47 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

I was recently struck by an insight.

While watching an interview with John Cleese, I was struck by his words.

At one point, he said, and I'm paraphrasing here:
The problem with religion is that the religious books were all written by brilliant men. And one thing I've noticed is that brilliant men don't think literally. They think metaphorically. So you have the problem of less intelligent people taking literally what was meant to be metaphorical, and you get into the odd situation of people argueing that the founder of the religion meant the exact opposite of what he said. That creates all kinds of trouble.

And today it occured to me that the line in the chant of light, "Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him." is *exactly* one of those phrases.

The major meaning of that phrase is NOT what the Chantry has took it to mean, but rather it is a warning to mages; Don't obsess over magic. Don't let it rule you. Don't forget that you are still a person, a human being, instead of some multipotent powerhouse of arcane ability.

A secondary meaning may be "Don't let mages rule the government; if they get obsessed with their magic, bad things happen to everyone." And certainly it has been used to justify keeping mages locked away from society in general, churning out trinkets for people to buy in order to support the Circles and the Templar Order.

But I feel the core meaning is NOT the most obvious meaning.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 07 novembre 2012 - 10:02 .

[svenus97]

Good point. Wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

[thibaut72]

It's because words are so important. If you interpret them in a wrong way, you can easily make misunderstanding ; it's also right for blood magic and maleficar...
Foul and corrupt are they
Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.
They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.
Those who use magic against people, or not doing good, are maleficar...

[Jonata]

Yeah, and Maleficar are mages who turn magic against other people, not simply "Blood Mages". Personally I think that Blood Mages can be heroes, since they actually sacrifice themselves to gain power: if they use that power to help others they're not different from Grey Wardens, sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

[Jonata]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Jonata wrote...

Yeah, and Maleficar are mages who turn magic against other people, not simply "Blood Mages". Personally I think that Blood Mages can be heroes, since they actually sacrifice themselves to gain power: if they use that power to help others they're not different from Grey Wardens, sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

If that blood mage is only sapping their OWN life energy, sure. Usually though, blood magic involves the death of others.

That's where morality comes into play. A Maleficar will use other people's blood to improve its powers, a proper mage will instead sacrifice only its now blood. To me, it's a matter of responsibility. 

[Doodleydowop]

thibaut72 wrote...

It's because words are so important. If you interpret them in a wrong way, you can easily make misunderstanding ; it's also right for blood magic and maleficar...
Foul and corrupt are they
Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.
They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.
Those who use magic against people, or not doing good, are maleficar...

Since he is the "maker" of all things, then all creation can be considered his "gift", and all humans, elves and even spirits his "children".

So this could be a general "don't hurt each other; give peace a chance" message.

On a related note: are dwarves considered children of the maker? They aren't connected to the fade...

[Auintus]

Jonata wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Jonata wrote...

Yeah, and Maleficar are mages who turn magic against other people, not simply "Blood Mages". Personally I think that Blood Mages can be heroes, since they actually sacrifice themselves to gain power: if they use that power to help others they're not different from Grey Wardens, sacrificing themselves for the greater good.

If that blood mage is only sapping their OWN life energy, sure. Usually though, blood magic involves the death of others.

That's where morality comes into play. A Maleficar will use other people's blood to improve its powers, a proper mage will instead sacrifice only its now blood. To me, it's a matter of responsibility. 

This one understands.

[StarcloudSWG]

I suppose the major prohibition against blood magic isn't moral, so much as it is practical and based in the observation of human behavior. With such an easy path to increase one's power, blood mages fall into sociopathy, megalomania, and/or narcissism more easily, and are more tempting, or perhaps simply more visible, targets for Demons. And that's assuming that the mages just use their own blood. Once they start using other people as sacrifices... well. Murder is murder.

[ManiacG]

Written by brilliant men...written by powerhungry zealots entralled by their own delusions more like.

The main assertion for any religion is control
by selling an invisble product (god, the maker etc)
And anything that can serve as a scapegoat for
evil and assure the religon power (in this case mages)
are neccesary requirements for the religion to keep
common people in line by telling them that they protect
them from the "evil" .

as for methaprashing the intentions of the writer are meaningless tbh the only thing that matters is what the chantry did with his/hers writings.

[henkez3]

I can imagine David Gaider sitting in a leather chair behind a desk, smoking a pipe and stroking a white cat and having a satisfied grin on his face when he sees how much debate the chant of light and his universe in general creates amongst his fans.

On Topic: IF the PC in DA3 is going to be an inquisitor, and you play as a mage, I think the "Magic is meant to serve man, not rule over it" is a good justification for being a mage. If magic is meant to serve man, why not serve the chantry?

[Archyyy]

I cant think of brilliant men conjuring up something like the chant. No evidence to back it up and full of absolute bull****. No brilliant person could write something like that.

Its written by ignorant fools like any real world religion. The chantrys views on mages and blood magic as inherently evil or bad, their desire to rule society based on dogma and not rationality, their racism and their use of violence when one doesnt bow to their will (exalted marches on the elves for example) make them evil something that should be destroyed. Theres probably other stuff too that I could find with some research.

Also the maker seems like a huge dick. He creates humans and all other races knowing perfectly what they are like and when they stop believing in him since they dont have a reason to he acts like a juvenile brat and gets mad instead of proving his existance. Then when humans practice their natural curiosity and attempt to understand the veil and the black city he turns them into darkspawn that attempt to destroy the world and cause suffering to people who never deserved it.

Its true that magic shouldnt be something that makes a person think hes beyond morality and such but that doesnt mean mages shouldnt have the opportunity to reach for power if they deserve it. Blood magic shouldnt be forbidden either. Theres nothing inherently evil about it and its only bad if misused just like anything else. Magic seems like a huge potential that the chantry forces the world to waste.

Modifié par Archyyy, 08 novembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[StarcloudSWG]

Then, simply, you don't understand people. You're trying to approach religion from a literal, scientific 'what can be proven?' perspective, and a utilitarian one.

Religion has never been about science. Religion has always been about trying to explain the inexplicable where there is no data. Religion has always been about how people *should* treat one another. Religion is an ethical and moral system backed up by the belief in something greater, something whose existence is impossible to prove, something that offers hope that there is some purpose to everything, something beyond death.

Religion attempts to answer the questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we exist? What is our purpose? How should we treat each other? What happens to us after our bodies die?

Tell me, what kind of experiment would you run to gather the data to answer these questions? Where would you look for the proof to back up your hypothesis regarding an answer? How would you do this?

Whether you like it or not, the founders of religions are often very intelligent, brilliant people who talk in metaphor and analogy, not direct concrete examples, about subjects that *cannot* be observed to find the truth.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:18 .

[Maria Caliban]

Doodleydowop wrote...

On a related note: are dwarves considered children of the maker? They aren't connected to the fade...

No, they are not considered Children, though we haven't been told why.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

I suppose the major prohibition against blood magic isn't moral, so much as it is practical and based in the observation of human behavior. With such an easy path to increase one's power, blood mages fall into sociopathy, megalomania, and/or narcissism more easily, and are more tempting, or perhaps simply more visible, targets for Demons.

That's part of it. In addition, there is a Codex containing a religious argument against it. One of the first Divines was asked what sort of magic was against the Maker's laws, and she decided that mind control and using other people's blood was illegal. I don't know whether she decided that this meant all blood magic was forbidden, or whether some non-brilliant person took it one step further than she thought justified and decided all blood magic was forbidden. Either way, the only blood magic allowed is the stuff with phylacteries, which is used to rule over mages rather than to serve them.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:21 .

[thibaut72]

StarcloudSWG wrote...
Whether you like it or not, the founders of religions are often very intelligent, brilliant people who talk in metaphor and analogy, not direct concrete examples, about subjects that *cannot* be observed to find the truth.

It's because it's always hard to understand the dogma of a religion. And successors of the founder always act for their community, regarding their parental/societal education, and model the religion at their own advantage. And those who are outside the way or not suit in the mould, are heretic

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Doodleydowop wrote...

On a related note: are dwarves considered children of the maker? They aren't connected to the fade...

No, they are not considered Children, though we haven't been told why.

I believe it to be that they don't adknowledge the Maker. The dwarven brother in Orzammar is supposed to have served in the Redcliffe Chantry. (On the other hand, said Chantry is quite liberal in it's views, as is observable during the Mage's Collective Questline.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Maria Caliban]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Doodleydowop wrote...

On a related note: are dwarves considered children of the maker? They aren't connected to the fade...

No, they are not considered Children, though we haven't been told why.

I believe it to be that they don't adknowledge the Maker. The dwarven brother in Orzammar is supposed to have served in the Redcliffe Chantry. (On the other hand, said Chantry is quite liberal in it's views, as is observable during the Mage's Collective Questline.)

The Dalish don't worship the Maker, but they're considered one of his children. Spirits don't worshop the Maker, but they're called his first children.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Dalish don't worship the Maker, but they're considered one of his children. Spirits don't worshop the Maker, but they're called his first children.

Maybe the Dalish are an exception, since the vast majority of elves are Andrastian. If it's not this explanation, maybe something to do with the lack of connection to the Fade, which the Andrastians consider sacred. If it's not one of those two, I have no idea.

Also note that Spirits are theologically labeled as worshipping the Maker. The thing where they imitate the mortal races is supposed to be them trying to figure out why the Maker prefers said races.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 novembre 2012 - 07:56 .

[Zeta42]

Well, it was kinda obvious that the Chantry warns against using magic to enslave people, wasn't it? To prevent a situation like in Tevinter. But please, someone explain to me how it ties with forcing mages to choose between Tranquility and death.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Zeta42 wrote...

Well, it was kinda obvious that the Chantry warns against using magic to enslave people, wasn't it? To prevent a situation like in Tevinter. But please, someone explain to me how it ties with forcing mages to choose between Tranquility and death.

If you mean the Harrowing, that is to make the Circles safer to both patrol and live in. If you mean apostates, that's strictly a control method. Either way, its because the Templars were deemed neccesary to keep the Circles from rising up and making a new Imperium, and this method makes their lives easier and more likely to continue.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 08 novembre 2012 - 08:10 .

[Archyyy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Then, simply, you don't understand people. You're trying to approach religion from a literal, scientific 'what can be proven?' perspective, and a utilitarian one.

Religion has never been about science. Religion has always been about trying to explain the inexplicable where there is no data. Religion has always been about how people *should* treat one another. Religion is an ethical and moral system backed up by the belief in something greater, something whose existence is impossible to prove, something that offers hope that there is some purpose to everything, something beyond death.

Religion attempts to answer the questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we exist? What is our purpose? How should we treat each other? What happens to us after our bodies die?

Tell me, what kind of experiment would you run to gather the data to answer these questions? Where would you look for the proof to back up your hypothesis regarding an answer? How would you do this?

Whether you like it or not, the founders of religions are often very intelligent, brilliant people who talk in metaphor and analogy, not direct concrete examples, about subjects that *cannot* be observed to find the truth.

Faith doesnt qualify as a reason to believe which is my point. Without a reason to believe into something one shouldnt believe into something. Its irrational and often very harmful. Making up dogma and beliefs doesnt constitute as an explanation. Its faith and faith, which literally means a belief without evidence, is stupid and irrational. If you find a world without a "higher being" a cold place then the fault is in you. I certainly dont and simply because one doesnt like something doesnt mean its not true.

"Religion attempts to answer the questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we exist? What is our purpose? How should we treat each other? What happens to us after our bodies die?"

That is the realm of philosophy, usually not science and especially not religion. Religion can only answer with useless dogma or guesswork whereas philosophy can try to reach a rational conclusion. Even science does better than religion as it has an actual basis in which to start from. Biology and chemistry for example. If it doesnt have a basis the question can often be dismissed as useless. But philosophy and thinking can provide far better answers.

There isnt any purpose for us being here for example. We're here because the conditions on our planet which is one of trillions and trillions happened to make it possible. Its not strange that, despite it being unlikely, the conditions for life were met on at least one of countless planets. No more explanation is needed. If you want purpose you can decide it for yourself. Theres no other way. Happiness for example is a good place to start. As to where we came from science can explain it perfectly with chemistry and biology. And it has solid evidence to back all that up. No faith is needed. When we die we rot in the ground and thats all there is to it. Our bodies turn to whatever formed them in the first place and our minds cease to exist. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

If you tried to answer any of those with religious dogma youd have no basis but faith and some old books written by ignorant nomads millennia ago. Faith doesnt count as a basis since it has neither empirical nor rational proof. And I cant believe that youd believe the word of nomads that lived millennia ago rather than modern day scientists with actual knowledge or that of philosophers who try to answer those questions with thought and rationality.

Modifié par Archyyy, 08 novembre 2012 - 09:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

Zeta42 wrote...

Well, it was kinda obvious that the Chantry warns against using magic to enslave people, wasn't it? To prevent a situation like in Tevinter. But please, someone explain to me how it ties with forcing mages to choose between Tranquility and death.

The Harrowing predates the Chantry.

Though I'd be interested in seeing how the Dalish, Revini, and Avvar protect their mages from abominations, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more harsh.

[DarthLaxian]

does it - didn't those templar bastards (as part of the inquisition) just kill mages they found (i read that somewhere i do not know if it is true, because if it is, then i ask myself why the mages didn't fight back then...hell if the choice was either die or try to fight (you might still die though) then i would fight!)....so why would they have needed the harrowing?

i mean, in the circle the harrowing is there in order to finish ones apprenticeship and become a full mage of the circle (which is for example required if you want to become an enchanter/senior enchanter etc.)...it is not needed in order to start learning magic or to practise it, it is just to make sure a mage is able to turn back the advances of a demon)

greetings LAX
ps: on religion: bah, superstitious hogwash IMHO (also i am still a member of church...will wait till i start working to leave it behind, because they want money to strike me from the records they keep and as long as i do not need to pay them part of my income (german church tax - yes church members pay tax for that (!) and we can't say "no i don't want to" - unless we leave church!) i will not pay them to strike me, just because my parents thought i wanted to follow some reborn zombie *shakes his head and sighs* i now have to pay, also i - myself - never signed up for this crap!)

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 08 novembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[PsychoBlonde]

The Qun kind of has the converse of this problem--Qunari seem to be culturally very metaphorical people who use tons of analogies when talking about any concrete subject.  However, they seem to forget, frighteningly often, that their analogy is not literal truth.  Instead of being overly tied to the literal meaning of words, they treat reality as if it conforms to metaphors.  The trouble with this is that you can turn ANYTHING into a metaphor if you try hard enough.  It's worse than superstitious people who see good luck and bad luck signs everywhere.  It is incredibly ironic, because although the Qunari talk a lot about "reason", they are the most mystical people in Thedas, far more so in practice than the explicitly mystical religion they so despise.