people would be doing if they were under constant attacks from magic-related catasrophes. 

In the same vein, even if for some reason the Rivaini people didn't want help, the people of the neighboring areas would be raising holy hell themselves, because if the Chantry is to believed, the rampant abominations and demons would be pouring into the surrounding cities, what with not being held in check in Rivain and all. 

Also, well, if we're to believe that magic is dangerous to the extent the Chantry insists, then it actually should be the case that Rivain and other mage-friendly territories are smoking wastelands by now, since without locking the mages up and stationing templars to deal with rogues, we're led to believe that abominations would have slaughtered everyone by now and be on their way to other populated areas.

Finally, if mage-friendly societies were tearing themselves apart due to unchecked mages, the Chantry would bring up the point each and every bloody time anyone, mage or mage sympathizer, objected.  They'd have no better argument to make their case, after all.  The fact that they don't rather powerfully states that they CAN'T, because it is demonstrably false to anyone who has been to those societies.

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
You draw your interpretation and conclusion from lore?   You conclusion never agree with the reason behind the establishment of the Circle of Magi despite so many codex entries.  You even ignore the cold hard fact about the danger of abomination as stated in abomination's codex entry. 
Your  "educated guess" about the Chasind and Rivaini society are making **** up do you know that? 

They'll shut down the thread unless we all keep it civil and on topic.

I apologize.  I was the first one to make the "making sh*t up" remark, and even though I meant it more as tongue-in-cheek snark, it really was just uncalled for.  Sorry.  

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

So? It is a codex after all and still better than just "educated guess"

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That was a dig at me based on an earlier post of mine.  Why they referenced it to you is beyond me.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

So? It is a codex after all and still better than just "educated guess"

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That was a dig at me based on an earlier post of mine.  Why they referenced it to you is beyond me.

I think it was partly language barrier, because the sentence didn't make sense to me.

Anyway, I don't know that I believe the two codices on circle formation have to contradict each other.  They are told from two points of view.  Sister Petrine details why the mages would want to allow it and the timeline one explains why the Chantry would want to.  Neither of them says there was war or a hostile round up of mages.  Neither one says that something had gone horribly wrong right before it happened (like a particularly vicious abomination or something).  So the two can co-exist.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Silfren wrote...
I think part of the problem is that for you, abomination always and only = twisted meatbag of mutated flesh.  The problem is that DA lore indicates that the Chantry views any and all possessed mages as abominations.  Case in point: Connor of Redcliffe.  Never once does he become a twisted, formless meatbag.  Yet he is still considered an abomination.  Wynne also thinks of herself as an abomination early in her recruitment, before she even admits to the Warden that she is possessed.  And Anders is repeatedly referred to as an abomination throughout DA2 by various characters.  The upshot of which is simply that the Chantry indeed does not differentiate, and by extension, neither do the templars.
I personally think that a distinction SHOULD be made, but be that as it may, the general accepted opinion of most people of Thedas, due to Chantry indoctrination, is that possessed=abomination.

 

This I agree. There is no possible way for the Chantry to know the difference. 

Silfren wrote...
Again, while this is usually the case, we have enough hints that this is not ALWAYS the case, and is thus not a foregone conclusion.

 It's not always the case because it depends on condition and cause of posession

Silfren wrote...

Part of the problem and confusion has to do with the fact that some possessions are Fade-only, while others are physical.  Connor was indeed possessed--this is agreed upon by everybody involved, from Alistair the templar to First Enchanter Irving, Jowan, Morrigan, and Wynne, but the demon was not within him physically. 

Demon made a bargain with Connor to sustain Eamon's life through the fade. She cannot leave the fade and risk Eamon's life. The condition and cause of possession was clear. The demon didn't merge with Connor's body physically but merely control Connor from the Fade.  

Silfren wrote..


While her case is not completely understood,
I do feel it's worth pointing out that Flemeth is also said to be possessed.  It is not at all clear what kind of possession is at play here, but she is said to have a demon within her, and we can see that she is not a meatbag.

Flemeth is unique character. I don't think anyone can understand what Flemeth is. Morrigan called her abomination. That maybe true, but Flemeth is more than just abomination. She could sustain her life by consuming her daughters, manage to cheat death and be able to predict the future. A lot of things about Flemeth that we don't  know. She is a mysterious character with unknown motive. An interesting subject but I'm not interested in speculation.

Silfren wrote..

Anyway, since we DO see that a demon can be persuaded or intimidated into leaving a body, I do think it is entirely possible for a demon to leave.  Note that I am discussing whether the demon as the ABILITY to leave, not the desire to, because the post of yours that prompted this bit of the discussion seemed to assert that you didn't think a demon COULD leave a body that was possessed.  We know in fact that that is not true, because a demon can be coerced into abandoning a body under its own power.  I think that it is actually quite possible that a demon would be willing to leave a host.  Who is to say a demon would not become bored of one body and want to experience another's?  I think you would be most likely to see this in desire demons.

The possibility of demon to leave a body is someone else need to enter the fade and confront it directly either by persuasion, or by making another deal or by force. Connor and Feynerial are examples of this situation. In DLC Stone Prisoner, a demon successful enter our world through possession of a cat called Kitty. However she was trapped by magical barrier and intented to possess a girl called Amelia, Wilhem's daughter. In this case, no one need to enter the fade because the demon is already in our world. You can either persuade or lie to the demon.

What determined one's turn into twisted abomination ( I have to use this term to avoid confusion ) is whether the person is mage or not and whether the mage or individual welcome the demon or not  This we do know from Abomination codex entry. There may be other strange cases that we haven't encounter yet in future but for now, this factors are consistent. A mage who resist a demon will most likely turn into twisted abomination, depending the rank of demon. Orsino may have a strong will to resist some demon but unfortunely he ends up with Pride demon, the strongest of all. The same thing can happen to normal people if the demon already in our world. However, the demon tend to possess non living than living thing. There're a lot of things to consider. Not just mage or normal people or non living things or spirit vs demon. But I have write too long and someone may be bored already.

Despite of everything I wrote, I don't claim to know demonic possession more than anyone else. There's still much we don't understand about the nature of spirit, demon and possesion. 

Silfren wrote...
Re: the reason behind the establishment of the Circle.  What YOU are ignoring--and you are ignoring it, because I and several others have raised this point multiple times--is that the available lore is conflicting.  We have a codex that states that the mages were the ones who created the Circles, and did so in order to be free of stifling Chantry oversight that prevented them from doing anything meaningful.  It is mentioned in Asunder (and perhaps somewhere else?) that the Chantry and the Seekers of Truth worked together to form the Circles.  WIthout further explanation, what we have here are two directly contradictory claims on lore.  So you are hardly in a position to tell me I'm wrong in my opinions, especially when I have admitted UP FRONT that there is too little information clear enough to draw conclusions from.

I see...Now I understand where all this confusion came from.  The mage do create their own Circle of Magi. Do you know when was it? It happened in Pre-Age.  .

Circles of Magi formed in Tevinter cities as closed societies of mages, presumably to train and study their talents. They formed a council of their most talented mages, the Court of Magisters, which convened in Minrathous and decided the mandate of magic in the kingdom. In -1195 Ancient, the magister Darinius took power as its first Archon and founded the Imperium, establishing the magisters as its aristocracy

Refer to Tervinter Imperium Codex Entry under Subsection History This is the Circle of magi that the Tervinter Imperium is still using. A different structure and a different concept.

However, the Andrastian countries do not have their own circle of magi. They prohibit the use of magic in I:1 Divine except to light candles and lamps in every chantry . It was  1:20 Divine that The Andrastian countries began to establish their own Circle of Magi under the Nevarran Accord agreed by Divine Ambrose II and the mages. A compromisation to allow the mage to use their magic under the watchful eye of the templars, isolated from the chantry and general populace. This is the Circle of Magi that exis in Ferelden, Free Marches and all other Andrastian countries.

P:S Please no more Thedas history. I hate Thedas and chantry's history. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Silfren wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

But we know next to nothing about those several societies. No report on magic abuses, abominations etc.. do not equal there isn't any. 

Ah, but we can draw certain reasonable conclusions from the lack of those reports.  If the people of Rivain had serious problems with rogue mages, abominations, and demons running loose, they would be begging the Chantry to come in and do something, rather than what they ARE doing, which is refusing to allow the Chantry a foothold--and is something being done specifically because they don't want the Chantry taking their seers away.  That's not what the people would be doing if they were under constant attacks from magic-related catasrophes. 

In the same vein, even if for some reason the Rivaini people didn't want help, the people of the neighboring areas would be raising holy hell themselves, because if the Chantry is to believed, the rampant abominations and demons would be pouring into the surrounding cities, what with not being held in check in Rivain and all. 

Also, well, if we're to believe that magic is dangerous to the extent the Chantry insists, then it actually should be the case that Rivain and other mage-friendly territories are smoking wastelands by now, since without locking the mages up and stationing templars to deal with rogues, we're led to believe that abominations would have slaughtered everyone by now and be on their way to other populated areas.

Finally, if mage-friendly societies were tearing themselves apart due to unchecked mages, the Chantry would bring up the point each and every bloody time anyone, mage or mage sympathizer, objected.  They'd have no better argument to make their case, after all.  The fact that they don't rather powerfully states that they CAN'T, because it is demonstrably false to anyone who has been to those societies.

We don't know whether the overall population of Rivain are magic users or normal people. We only know Rivain is governed by their wise woman, called Seer. And the only magic pracise revealed to us is through their Seer. We need to take this into consideration because there're huge difference between mage based culture and the common culture where magic is rarely practise. 

In Tervinter Imperium , magic users are the main population where they're governed by their own Circle of Magi.
In Qunari held terroritories, The Qunari are primary warriors but they do have some mages. However they cut their mages' tongue and restrict their freedom according to their role in the society.
The Dalish Elves are nomad and talented magic users. However they're very elusive about their runes and magic and most of their magic practise is conducted through their Keeper.
The Andrastian countries have decent amount of mages but magic is restrictive under the guard of the Templars.
The Chasind are barbaric and we only know they have very few Shamans PLUS the witches of the wild: Flemeth

The Rivain only have a Seer as far as we know. So that's make a different story.

Until we visit and study their culture closely there isn't much conclusion we can draw from Rivain.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Silfren wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Demon is twisted evil spirit. They cannot simply leave Anders.

I don't believe that statement meant that Justice/Vengeance had left, but rather merged so closely with Anders' own personality that they were no longer two separate entities. (As Silfren said while I was typing away )

Well.. I do. I believe spirit could merged with a host but I don't believe it happen to Anders - mainly because I killed Anders.

.....Wait a second.  You've written several posts about Anders being possessed by a spirit,  and now you're saying you don't  believe Anders did merge with Justice?  This is not something to believe or disbelieve, it's part of the damn game's story.  Killing him has nothing to do with it.

Part of game story is wheter Anders is alive or not until the end. And whether Anders is rivaled or not And this depend on player choice. The story can vary . If you kill him, then there is no evidence that the merging of spirit  occur. If you spare him.. well I don't know. I never let him live. If I'm not wrong, he would accept Justice in peace or something like that, presumely he merge with Justice at last. I'm not sure what happen to him if you rivaled him at end game but I'm certain his merging with Vengence didn't change him into twisted abomination. Either way, it's an evidence  that he never was possessed by a demon.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 mai 2012 - 03:57 .

[Silfren]

This is somewhat off-topic from the thread title, but I'd like to at least mention it since a few pages back there were some previous references to Asunder and the question of "curing" abominations: (SPOILER ALERT: BEYOND THIS POINT THERE BE SPOILERY SPOILERS IN THIS SPOILER-PERMITTED THREAD. ONWARD TO SPOILERS). I dug back into the book this afternoon, and what happens with Pharamond is this: Wynne and her companions find his body trapped in a bindrune he placed in order to bind whatever demon or spirit came after him. I had gotten it into my head that in his experiment to cure Tranquility, he had been trapped in the Fade in the same manner as the Warden and her companions were by the Sloth Demon in Origins. What actually happened is that he was indeed possessed, and did indeed get mutated into a meatbag abomination.

It isn't clear that Pharamond's body was physically possessed, though. Wynne had to go into the Fade to fight and kill the demon, in the same way the Warden went into the Fade to save Connor by killing the demon there.  Which basically means that Asunder doesn't prove that abominations can be cured--it is basically the same quest as the one of Origins.  The only difference is that Connor didn't get turned into an ugly fleshbag.  This knowledge has been around all along, apparently. 

What I wouldn't give either for some consistency, or lore that explains what makes the situations different. If it was a "Fade-only" possession where the demon was controlling Pharamond from the Fade but wasn't inside him physically, then why was Pharamond's body mutated, when Connor's body was not? If the demon was inside him physically, then how was Wynne able to save Pharamond by facing off against the demon in the Fade? Am I wrong or doesn't DA lore suggest that when a person is physically possessed by a demon outside of the Fade, killing them is the only option for "curing" them if the demon can't be persuaded or intimidated into leaving?

Uldred: when we first meet him, it's clear that he is already possessed, but he doesn't turn into a meatbag until the end. Any ideas on why that is? If I recall correctly, for all his blood magic and hellbent intention on freeing the Circle, Uldred didn't plan on being possessed and having his self subsumed by a demon. Perhaps he was still resisting, somehow, and lost the fight in the end, and it was the total annhilation of his remaining self that led to the mutation? Grasping at straws on that one.

Yes, I'd dearly some some consistency, or plausible explanations for the lack thereof.

Also, a tidbit from Asunder, out of Wynne's mouth, on spirits and demons, related to the topic of how spirits and demons are--or are not--related: "Demons and spirits are not so different from one another. They are two sides of the same coin." Page 207 of Asunder, if anyone wants to look. I don't think at all that demons and spirits are two fundamentally different beings. The lore we have simply does not support it. Yes, that's an "educated guess," Sacred Fantasy, to use the same silly, cliche phrase, and it is directly based not just on DA lore but Word of Gaider.

A completely random thought. I still very badly want to know whether non-mages can be made Tranquil. It stands to reason that they can, and I want to see that question explored. One interesting question I have is the point raised in Asunder. The belief has been that the Tranquil are immune to possession, but Pharamond asserts that the Rite merely renders them invisible to demons. Undesirable for possession. (For this discussion, start on page 186 of Asunder). The problem is, we have lore from the games that says that because spirits and demons can't make sense of the real world, to the extent that they don't know a statue from a flesh-and-blood person, or a living person from a corpse. This is why demons entering the real world will go after the first thing they see, even if it's a corpse. Most of them prefer to experience the world through the eyes of the living, and they'll enter a corpse not understanding that it won't be the experience they're looking for.

I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?

Okay, hopping off the Off-Topic bus and getting back to the general topic: the quick re-reading of Asunder just reinforces for me the belief that the mage rebellion is the best thing that could have happened to Thedas, because it will force the Chantry to confront this very question: coming up with ways to deal with the dangers of magic without the answer being "mages can't be treated like people." Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mai 2012 - 05:52 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...
Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.

I do wonder where the writers will go with it.  Given the players are split (by design apparently) on supporting either side, it would be hard to have either the Templars or mages clearly come out winners without loads of grumpy fans.

The "what if" about it interests me though.  It's odd to me that so many people on this thread just want to say "it can't happen" rather than even speculate about how things could have been different.

[Silfren]

Sacred Fantasy wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Part of the problem and confusion has to do with the fact that some possessions are Fade-only, while others are physical.  Connor was indeed possessed--this is agreed upon by everybody involved, from Alistair the templar to First Enchanter Irving, Jowan, Morrigan, and Wynne, but the demon was not within him physically. 

Demon made a bargain with Connor to sustain Eamon's life through the fade. She cannot leave the fade and risk Eamon's life. The condition and cause of possession was clear. The demon didn't merge with Connor's body physically but merely control Connor from the Fade. 

I don't need an explanation for what the demon did or why, although I do not think it is made explicit that the demon had to be in the Fade in order to sustain Eamon.  Be that as it may, this is irrelevant, because the reasons the demon acted as it did are not the point of this discussion.  The relevant fact is that Connor was indeed possessed.  It was a different sort of possession, yes, but he was possessed.  All the mages agree it was possession.  Templar Alistair stated it was possession.  That Connor was possessed was never in dispute.  The only point of this, however, is to examine all the different forms of possession that exist, because it appears there are several.

Edited to fix the formatting because God but I suck at it.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mai 2012 - 06:03 .

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.

I do wonder where the writers will go with it.  Given the players are split (by design apparently) on supporting either side, it would be hard to have either the Templars or mages clearly come out winners without loads of grumpy fans.

The "what if" about it interests me though.  It's odd to me that so many people on this thread just want to say "it can't happen" rather than even speculate about how things could have been different.

Given some of the hints in Asunder--mostly those about the Divine wanting to find an equitable solution that satisfies mages while maintaining protections against the danger, and the various mentions from characters about having incomplete knowledge, or theories and assumptions being proved either incomplete, inadequate, or outright wrong, I'm hopeful that its a sign that the writers have a storyline in mind that will lead to a more balanced middle-of-the-road option based on New Reveals.  The book is littered with maxims about how the danger of assuming you already have all the answers, and the hubris and folly of refusing to explore one's options even when presented with new possibilities.  I choose to believe that that was deliberately intended as a hint that DA3 will indeed be all about changing the status quo.

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

So? It is a codex after all and still better than just "educated guess"

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

That was a dig at me based on an earlier post of mine.  Why they referenced it to you is beyond me.

I think it was partly language barrier, because the sentence didn't make sense to me.

Anyway, I don't know that I believe the two codices on circle formation have to contradict each other.  They are told from two points of view.  Sister Petrine details why the mages would want to allow it and the timeline one explains why the Chantry would want to.  Neither of them says there was war or a hostile round up of mages.  Neither one says that something had gone horribly wrong right before it happened (like a particularly vicious abomination or something).  So the two can co-exist.

I talked about making an educated guess based on the codices and other lore references and apparently they think I'm off my gourd for making such a claim.  Go figure.

Re: The formation of the Circle.  I'm not completely convinced that this isn't an inconsistency on parr with all the other damn inconsistencies, but I do agree that the explanation of the mages first choosing to go into isolation within Circles of their own accord, only for the Chantry to take it over at some future point, is a handy way of harmonizing the two accounts.  I do still think it's problematic in that the Lord Seeker's statement about it states that the Chantry formed the Circles when it brought the Seekers and Templars together under its authority.  The wiki timeline states that the Circle of Magi is "then born under this agreement."  I'll quickly concede that the wiki's phrasing shouldn't be taken as authentic DA lore, but it doesn't read to me like an agreement that came about for a Circle system that already existed, but one that was formed on the Chantry's direction already with the intention of bringing the mages to heel.  Seems to me that the info we have would be slightly different were it a case of a Circle that was operated by free mages being forcibly taken over by a Chantry that saw an opportunity and grabbed at it.

Of course, I have to admit I prefer your interpretation, because it doesn't sit well with me to think that the mages wouldn't have raised a rebellion right then had they been living freely, only to find themselves forcibly, and lawfully, being herded into prisons.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

Yeah, I admit the topic of possession is a bit difficult to fully understand.

This is somewhat off-topic from the thread title, but I'd like to at least mention it since a few pages back there were some previous references to Asunder and the question of "curing" abominations: (SPOILER ALERT: BEYOND THIS POINT THERE BE SPOILERY SPOILERS IN THIS SPOILER-PERMITTED THREAD. ONWARD TO SPOILERS). I dug back into the book this afternoon, and what happens with Pharamond is this: Wynne and her companions find his body trapped in a bindrune he placed in order to bind whatever demon or spirit came after him. I had gotten it into my head that in his experiment to cure Tranquility, he had been trapped in the Fade in the same manner as the Warden and her companions were by the Sloth Demon in Origins. What actually happened is that he was indeed possessed, and did indeed get mutated into a meatbag abomination.

I think although Pharamond was attempting a cure for tranquiity, what he also happened (as a side-effect) is he ended up becoming possessed.

I'm venturing mostly my own thoughts at this point. I think the point isn't really what a possessed mage looks like externally (the "meatbag" reference) but how much of the "mind" of the mage is still left to salvage after the possession. If, during the process of "transferrence" (whatever that might mean), the mind of the mage is still intact, it can be salvaged, which is what happens in both the cases of Connor and Pharamond. I also remember reading that a mage could willfully accept a demon into his body (or mind) and it is then that he doesn't lose his mind; however if the demon forces itself into a mage's mind, then we have an essentially incurable abomination, since there is nothing left to cure, to bring back.

It isn't clear that Pharamond's body was physically possessed, though. Wynne had to go into the Fade to fight and kill the demon, in the same way the Warden went into the Fade to save Connor by killing the demon there.  Which basically means that Asunder doesn't prove that abominations can be cured--it is basically the same quest as the one of Origins.  The only difference is that Connor didn't get turned into an ugly fleshbag.  This knowledge has been around all along, apparently.

The thing being explored in Asunder was whether tranquility could be reversed. I think, as you said, Asunder doesn't add anything more to the topic of possession itself, at least which we probably didn't already know.

What I wouldn't give either for some consistency, or lore that explains what makes the situations different. If it was a "Fade-only" possession where the demon was controlling Pharamond from the Fade but wasn't inside him physically, then why was Pharamond's body mutated, when Connor's body was not? If the demon was inside him physically, then how was Wynne able to save Pharamond by facing off against the demon in the Fade? Am I wrong or doesn't DA lore suggest that when a person is physically possessed by a demon outside of the Fade, killing them is the only option for "curing" them if the demon can't be persuaded or intimidated into leaving?

What makes the situation different in the case of Pharamond is what he says, "that tranquility cannot be reversed from this side of the Fade, but it must be done from the other side." I read the book a long time back, so I might have gone wrong with that quote. A few things we may note, I guess: what makes a tranquil "immune" to possession is that the demons/spirits cannot see him from the other side (from The Fade); what that logically means is that the demon must be lured from across The Fade - which is what Pharamond attempted. That is the reason why he went to Adamant Fortress in the first place - since the Veil is thin there.

Still, if  you notice, Pharamond was "wilfully" attempting to get himself possessed. He was trying to cajole the demon to reach into his mind (to make contact, a part of The Fade coming in contact with a tranquil can reverse tranquility - as we see with Karl in DA2, but Pharamond was attempting a more permanent solution). So, when he did that, perhaps the demon didn't need to force itself into him, and in the process destroy Pharamond's mind, beyond salvaging.

Uldred: when we first meet him, it's clear that he is already possessed, but he doesn't turn into a meatbag until the end. Any ideas on why that is? If I recall correctly, for all his blood magic and hellbent intention on freeing the Circle, Uldred didn't plan on being possessed and having his self subsumed by a demon. Perhaps he was still resisting, somehow, and lost the fight in the end, and it was the total annhilation of his remaining self that led to the mutation? Grasping at straws on that one.

My own thoughts on Uldred are similar: he was a powerful mage and he'd made a deal with the Pride demon (a powerful demon), initially. Then, at some point in time, I guess he lost control, and his mind was destroyed. The bargain between a mage and a demon can always turn to the worse for the mage, if he loses his mind.

Yes, I'd dearly some some consistency, or plausible explanations for the lack thereof.

Also, a tidbit from Asunder, out of Wynne's mouth, on spirits and demons, related to the topic of how spirits and demons are--or are not--related: "Demons and spirits are not so different from one another. They are two sides of the same coin." Page 207 of Asunder, if anyone wants to look. I don't think at all that demons and spirits are two fundamentally different beings. The lore we have simply does not support it. Yes, that's an "educated guess," Sacred Fantasy, to use the same silly, cliche phrase, and it is directly based not just on DA lore but Word of Gaider.

I think the difference between a spirit and the demon has to do with initial intentions. While a demon always has some nefarious purpose in mind from the start, the so-called "benign" spirits don't seem to start out that way. But since possession is involved in either case, I'd think that the mage could always lose control in both cases, and the spirit could become easily "corrupted" (whatever that might mean).

A completely random thought. I still very badly want to know whether non-mages can be made Tranquil. It stands to reason that they can, and I want to see that question explored.

I actually don't see why non-mages can't be made tranquil. Tranquility merely severs a connection of the mage to The Fade, right? So it might do the same for non-mages also. Although, I don't see a reason to make non-mages tranquil.

One interesting question I have is the point raised in Asunder. The belief has been that the Tranquil are immune to possession, but Pharamond asserts that the Rite merely renders them invisible to demons. Undesirable for possession. (For this discussion, start on page 186 of Asunder). The problem is, we have lore from the games that says that because spirits and demons can't make sense of the real world, to the extent that they don't know a statue from a flesh-and-blood person, or a living person from a corpse. This is why demons entering the real world will go after the first thing they see, even if it's a corpse. Most of them prefer to experience the world through the eyes of the living, and they'll enter a corpse not understanding that it won't be the experience they're looking for.

I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?

There was also a suggestion that a tranquil actively resists possession. Again, I don't remember where I read it. All that seems clear is that demons/spirits can't see a tranquil from across The Fade (there is no connection of a tranquil to The Fade), but possession can still happen from within the mortal realm, as we see in the case of Pharamond.

Okay, hopping off the Off-Topic bus and getting back to the general topic: the quick re-reading of Asunder just reinforces for me the belief that the mage rebellion is the best thing that could have happened to Thedas, because it will force the Chantry to confront this very question: coming up with ways to deal with the dangers of magic without the answer being "mages can't be treated like people." Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.

I think the question of whether tranquility could be reversed or not was one of the main issues dealt with in Asunder. I think of it this way: what the templars have as a last resort is to say that "at least we can mages tranquils, then they'd be completely out of danger." But what if that was not true? What if, that solution could be taken out of the equation? What if that particular "weapon of the templars" could be rendered useless? Then a change (reforms in the Circle system, at least in the eyes of the Divine) would need to be carried out. People would be forced to confront the new realities, and attempt better solutions.

[Silfren]

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...[/quote]
Yeah, I admit the topic of possession is a bit difficult to fully understand.

[quote]
This is somewhat off-topic from the thread title, but I'd like to at least mention it since a few pages back there were some previous references to Asunder and the question of "curing" abominations: (SPOILER ALERT: BEYOND THIS POINT THERE BE SPOILERY SPOILERS IN THIS SPOILER-PERMITTED THREAD. ONWARD TO SPOILERS). I dug back into the book this afternoon, and what happens with Pharamond is this: Wynne and her companions find his body trapped in a bindrune he placed in order to bind whatever demon or spirit came after him. I had gotten it into my head that in his experiment to cure Tranquility, he had been trapped in the Fade in the same manner as the Warden and her companions were by the Sloth Demon in Origins. What actually happened is that he was indeed possessed, and did indeed get mutated into a meatbag abomination.[/quote]
I think although Pharamond was attempting a cure for tranquiity, what he also happened (as a side-effect) is he ended up becoming possessed.

I'm venturing mostly my own thoughts at this point. I think the point isn't really what a possessed mage looks like externally (the "meatbag" reference) but how much of the "mind" of the mage is still left to salvage after the possession. If, during the process of "transferrence" (whatever that might mean), the mind of the mage is still intact, it can be salvaged, which is what happens in both the cases of Connor and Pharamond. I also remember reading that a mage could willfully accept a demon into his body (or mind) and it is then that he doesn't lose his mind; however if the demon forces itself into a mage's mind, then we have an essentially incurable abomination, since there is nothing left to cure, to bring back.

[quote]
It isn't clear that Pharamond's body was physically possessed, though. Wynne had to go into the Fade to fight and kill the demon, in the same way the Warden went into the Fade to save Connor by killing the demon there.  Which basically means that Asunder doesn't prove that abominations can be cured--it is basically the same quest as the one of Origins.  The only difference is that Connor didn't get turned into an ugly fleshbag.  This knowledge has been around all along, apparently. [/quote]
The thing being explored in Asunder was whether tranquility could be reversed. I think, as you said, Asunder doesn't add anything more to the topic of possession itself, at least which we probably didn't already know.[/quote]

It doesn't.  A few posts back, TEWR said something about people claiming that Asunder had proven that abominations could be cured, and that was news to me, because I couldn't remember any such revelation from when I'd read it.  That's why I went digging back through Asunder--as I said above, I'd mis-remembered the relevant plot as Pharamond having been, not possessed, but trapped in the Fade as was the Warden in Origins.  I picked up the book again to see if I'd managed to overlook a Big Reveal about abominations being curable, and all I found was the above.  So no, nothing new on that front, just a re-iteration of what we learned during the Redcliffe questline.

[quote] MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...

What I wouldn't give either for some consistency, or lore that explains what makes the situations different. If it was a "Fade-only" possession where the demon was controlling Pharamond from the Fade but wasn't inside him physically, then why was Pharamond's body mutated, when Connor's body was not? If the demon was inside him physically, then how was Wynne able to save Pharamond by facing off against the demon in the Fade? Am I wrong or doesn't DA lore suggest that when a person is physically possessed by a demon outside of the Fade, killing them is the only option for "curing" them if the demon can't be persuaded or intimidated into leaving?[/quote]
What makes the situation different in the case of Pharamond is what he says, "that tranquility cannot be reversed from this side of the Fade, but it must be done from the other side." I read the book a long time back, so I might have gone wrong with that quote. A few things we may note, I guess: what makes a tranquil "immune" to possession is that the demons/spirits cannot see him from the other side (from The Fade); what that logically means is that the demon must be lured from across The Fade - which is what Pharamond attempted. That is the reason why he went to Adamant Fortress in the first place - since the Veil is thin there.[/quote]

Concerning the underlined portion, I don't see how this makes the difference.  Pharamond wasn't possessed until after he was de-Tranquiled.  The demon crossed the bridge, as it were, and at some point after Pharamond's emotional capacity was restored, possession took place.  So the question of Tranquility, here, is not relevant to the questions I raised about physical or Fade-only possession, etc. 

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Still, if  you notice, Pharamond was "wilfully" attempting to get himself possessed. He was trying to cajole the demon to reach into his mind (to make contact, a part of The Fade coming in contact with a tranquil can reverse tranquility - as we see with Karl in DA2, but Pharamond was attempting a more permanent solution). So, when he did that, perhaps the demon didn't need to force itself into him, and in the process destroy Pharamond's mind, beyond salvaging.[/quote]

True.  Pharamond says "I believed a demon need to try to possess me, that the act of trying would itself restore my connection to the Fade," and then, "But that wasn't it at all.  I only needed the demon to reach across that gap and touch my mind, nothing more. The instant it happened, I was cured.  The possession came...later."

I think you're misunderstanding me, however.  I was asking the question of why Pharamond's body was mutated, since the possession appeared to be identical to Connor's--a Fade-based one, and specifically not a physical possession, when Connor was not.  I had wondered for a while if the mutated fleshbag thing was just a silly game mechanic since it happens to unimportant NPCs but never to prominent ones, but no, it is actually part of the lore, as Pharamond's body is described as being horribly twisted.  

Interestingly, it isn't ever specified whether the possession was done by Pharamond's agreement, or whether he was overpowered.  Yes, I'm aware that he went into the experment expecting possession was necessary, but then he states himself that the possession didn't come until after his restoration, and it also isn't clear whether by "later" he meant it merely literally, as in it happened IMMEDIATELY after, or if he meant it didn't happen for some time.  The question is open as to whether Pharamond allowed the possession or fought against it.

[quote]MichaelFinneganwrote...
[quote] Silfren wrote...
A completely random thought. I still very badly want to know whether non-mages can be made Tranquil. It stands to reason that they can, and I want to see that question explored.[/quote]
I actually don't see why non-mages can't be made tranquil. Tranquility merely severs a connection of the mage to The Fade, right? So it might do the same for non-mages also. Although, I don't see a reason to make non-mages tranquil.
[/quote]

Oh, there's no reason, no, but I would still like to explore that issue.  And maybe a small, vindictive part of me would like to see the threat of emotional neutering held over the heads of **** templars.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...

One interesting question I have is the point raised in Asunder. The belief has been that the Tranquil are immune to possession, but Pharamond asserts that the Rite merely renders them invisible to demons. Undesirable for possession. (For this discussion, start on page 186 of Asunder). The problem is, we have lore from the games that says that because spirits and demons can't make sense of the real world, to the extent that they don't know a statue from a flesh-and-blood person, or a living person from a corpse. This is why demons entering the real world will go after the first thing they see, even if it's a corpse. Most of them prefer to experience the world through the eyes of the living, and they'll enter a corpse not understanding that it won't be the experience they're looking for.

I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?[/quote]
There was also a suggestion that a tranquil actively resists possession. Again, I don't remember where I read it. All that seems clear is that demons/spirits can't see a tranquil from across The Fade (there is no connection of a tranquil to The Fade), but possession can still happen from within the mortal realm, as we see in the case of Pharamond.
[/quote]
The bit about Tranquils resisting possession is found in the same scene as the one I point to above, with Pharamond explaining the thing about their being undesirable.  He just states that they resist possesion, though, he doesn't say they do it actively, and so how the resistance is done is anyone's guess.  I would have thought that there was no resistance to be had--that they were literally immune by virtue of having no Fade connection.  That still doesn't quite explain corpses, though.  

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Okay, hopping off the Off-Topic bus and getting back to the general topic: the quick re-reading of Asunder just reinforces for me the belief that the mage rebellion is the best thing that could have happened to Thedas, because it will force the Chantry to confront this very question: coming up with ways to deal with the dangers of magic without the answer being "mages can't be treated like people." Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.[/quote]
I think the question of whether tranquility could be reversed or not was one of the main issues dealt with in Asunder. I think of it this way: what the templars have as a last resort is to say that "at least we can mages tranquils, then they'd be completely out of danger." But what if that was not true? What if, that solution could be taken out of the equation? What if that particular "weapon of the templars" could be rendered useless? Then a change (reforms in the Circle system, at least in the eyes of the Divine) would need to be carried out. People would be forced to confront the new realities, and attempt better solutions.
[/quote]

Exactly.  I suppose they could just go the route of rounding up and executing all people known to carry magic in their blood, and execute discovered mages on sight, but that...just wouldn't end well.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

It doesn't.  A few posts back, TEWR said something about people claiming that Asunder had proven that abominations could be cured, and that was news to me, because I couldn't remember any such revelation from when I'd read it.  That's why I went digging back through Asunder--as I said above, I'd mis-remembered the relevant plot as Pharamond having been, not possessed, but trapped in the Fade as was the Warden in Origins.  I picked up the book again to see if I'd managed to overlook a Big Reveal about abominations being curable, and all I found was the above.  So no, nothing new on that front, just a re-iteration of what we learned during the Redcliffe questline.

I see. I hadn't read that far back. I was mostly looking glancing over the last couple of pages.

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Silfren wrote...

What I wouldn't give either for some consistency, or lore that explains what makes the situations different. If it was a "Fade-only" possession where the demon was controlling Pharamond from the Fade but wasn't inside him physically, then why was Pharamond's body mutated, when Connor's body was not? If the demon was inside him physically, then how was Wynne able to save Pharamond by facing off against the demon in the Fade? Am I wrong or doesn't DA lore suggest that when a person is physically possessed by a demon outside of the Fade, killing them is the only option for "curing" them if the demon can't be persuaded or intimidated into leaving?

What makes the situation different in the case of Pharamond is what he says, "that tranquility cannot be reversed from this side of the Fade, but it must be done from the other side."

Concerning the underlined portion, I don't see how this makes the difference.  Pharamond wasn't possessed until after he was de-Tranquiled.  The demon crossed the bridge, as it were, and at some point after Pharamond's emotional capacity was restored, possession took place.  So the question of Tranquility, here, is not relevant to the questions I raised about physical or Fade-only possession, etc.

I guess I was assuming that the demon had crossed over. That cannot be true because Wynne and party enter The Fade to kill the demon. So, I agree.

Just go along with me on this one, as I attempt to understand what happened. The tranquil is actually immune to demons at it were from across The Fade. The demons cannot see the tranquil. I guess the real issue is The Veil that separates the two realms. Now, when the Veil is no longer strong enough, a tranquil can actually contact a demon - he is no longer invisible to demons. But as the demon tries to reach into the tranquil's mind, at the behest of the tranquil, his connection to The Fade is restored. And then he becomes possessed, as any mage would if he'd attempted to reach across to a demon, and be willing to become possessed. I guess, in the end, the moral of the story is that tranquil could become possessed if he really wanted to, but then he'd become possessed as a mage, or at least with his emotioanal capacity restored.

Your point is mainly about why Pharamond's body was contorted, since this was essentially the same way that Connor became possessed but yet Connor's body was still intact (was it really intact, though? I played DA:O ages ago, and I don't exactly remember. But, in any case, I guess that it is possible for a mage to hide his/her possession, which must mean that the external appearance can remain unchanged.). So, really, I don't know the answer to what you're asking.

True.  Pharamond says "I believed a demon need to try to possess me, that the act of trying would itself restore my connection to the Fade," and then, "But that wasn't it at all.  I only needed the demon to reach across that gap and touch my mind, nothing more. The instant it happened, I was cured.  The possession came...later."

I think you're misunderstanding me, however.  I was asking the question of why Pharamond's body was mutated, since the possession appeared to be identical to Connor's--a Fade-based one, and specifically not a physical possession, when Connor was not.  I had wondered for a while if the mutated fleshbag thing was just a silly game mechanic since it happens to unimportant NPCs but never to prominent ones, but no, it is actually part of the lore, as Pharamond's body is described as being horribly twisted.

I look mainly at whether the mage still retains his mind. The external appearance per-se was unimportant to me. Perhaps if Gaider is reading this, he could clarify.

Interestingly, it isn't ever specified whether the possession was done by Pharamond's agreement, or whether he was overpowered.  Yes, I'm aware that he went into the experment expecting possession was necessary, but then he states himself that the possession didn't come until after his restoration, and it also isn't clear whether by "later" he meant it merely literally, as in it happened IMMEDIATELY after, or if he meant it didn't happen for some time.  The question is open as to whether Pharamond allowed the possession or fought against it.

I see what you mean, and I mostly agree. It is true that Pharamond was attempting to get himself possessed, as you pointed out. However, what he merely saw as an attempt at the start, became real when he was "cured" of being a tranquil - he was a mage (or at least had his emotional capacity restored) again. He could no longer control it ; his plan was perhaps to reach a certain point B, but he'd not considered what might happen later. However, that cannot be true. he'd surrounded himself with those runes, I think. So he'd considered the possibility of being possessed.

But, in whatever case, it stands to reason that since he was also cured of being an abomination in the end, his mind was still intact.

I actually don't see why non-mages can't be made tranquil. Tranquility merely severs a connection of the mage to The Fade, right? So it might do the same for non-mages also. Although, I don't see a reason to make non-mages tranquil.

Oh, there's no reason, no, but I would still like to explore that issue.  And maybe a small, vindictive part of me would like to see the threat of emotional neutering held over the heads of **** templars.

Perhaps as an empathy-thing? If the templars were forced to undergo tranquility themselves? I'd not advocate it, but I think they ought to at least understand what a tranquil mage goes through; otherwise, they'll never be willing to look further for better alternatives.

I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?
...
That still doesn't quite explain corpses, though.

I do not undersand. Are you saying that tranquils are in all cases undesirable? I don't think that's really true. Once the demon is out of The Fade, or in the case of the above discussion where a tranquil contacts a demon across a weak Veil, I think literally everyone is fair game, as far as I know.

Exactly.  I suppose they could just go the route of rounding up and executing all people known to carry magic in their blood, and execute discovered mages on sight, but that...just wouldn't end well.

No, it wouldn't end well at all.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

@Silfren, I don't read Asunder. So it difficult for me to properly assess the situation and make use of the information given. So I only reply what I think  the reason.

Edit: Nevermind. After I read your reply regarding Connor possession, I've decided not answer the reason as to why things happen the way they do. It's pointless discussion. 

Silfren wrote..
I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?

Isn't Asunder already answered that? The spirit cannot see a tranquil. A Tranquil is invisible. Other things is visible.

Silfren wrote..
Okay, hopping off the Off-Topic bus and getting back to the general topic: the quick re-reading of Asunder just reinforces for me the belief that the mage rebellion is the best thing that could have happened to Thedas, because it will force the Chantry to confront this very question: coming up with ways to deal with the dangers of magic without the answer being "mages can't be treated like people." Now that all the Circles in Thedas have been made aware that Tranquility can be reversed, the Chantry is going to have to deal with fundamental changes.

And risk loosing thousands of innocent lives, tearing the veils all over world, allowing demons and abominations roaming freely in the process like Avernus and Pharamond had did? Sure, why not. At least my new PC has some mess to clean up.

Anyway, You don't have to go through Asunder. In DA 2, Anders successfully "cured" tranquil Karl for short period of time without any side effect, at least from what I can see in-game.. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 12 mai 2012 - 10:50 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Silfren wrote..
I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?

Isn't Asunder already answered that? The spirit cannot see a tranquil. A Tranquil is invisible. Other things is visible.

I think there is a bit of confusion that needs resolving. The issue is around the possession itself, i.e. about the kind of possession we're talking about. On the one hand we have demons and spirits crossing over to the mortal realm from The Fade and attempting to possess the first thing they come across - trees, corpses, people, you name it. And, on the other hand, there is the concept of the demon controlling the mage from across The Veil, from The Fade, implying that the demon still resides in The Fade. In the case of Connor, for example, the demon of desire was still in The Fade. So someone had to enter The Fade to take it out.

Now, having made this distinction, the question posed above could be somewhat answered. A tranquil's connection to The Fade is severed. A demon cannot possess a tranquil from across The Fade, in the same way that Connor was possessed. It is in this sense that the tranquil is "immune" to possession. But, if the demon were to cross The Veil into the mortal realm, who knows? The tranquil would also be a likely target. At least, that is my thinking.

[Reznore57]

About non mage being made tranquil , what i found interesting is the case of dwarves.
They have no link to the fade , they don't dream but they have nothing in common with tranquil.
I tend to think it's because their "soul" is link to the earth while others is link to the fade or something beyond the fade.
I don't remember if we have seen any case of dwarves possesion .Though i don't think it's impossible...

For the cure for tranquility ,what we have in Asunder is not something i would call a good option.
Usually tranquil are made because they can't handle magic , so risking facing some demons to cure somebody who's likely to not have the strenght to keep him(her)/self from trouble later is not what i would call a smart move.
It might be great for people like Karl who's been made tranquil for bad reasons , but it's a lot of trouble.

The only good thing is tranquility might be not a viable option and not performed anymore , i guess it was supposed to be an act of mercy , not killing the mage but i think on some degree it's more cruel ...and it's still killing a part of the person anyway.

[vixvicco]

It will be interesting to find out in DA 3, which is what I think will happen. Because of everything that's happened, I doubt there will be peace. Remember, just like with anyone kind of group (whether it be elves, mages, dwarfs, etc), there are the extremists. In a way, I think that's what DA 2 was trying to get people to think about. The extreme sides of both parties, which is why I think they thought the end decision was meant to be hard (but it ended up being lame anyway).
I think things could be civil, if lets say there was not that history between Templars and Mages but it would be difficult as well. They would still suffer discrimination. I think people would still fear Mages (those that do) and some vigilantes would try and hunt them down. They could co-exist but things would never be "normal" as such. People will find a way to hate each other still.

Modifié par vixvicco, 12 mai 2012 - 02:14 .

[Reznore57]

I don't think it's gonna be civil , the mages decided not just to get free in Asunder but to fight the chantry.
The chantry is falling apart ,the templars are falling apart too , and i'm pretty sure mages won't stay united very long , too many different agenda and it wouldn't be fun anyway
Things may change when we get DA3 , we don't know in what year it will take place ,but i'm pretty sure the state of thedas is gonna be somekind of a huge mess.

[Silfren]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

@Silfren, I don't read Asunder. So it difficult for me to properly assess the situation and make use of the information given. So I only reply what I think  the reason.

Edit: Nevermind. After I read your reply regarding Connor possession, I've decided not answer the reason as to why things happen the way they do. It's pointless discussion. 

Silfren wrote..
I have to ask, though, if Fade creatures can't tell a corpse from a live person, how can they somehow recognize that a Tranquil is not a desirable choice for possession?

Isn't Asunder already answered that? The spirit cannot see a tranquil. A Tranquil is invisible. Other things is visible.

I just spent several posts discussing this, with references to the book, down to direct, verbatim quotes and page numbers....  

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...
Re: The formation of the Circle.  I'm not completely convinced that this isn't an inconsistency on parr with all the other damn inconsistencies, but I do agree that the explanation of the mages first choosing to go into isolation within Circles of their own accord, only for the Chantry to take it over at some future point, is a handy way of harmonizing the two accounts.  I do still think it's problematic in that the Lord Seeker's statement about it states that the Chantry formed the Circles when it brought the Seekers and Templars together under its authority.  The wiki timeline states that the Circle of Magi is "then born under this agreement."  I'll quickly concede that the wiki's phrasing shouldn't be taken as authentic DA lore, but it doesn't read to me like an agreement that came about for a Circle system that already existed, but one that was formed on the Chantry's direction already with the intention of bringing the mages to heel.  Seems to me that the info we have would be slightly different were it a case of a Circle that was operated by free mages being forcibly taken over by a Chantry that saw an opportunity and grabbed at it.

Of course, I have to admit I prefer your interpretation, because it doesn't sit well with me to think that the mages wouldn't have raised a rebellion right then had they been living freely, only to find themselves forcibly, and lawfully, being herded into prisons.

If we decide to take both accounts as true...  which for the moment I'm trying to do...  One way to reconcile it is as follows:

Sister Petrine's account of how and why the mages ended up "cheerily" going into this arrangement makes it sound relatively peaceful.  Other than the Divine pitching a fit at having her authority questioned and her candles doused, there isn't any hint of violence or mages being a big problem.  As you say, I would have expected mages to actively fight back if the decision had been entirely on the part of the Chantry to round them up and incarcerate them.

But now you've got this brand new agreement with the mages that says the Chantry is going to house them and guard them.  Chantry Mothers and Sisters aren't going to be doing a lot of guarding.  The Chantry needs some trained fighters, people who know how to handle themselves against mages.  Cue the Inquisition, a.k.a. the Seekers of Truth who've been hunting rogue mages for a while. 

The Chantry now strikes a deal with the Seekers to bring it all together.  They create the Templars to act as constant guards, the Seekers to watch over the Templars and take on difficult cases and the Circles themselves where the mages are going to be housed.

If we're determined to take both codices as truth then I think that works.  It all happened at about the same time, with the mages agreeing because they foolishly thought they'd get MORE freedom out of it, the Chantry aggreeing because now they'd control the mages and have just about exclusive access to them, and the Seekers agreeing because they've been about trying to protect folks from mages for a while.

[Silfren]

Reznore57 wrote...

About non mage being made tranquil , what i found interesting is the case of dwarves.
They have no link to the fade , they don't dream but they have nothing in common with tranquil.
I tend to think it's because their "soul" is link to the earth while others is link to the fade or something beyond the fade.
I don't remember if we have seen any case of dwarves possesion .Though i don't think it's impossible...

I've wondered this, too.  It's weak, but my guess is that with dwarves, they've got some kind of serious resistance, probably explainable via centuries of lyrium exposure.  A true immunity in every sense of the word: they possess the same connection all other non-Tranquiled beings do, but one that has a rock-solid, impenetrable immune system that demons can't get past.  Whereas Tranquil don't simply have a strong immunity, but a fundamental lack of the thing which would need that immunity.  A car with some basic equipment missing from its system that makes the car faulty in some ways, but still driveable, versus a car with its entire engine removed.  Or a vulcan with the absolute ability to control their emotions in totality, versus the Tranquil creatures with no emotions to need controlling in the first place. 

Reznore57 wrote...
For the cure for tranquility ,what we have in Asunder is not something i would call a good option.
Usually tranquil are made because they can't handle magic , so risking facing some demons to cure somebody who's likely to not have the strenght to keep him(her)/self from trouble later is not what i would call a smart move.
It might be great for people like Karl who's been made tranquil for bad reasons , but it's a lot of trouble.

True.  But Asunder explicitly points out that the restoration could be done with benign spirits, that demons are not necessary.  Under controlled conditions it does appear that the restoration could be carried out safely.  I would expect that people who are willing to set up a ritual that calls forth a demon to try to possess a mage would be willing to set up a ritual with a spirit medium to contact a spirit of compassion, or some other benevolent Fade denizen. 

Going on, the entire point of Asunder, in my opinion, is driving home the realization that the Circle does not have all the information, and that other options, other solutions, are possible if the organization would only swallow its damned pride and let the research be done.  We don't know yet that emotionally neutering any and all mages deemed too weak to defend against possession is the only possible solution to that risk.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 mai 2012 - 05:46 .