4643 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I think Dean wins my friends.

If I win, I want a prize.

I want to hear you say something along the lines of 'I don't always merge with Fade Spirits, but when I do I become a raging psychopath by Act 3 my friends.'

But only as you can do it.

[Xilizhra]

Contrary to your own words, which boil down to more of you using your influence to protect da waifus from the hateful humans. And that wasn't the point.

Something I no longer do, having changed endings to Synthesis.

And that still is not what genocide means. You have to want to get to remove a group because of what they are.

Which you just said was justified.

I've seen what you believe in. Semi-totalitarian states, dogmatic influence from you, and necrophilia among the least disturbing. I don't think anything is right about that.

I can see how you'd misinterpret the first two, but I have no idea where the last came from.

[cjones91]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen Pro Mages call templars a virus or weapons.They usually only attack the organization's tendecy to see the mages as such.

This generally goes down the route of "kill the entire chantry"

But that's only a few posts,many Pro Templars treat the mages as inhuman objects and some have even likened them to being a disease.No Pro Mage advocate I've seen had never dehumanized the templars like that.

I have it on very good authority that you misunderstood the analogy. The mage isn't the virus- the magic inside of him or her is.

If you've any confusion about how magic in the Dragon Age setting can be seen similarly to pre-vaccination plague control, however, I can certainly elaborate for you.

I'd love to hear it since mages can't infect people with their magic.

[Hazegurl]

eluvianix wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Its why I enjoy these arguments.

>Blame everything on the templars
>Stick your fingers in your ears and shout lalalala whenever someone points out any faults with Anders or the mages

Don't pretend like you guys do not do the same things. Mages hardly have a monopoly on stubbornness.

It's the fault of both groups. The Templars did nothing about their corrupt members and the mages kept forcing the hands of those who weren't corrupt while giving reason for a bit fat "I told you so" to the ones that were. Templar leaders were unreasonable while Mage leaders kept proving over and over again why Mages deserved their fate. Both parties made that bed and quite honestly, if mages weren't too busy making unreasonable demands, such as wanting to practice any magic they wanted anywhere, they never would have gotten locked in the Circle in the first place.

[Dean_the_Young]

eluvianix wrote...

@Br3ad, do we not all believe that what we ourselves believe is right, though? Until we are proven wrong at least.

Many of us, however, don't use that as a springboard to provide various genocidal or unfeasible proposals with quickly conceded lack of thought into the consequences.

Xil is quite quick to make a moralistic declaration that she will spend the next five posts walking away from if you challenge her on the competence of it.

[Hazegurl]

Lord Raijin wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...


Now you're just being silly. How can Anders be guilty of genocide when hes fighting for the freeom of his comrades whos being held prisoners in the gallows?

Probably because he forced them to fight and die when most of them wanted no part of it.

Can you give me one sane mage who likes being forced to live in the Circle where a bunch of templars stares at them all day and all night?[/b] Can you give me a name one 1 mage who likes having her child taken away from her by the templars and given to the Chantry out of punishment for wanting to start a family of their own?

The chantry put all of this upon themselves for abusing mages for so long. To treat them as caddle, and not as human beings or Elves.

Yeah, all these mages.
dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_History_of_the_Circle

[cjones91]

Hazegurl wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...


Now you're just being silly. How can Anders be guilty of genocide when hes fighting for the freeom of his comrades whos being held prisoners in the gallows?

Probably because he forced them to fight and die when most of them wanted no part of it.

Can you give me one sane mage who likes being forced to live in the Circle where a bunch of templars stares at them all day and all night?[/b] Can you give me a name one 1 mage who likes having her child taken away from her by the templars and given to the Chantry out of punishment for wanting to start a family of their own?

The chantry put all of this upon themselves for abusing mages for so long. To treat them as caddle, and not as human beings or Elves.

Yeah, all these mages.
dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_History_of_the_Circle

Sadly,the Circles have become a shadow of what they were intended to be.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

@Br3ad, do we not all believe that what we ourselves believe is right, though? Until we are proven wrong at least.

Many of us, however, don't use that as a springboard to provide various genocidal or unfeasible proposals with quickly conceded lack of thought into the consequences.

Xil is quite quick to make a moralistic declaration that she will spend the next five posts walking away from if you challenge her on the competence of it.

If you do. Almost no one else has proven to have this capability. Though I confess to your usefulness in this regard.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Contrary to your own words, which boil down to more of you using your influence to protect da waifus from the hateful humans. And that wasn't the point.

Something I no longer do, having changed endings to Synthesis.

Fair enough. I'll drop it.

And that still is not what genocide means. You have to want to get to remove a group because of what they are.

Which you just said was justified.

Me killing the reformed geth? I've never said that that was justifed. 

I've seen what you believe in. Semi-totalitarian states, dogmatic influence from you, and necrophilia among the least disturbing. I don't think anything is right about that.

I can see how you'd misinterpret the first two, but I have no idea where the last came from.

This thread and the one that you brought up. Also, Sythesis is the pinnacle of dogmatism. And it's not like any of these things are unique to these theads alone. These are things that I've always seen you advocate for. 

[Xilizhra]

Me killing the reformed geth? I've never said that that was justifed.

And yet you did it anyway.

This thread and the one that you brought up. Also, Sythesis is the pinnacle of dogmatism. And it's not like any of these things are unique to these theads alone. These are things that I've always seen you advocate for.

Er, necrophilia? I... what?

[Hazegurl]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I'm actually referring to your comments about Anders not killing a single innocent person when he blew up the chantry.

Found guilty of perpetuating superstition and impeding social progress. Convicted, and executed.

JUSTICE is served

Fixed for you.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 26 octobre 2013 - 07:03 .

[Ianamus]

I remember a quote somewhere where somebody confirmed that there were in deed a lot of people in the Chantry when it blew up, as it was where all the priestesses would have been housed among other things. I can't remember if it was Gaider or not, and I can't find it anywhere, which is annoying.  

Modifié par EJ107, 26 octobre 2013 - 07:24 .

[Reaverwind]

EJ107 wrote...

I remember a quote somewhere where somebody confirmed that there were in deed a lot of people in the Chantry when it blew up, as it was where all the priestesses would have been housed among other things. I can't remember if it was Gaider or not, and I can't find it anywhere, which is annoying.  

You only need to look at the cutscene to realise that there were casualties outside the Chantry, too. That was a massive explosion throwing a lot of debris. 

[Ianamus]

Reaverwind wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I remember a quote somewhere where somebody confirmed that there were in deed a lot of people in the Chantry when it blew up, as it was where all the priestesses would have been housed among other things. I can't remember if it was Gaider or not, and I can't find it anywhere, which is annoying.  

You only need to look at the cutscene to realise that there were casualties outside the Chantry, too. That was a massive explosion throwing a lot of debris. 

And it was right next to all the Hightown estates as well... Hawkes estate may have only just avoided being destoryed, and Fenris's probably would have been, thinking about it... 

Foshizzlin wrote...

Should I list a few more things you've advocated here and on Scrollsoflore, Xil? I'm getting a wee bit tired of you trying to call others "misguided hypocrites/bigots" in every thread you go to. Instead of ever making a logical argument, you simply pull a "You're a bigot!" card try to act like someone of superior moral and intellectual stature, particularly considering the disgustingly reprehensible things that you try to justify in your gender-and-species-confused mind.

I saw the list of things before you editied it out, and all I can say is 

Modifié par EJ107, 26 octobre 2013 - 07:31 .

[Ianamus]

Modifié par EJ107, 26 octobre 2013 - 07:31 .

[Dean_the_Young]

cjones91 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen Pro Mages call templars a virus or weapons.They usually only attack the organization's tendecy to see the mages as such.

This generally goes down the route of "kill the entire chantry"

But that's only a few posts,many Pro Templars treat the mages as inhuman objects and some have even likened them to being a disease.No Pro Mage advocate I've seen had never dehumanized the templars like that.

I have it on very good authority that you misunderstood the analogy. The mage isn't the virus- the magic inside of him or her is.

If you've any confusion about how magic in the Dragon Age setting can be seen similarly to pre-vaccination plague control, however, I can certainly elaborate for you.

I'd love to hear it since mages can't infect people with their magic.

Given that the risk factor of the magic is the abomination threat first, and magical ability second... yes, they can.

If a mage succumbs to the dangers of the magic, whether to becoming an abomination themselves or simple change of heart like certain apostates in Kirkwall, they certainly can force others to succumb as well. One fallen mage can turn others, and those others can turn others, and you have a model for a viral outbreak that continues until the host population stops spreading and dies.


Plague modeling works with two population types. There are those who carry the disease further and spread it around, and there are those who die sooner and so don't spread the disease. Carriers, however, don't necessarily die- the reasons differ (vaccinations versus resistance versus remission), but ultimately a carrier can put many non-carriers at risk even if the carrier themself wasn't as affected or intending to. It's not intentional, it's not even their fault, but it can have a real fault.

In the 'magic is a virus' analogy, carriers are mages, and the abominations are a disease in remission. In the lore of the DA universe, this is a very special disease that can come out with emotional turmoil and extremes... whether or not the carrier wants such a thing. As this occurance can be externally invoked (Uldred's methods, DA2 apostates), inadverdant or accidental under emotional stress (Connor), or deliberatly  sought (too many to count), and can never be removed short of Tranquility, carriers are carriers for life.

Not every carrier of a disease actually spreads it- steps can be taken to reduce, if not eliminate, the risks. The amount of risk reduction varies from disease to disease. But every carrier of a disease can potentially spread it, and only one is needed to start an outbreak.

When an outbreak starts, carriers are the most resistant, albeit vulnerable to breaking out themselves, and non-carriers die. In the analogy for DA, an outbreak is the abomination(s), which can kill or convert other mages, and the non-carriers are the mundanes who die by the village load. Just like a midieval outbreak could almost annihalate a town or castle or worse, such to is within the scope of power of abominations (which range from Redcliffe to allegedly world-threatening powers).

It's not like an outbreak is an act of malevolence by the carrier who starts it- it could be, but it could be completely accidental. It's simply a fact of nature, an unavoidable part of the condition. That it can also kill the carrier doesn't matter. And in the case of abomination-vulnerable mages, it's a condition that could break out after one bad week. Stress, after all, is the common factor in all those who gave up control... and stress comes for us regardless of who is on top. It is unavoidable, regardless of templars or freedoms.


So, in a world of carriers and non-carriers, the social balance becomes... how much risk do the non-carriers accept in letting carriers live amongst them?


The answer in history is 'not much.' In cases in which carriers threaten non-carrier societies, quarantines were made. Sometimes these were temporary, as the outbreaks burned themselves out. Sometimes the carriers utterly destroyed the non-carriers by virtue of inadverdant germ warfare and replaced their societies. And sometimes quarantine colonies were made- islands dedicated for keeping carriers and non-carriers separte, but allowing both to live.

The most famous of these were Leper colonies. They weren't good places- far worse than the Mage Circles in DA in terms of being supplied, and equally vulnerable to being put to the sword and fire if an outbreak threatened to breach the barriers. But, and this is important, it was often understood that Lepers were the victims of their condition, not the condition itself. Not coincidentally, a number of churches had members who dedicated themselves, and risked their lives and health, to care for these sick people.

Quarantine colonies weren't the ideal, but they were a compromise between two extremes- carrier outbreaks destroying non-carriers, and non-carriers putting the carriers to the sword. As time went by, and medicine was developed, the quarantine colonies became less and less necessary. The risk of an outbreak diminished (sanitation). Non-carriers could become carriers themselves (smallpox vaccination). Social tolerance of the risks adapted, and some diseases even became accepted and nearly universal (chickenpox).

This is the state that mages are in now. As long as they are vulnerable to abomination outbreaks, they are carriers of a potential outbreak with devastating impacts. It isn't their fault. It isn't even under their control- not completely. But after numerous historic outbreaks, including the most famous in which carriers leveraged their inner passenger to devastate non-carriers, the social risk tolerance is very, very small.


Mages want out of their quarantine. This is understandable. But as long as they are carriers of a disease with no vaccine, as long as they are unable to eliminate the risk to a level the wider society is willing to tolerate, they will be restarting a conflict of carriers vs. noncarriers with precious little room for coexistence over the long term other than 'tolerate our outbreaks that can kill you, or die.'


And, saddest of all, that's not even a reality the carriers want.

[cjones91]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

I don't think I've ever seen Pro Mages call templars a virus or weapons.They usually only attack the organization's tendecy to see the mages as such.

This generally goes down the route of "kill the entire chantry"

But that's only a few posts,many Pro Templars treat the mages as inhuman objects and some have even likened them to being a disease.No Pro Mage advocate I've seen had never dehumanized the templars like that.

I have it on very good authority that you misunderstood the analogy. The mage isn't the virus- the magic inside of him or her is.

If you've any confusion about how magic in the Dragon Age setting can be seen similarly to pre-vaccination plague control, however, I can certainly elaborate for you.

I'd love to hear it since mages can't infect people with their magic.

Given that the risk factor of the magic is the abomination threat first, and magical ability second... yes, they can.

If a mage succumbs to the dangers of the magic, whether to becoming an abomination themselves or simple change of heart like certain apostates in Kirkwall, they certainly can force others to succumb as well. One fallen mage can turn others, and those others can turn others, and you have a model for a viral outbreak that continues until the host population stops spreading and dies.


Plague modeling works with two population types. There are those who carry the disease further and spread it around, and there are those who die sooner and so don't spread the disease. Carriers, however, don't necessarily die- the reasons differ (vaccinations versus resistance versus remission), but ultimately a carrier can put many non-carriers at risk even if the carrier themself wasn't as affected or intending to. It's not intentional, it's not even their fault, but it can have a real fault.

In the 'magic is a virus' analogy, carriers are mages, and the abominations are a disease in remission. In the lore of the DA universe, this is a very special disease that can come out with emotional turmoil and extremes... whether or not the carrier wants such a thing. As this occurance can be externally invoked (Uldred's methods, DA2 apostates), inadverdant or accidental under emotional stress (Connor), or deliberatly  sought (too many to count), and can never be removed short of Tranquility, carriers are carriers for life.

Not every carrier of a disease actually spreads it- steps can be taken to reduce, if not eliminate, the risks. The amount of risk reduction varies from disease to disease. But every carrier of a disease can potentially spread it, and only one is needed to start an outbreak.

When an outbreak starts, carriers are the most resistant, albeit vulnerable to breaking out themselves, and non-carriers die. In the analogy for DA, an outbreak is the abomination(s), which can kill or convert other mages, and the non-carriers are the mundanes who die by the village load. Just like a midieval outbreak could almost annihalate a town or castle or worse, such to is within the scope of power of abominations (which range from Redcliffe to allegedly world-threatening powers).

It's not like an outbreak is an act of malevolence by the carrier who starts it- it could be, but it could be completely accidental. It's simply a fact of nature, an unavoidable part of the condition. That it can also kill the carrier doesn't matter. And in the case of abomination-vulnerable mages, it's a condition that could break out after one bad week. Stress, after all, is the common factor in all those who gave up control... and stress comes for us regardless of who is on top. It is unavoidable, regardless of templars or freedoms.


So, in a world of carriers and non-carriers, the social balance becomes... how much risk do the non-carriers accept in letting carriers live amongst them?


The answer in history is 'not much.' In cases in which carriers threaten non-carrier societies, quarantines were made. Sometimes these were temporary, as the outbreaks burned themselves out. Sometimes the carriers utterly destroyed the non-carriers by virtue of inadverdant germ warfare and replaced their societies. And sometimes quarantine colonies were made- islands dedicated for keeping carriers and non-carriers separte, but allowing both to live.

The most famous of these were Leper colonies. They weren't good places- far worse than the Mage Circles in DA in terms of being supplied, and equally vulnerable to being put to the sword and fire if an outbreak threatened to breach the barriers. But, and this is important, it was often understood that Lepers were the victims of their condition, not the condition itself. Not coincidentally, a number of churches had members who dedicated themselves, and risked their lives and health, to care for these sick people.

Quarantine colonies weren't the ideal, but they were a compromise between two extremes- carrier outbreaks destroying non-carriers, and non-carriers putting the carriers to the sword. As time went by, and medicine was developed, the quarantine colonies became less and less necessary. The risk of an outbreak diminished (sanitation). Non-carriers could become carriers themselves (smallpox vaccination). Social tolerance of the risks adapted, and some diseases even became accepted and nearly universal (chickenpox).

This is the state that mages are in now. As long as they are vulnerable to abomination outbreaks, they are carriers of a potential outbreak with devastating impacts. It isn't their fault. It isn't even under their control- not completely. But after numerous historic outbreaks, including the most famous in which carriers leveraged their inner passenger to devastate non-carriers, the social risk tolerance is very, very small.


Mages want out of their quarantine. This is understandable. But as long as they are carriers of a disease with no vaccine, as long as they are unable to eliminate the risk to a level the wider society is willing to tolerate, they will be restarting a conflict of carriers vs. noncarriers with precious little room for coexistence over the long term other than 'tolerate our outbreaks that can kill you, or die.'


And, saddest of all, that's not even a reality the carriers want.

Wow,I've never thought about it like that.This is why most mages should be put through mandatory training so they don't fall prey to demons and become abominations.However your analogy should include the demons as the virus and the mages are where it spreads and gets stronger.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'll just go with 'people', unless you intend to admit to a previously unsuspected deliberate social ineptitude on the internet.

Then I must ask, what can be done? The politer side of my own faction certainly hasn't helped the brutish aggression of our foes change at all.

Get out, go places you haven't been, grow up, and get perspective.

Brutish is people cutting off heads and putting them on scarecrows the intimidate the neighborhood. Brutish is people trying to kill children for speaking against them. Brutish is bombing someone in a church because they aren't religious enough or intimidated enough to agree with you. Brutish is people beating others because it's expected.

Brutish is NOT having a conservative view on public risk or disagreeing with more kind-hearted views. And it certainly isn't them being exasperated or disgusted at you simultaneously trying to claim a moral high ground while making egocentric and hypocritical arguments.

Not really. The root is not being able to handle your differences with others in a mature or respectful fashion, not having differences.

If so, it's an affliction shared by my foes.

To an extent. That doesn't mean you shouldn't grow the **** up and stop making excuses for your ****** poor personal conduct.

Comments like this are the reason I find you amusing and amiable at times, but do not respect you.

[Lord Raijin]

Morocco Mole wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
But that's only a few posts,many Pro Templars treat the mages as inhuman objects and some have even likened them to being a disease.No Pro Mage advocate I've seen had never dehumanized the templars like that.

Incorrect. Mage supporters are just as guilty of the things you are accusing pro-templars of.

Take Raijin and Xilizhra for example.

How exactly are we pro mages are just guilty for what we accuse of the pro-templars of doing? You folks are pro incarceration of innocent mages whereas we pro mages think that Mages should have the same right as a non-mage to experience freedom. Perhabs if Mages were treated as the same a non-mage then maybe just MAYBE their would be far less blood mages then their is today.

You pro Templars are throwing the law book at Anders... and esseninally calling him a psychopath and a terrorist, but who is the true psychopath and terrorist? Perhabs the Chantry and the Templars. Look how the Qunari treats their mages. They sew their mouths shut and cut out their tongues and treat them like caddle.

Mages are treated like **** in Thedas and you can't possibly expect the mages to sit back and do nothing.

[Xilizhra]

Get out, go places you haven't been, grow up, and get perspective.

Brutish is people cutting off heads and putting them on scarecrows the intimidate the neighborhood. Brutish is people trying to kill children for speaking against them. Brutish is bombing someone in a church because they aren't religious enough or intimidated enough to agree with you. Brutish is people beating others because it's expected.

Brutish is NOT having a conservative view on public risk or disagreeing with more kind-hearted views. And it certainly isn't them being exasperated or disgusted at you simultaneously trying to claim a moral high ground while making egocentric and hypocritical arguments.

In terms of Internet discourse. As many if not most people actively supporting templars have openly advocated doing more or less what you mentioned in your second paragraph. Not all, but plenty of them.

To an extent. That doesn't mean you shouldn't grow the **** up and stop making excuses for your ****** poor personal conduct.

I fail to see what good it would do in this case, but very well.

[Lotion Soronarr]

cjones91 wrote...
Not really,the two comparisons don't work because the templars are institutionally taught that mages are to be hated because they are a sin in the eyes of the Maker.It's the same with institutional bigotry where people are taught by their peers that people that are different from them don't deserve to be treated like people.

Excuse me, from what universe did you just arrive stranger?

No one is tough to hate mages, stop sprouting nosense.
Magic is a curse AND a gift - a dual nature - and that very much is the truth.

The idiocity stems from the belif that all people have to be trated exactly the same (regardless of ANY factor), and that if you segregate someone - for WHATEVER reason - you are not treating them like people.
Which is bollcoks.
Mages are treated like people and always have.

[Dean_the_Young]

cjones91 wrote...

Wow,I've never thought about it like that.This is why most mages should be put through mandatory training so they don't fall prey to demons and become abominations.

Mandatory training doesn't prevent that. People succumb to Abominations either out of coercion, which no training can make you immune from, or stress/desperation, which will occur regardless of the circle system or templars. Conner, removed from the context of Isolde's motivations, is an actually pretty mundane but common motivation for demonic pacts: trying to save the life of a family member. That's a stress we all have to go through, since ultimately every family member who doesn't outlive us is going to die before us.

Then there's maritial difficulties, the more mundane seven deadly sins, the tyranny of taxes and governments, and the stresses of any other ideological cause you'd like to take or axe you'd like to grind...

However your analogy should include the demons as the virus and the mages are where it spreads and gets stronger.

A virus, even when dormant, is always there. An abomination is binary, much like an outbreak: it either is in effect, or not. The magic potential (and thus abomination outbreak risk) is the dormant virus analog, not the abomination itself- unless you intend to argue all mages are dormant abominations. Which is both unsupported and even worse.

Of course, abominations are only the most flashy form of the outbreak. Simply bad people being bad mages using magic for bad things (like mind control, abomination implants, or simple death) are other forms of the outbreak. As far as plague victims go, dying from horrible boyles is just a more grotesque death than drowning in your own lungs as a 'lesser' malady.

The corruption of bad mages being a malady on other mages and mundanes alike is another form of the outbreak and quarantine analogy, but it's easier to bog down.

[Lotion Soronarr]

cjones91 wrote...
I'm not really accusing anyone of anything,I was simply making a observation of what I've seen from both groups.Most Pro Mages don't dehumanize the other side while plenty on the Pro Templar side do just that.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah..like I haven't hear the "everoyne who suports the chantry/templars is guilty and deserves to die".
Or how everyone who dies in Anders little terror act is guilty and evil and should also die.

Puh-leaze.