629 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And people tend to disagree where those limtis are, depending on percieved danger and many other factors.

Yes, people disagree on how far to go in the name of security.  And that's where calling the Chantry's dogma about just how dangerous mages are into question is important.  Because if other places have working alternatives to the "lock them up on site" method, that's pretty clear evidence that alternatives exist.

There aren't very many elements in the Chantry that wish to allow reform though, and when the Divine pushes for it, the Lord Seeker subverts her.  The circles are a stagnant system that refuses to evaluate itself.

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Urzon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How come I come to the opposite conclusion based on eh same game?

Sorry, but that's not proper evidence. The idea that conditions in the Circels have been globaly getting worse does nto have a single fact supporting it. All speculation.

And while the situation in Kirkwalls Circle did get worse, t twas a special case (veil VERY torn ,Circle corrupted, Meredit bonkers) and it was ONE circle.

Because you are a templar supporter, you would have a different perspective on the subject. Two people can look at the same thing and think two different thoughts. That's common sense, and human nature.

Fact are facts, assumptions are assumptions.

And your own opinions are no less based on assumptions than are ours.  Sorry, but that's all there is to it.  There is equally as much information in the game to support those of us who believe mages should be and can be permitted to live free as there is information refuting it, and this is by design, because Bioware specifically wanted to create enough ambiguity that players would be split in their opinions, and have enough lore to support all the sides we come down on. 

There wouldn't be scores upon scores of threads debating the issue if it were as cut and dried as you want to believe, and you don't get to dismiss the opinions of all of us who support mage freedom by blanket-condemning our ideas as having zero basis in the DA lore.  THAT, right there, is the only assumption being made that has nothing to support it.

Example:  I understand that there is a Circle in Rivain.  Okay.  However, there ALSO is lore that Rivain refuses to be converted to the Chant of Light.  Source. (Notice that the Codex comes from a book written by a Chantry scholar, one shown to believe wholeheartedly in the Chantry's teachings of Andraste, a fact which does bear keeping in mind as one evaluates the information it provides). 

So.  We have one source that says Rivain has a Circle.  We have another that says Rivain is highly resistant to Chantry missionary efforts, and specifically because Rivain has no interest in the Chantry taking its hedge mages away.  If we are to take both of those bits of lore as true, it can be reasonably asserted that Rivain's Circle is very dissimilar from Circles under Chantry authority, given the strict inhibitions on freedom to which mages are usually subject.  From the codex, here is the telling quote: "The Chantry prohibition against such magical practices violates millennia of local tradition."  So, again if we take both bits of lore to be true, it has to be that Rivain's Circle is fundamentally different from Chantry-run Circles, as a Chantry-run Circle would not permit such things as possession. 

Yes, that is an assumption.  However, it, like all of my assumptions, is based on existing DA lore and is not something I just yanked out of my ass.  

A point of interest regarding Rivain is its status as a Qunari state.  The same codex that mentions Rivain's attachment to its hedge mages also states that Rivain is staunchly devoted to the Qun.  Given the extremist views of the Qunari toward mages, I wonder what what sort of environment this tranlates into.

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Expect unlike you I wan't making definitive statments (nothing changed) but I coutnered other pepels definitive statmeents (something defiantely changed)

I wasn't saying that nothing ever changed, I said that we have no evidence it did.
Notice the difference?

Ah, but we do have evidence.  We cannot claim that the evidence is totally incontrovertible, but there most assuredly IS evidence. 

Evidence =/= fact.  Evidence in sufficient quantity can substantiate something as a fact if it is compelling enough, and from what I see in this forum, those of us who are putting forth our ideas about what is taking place are explicitly looking at game lore to arrive at our conclusions. 

The only one here insinuating that we're simply pro-mage freedom for the sheer hell of it, is you, and you are doing so in face of evidence to the contrary.  One need only skim through the posts in this thread to see that we are pointing to bits of lore on which to base our claims.  So...what was that you said about assumptions?

Modifié par Silfren, 15 mai 2012 - 07:47 .

[Silfren]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Actually, I think minus the Chantry treating magic as a curse and mages as dogs to be brought to heal that a much better system could be developed.  One that combines mandatory training with community education programs to reintegrate mages into society.  One that opens the Templar (or some secular adaptation of the Templars) ranks to people who aren't religious zealots.  Something that encourages research into such things as the Litany of Adralla and dweomer runes, dwarven magic resistance and how to gain Templar like abilities without lyrium addiction.  I think there are many possible ways to both protect normal people and give the mages back their basic rights.  I think it is a cop-out to say, nope, nothing to be done but lock them up.

I guess the important thing for me is whatever it is that comes up in the stead of the Chantry - Templar hegemony ought not to become a monopoly, with its own self-serving goals and rigid, unevolving methods. As long as the community as a whole devises methods that could serve the best interests of everyone concerned, with trade-offs, sure, it ought to work, in the very least, better. The long term goal ought to be centered around solving everyones' problems, and not just imposing arbitrary restrictions and pretending that best possible solutions have been attained.

Of course, all that is easier said than done. Such broad initiatives never seem to work in practice...

Re: templars

I keep coming back to the question of lyrium.  When it was arguable that lyrium was not required for templar abilities, for me that raised the question of just what purpose there was in the Chantry keeping its method for triggering those abilities a closely guarded secret.  Wouldn't it, after all, be in everyone's best interest to train regular soldiers with templar talents, instead of monopolizing them?  If one's interest actually is in protecting the general populace, as the Chantry would have us believe, that is.  

But I'm convinced now that lyrium is indeed the catalyst for templar powers.  I had suggested training Dwarves as templars, since their added magical resistance could only be a bonus, right?  But it would seem that dwarves would be closed off from lyrium-derived powers. 

Gaider says that the Dwarven ability to work safely with lyrium is because of dwarves being closed off from the Fade.  Makes sense, given that Tranquils are also adept at working with lyrium-based enchantments.  But I wonder what would be the result of dwarves and Tranquils ingesting lyrium?  Does resistance to lyrium's detrimental effects also mean that they wouldn't be able to access templar powers?  I think it's worth exploring (and not least of all due to Bioware's apparent tendency to alter the lore in mid-stream, achem), since we do see that dwarves can be affected by lyrium (Sandal is suggested by Bodahn as being lyrium addled, which I would think Bodahn wouldn't raise if it were just unheard of, and of course there's the poor, stuttering dwarf in Orzammar who got raw lyrium direct in the blood.  

Maybe somebody should approach Avernus with some dwarven subjects....

[dragonflight288]

Maybe somebody should approach Avernus with some dwarven subjects....

If Avernus was in Orzammar while experimenting on dwarves, one of two things would happen to him. A.) He would be swiftly executed and left in the Deep Roads, or B.) Made a Paragon or something similar (as a human) if he succeeded.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Maybe somebody should approach Avernus with some dwarven subjects....

If Avernus was in Orzammar while experimenting on dwarves, one of two things would happen to him. A.) He would be swiftly executed and left in the Deep Roads, or B.) Made a Paragon or something similar (as a human) if he succeeded.

Who says he has to go to Orzammar?  We can always just box up some dwarves and ship 'em to Soldier's Peak.

[dragonflight288]

Who says he has to go to Orzammar? We can always just box up some dwarves and ship 'em to Soldier's Peak.

Right. I'm sure no one will miss a few carta criminals who have no families to speak of.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Who says he has to go to Orzammar? We can always just box up some dwarves and ship 'em to Soldier's Peak.

Right. I'm sure no one will miss a few carta criminals who have no families to speak of.

I was thinking more along the lines of the deshyrs in the Assembly.  Useless, the lot of them.  Might as well make themselves of some use in experiments to further the cause of mage freedom.  Especially since those bastards ancestors might be responsible for the plight mages face today.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Silfren wrote...
There wouldn't be scores upon scores of threads debating the issue if it were as cut and dried as you want to believe,

You don't know humanity now do you?
There's plenty of humans dismissing proven facts.

Doesn't matter how cut and dryan issue is, you'll ALWAYS find poeple who will disagree.

So.  We have one source that says Rivain has a Circle.  We have another that says Rivain is highly resistant to Chantry missionary efforts, and specifically because Rivain has no interest in the Chantry taking its hedge mages away.  If we are to take both of those bits of lore as true, it can be reasonably asserted that Rivain's Circle is very dissimilar from Circles under Chantry authority, given the strict inhibitions on freedom to which mages are usually subject.  From the codex, here is the telling quote: "The Chantry prohibition against such magical practices violates millennia of local tradition."  So, again if we take both bits of lore to be true, it has to be that Rivain's Circle is fundamentally different from Chantry-run Circles, as a Chantry-run Circle would not permit such things as possession. 

No. Hedge mages don't operate in Circles. There's nothing indicating that Rivain circles tolerate possesion.
Heck, think of those rivain witches as dalish keepers - few and far in between, roaming the wilderness.

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And people tend to disagree where those limtis are, depending on percieved danger and many other factors.

Yes, people disagree on how far to go in the name of security.  And that's where calling the Chantry's dogma about just how dangerous mages are into question is important.  Because if other places have working alternatives to the "lock them up on site" method, that's pretty clear evidence that alternatives exist.

Downplaying the danger is basicly ignoring facts. Of course the conclusion as to how far to go will be different when the starting premise is totally skewed/false.

Ah, but we do have evidence.  We cannot claim that the evidence is totally incontrovertible, but there most assuredly IS evidence.

You don't.
It doesn't prove or say what you think it does.

The
only one here insinuating that we're simply pro-mage freedom for the
sheer hell of it, is you, and you are doing so in face of evidence
to the contrary.  One need only skim through the posts in this thread
to see that we are pointing to bits of lore on which to base our claims.
 So...what was that you said about assumptions?

That you are full of them?

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Expect unlike you I wan't making definitive statments (nothing changed) but I coutnered other pepels definitive statmeents (something defiantely changed)

I wasn't saying that nothing ever changed, I said that we have no evidence it did.
Notice the difference?

The evidence that things changed is that after 900 years of the system being in place, now it fell apart.  Whether it got worse because the Templars got harsher overall or because a new generation of mages wondered why they were being punished for deeds 900 years old is less clear.

But, it is logical to infer that the sudden outbreak of war, all mages declaring themselves free of the circles and the Seekers splitting from the Chantry rather than work with a sympathetic Divine shows that something is worse.

No, it just showed an opportunity arose and the mages took it. The first sucesfull attempt in 900 years anyway.
The first time the templars were opposed sucesfully.

Weren't there 17 annulments in history? How many of those were the product of rebellion?

How many attampted jailbreaks happen? Does that mean that the jail system doesn't work? That the sutiation in jails got worrse? Or was that tension always there?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 mai 2012 - 11:07 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Expect unlike you I wan't making definitive statments (nothing changed) but I coutnered other pepels definitive statmeents (something defiantely changed)

I wasn't saying that nothing ever changed, I said that we have no evidence it did.
Notice the difference?

The evidence that things changed is that after 900 years of the system being in place, now it fell apart.  Whether it got worse because the Templars got harsher overall or because a new generation of mages wondered why they were being punished for deeds 900 years old is less clear.

But, it is logical to infer that the sudden outbreak of war, all mages declaring themselves free of the circles and the Seekers splitting from the Chantry rather than work with a sympathetic Divine shows that something is worse.

No, it just showed an opportunity arose and the mages took it. The first sucesfull attempt in 900 years anyway.
The first time the templars were opposed sucesfully.

Weren't there 17 annulments in history? How many of those were the product of rebellion?

How many attampted jailbreaks happen? Does that mean that the jail system doesn't work? That the sutiation in jails got worrse? Or was that tension always there?

The mages never had oppertunity. they  are (or where) divided and thus easy to control. What happend is that the templars want to commit genocide united the mages into 1 group. If a jail system only work because several gangs do not team up then it fails. I suspect that the mages could have rid themselves of the templars ages ago and simply choose not to.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 16 mai 2012 - 03:28 .

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...
There wouldn't be scores upon scores of threads debating the issue if it were as cut and dried as you want to believe,

You don't know humanity now do you?
There's plenty of humans dismissing proven facts.

And that has zero relevance here, because nobody here is disputing anything already proven to be a fact.   

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...
So.  We have one source that says Rivain has a Circle.  We have another that says Rivain is highly resistant to Chantry missionary efforts, and specifically because Rivain has no interest in the Chantry taking its hedge mages away.  If we are to take both of those bits of lore as true, it can be reasonably asserted that Rivain's Circle is very dissimilar from Circles under Chantry authority, given the strict inhibitions on freedom to which mages are usually subject.  From the codex, here is the telling quote: "The Chantry prohibition against such magical practices violates millennia of local tradition."  So, again if we take both bits of lore to be true, it has to be that Rivain's Circle is fundamentally different from Chantry-run Circles, as a Chantry-run Circle would not permit such things as possession. 

No. Hedge mages don't operate in Circles. There's nothing indicating that Rivain circles tolerate possesion.
Heck, think of those rivain witches as dalish keepers - few and far in between, roaming the wilderness.

Nothing you wrote there has any relevance at all to what I posted, whether to refute it or otherwise.  The fact is, we have a codex that says Rivain is hostile to the Chantry specifically because Chantry policy violates Rivain's cultural traditions regarding mages.  We either have to come up with plausible reasons as to how that codex would be compatible with lore that says Rivain has a Circle---and the lore indicating that Rivain is also a Qunari state--or we have to acknowledge that there is a serious contradiction in the lore.  

If both bits of lore are true, then the Rivain Circle would HAVE to tolerate possession.  There's no other way for it to work that I can see, if it is both true that there is a Circle in Rivain, and also that the Chantry has no presence in Rivain.  I'm not going to think of those hedge mages as few and far between until I have lore that supports it.  Far as I know, there is no available lore with anything to say about how many mages are in Rivain.

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote..
Ah, but we do have evidence.  We cannot claim that the evidence is totally incontrovertible, but there most assuredly IS evidence.

You don't.
It doesn't prove or say what you think it does.

Yes, we do have evidence.  You may not like the evidence or may not find it compelling, but that's something to do with you, not us or the evidence itself.  What I just wrote, that you just quoted, was that we cannot claim that it is irrefutable, but that isn't to say that our assertions can be totally dismissed either, being based as they are on the lore.  If you're going to claim I said something, it would be a good idea NOT to quote the very text I wrote that discredits that claim.

Lotoin Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...
The only one here insinuating that we're simply pro-mage freedom for the sheer hell of it, is you, and you are doing so in face of evidence to the contrary.  One need only skim through the posts in this thread to see that we are pointing to bits of lore on which to base our claims.  So...what was that you said about assumptions?

That you are full of them?

Do you have an actual argument to make beyond these attempts at one-line zingers?

Modifié par Silfren, 16 mai 2012 - 06:52 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

Re: templars

I keep coming back to the question of lyrium.  When it was arguable that lyrium was not required for templar abilities, for me that raised the question of just what purpose there was in the Chantry keeping its method for triggering those abilities a closely guarded secret.  Wouldn't it, after all, be in everyone's best interest to train regular soldiers with templar talents, instead of monopolizing them?  If one's interest actually is in protecting the general populace, as the Chantry would have us believe, that is.

Good questions. It is perhaps for this very reason that it is debatable whether the Chantry has everyone's best interests in mind. The Chantry might very well be doing that, for instance, for furthering its own interests, thus giving a new meaning to the term "everyones' insterests."

Of course, in my statements above, I'm actually also considering why the Chantry would keep the templar abilities a secret, even if those abilities stem from lyrium. Which would also be a good question.

It is also a curious question for me how the Chantry is able to hold a monopoly of processed lyrium trade; I'm not even sure whether the term "Chantry" in this context is inclusive of the templar order or not.

But I'm convinced now that lyrium is indeed the catalyst for templar powers.  I had suggested training Dwarves as templars, since their added magical resistance could only be a bonus, right?  But it would seem that dwarves would be closed off from lyrium-derived powers.

Lyrium is a mystery substance. It seems to allow mages to cast more taxing spells and the templars to "interrupt" the channeling of magic within mages. I wonder how that really works.

For dwarves actually to police over mages, dwarves would have to either go above ground, or mages would have to go underground. The issue with the former is that over time dwarves seem to lose their natural resistance to magic. Besides I'm not altogether convinced that dwarves would do any better than templars. And the issue with the latter is more constraints for mages, with no real guarantee that that particular solution would work any better.

Gaider says that the Dwarven ability to work safely with lyrium is because of dwarves being closed off from the Fade.

He didn't say that exactly. He said that the tendency of the subterranean dwarves not to go to the Fade when they dream puts them at an advantage over other creatures when it comes to mining lyrium - not that they are immune to the side effects (or merely effects?) of lyrium. This particular codex has to say more on that.

Makes sense, given that Tranquils are also adept at working with lyrium-based enchantments.  But I wonder what would be the result of dwarves and Tranquils ingesting lyrium?

Not sure. They'd be good questions to explore further, however.

Does resistance to lyrium's detrimental effects also mean that they wouldn't be able to access templar powers?  I think it's worth exploring (and not least of all due to Bioware's apparent tendency to alter the lore in mid-stream, achem), since we do see that dwarves can be affected by lyrium (Sandal is suggested by Bodahn as being lyrium addled, which I would think Bodahn wouldn't raise if it were just unheard of, and of course there's the poor, stuttering dwarf in Orzammar who got raw lyrium direct in the blood.

I think it'd be worth exploring, too. Even if academically. I'm more interested in unravelling the properties of lyrium, and to know what makes the mystery substance tick. Seems to me that we are yet to learn a lot more about it.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I think it'd be worth exploring, too. Even if academically. I'm more interested in unravelling the properties of lyrium, and to know what makes the mystery substance tick. Seems to me that we are yet to learn a lot more about it.

Both the red and blue forms seem to be interesting.  Was there ever an explanation for why our PCs and NPCs can chug lyrium potions like chocolate milk without harm?

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I think it'd be worth exploring, too. Even if academically. I'm more interested in unravelling the properties of lyrium, and to know what makes the mystery substance tick. Seems to me that we are yet to learn a lot more about it.

Both the red and blue forms seem to be interesting.  Was there ever an explanation for why our PCs and NPCs can chug lyrium potions like chocolate milk without harm?

None that I'm aware of--and thanks for the chocolate milk reference, you've got me craving the stuff now, at a really inconvenient time of the night, lol.  But plot armor seems to be the only explanation, unfortunately. 

I've been wanting to figure out why the dangers of lyrium exposure appears to be greater to templars than mages.  I had considered that it was mages' connection to the Fade, but it would seem that the opposite should be true: if it is dwarves' lack of connection to the Fade that makes it possible for them to work safely with lyrium--or more safely, as the case may be, thanks for the correction on that point, MichaelFinnegan.

Reading up on it just now, I have nothing but more questions.  The codex entry on lyrium states that mages cannot approach unprocessed lyrium.  This is in keeping with the lore on underground dwarves and the Tranquil, but it doesn't explain why lyrium addiction appears to be a greater concern for templars than mages.  The immediate answer is that mages only ingest lyrium when they need to, while templars consume it on a constant, regular basis.  Still, if mages' stronger connection to the Fade is to account for their being at a much greater risk of death when exposed to raw lyrium, that would lead a person to think they would have a greater susceptibility to lyrium in all its forms. 

Perhaps lyrium given to the Circle for use by its mages is even more diluted than that given to the templars, or processed differently?  Perhaps mages can metabolize less lyrium to greater effect by virtue of being mages?  Perhaps the Chantry knows something we don't and this is one of the reasons for their insistence both on extreme secrecy regarding templar secrets and the strictly-controlled monopoly on the lyrium trade?

If underground dwarves' lack of connection to the Fade accounts for their resistance to magic and why they can safely work with lyrium, and surface dwarves actually lose their magical resistance over time...doesn't that rather strongly indicate that it is being surrounded by all those underground lyrium deposits that accounts for innate dwarven resistance?  Perhaps it could be argued that the Stone has something to do with it, and the phrase "losing their Stone sense" in reference to surface dwarves was once a serious warning about something tangible and real, the original meaning of which was lost to time and it became a quaint little maxim about good old common sense?

Modifié par Silfren, 17 mai 2012 - 09:10 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...
None that I'm aware of--and thanks for the chocolate milk reference, you've got me craving the stuff now, at a really inconvenient time of the night, lol.  But plot armor seems to be the only explanation, unfortunately. 

Yeah, I think plot armor is the best answer, sadly.  I think there was a reference somewhere (and I'm too lazy to look it up) about Tevinter magisters ending up deformed or something from excessive lyrium.  I'm just thinking of all those potent lyrium potiions I had Morrigan craft and chug...

Sorry about the craving

I've been wanting to figure out why the dangers of lyrium exposure appears to be greater to templars than mages.

I'm going to end up looking up that reference that seemed to indicate it was also bad for mages.  Maybe while under Chantry control the mages just don't get enough of it to matter?  Whereas the Templars are basically dependent on the stuff.

Still, if mages' stronger connection to the Fade is to account for their being at a much greater risk of death when exposed to raw lyrium, that would lead a person to think they would have a greater susceptibility to lyrium in all its forms. 

I wonder what processing lyrium entails.  Is it merely dilution?  Or some sort of chemical change?

Perhaps the Chantry knows something we don't and this is one of the reasons for their insistence both on extreme secrecy regarding templar secrets and the strictly-controlled monopoly on the lyrium trade?

Could be.  Though, their desire to hamstring mages could also be the only motivation they need to attempt to control lyrium availability.  Again, plot armor seems to protect the PCs little group.  We get tons of the stuff

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

Both the red and blue forms seem to be interesting.  Was there ever an explanation for why our PCs and NPCs can chug lyrium potions like chocolate milk without harm?

Well, if anything, even chugging so much chocoloate milk would prove more harmful, in comparison. ) Combat-mode and story-mode segregation, or something like plot armor, which has been suggested already, is the answer, I think.

I think of the red variety of lyrium as some kind of a variant (in the game I got a sense of "corrupted" version) of lyrium. Beyond that, the happenings at the Primeval Thaig, and arguably the behavior of the Knight-Commander had something to do with what that corruption really means.

I must admit that there is simply too much going on with lyrium for me to come up with any kind of coherent explanation about it. I think there is some kind of, for the lack of better word, intangible link between what the Fade is and what lyrium is - maybe one derives its properites/effects from the other, in the sense that probably one cannot exist without the other, if that even makes sense. I could even say that lyrium is originally of the Fade and not of Thedas, but that could be completely off the mark.

I think fundamentally something is going on, which we cannot as of yet put our fingers upon - some missing piece of a grander puzzle that has not yet been revealed.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

I've been wanting to figure out why the dangers of lyrium exposure appears to be greater to templars than mages.  I had considered that it was mages' connection to the Fade, but it would seem that the opposite should be true: if it is dwarves' lack of connection to the Fade that makes it possible for them to work safely with lyrium--or more safely, as the case may be, thanks for the correction on that point, MichaelFinnegan.

Reading up on it just now, I have nothing but more questions.  The codex entry on lyrium states that mages cannot approach unprocessed lyrium.  This is in keeping with the lore on underground dwarves and the Tranquil, but it doesn't explain why lyrium addiction appears to be a greater concern for templars than mages.  The immediate answer is that mages only ingest lyrium when they need to, while templars consume it on a constant, regular basis.  Still, if mages' stronger connection to the Fade is to account for their being at a much greater risk of death when exposed to raw lyrium, that would lead a person to think they would have a greater susceptibility to lyrium in all its forms.

I think you guessed it correctly. Templars are more likely to end up with long-term consequences of lyrium use simply because their jobs require them to use lyrium on a more regular basis. However, when do mages actually use lyrium? When they'd have to enter the Fade, consciously, perhaps during the course of the harrowing ritual, or perhaps when they'd have to work with enhanced abilities - when going to war, for instance. Otherwise, the Chantry and templars would be strictly restricting the exposure of mages. I mean why would the templar order allow mages to consume more lyrium?

Perhaps lyrium given to the Circle for use by its mages is even more diluted than that given to the templars, or processed differently?  Perhaps mages can metabolize less lyrium to greater effect by virtue of being mages?  Perhaps the Chantry knows something we don't and this is one of the reasons for their insistence both on extreme secrecy regarding templar secrets and the strictly-controlled monopoly on the lyrium trade?

I think what we see in the game is actually something called as "lyrium dust," at least in DA:O. It is then mixed with something to make it a liquid - I forget the ingredients used to make the lyrium potion. Now, one could argue that the concentration of lyrium dust could be varied to affect the potency of the liquid, which is exact;u what might be happening.

But, besides this, I'd think that given a certain fixed concentration of lyrium (in whatever form), its effect, long term or short term, on mages is much more than on others. The codex I pointed out earlier lends some support to this belief.

If underground dwarves' lack of connection to the Fade accounts for their resistance to magic and why they can safely work with lyrium, and surface dwarves actually lose their magical resistance over time...doesn't that rather strongly indicate that it is being surrounded by all those underground lyrium deposits that accounts for innate dwarven resistance?

Yes, that is a likely hypothesis. But is that an example of correlation or causation? I never could tell. But in light of what Gaider said, I tend to think that there is something more to it than that. Perhaps the link to the Fade thins as one goes deeper underground, and over time, one might lose that link entirely; however, there is that demon which we encounter in the Primeval Thaig possessing a profane, which kind of puts a downer on this theory. Although, I could think of other explanations why that demon was there. It is very hard to crack that puzzle about the dwaves.

Perhaps it could be argued that the Stone has something to do with it, and the phrase "losing their Stone sense" in reference to surface dwarves was once a serious warning about something tangible and real, the original meaning of which was lost to time and it became a quaint little maxim about good old common sense?

It could be possible.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

Yeah, I think plot armor is the best answer, sadly.  I think there was a reference somewhere (and I'm too lazy to look it up) about Tevinter magisters ending up deformed or something from excessive lyrium.  I'm just thinking of all those potent lyrium potiions I had Morrigan craft and chug...

You are lazy.

The reference you're looking for is there in the codex entry for lyrium I posted earlier:
"Mages have additionally been known to suffer physical mutation [meaning it's worse for mages than for templars, since the mages also suffer what the templars suffer]. The magister lords of the Tevinter Imperium were widely reputed to have been so affected by their years of lyrium use that they could not be recognized by their own kin, nor even as creatures that had once been human."

And, yes, your version of Morrigan is perhaps now a hideous creature sitting on the other side of the Eluvian constantly cursing you.

I'm going to end up looking up that reference that seemed to indicate it was also bad for mages.  Maybe while under Chantry control the mages just don't get enough of it to matter?  Whereas the Templars are basically dependent on the stuff.

Yes, that is very much likely the reason. And it doesn't contradict with anything we know about, as far as I could tell.

I wonder what processing lyrium entails.  Is it merely dilution?  Or some sort of chemical change?

Even if we think of it as dilution, the question arises as to what the dwarves are diluting raw lyrium with. If "lyrium dust" is a form of processed lyrium, then it'd stand to reason that dwarves might be adding another component to reduce the potency of the raw, crystalline, version of lyrium that they mine.

[Silfren]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Yeah, I think plot armor is the best answer, sadly.  I think there was a reference somewhere (and I'm too lazy to look it up) about Tevinter magisters ending up deformed or something from excessive lyrium.  I'm just thinking of all those potent lyrium potiions I had Morrigan craft and chug...

You are lazy.

The reference you're looking for is there in the codex entry for lyrium I posted earlier:
"Mages have additionally been known to suffer physical mutation [meaning it's worse for mages than for templars, since the mages also suffer what the templars suffer]. The magister lords of the Tevinter Imperium were widely reputed to have been so affected by their years of lyrium use that they could not be recognized by their own kin, nor even as creatures that had once been human."

Gee.  Couldn't possibly be that they looked like darkspawn, could it....?

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
I wonder what processing lyrium entails.  Is it merely dilution?  Or some sort of chemical change?

Even if we think of it as dilution, the question arises as to what the dwarves are diluting raw lyrium with. If "lyrium dust" is a form of processed lyrium, then it'd stand to reason that dwarves might be adding another component to reduce the potency of the raw, crystalline, version of lyrium that they mine.

Lichen ale. 

Modifié par Silfren, 17 mai 2012 - 08:28 .

[GavrielKay]

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
You are lazy. {/quote]

In my defense, I am supposed to be working  

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Gee.  Couldn't possibly be that they looked like darkspawn, could it....?[/quote]

That would be interesting.  Maybe they were playing with red lyrium?  Perhaps genlocks come from the Primeval Thaig dwarves experimenting with it and Hurlocks from Magisters?  Maybe the Qunari started collaring their mages after a similar occurrence?

[quote]Lichen ale.  [/quote]

That's funny

Modifié par GavrielKay, 17 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Silfren wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

The reference you're looking for is there in the codex entry for lyrium I posted earlier:
"Mages have additionally been known to suffer physical mutation [meaning it's worse for mages than for templars, since the mages also suffer what the templars suffer]. The magister lords of the Tevinter Imperium were widely reputed to have been so affected by their years of lyrium use that they could not be recognized by their own kin, nor even as creatures that had once been human."

Gee.  Couldn't possibly be that they looked like darkspawn, could it....?

Exactly my thoughts. I was actually looking for something that Gaider had once said. Here it is. Technically, darkspawn are born from broodmothers, who are female ghouls. Now, if I'm not mistaken, ghouls are actually beings (humans, dwarves, elves, etc.) who've fallen to the darkspawn corruption. My thoughts are that the magisters massively subjected to lyrium exposure, in their attempt to enter the Fade physically, might have undergone some kind of mutation, thereby giving rise to a new form of creature entirely, namely the first forms of ghouls, which as a form of self perpetuation might have figured out how to create darkspawn. But, then again, there is no evidence that the lyrium-induced deformation among mages actually is contagious (in the same way that the darkspawn corruption is)...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
I wonder what processing lyrium entails.  Is it merely dilution?  Or some sort of chemical change?

Even if we think of it as dilution, the question arises as to what the dwarves are diluting raw lyrium with. If "lyrium dust" is a form of processed lyrium, then it'd stand to reason that dwarves might be adding another component to reduce the potency of the raw, crystalline, version of lyrium that they mine.

Lichen ale. 

Yes, indeed; and I'm betting some ancestor of Oghren came up with the idea.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

That would be interesting.  Maybe they were playing with red lyrium?  Perhaps genlocks come from the Primeval Thaig dwarves experimenting with it and Hurlocks from Magisters?  Maybe the Qunari started collaring their mages after a similar occurrence?

Your last statement is kind of interesting. You know, it'd be an interesting twist if the qunari are the ones to reveal how the whole darkspawn thing works.

And I don't think we need different sources for corruption. Just once source, and a means to spread indiscriminately.

Anyway, you reminded me of something I was forgetting... work. I gotta go now.