37 réponses à ce sujet

[TheButterflyEffect]

Precisely how does the whole hereditary magic thing work?

Does it follow basic Mendelian genetics? ..In other words, is it just a simple dominant/recessive thing? If it is, is magic dominant or recessive?

If, say, Anders and Mage Hawke had chillens together, would all of them most likely be mages too? (Anders is a mystery but we do know that Hawke has magic on both sides of his/her family, Malcolm was a mage, and even though Leandra wasn't, she still had some magic blood too.)

[Maria Caliban]

The qunari have an extensive breeding program and their priesthood tracks various traits. In fact, a qunari's true name is just their extended genealogical record.

Yet, they still have mages despite obviously not wanting them.

[Vicious]

Midichlorians.

[TheJediSaint]

I recall it being mentioned that the Tevinter Imperium kept records of what families tended to produce mages. That seems to imply that magical ability is in some way hereditary.

For example, Malcom Hawke(a mage) and Leandra Amell (from a family with a history of magic), between one-third and two-thirds of their children (depending on player choice) are mages.

So I say there's a strong case that magic is hereditary. Though I don't know if genes have anything to do with it.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:08 .

[Wulfram]

It works by magic, probably. 

I wouldn't expect the writers to take actual genetics any more seriously than a vague statement that it runs in families - they wouldn't want to limit their abilities to tell a story that might not fit with it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .

[Terrorize69]

"More mages now then theres ever been"

Most people apart from Tevinter try not to breed bloodlines with magic, yet mages are becoming more and more common. Something greater is at work

[labargegrrrl]

Vicious wrote...

Midichlorians.

^ this!

(thank you, btw)

[mousestalker]

Levi Dryden probably knows more about genetics than anyone in game. He specifically mentions how his dna has turned turquoise over Sophia Dryden's possession in the DLC

Just check the toolset for "Levi's stress blue genes'.

[Palipride47]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Precisely how does the whole hereditary magic thing work?

Does it follow basic Mendelian genetics? ..In other words, is it just a simple dominant/recessive thing? If it is, is magic dominant or recessive?

If, say, Anders and Mage Hawke had chillens together, would all of them most likely be mages too? (Anders is a mystery but we do know that Hawke has magic on both sides of his/her family, Malcolm was a mage, and even though Leandra wasn't, she still had some magic blood too.)

(This is based on the assumtion that magic is genetically "passed down". This is also theoriectical, so exceptions can exist in the scenarios I listed)

If it followed dominant/recessive points (like those Punnett squares), that means a lot of people would have to be "carriers" of mage genes, and it has to be a recessive trait, because if magic was a dominant trait, it would be passed to every children born where one parent was a mage (like how everyone has a widows peak, unless you have two "recessive bits")

Recessive Rules mean that:
Two mages = 100% likely to be mage
One Mage, one mage gene "carrier"= 50% likely to be mage
Two mage gene "carriers" = 25% likely to be mage
One Mage, one non-carrier =  0% likely (though all children will be carriers) 
One carrier, one non-carrier= 0% likely (50% chance your child will be a carrier)
Two non-carriers,= 0% likely (unless there is a individual genetic mutation)

This isn't too far fetched, since the law of independent assortment means that you can have children with a mage and just produce carriers the whole time. 

So for a mage Hawke, all offspring (with anyone) would be carriers, at least 

Mage Hawkes who had babies with the mage LIs (Merrill or Anders) would always be mages

Non mage Hawkes with mage LIs would either be carriers or full mages. (because your sister and father were mages, you are a carrier, at least, because your sister being a mage confirms that your mother is a carrier, and she does say you family always had magic in the lineage)

Non-mage Hawkes and non-mage LIs could either:
a. Be carriers. Child is not a mage.
b. Not be carriers (if the LI was not a carrier either this is 50% likely, if the LI was a carrier, this is 25% likely, as the gene would be "phased out"). Child is not a mage.
c. Produce mages (especially in a scenario with Fenris, whose sister is a mage, so he is very likely a carrier as well) 

What doesn't fit "basic" Mendelian genetics is the fact that two mages can produce non-mage children (which is impossible under those rules), and the concept of magic "becoming more rare" (noted by the Dalish, who need mages for leadership as "Keepers"), which doesn't fit our scenario listed.

It is most likely that magic (if genetically based) is produced by multiple genes like skin color or eye color IRL, where the final phenotype is determined by more complicated relationships than dominant/ recessive.

This scenario accounts for the sudden "re-appearance" of magic in a lineage (like Revka, even when familes actively avoid bringing magic into a line). By reappearance, we mean magic skipping many generations until one child gets the "right" combo. 

Magic could also appear "spontaneously" through individual genetic mutations, in familes where there was never any magic to begin with. 

(Also, if there someone that is more of an expert reading this, and I'm wrong, or missed something, CORRECT ME PLEASE!!!)

Edit: forgot to address some combos, spelling check, clarification on "re-appearance" vs. "spontaneous appearance"

Modifié par Palipride47, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:58 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Palipride47 wrote...
It is most likely that magic (if genetically based) is produced by multiple genes like skin color or eye color IRL, where the final phenotype is determined by more complicated relationships than dominant/ recessive. This accounts for the sudden "appearance" of magic in a lineage (like Revka, even when familes actively avoid bringing magic into a line) 

Magic could also appear "spontaniously" through individual genetic mutations. 

(Also, if there someone that is more of an expert reading this, and I'm wrong, or missed something, CORRECT ME PLEASE!!!) 

I agree, this is the more likely scenario.  Though Revka's child, the DA:O Amell mage, wasn't a spontaneous appearance as I understand it.  The Amells have always been at least "carriers" for magic.  And as we've seen with Feynriel, there are variations even within mages.  I suppose that makes somniari the red-headed stepchildren, so to speak  

Though if there's one thing I've noticed in DA, it's that math isn't exactly the writers' strong suit, so our speculation is probably useless but fun.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:23 .

[labargegrrrl]

Palipride47 wrote...

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Precisely how does the whole hereditary magic thing work?

Does it follow basic Mendelian genetics? ..In other words, is it just a simple dominant/recessive thing? If it is, is magic dominant or recessive?

If, say, Anders and Mage Hawke had chillens together, would all of them most likely be mages too? (Anders is a mystery but we do know that Hawke has magic on both sides of his/her family, Malcolm was a mage, and even though Leandra wasn't, she still had some magic blood too.)

(This is based on the assumtion that magic is genetically "passed down". This is also theoriectical, so exceptions can exist in the scenarios I listed)

If it followed dominant/recessive points (like those Punnett squares), that means a lot of people would have to be "carriers" of mage genes, and it has to be a recessive trait, because if magic was a dominant trait, it would be passed to every children born where one parent was a mage (like how everyone has a widows peak, unless you have two "recessive bits")

Recessive Rules mean that:
Two mages = 100% likely to be mage
One Mage, one mage gene "carrier"= 50% likely to be mage
Two mage gene "carriers" = 25% likely to be mage
No "carrier" traits= 0% likely (unless there is a indiviual genetic mutation)

This isn't too far fetched, since the law of independent assortment means that you can have children with a mage and just produce carriers the whole time. 

So for a mage Hawke, all offspring would be carriers, at least 

Mage Hawkes who had babies with the mage LIs (Merrill or Anders) would always be mages

Non mage Hawkes with mage LIs would either be carriers or full mages. (because your sister and father were mages, you are a carrier if you are a non mage Hawke)

Non-mage Hawkes and non-mage LIs could either:
a. Be carriers. Child is not a mage.
b. Not be carriers (if the LI was not a carrier either this is 50% likely, if the LI was a carrier, this is 25% likely, as the gene would be "phased out"). Child is not a mage.
c. Produce mages (especially in a scenario with Fenris, whose sister is a mage, so he is very likely a carrier as well) 

What doesn't fit "basic" Mendelian genetics is the fact that two mages can produce non-mage children, and the concept of magic "becoming more rare" (noted by the Dalish, who need mages for leadership as "Keepers", which doesn't fit our scenario listed.

It is most likely that magic (if genetically based) is produced by multiple genes like skin color or eye color IRL, where the final phenotype is determined by more complicated relationships than dominant/ recessive. This accounts for the sudden "appearance" of magic in a lineage (like Revka, even when familes actively avoid bringing magic into a line) 

Magic could also appear "spontaniously" through individual genetic mutations. 

(Also, if there someone that is more of an expert reading this, and I'm wrong, or missed something, CORRECT ME PLEASE!!!) 

i'm no expert, but i seem to remember my scientist brother saying something about genes that unlock other gene sequences as well.  like a person can have all the particular genes for a trait, but if there isn't a specific type of gene present to make them work together, they don't.  and that a person can have only a very few genes for that specific trait, but if that unlocking gene is there, they'll manifest anyway.

[Palipride47]

labargegrrrl wrote...

i'm no expert, but i seem to remember my scientist brother saying something about genes that unlock other gene sequences as well.  like a person can have all the particular genes for a trait, but if there isn't a specific type of gene present to make them work together, they don't.  and that a person can have only a very few genes for that specific trait, but if that unlocking gene is there, they'll manifest anyway.

Yes, that exists. Genes are basically instructions that tell certain "proteins" to either be on or be off, or do one thing over another thing, and the combos lead to as varied results as nice aesthetic mixes or horrifying diseases. And we do not have one gene = one trait. Certain combos produce different results, or certain combos lead to certain disease outcomes with the right "trigger" (like predispositions to heart problems, diabetes, or mental illness)

Genes can also "change" within an individual in utero, or just going through life due to environmental factors like severe radiation exposure (these are mutations, of the non-X Men variety, and they are usually bad). 

This is all new science (relatively speaking), so my info may be outdated, or I could just be wrong 

Modifié par Palipride47, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:48 .

[TheButterflyEffect]

Two mages can have a non mage kid?

[SeptimusMagistos]

In such situations I like to think that magic finds its own way instead of latching onto the merely physical genes. Mainly because it lets magic be hereditary without worrying about ratios and what they imply.

[esper]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Two mages can have a non mage kid?

Yes. It is at least hinted.

[ScarMK]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Two mages can have a non mage kid?

Filthy Squibs.

(I'm sorry.  I'll let myself out.)

[Palipride47]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Two mages can have a non mage kid?

Well, Qunari still produce mages, and I'm pretty confident the Tammasrans would not let Qunari mages reproduce, since Tammasrans can control the Qunari breeding program and do track the genetic info of every individual and pair them accordingly.

If magic is genetic, and not a dominant/recssive relationship, they could essentially breed the right people enough through trial and error to eliminate magic completely. Which leads me to believe that it has to act more like eye/ skin color (if it is genetic in the first place).

[TheButterflyEffect]

Two non-mages producing a mage is very different from the opposite, two mages producing a non-mage, which is what I was talking about...

That aside, qunari mages definitely wouldn't be allowed to reproduce. But they can still be born by "carrier" non-mage kossith.

Modifié par TheButterflyEffect, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:37 .

[Maclimes]

Palipride47 wrote...

What doesn't fit "basic" Mendelian genetics is the fact that two mages can produce non-mage children (which is impossible under those rules), and the concept of magic "becoming more rare" (noted by the Dalish, who need mages for leadership as "Keepers"), which doesn't fit our scenario listed.

It is most likely that magic (if genetically based) is produced by multiple genes like skin color or eye color IRL, where the final phenotype is determined by more complicated relationships than dominant/ recessive.

Alternate Interpretation: It's magic.

I'm not being condescening, actually. I mean that magic obviously does not obey the laws of physics (or sometimes logic), so why should it obey the laws of genetics?

[Palipride47]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Two non-mages producing a mage is very different from the opposite, two mages producing a non-mage, which is what I was talking about...

That aside, qunari mages definitely wouldn't be allowed to reproduce. But they can still be born by "carrier" non-mage kossith.

However, the fact that, essentially, the Tammasrans have  "bred" their people for so long, they would have some understanding of dominant vs. recessive traits. Through multiple generations, they can "tease out" who was a carrier and who wasn't. But, yes, you are correct, non mages can produce mages in a genetic scenario. 

I am trying to find a quote or piece of lore I stumbled upon which gave credence to the theory that two mages can have non mage children. It can be assumed though, since children born in the Circle are given to the Chantry, and IF THEY DEMONSTRATE TALENT LATER, then they are sent to the Circle. This implies that there are mage/mage unions that produce non mage children (since not every mage that has a child in the Circle is impregnated by a Templar)

But that is more of a "theoretical stretch"

Maclimes wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

What doesn't fit "basic" Mendelian genetics is the fact that two mages can produce non-mage children (which is impossible under those rules), and the concept of magic "becoming more rare" (noted by the Dalish, who need mages for leadership as "Keepers"), which doesn't fit our scenario listed. 

It is most likely that magic (if genetically based) is produced by multiple genes like skin color or eye color IRL, where the final phenotype is determined by more complicated relationships than dominant/ recessive.

Alternate Interpretation: It's magic.

I'm not being condescening, actually. I mean that magic obviously does not obey the laws of physics (or sometimes logic), so why should it obey the laws of genetics?

You assume that there is no explanation that you can force that makes magic and physics compatible , I could probably think of one, if I wanted to.

In all seriousness, it doesn't have to have a scientific explanation, but it's a fun "mind exercise", and I like science. 

Modifié par Palipride47, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:46 .

[TheButterflyEffect]

Well they don't say how often Circle mages actually have kids... it can be assumed that the Circle mages who bear non-mage kids, were, in fact, knocked up by Templars, or possibly any of the variety of non-mages who occasionally visit.

And even if the Tamassrans tracked it so well, weeding out magic completely would be nearly impossible. A recessive gene can hide, getting passed down but not expressing itself for many generations.

Modifié par TheButterflyEffect, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:02 .

[Palipride47]

TheButterflyEffect wrote...

Well they don't say how often Circle mages actually have kids... it can be assumed that the Circle mages who bear non-mage kids, were, in fact, knocked up by Templars, or possibly any of the variety of non-mages who occasionally visit.

The other problem can be seen with people who suddenly end up with mages in their family after not seeing it in their familes for either a very long time or ever (like the Harimanns, and Lady Harimann. The daughter says her family never had magic in their blood). And the Tevinter Imperioum did construct large tress of families known to produce mage children. If those mages mated with mages and only had mages afterwards, then it would hint at a simple "Punnett Square" determination.

I think it isn't "Punnett Square" simple (like curled tongues and detached earlobes) but more complex, and controlled by more than one gene.

If it is even genetic 

Modifié par Palipride47, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:49 .

[MichaelStuart]

Personal, I think it's just random.

[esper]

I think it is a mixture of genes and other (perhaps random factors).
I imagine having a lot of magic in the blood line such as Malcom-Leandra had makes it more likely to have mage children but it is not enough.

But neither of Fenryel's parents were mages and he was the most magey-mage in a long time. Neither were Conner's.

My guess is that the veil, when you are born also have an influence. Kirkwall apparently had an increase in mages and Kirkwall had a very thin veil. So my guess is that if the veil isn't thick enough when in your mother's womb you form a connection to the Fade. Certain genes makes that easier/more likely to happen, but it can potentially happen to everybody.'s unborn child

[TheButterflyEffect]

But like I said, recessive genes can hide for many, many generations.