629 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Possible. Let me give you one example. What do you suppose is the kind of power an abomination weilds? This is one post which says that an abomiantion has access to a mage's full power, but here's a codex that states that the power of an abomination depends entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage. I currently do not know what exactly is the cannon.

Not sure.  Perhaps any demon has access to all of a mage's power just by virtue of controlling the mage, but some demons have less ability to harness it, and how much they can depends on the demon's strength?  That's a shaky answer, but it's all I've got

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Possible. Let me give you one example. What do you suppose is the kind of power an abomination weilds? This is one post which says that an abomiantion has access to a mage's full power, but here's a codex that states that the power of an abomination depends entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage. I currently do not know what exactly is the cannon.

Not sure.  Perhaps any demon has access to all of a mage's power just by virtue of controlling the mage, but some demons have less ability to harness it, and how much they can depends on the demon's strength?  That's a shaky answer, but it's all I've got

John Epler provided some speculative insight into the nature of Abominations in this thread long ago.

It shouldn't be taken as the truth of the matter just yet, but it was certainly informative.

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

How about a totally wild, off the cuff and unresearched theory: The Primeval Thaig dwarves were mages connected to the Fade as the other races, but due to their experimentation with red lyrium and its evils, they blackened the Golden City and were cast permanently out of the Fade by the Maker. In shame they left the Thaig and formed dwarven societies with no recollection of that past and no real explanation why they did not share the other races' connection to the Fade?

That is more or less the same exact theory I came up with, though I also believe the Primeval Thaig Dwarves are the cause of the Darkspawn seeing as how the Primeval Thaig seems to be mysteriously linked to the Darkspawn.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 mai 2012 - 03:27 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Possible. Let me give you one example. What do you suppose is the kind of power an abomination weilds? This is one post which says that an abomiantion has access to a mage's full power, but here's a codex that states that the power of an abomination depends entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage. I currently do not know what exactly is the cannon.

Not sure.  Perhaps any demon has access to all of a mage's power just by virtue of controlling the mage, but some demons have less ability to harness it, and how much they can depends on the demon's strength?  That's a shaky answer, but it's all I've got

John Epler provided some speculative insight into the nature of Abominations in this thread long ago.

It shouldn't be taken as the truth of the matter just yet, but it was certainly informative.

Interesting stuff, yes, but I'm now stuck in trying to make sense of this statement: "Whatever aspect a demon is (Sloth, Rage, Desire, Hunger, Pride) does not dictate how mindless/powerful they are when they push through the Veil and take the form of an abomination, but rather how experienced they are when they attempt the possession."

Read another way, he's saying "Whatever aspect a demon is dictates how experienced they are when they attempt the possession."  Um...what? Whether a demon is sloth or rage or pride dicates how much experience they have when they attempt to possess someone?  Wha??  Pardon me if I'm missing the obvious, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  I know there's a codex that says demons are ranked by the Chantry in order of strength, with rage at the bottom and pride at the top.  Is Epler saying that the more experienced a demon is, the more likely it is to be higher up the rank?  Rage demons are rage demons because they have the least experience?

Somebody please humor my confused ass and spell it out for me in plain English. 

Edit: Okay, in light of the rest of Epler's comments, I think he's saying that the aspect of a given demon relates to how powerful that demon is and thus directly affects what sort of person that demon is likely to want to possess?  So a demon's aspect reflects its level of power which in turn reflects its degree of experience?  Assuming I've got it right, which I may not. 

Modifié par Silfren, 13 mai 2012 - 04:27 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

How about a totally wild, off the cuff and unresearched theory: The Primeval Thaig dwarves were mages connected to the Fade as the other races, but due to their experimentation with red lyrium and its evils, they blackened the Golden City and were cast permanently out of the Fade by the Maker. In shame they left the Thaig and formed dwarven societies with no recollection of that past and no real explanation why they did not share the other races' connection to the Fade?

That is more or less the same exact theory I came up with, though I also believe the Primeval Thaig Dwarves are the cause of the Darkspawn seeing as how the Primeval Thaig seems to be mysteriously linked to the Darkspawn.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I also want to know how this fits in with poor Magister Corypheus.  Do the dwarves owe him an apology?

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I also want to know how this fits in with poor Magister Corypheus.  Do the dwarves owe him an apology?

That would be interesting.  All speculation of course.  But was it really Dumat who encouraged them to go?

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

Something I remember that backs up this theory rather well, I think.  When you do Carver's gift quest in Act 1, the mage who knew Malcolm and Maurevar Carver says something about how things used to be different.  I don't have the full quote, but it's indicative of a time when mages were far more free than they are now...and it's referring to the Circle of Kirkwall.  It's referring to only one generation prior, too, which may mean it doesn't indicate much, as it's clear the oppressive nature of the Circle goes a lot further back than one generation.  But given that Ser Carver apparently did not believe that he had a duty to lock Malcolm in the Circle (and by extension didn't believe that a free mage was an inherent danger, telling on its own), it suggests that the Circles started out one way and progressively worsened over the years.

Perhaps we can think of it as a series of bad solutions devised by the templars/Chantry over the ages and with no real conviction to improve the conditions of mages, going somewhat against the notion that the original arrangement was to benefit the mages as much as the common folk.

Sure, there would be exceptions, cases of mutual trust developing between mages and templars, or some templars being exceptionally lenient and allowing mages considerable latitude, or the Divine trying to fix a problem that need not have been there. But these don't really justify the general lack of conviction to properly address the problems at hand, keeping the interests of everyone in mind, not just one group over the other. It would take a lot to solve the probelms, from the mages, templars and the Chantry, but that is I believe what the nature of the problems itself demands - there can be no half measures, no intermittent stop-gap solutions, no saying, "but this is the best we can do." I cannot really comment on what motivations or inspirations would keep one going in that direction, but those are perhaps the underlying principles upon which the Circle system ought to have been founded in the first place, and those are the principles that ought to be upheld in all situations, until the problems remain no more, until the shackles would no longer be necessary, so to speak.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I also want to know how this fits in with poor Magister Corypheus.  Do the dwarves owe him an apology?

I haven't played Legacy for a while, so my knowledge of the attempted invasion the Magisters performed is shaky right now aside from the more memorable bits.

I would assume that Dumat -- or Fen'Harel or a Demon like Gaxkang/Xebenckeck -- taunted the Magisters to invade the City. Perhaps from a distance, it maintained a golden aura but was blackened by the Dwarves' earlier acts on the inside like we're currently speculating.

And when the Magisters invaded, the Taint that it contained afflicted them as well. Is an apology necessary? I'd doubt it. The Magisters tried to do the same thing, so really they're at fault too. Had the Dwarves of the Primeval Thaig not done anything, the Magisters still would've.

I wonder though.... maybe Dwarves descended from the PT Dwarves knew of what happened at least partially -- if the act itself rendered them unable to be mages again -- and told the magisters this. Obviously, they wouldn't know about the Darkspawn. And the Magisters, in their hubris and at the goading of whatever deity, believed they could succeed where Dwarven Mages couldn't. Corypheus does make one comment that's pretty... odd for the Dwarven society.

You look human. Are you not citizens of the Empire? Slaves then, to the Dwarves? Why come you here?

At any rate, I can't answer much. Really, Legacy answered a few questions but made me ask dozens more.

Perhaps the Maker was trying to fix up his Golden Home after the Dwarves' act and was making strides in doing so, but then all of a sudden the Magisters came in and really screwed it up to the point that the Maker just gave up on it.

Silfren wrote...
Re: Alistair, I don't have the links available, maybe The Evil Writer Redux could help on that score, but there is some dispute over whether lyrium is required for templar abilities.

This is from page 6, but I want to respond to it.

I don't have any links, but I can assert that Alistair says and does the following (I'm gonna copy and paste what I wrote in another thread):

But Alistair's own comments on the matter show something different.

1) Alistair says that Templars only receive lyrium when they take their vows.
2) Alistair says he has never taken his vows, therefore he has never ingested lyrium (he even says he never has IIRC).
3) Alistair is able to be a Templar
4) Duncan recruited him partially for his Templar abilities
5) Alistair can teach this to a Warrior Warden, who has also never ingested lyrium.

While the intended idea was for the Templars to only gain it upon ingestion, that idea was scrapped for DAO so it cannot be applicable as lore.

As such, what this Templar description that we have from one of the games right here says directly contradicts the facts established by Alistair.

I can accept lyrium amplifying Templar abilities as Alistair himself posits, but not lyrium actually being required to become a Templar. Simply because of what Alistair has said in DAO.

Silfren wrote...

Edit: Okay, in light of the rest of Epler's comments, I think he's saying that the aspect of a given demon relates to how powerful that demon is and thus directly affects what sort of person that demon is likely to want to possess?  So a demon's aspect reflects its level of power which in turn reflects its degree of experience?  Assuming I've got it right, which I may not. 

I think that's more or less accurate. A Pride Demon will be attracted to the First Enchanter rather then some nameless mook, because of how experienced and influential the Mage is. So as a result, if the Pride Demon were to possess the First Enchanter, he would have greater access to being intelligent and powerful then he would to the nameless mook mage.

Or something like that.

Which really -- and this isn't related to the topic at all -- served as more of an indication that Marethari was Audacity's intended target all along and not Merrill. Marethari was the Keeper of the clan, meaning by Dalish code she was the Mage in charge of leading the clan. Merrill on the other hand was the clan's First -- and one that didn't have many friends in the clan and as a result couldn't actually persuade the clan much if at all -- and eventually left that position behind.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Are you conceding that there is such a thing as the Maker?  But very much likely, yes.

Only in the game   Fantasy realms often have actual embodiments of the dieties their various residents adhere to.  Of course it also wouldn't surprise me if the Elvhen gods were "real" or there was something more to the "stone" of the dwarves than mere rock.  It was really just a random thought that I put down.

It all goes down to beliefs, even in the fantasy realm. I, for one, don't give much credence to what the various races might believe about the Maker. I feel there is a lot made up to fit certain worldviews. That also means I don't believe in the Golden/Black City. I know the taint, the darkspawn, the Fade, etc. are real, but the explanations offered for the events are just conjectures. It was in this sense that I asked what I did. Not that I can discredit anything, I just lack the faith.

I was just thinking that the dwarves really love their history and it goes back a LONG ways.

Well, loving history doesn't mean that they'd really put all events there, right? Especially uncomfortable ones.

So, what could happen that would be so bad they'd want to or need to forget it?  Anyway, I don't really know.  I have no idea for example what the time frame is supposed to be for the Thaig, other than really old.  Is it old enough to predate Corypheus' trip to the Fade with the Tevinter magisters?

Yes, I believe so. Let's see, this particular codex entry put the Valdasine thaig to somewhere before the times of the darkspawn, and it talks about a visiting paragon. I guess that it was at a time when paragons were revered. Now, if we go back to the Primeval Thaig, we see temples, statues and idols and so on. And a particular statue whose appearance doesn't resemble any paragon on record. It could have been a paragon, of course, but I don't believe it was. My guess would be that the Primeval Thaig predates the Valdasine Thaig that predates the darkspawn, meaning the Primeval Thaig probably predates the attempts by the Tevinter magisters to storm the Fade. Of course this is all guesswork.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Possible. Let me give you one example. What do you suppose is the kind of power an abomination weilds? This is one post which says that an abomiantion has access to a mage's full power, but here's a codex that states that the power of an abomination depends entirely on the power of the demon possessing the mage. I currently do not know what exactly is the cannon.

Not sure.  Perhaps any demon has access to all of a mage's power just by virtue of controlling the mage, but some demons have less ability to harness it, and how much they can depends on the demon's strength?  That's a shaky answer, but it's all I've got.

Even I'm not sure. Perhaps you're right. But I do note a contradiction in the two explanations. And looking at the games I cannot say which explanation is correct - even though I lean more toward the codex entry.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

John Epler provided some speculative insight into the nature of Abominations in this thread long ago.

It shouldn't be taken as the truth of the matter just yet, but it was certainly informative.

Yes, I remember that. It is good stuff.

Silfren wrote...

Interesting stuff, yes, but I'm now stuck in trying to make sense of this statement: "Whatever aspect a demon is (Sloth, Rage, Desire, Hunger, Pride) does not dictate how mindless/powerful they are when they push through the Veil and take the form of an abomination, but rather how experienced they are when they attempt the possession."

Read another way, he's saying "Whatever aspect a demon is dictates how experienced they are when they attempt the possession."  Um...what? Whether a demon is sloth or rage or pride dicates how much experience they have when they attempt to possess someone?  Wha??  Pardon me if I'm missing the obvious, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  I know there's a codex that says demons are ranked by the Chantry in order of strength, with rage at the bottom and pride at the top.  Is Epler saying that the more experienced a demon is, the more likely it is to be higher up the rank?  Rage demons are rage demons because they have the least experience?

Somebody please humor my confused ass and spell it out for me in plain English. 

Edit: Okay, in light of the rest of Epler's comments, I think he's saying that the aspect of a given demon relates to how powerful that demon is and thus directly affects what sort of person that demon is likely to want to possess?  So a demon's aspect reflects its level of power which in turn reflects its degree of experience?  Assuming I've got it right, which I may not.

I think Jonh Epler offers a different perspective. Let me try to paraphrase it - I hope I don't botch it up completely.

There are different ways in which a demon could enter the mortal realm - it could forcefully push itself through the Veil (perhaps through Veil tears); or it could try to entice itself into the minds of mages, and thereby get a foothold into the mortal realm. Now, to any demon, the latter approach is more desirable, since there is also the other notion that if the demon were to push through the Veil on its own, then it could end up confused, and if doesn't find a desirable host, then it'd eventually lose its power in the mortal world.

Now, the concept that Epler introduced is about "bargaining." A powerful, influential host (mage) tends to have a bigger bargaining power, and therefore he tends to attract a powerful, intelligent demon, which would seek to gain such power in the mortal realm. This happened in the cases of both Connor and Uldred. Lesser mages tend to attract lesser demons for the same reason, the bargaining potential of each is lesser.

Now, getting to the notion of "experience." I think the notion itself assumes that the demons gain it over time, perhaps hinting at a possibility that a rage demon could level-up (or, wait, rank-up) to become a demon of desire, or sloth, or pride - over time. Perhaps the more attempts the lesser demon tries at bargaining and succeeds or fails, there is a possibility that it might gain in experience for the next attempt. If, on the other hand, one assumes that the demons are what they are from "birth," that is a rage demon is what it is by nature, never changing, then that notion really falls short, since no amount of experience would allow it to do anything differently. Perhaps Epler's explanation is hinting at a possibility of evolution among demons? I cannot say.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Re: Alistair, I don't have the links available, maybe The Evil Writer Redux could help on that score, but there is some dispute over whether lyrium is required for templar abilities.

This is from page 6, but I want to respond to it.

I don't have any links, but I can assert that Alistair says and does the following (I'm gonna copy and paste what I wrote in another thread):

But Alistair's own comments on the matter show something different.

1) Alistair says that Templars only receive lyrium when they take their vows.
2) Alistair says he has never taken his vows, therefore he has never ingested lyrium (he even says he never has IIRC).
3) Alistair is able to be a Templar
4) Duncan recruited him partially for his Templar abilities
5) Alistair can teach this to a Warrior Warden, who has also never ingested lyrium.

While the intended idea was for the Templars to only gain it upon ingestion, that idea was scrapped for DAO so it cannot be applicable as lore.

As such, what this Templar description that we have from one of the games right here says directly contradicts the facts established by Alistair.

I can accept lyrium amplifying Templar abilities as Alistair himself posits, but not lyrium actually being required to become a Templar. Simply because of what Alistair has said in DAO.

We had this discussion a while back, and for me what Alistair said wasn't enough because it directly conflicted with the lore.  You, I'm pretty sure, were the one who brought it to my attention that Gaider had said lyrium created templar powers, and pointed out that Alistair's straightforward, contradictory statement made the question pretty awkward.

Anyway, I don't think it's that simple.  One, it leaves the question of where exactly do templar abilities come from if not from lyrium, since templars very specifically are not mages?  Secondly, Codex Entry: Templars states that their abilities derive from lyrium, in those words.  The text from the wiki article is the same as that from the codex in game.  I found the codex entry in DA2, by the way.  I realize that the codices from Origins show up identically in DA2, but frankly I think if Bioware altered the lore, they really should alter any codices that contradict the retcon for future games where those codices will show.  

Thirdly, there is a passage in Asunder wherein Evangeline says the same thing.  "We're not mages, Rhys. Our training would not be enough to deal with magic unless we used lyrium, I'm sure you know this." (page 201, Asunder).

If the codex entry and the otherwise Big Question about the origin of templar abilities wasn't enough, Asunder clinches it for me.  True, she doesn't explicitly state that her abilities stem from lyrium, but she implies it strongly enough that it's a reasonable interpretation of her words just on its own. But taken with the first two, I find it pretty conclusive.  Further, Asunder coming along at the time it does, longer after the conflicting lore has been raised, and being written by the lead writer, tells me that this is indeed Gaider's intention that templar abilities come from lyrium. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Mages are resopnsible for some of the biggest cataclysims in history. FACT.

Why dont you list them. Or are you ready to accept that the this is mere propaganda of the chantry.

You again arguing agaisnt the codex?

Except for all the cultures where it isn't and they aren't.

Cultures were mages arne't as numerous, cultures where conditions are completely different and cultures that accepted abominations/mages killing hunderds.
Not good examples.

[Silfren]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...

[quote]Mages are resopnsible for some of the biggest cataclysims in history. FACT.[/quote]

Why dont you list them. Or are you ready to accept that the this is mere propaganda of the chantry. [/quote]

You again arguing agaisnt the codex?[/quote]

Depends on the nature of the Codex.  Just like in real life, information that comes from biased sources needs to be evaluated in light of that bias.  "Know your source," as it were.  So it is perfectly valid to argue against a codex, depending on what the codex says, what its listed subject is, and the author thereof. 

[quote]
Except for all the cultures where it isn't and they aren't.[/quote]

Cultures were mages arne't as numerous, cultures where conditions are completely different and cultures that accepted abominations/mages killing hunderds.
Not good examples.

[/quote]

This seems to be the go-to argument dismissing societies were mages live free, but I don't think it's quite that simple.  The Chantry and templars would have us believe that even one mage is a potential catastrophe, and we have lore that suggests the templars won't hesitate to go after mages they feel are within their reach.  Case in point: Keeper Marethari (or it may be Merrill, actually) says that one of the reasons the Dalish people stay on the move is to avoid the templars.  They wouldn't do that if they didn't have cause to believe that, over and above general harrassment from human populations, they had experience of templars attempting to take their mages captive.  

We see this directly with Feynriel, if you visit Sundermount in Act 2 before doing the Night Terrors quest.  It COULD be argued that the templars are just going after Feynriel because they can't abide a mage having been in their midst and just letting him walk off free, but another way to look at it is in light of the Dalish constantly moving about to avoid templar raids: the templars going after Marethari's clan does seem to corroborate that belief.

So clearly the templars themselves don't think that one or two mages in a population is no big deal.  Maybe instead of defaulting to the belief that all mages, even lone ones, are too dangerous to be allowed to live free, they should look at the practices of the socities within which those mages live and take some pointers.

I also wonder just how many mages are within a general population?  Granted we know that each Circle holds a lot of mages, but we also know that these mages tend to come from far and wide, and it isn't unusual for a mage from Kirkwall to be sent to a Circle in Ferelden, vice versa, and so on.  If instead of rounding mages up and concentrating them all in various locations, what would the makeup actually be?  A few hundred mages spread throughout the entire region of Ferelden.  If you had a couple mages in one village, maybe a dozen in Denerim, or somesuch...how thin would the Veil become in those places, if mages were more spread out?  

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Not only that, but we have Connor to show us that it can be done. And there was cut dialogue from the game where Hawke could've met Connor, to which the latter relayed his experience to the former.

Cut dialogue? Would you mind quoting it or pointing me to where it is?

I've had a hard time seeing Connor as a bona fide 100% abomination because he's able to retain some semblence of self. All the lore and experiences we have of abominations, bar him, show the demon always in full control.

That and Connor should have turned into a blotchy monster, not a horny chick with breasts. And he shouldn't have turned back into a boy when you defeat him, theoretically.

No idea whether this is down to the deal he struck with the demon, abomination lore we're not privy to, or if it was the devs deciding the Redcliffe quest would be 'harder' if Connor still looked like a little boy and could talk like a little boy (which seems most likely).

Which.... was really odd. You don't just say "Hey! I'm Connor! I was once an abomination and it was horrible!" to a person you just met, so I'm glad that got cut.

Would've been really strange.

Considering all the DA:O nods in DA2, I'm just as glad Connor didn't make an appearance. It's strange enough meeting half the companions in Kirkwall; having every other quest acknowledged would have been a bit too much. Save Connor for when the game finally goes to Tevinter, says I.

Well, unless it's Desire-Abomination Connor. Then he could be anywhere.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 13 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[dragonflight288]

Cut dialogue? Would you mind quoting it or pointing me to where it is?

I've had a hard time seeing Connor as a bona fide 100% abomination because he's able to retain some semblence of self. All the lore and experiences we have of abominations, bar him, show the demon always in full control.

That and Connor should have turned into a blotchy monster, not a horny chick with breasts. And he shouldn't have turned back into a boy when you defeat him, theoretically.

No idea whether this is down to the deal he struck with the demon, abomination lore we're not privy to, or if it was the devs deciding the Redcliffe quest would be 'harder' if Connor still looked like a little boy and could talk like a little boy (which seems most likely).

The demon herself was not really within connor, she controlled him from the Fade, and that is proven by the fact that the Warden or a mage can enter the Fade and defeat the Desire Demon without harming Connor directly.

And how do we know what should have happened during those particular circumstances? It wasn't forced into him like the blotchy monsters at the top of the tower, he wasn't forced into it while in the fade, but accidentally sundered the veil and made a deal with a demon to help his father, from within the fade itself. Connor struck the deal there, according to Jowan.

Overall, those were exceptional circumstances, not your standard 'muahahaha, I'm an evil abomination, watch me mindlessly slaughter everyone around me because the demon finally has a foothold in the real world!"

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...

[quote]
Cut dialogue? Would you mind quoting it or pointing me to where it is?

I've had a hard time seeing Connor as a bona fide 100% abomination because he's able to retain some semblence of self. All the lore and experiences we have of abominations, bar him, show the demon always in full control.

That and Connor should have turned into a blotchy monster, not a horny chick with breasts. And he shouldn't have turned back into a boy when you defeat him, theoretically.

No idea whether this is down to the deal he struck with the demon, abomination lore we're not privy to, or if it was the devs deciding the Redcliffe quest would be 'harder' if Connor still looked like a little boy and could talk like a little boy (which seems most likely).
[/quote]

[/quote]

Thanks!

[quote]The demon herself was not really within connor, she controlled him from the Fade, and that is proven by the fact that the Warden or a mage can enter the Fade and defeat the Desire Demon without harming Connor directly.

And how do we know what should have happened during those
particular circumstances? It wasn't forced into him like the blotchy
monsters at the top of the tower, he wasn't forced into it while in the
fade, but accidentally sundered the veil and made a deal with a demon to
help his father, from within the fade itself. Connor struck the deal
there, according to Jowan.

Overall, those were exceptional circumstances, not your standard
'muahahaha, I'm an evil abomination, watch me mindlessly slaughter
everyone around me because the demon finally has a foothold in the real
world!" [/quote][/quote]

Well, compare Connor's situation to Kitty and Amalia in The Stone Prisoner. That demon isn't in the Fade, but it possesses the girl in almost exactly the same fashion: if it enters her and turns hostile it turns into its actual demon form, not an abomination-type monster.

You're right, we don't know what should have happened. It's incredibly hard to figure out because I strongly suspect the rules of changing where it'll be more dramatic (which is fine if you like drama, but annoying if you're looking for logic).

[Silfren]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Considering all the DA:O nods in DA2, I'm just as glad Connor didn't make an appearance. It's strange enough meeting half the companions in Kirkwall; having every other quest acknowledged would have been a bit too much. Save Connor for when the game finally goes to Tevinter, says I.

I thought that Connor can indeed make an appearance in DA2, if he survived Origins, depending on exactly how the Redcliffe quest was done.  Not that scene that was cut, obviously, but a different one?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

I thought that Connor can indeed make an appearance in DA2, if he survived Origins, depending on exactly how the Redcliffe quest was done.  Not that scene that was cut, obviously, but a different one?

If it's possible, I've never seen it in my games or on Youtube...that's all I can say :/

[dragonflight288]

Well, compare Connor's situation to Kitty and Amalia in The Stone Prisoner. That demon isn't in the Fade, but it possesses the girl in almost exactly the same fashion: if it enters her and turns hostile it turns into its actual demon form, not an abomination-type monster.

You're right, we don't know what should have happened. It's incredibly hard to figure out because I strongly suspect the rules of changing where it'll be more dramatic (which is fine if you like drama, but annoying if you're looking for logic).

Even Amalia and Kitty is its own unique circumstances. Wilhelm summoned the demon and bound her within the chamber so she was like Justice, outside the fade and trapped within the mortal world. Only also trapped within the room and wasn't smart enough to figure out the slide puzzle...or perhaps it was enchanted so only a mortal could do it?

Their circumstances are even more closely related to Sophia Dryden, in that the demons are possessing people who aren't mages, after they had already left the Fade. A demon doesn't care if the person they possess is a mage.

Gaider said in one thread that the power of the individual is what attracts demons. Connor was barely able to cast a basic spell, but his influence as the son of a powerful arl managed to attract a desire demon. Also, the Brecilian Forest, once a great battlefield...or many battles, sundered the veil and spirits possessed the trees and turned them into sylvans. Or you have demons who possess the dead and become shades.

The wide variety of demons, circumstances, and the methods of tearing open the veil between our world and the Fade are so varied, that I personally find it very difficult to treat every mage subject to the same dangers. A somniari, or dreamer, would definitely need to be in the Circle, possibly his whole life if he wasn't killed at a young age because of their individually unique powers, but the average mage doesn't seem to be at any risk of possession unless face to face with a demon, outside or inside the Fade itself, and even regular people are subject to becoming abominations if the Demon is outside the Fade.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Even Amalia and Kitty is its own unique circumstances. Wilhelm summoned the demon and bound her within the chamber so she was like Justice, outside the fade and trapped within the mortal world.

The circumstances shouldn't matter. Amalia's demon is in the world, Connor's is in the Fade, neither of them become the stock-standard abomination. So what is required for that to happen?

Their circumstances are even more closely related to Sophia Dryden,

Wasn't she dead when she got possessed?

in that the demons are possessing people who aren't mages, after they had already left the Fade. A demon doesn't care if the person they possess is a mage.

Well, we know that. They don't care if people are alive either. Or trees.

It's in the Codex that many demons are wont to possess the first thing they possibly can once crossing over, maybe due to disorientation. That has nothing to do with Kitty, since she was quite aware of her surroundings and had been for many years.

[snip rest]

What we lack is info on why some abominations look like twisted combinations of demon and host, and why others can flip straight into demon form (eg. Connor, Uldred, Kitty, the Baroness).

It's probably the whole boss fight thing. A pride/desire demon looks cooler than an abomination because all abominations look pretty much the same.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Silfren wrote...

Depends on the nature of the Codex.  Just like in real life, information that comes from biased sources needs to be evaluated in light of that bias.  "Know your source," as it were.  So it is perfectly valid to argue against a codex, depending on what the codex says, what its listed subject is, and the author thereof. 

In other words, you can easily dismiss anything that doesn't suit your vieww by claiming artificial bias.
How do you coutner a devs post then? Gaider himself cleary stated that the wrold was a more dangerous place before the Cricles. Do oyu call Gaider biased?
Adn what if I claim that any codex entry that favors mages is written by a secret mage supporter?

Cultures were mages arne't as numerous, cultures where conditions are completely different and cultures that accepted abominations/mages killing hunderds.
Not good examples.

This seems to be the go-to argument dismissing societies were mages live free, but I don't think it's quite that simple.

It is. You use Rivian as an example, but it too has a circle. Magic is regulated there too. The "seers" are basicly hedge mages, few and far in between (thankfully).

The Chantry and templars would have us believe that even one mage is a potential catastrophe, and we have lore that suggests the templars won't hesitate to go after mages they feel are within their reach.

You saying it isn't?
The DA flash game proves you wrong. In it's backstory, a single abomination almost brigns down a entire kingdom.
Don't use crappy gameplay mechanics to jsutifiy the abomination = not dangerous idea. Just because in-game, the player can slaughter abomination left and right doesn't mean that abominations are pushovers in "rela fluff".
Or do you want me to start arguing how brigands fall from the sky in the world of Dragon Age and explode into chunks when hit?

Maybe instead of defaulting to the belief that all mages, even lone ones, are too dangerous to be allowed to live free, they should look at the practices of the socities within which those mages live and take some pointers.

What pointers? If those societies accept the danger of abominations ,doesnt' mean you have.
If you have a society that does nothing to prevent earthquake damage (because of their cultural beliefs), and yours does, does it mean you should learn from it? Why not let eqrthquakes kill peopel and destroy buildings? After all, ti's just message fom the spirits.

I also wonder just how many mages are within a general population?  Granted we know that each Circle holds a lot of mages, but we also know that these mages tend to come from far and wide, and it isn't unusual for a mage from Kirkwall to be sent to a Circle in Ferelden, vice versa, and so on.  If instead of rounding mages up and concentrating them all in various locations, what would the makeup actually be?  A few hundred mages spread throughout the entire region of Ferelden.  If you had a couple mages in one village, maybe a dozen in Denerim, or somesuch...how thin would the Veil become in those places, if mages were more spread out? 

Spread them out?
That would not only make policing them 10 times harder, but would also make stopping them if they go on the ramapge 10 times harder.

Any solution that lets mages out of hte Circle is deeply flawed.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 14 mai 2012 - 06:57 .

[Ivucci]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Depends on the nature of the Codex.  Just like in real life, information that comes from biased sources needs to be evaluated in light of that bias.  "Know your source," as it were.  So it is perfectly valid to argue against a codex, depending on what the codex says, what its listed subject is, and the author thereof. 

In other words, you can easily dismiss anything that doesn't suit your vieww by claiming artificial bias. How
do you coutner a devs post then? Gaider himself cleary stated that the wrold was a more dangerous place before the Cricles. Do oyu call Gaider biased?
Adn what if I claim that any codex entry that favors mages is written by a secret mage supporter?

No, if you take exploring the history seriously, you shouldn't be dismissing any information, but try to interpret it within its context. Contradicting sources are a natural occurence especially when dealing with the history. When they occur within the DA lore, they could either be an indication of a writer's error, or quite on the contrary, an
indication of the writers' intention to give the lore more "real" feel. Also, contradicting sources do not always have to be put in direct opposition to each other but can serve as a complimentary information to help form a picture that is as close to the reality as possible.
 
And before I'm accused of applying modern or real world methods again, this was just to say that the requirement to interpret the information according to the context of its origin is perfectly valid. If we were real historians, we would be required to be true to ourselves and unbiased and nonjudgmental. Which I admit certainly isn't true about this forum members - we often come here with premade and biased opinions.

So, if David Gaider said the world was a more dangerous place, ok, he might as well be the highest authority in regards to the lore.

But  - and this has been my argument all along - who's to say the world hasn't made some progress since then? Why should "a fact" about how the world looked 1000 years ago be so super relevant to how it should look now? You will say "it's because the demon threat hasn't changed and the mages are just as prone to the demon possession as they were". That's a fair point. I'll say: first off, it seems the conditions within the Circles have got much worse and the system seems to be malfunctioning. Second, there's a growing number of mages who refuse to be accepting the status quo and are willing to fight for it and even give their lives. So maybe it's time to take the step and start looking for other solutions.

Modifié par Ivucci, 14 mai 2012 - 09:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ivucci wrote...
And before I'm accused of applying modern or real world methods again, this was just to say that the requirement to interpret the information according to the context of its origin is perfectly valid. If we were real historians, we would be required to be true to ourselves and unbiased and nonjudgmental. Which I admit certainly isn't true about this forum members - we often come here with premade and biased opinions.

But you are forgetign that you interpret according to your own bias.
Entry X was written by a Chantry schoolar - therefore he must hate mages and everything he writes must be taken with a grain of salt.
but of any anti-mage writing is subject to that, then any pro-mage writing must be approached the same (and you have to assume it was written by a militant pro-mage zealot)

So, if David Gaider said the world was a more dangerous place, ok, he might as well be the highest authority in regards to the lore.

But  - and this has been my argument all along - who's to say the world hasn't made some progress since then? Why should "a fact" about how the world looked 1000 years ago be so super relevant to how it should look now?

Becasue the discussion was abotu teh danger of mages.
So the "danger" reffered to mages running around freely, and not brigands.
And the mages havn't changed in those 100 years, now have they?

You will say "it's because the demon threat hasn't changed and the mages are just as prone to the demon possession as they were". That's a fair point. I'll say: first off, it seems the conditions within the Circles have got much worse and the system seems to be malfunctioning.

Based on what exaclty? Kirkwall?

Second, there's a growing number of mages who refuse to be accepting the status quo and are willing to fight for it and even give their lives. So maybe it's time to take the step and start looking for other solutions.

Like Tranqulity?

[TEWR]

Didn't David Gaider say somewhere on the forums long ago that the codexes aren't often the truth of the matter, (partly) because of bias?

I seem to recall that he did.