1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: What does your mage think about mages who made the phylacteries? Does she exonerate them because anyone in danger is prone to cowardice and collusion?

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Relevant to the topic:

I just stumbled on this little tidbit in World of Thedas where it says that a mage's phylactery allows you to remotely cast spells on that mage and that the holder of a phylcatery essentially controls the mage (p 100). I always thought that might be the case, but since it was never mentioned before I thought the writers were intentionally ambiguous about it.

Well, not any more. Add one more evil to the system. Maybe I should add a passage to the manifesto about how the Chantry outlaws blood magic while using blood magic itself to control the mages.

Yeah I believe Asunder has Evangeline noting hwo hypocritical it is for templars to use blood magic to keep track of mages.

Although now that i type that...how can a templar create a phylatcery?  Wouldn't you need someone with magical talent to do so?

[Medhia Nox]

@iakus: And if you really control a mage through his phylactery - why have Tranquility at all?

Seems... inconsistent.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I remember in Dragon Age: Redemption, the Templar seemed to be able to weaken the Saarebas by holding the phylactery up to him. I honestly, wasn't sure what to make of that.

[Iakus]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@iakus: And if you really control a mage through his phylactery - why have Tranquility at all?

Seems... inconsistent.

I don't think they mean control as in indoctrination or anything like that.  SImply means they can find you and other mages can cast spells on you through it..

Also as we've seen in the past:  phylacteries can be lost or destroyed.  Tranquility is (or was) permanent.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@iakus: And if you really control a mage through his phylactery - why have Tranquility at all?

Seems... inconsistent.

It's easier.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Uh huh.

[MisterJB]

People, please. It's obviously just an expression. "Tracking" and "remote spells" are in an entirely different pharagraph from "control" clearly indicating that they do not belong in the same group; the group being "characteristics of phylacteries"; but rather that "control" is a result of the two aforementioned effects.
It's basically the same as saying: "Phylacteries allow mages to be tracked and targeted by spells from a great distance. Through these two characteristics are mages controlled by phylacteries."

If they actually allowed direct control, there would never be a rebellion.or apostates because all the templars would have to do is grab the phylacteries and tell them to quit it.
Even the word "essentially" is commonly used to demonstrate that while something may not, precisely, be what we expect it to be; in this case, direct control; in essence, it serves the same effect; in this case, control.
Of course, the difference between mind control and just control are quite important. Phylacteries may, essentially, serve as a leash for mages but they do not forcibly control their minds. Certainly not in the way spells like Blood Slave do.

Modifié par MisterJB, 03 juillet 2013 - 01:28 .

[Medhia Nox]

@MisterJB: Blood slave is okay though. Cause it's mages using it. Edgy mages pushed to the brink of radicalism because of... slavery... err... wait.

I wonder how many people who equate Circles to Slavery used this ability.

[BlueMagitek]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Maybe they have. It would be an interesting explanation for the rampant mage insanity if someone among the templars insinuated "Use blood magic and call up demons" to have a justification for killing them all.


Actually, no idea. Perhaps it's that you need a mage for doing anything more than tracking, and with things going as they did in DA2, there wasn't a mage willing to support the templars that far. Or anything more than tracking needs much more lyrium.  Or most of the escaped mages managed to destroy their phylacteries and the templars didn't tell because that would make them look incompetent.

Honestly it sounds like an interesting ability that can be done not entirely because of the object itself, but from the connection of having that person's blood.  And it sounds like you need magic to use it.  While using a Holy Smite from a distance sounds pretty legitimate, I don't recall a Templar lyrium based ability that causes the enemy to use blood magic.

It sounds like you need a mage to use effects, while you can track with the lesser abilities granted by lyrium.  Or perhaps you need a mage for that too.  But given that it doesn't sound like most mages manage to destroy theirs, (Jowann was an exception), not using that ability when you could just Paralyze + Collect is very suspicious.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Point taken - but that makes naming them "Inquisition" a rather odd choice. I appreciate the attempt to subvert the historical associations, but using it in the game title? Shouldn't a game title tell people something of what they can expect from the game? When I heard it first, I was thinking we're going to be forced into a pro-Chantry stance on magic, and I'm still not quite convinced that won't happen, in spite of what Bioware's saying.  

Unfortunately, names carry baggage, regardless if it makes sesne ot bring that baggage with them or not.

Templars. Inquisitions. Words that for many people have negative connotations. I'm convinced that many people had a greater inital negative reaction towards the tempalrs simply because they were named templars.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yes. On the other hand, comparisons can illustrate the defining difference between magic and other weapons. I've compared a mage who can cast fireballs with a person who carries a barrel of gaatlok around. Or several barrels. If they're competent, the environment of both the mage and the non-mage is relatively safe unless they want to create havoc, and I'd say even the likelihood of accidents because of factors out of the individual's control may be comparable. Still, there is one defining difference left, and it's one of quality, not of degree: if they both behave irresponsibly or criminally, you can't divest the mage of his weapon without destroying his personality, while it's rather easy with the non-mage.

You can draw different conclusions from this of course, but I think the most obvious one is that the danger mages may present does not justify an exception to the principle of justice that a decision about things like who should be interned should only be made on an individual basis and not without precedent.

This is a rather limited and skewed view.
Or can any person carry dozen of barrels of TNT on his person at all times?
Not to mention that fireballs is just ONE of the things a mage can do.
What about blood magic? (mind control)
Or the fact that a guy with a gatlok barrel isn't actively hunted by demons that turn him into a murder-machine against his will?

[Lotion Soronarr]

alexbing88 wrote...
I think I owe a clarification: I am saying that if anyone declares that genocide is acceptable in any given context, it would be highly questionable to suggest the same context to be anologous to RL. If someone says "Chantry genocide on mages is justified," but then suggests that such a decision can be derived from RL morals, then such a person would have some serious explaining to do.

Umm... I don't see what's strage there.
Morals are largely subjective. And wether an action can be justified, depends on how you are justifiying it.
Logicly justified?
Practicly justified?
Morally justified?

The question that needs answering is:  can the greater good (prevention of greater evil) justify the use of lesser evil under any circumstances?
Kill 10 to save 1000?
Or do nothing and watch 1000 die?
Can sacrificing lives in the name of morality be even called moral?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Several things do, though I don't expect you to understand them. However:

-If the story returns to the status quo, this whole thing has been pointless.

Nope. Maybe for you.
But there are many fictional worlds where status quo is always mantained.

-The templars have been set up as villains already, and the only sympathetic one in Asunder left the Order.

Nope. That's just your view. And a twist that defies expectations (templars evil) are common in fiction.

-Mages are more palatable to the widest audience, and templars are not so, like Cerberus.

For you maybe.
For others mages are d***s.

-Again, a return to the status quo would be very much against the themes of violent change within the story thus far.

A realistic world has no "theme".
Blind adherence to a theme (assuming of course one can agree what the main theme is - lord knows we couldnt' agree what the team of ME was) is predictable and boring.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: What does your mage think about mages who made the phylacteries? Does she exonerate them because anyone in danger is prone to cowardice and collusion?

There's no easy answer to this I'm afraid. In more general terms, you're asking how much we can condemn people for colluding with a system in the oppression of a minority group they belong to. On one hand, the presence of the oppressive system implies a level of duress, and that's usually considered an extenuating circumstance, on the other, there is still a share of responsibility.

Then there is the pragmatic side to consider: you'd want these mages to come over to your side, but you also can't risk to trust them immediately if you get to capture them during the conflict, and you must avoid the message that their earlier actions didn't matter at all. 

The recommendation would probably be to capture these mages and treat them as POWs, their fate to be decided on an individual basis after the war is over.
 
Having said that, it's not evident that a mage is needed to make a phylactery. Templar abilities are a form of magic since it's based on lyrium (confirmed by David Gaider in this interview) so it's not inconceivable that non mages can make phylacteries. Lastly, they're magical objects so they may be made by the Tranquil, whose desire to object to orders that don't go against their self-preservation instinct has been removed. This would greatly limit their culpability. 

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: Ahh - then you see how I'll be treating most of the mages on the side of the revolution if the game requires the Inquisitor to pick a side AND allows for a slightly more dynamic solution than "kill opposition.".

Not against mage freedom (quite the opposite - freedom from the Templars - not the Circles, as I believe Thedas mages need a system of control.  I don't subscribe to the magical utopia concept some mage proponents have on here.  I don't believe the game world supports free roaming mages.) - but I do hold even the best mages of the revolution responsible for consorting with maleficarum, abominations and blood mages (a specific type of maleficarum).  Three things I am uncompromisingly against.

I've gotta say I don't find phylacteries made by none mages very plausible - and we're told they're a form of blood magic I believe - so the Tranquil couldn't do it.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 juillet 2013 - 02:45 .

[dragonflight288]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieldra2: Ahh - then you see how I'll be treating most of the mages on the side of the revolution if the game requires the Inquisitor to pick a side AND allows for a slightly more dynamic solution than "kill opposition.".

Not against mage freedom (quite the opposite - freedom from the Templars - not the Circles, as I believe Thedas mages need a system of control.  I don't subscribe to the magical utopia concept some mage proponents have on here.  I don't believe the game world supports free roaming mages.) - but I do hold even the best mages of the revolution responsible for consorting with maleficarum, abominations and blood mages (a specific type of maleficarum).  Three things I am uncompromisingly against.

I've gotta say I don't find phylacteries made by none mages very plausible - and we're told they're a form of blood magic I believe - so the Tranquil couldn't do it.

Technically anything involving blood is blood magic. The Chantry actually banned anatomy and dissecting corpses out of study and called it blood magic as well.

Finn in Witch Hunt uses dalish blood in a spell to track the lights of Arlathan. He says the blood doesn't power the spell but is merely a component of it, and that it's a grey area. He says we shouldn't talk about it because many would call it blood magic.

[Plaintiff]

dragonflight288 wrote...
The Chantry actually banned anatomy and dissecting corpses out of study

Lulz.

And pro-templars say that magic is to blame for Thedas's scientific stagnation.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: Blood slave is okay though. Cause it's mages using it. Edgy mages pushed to the brink of radicalism because of... slavery... err... wait.

I wonder how many people who equate Circles to Slavery used this ability.

I don't think that using blood magic to stop an opponent from trying to kill you is the same as forcing entire populations of people to submit to a tyrannical religious organization.

[Medhia Nox]

@dragonflight288: And your point?

I do not support anyone into self-mutilation - they need support and professional help and possibly medication. As for blood mages who kill others - they should simply be crushed.

A spell not powered by blood isn't blood magic to me.

Just because I don't support rebellions who use demonologists, self-mutilators and have a terrorist as a mascot... doesn't mean I support the Templars. That org. is going the way of the dodo in my game as well (depending on what is actually allowed in these games).

@LobselVith8:  I've heard your protests before, and while I would never ask you to stop making them - I must confess I'm uninterested.  You ONLY appeal to the "possible" good use of blood magic to justify the use of it.

When you should know full well that the storytelling implications of these powers are not just... utility spells for a moment of danger.

What if I want to Tranquilize a few mages - just for safe transport?  Then untranquilize them?  Mind rape - is mind rape.  ((Now that we know it can be reversed.))

Also - I cannot help but ignore that you're appeal to "religious organization" over and over belies the reality of a real world prejudice.  I'm not religious, but I also believe the mage-support group is rife with personlization and projection of their real world issues onto the mage debate.  I think this cripples any real examination of the topic - as so many things (like your excuses for blood slave) are excused in the name of "free mages now!" 

And - if you're truly looking at the mage topic unbiased... then we simply disagree.  *shrugs* 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 juillet 2013 - 06:03 .

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
Not against mage freedom (quite the opposite - freedom from the Templars - not the Circles, as I believe Thedas mages need a system of control.  I don't subscribe to the magical utopia concept some mage proponents have on here.  I don't believe the game world supports free roaming mages.) - but I do hold even the best mages of the revolution responsible for consorting with maleficarum, abominations and blood mages (a specific type of maleficarum).  Three things I am uncompromisingly against.

I think that your take on blood magic and spirit interaction is more one-sided than justified by the sources. While it may be prudent to forbid blood magic based on the potential for abuse, there's nothing intrinsically bad about it. The same with spirits. See Wynne. Also, the Chantry's hypocrisy in these things doesn't exactly help its case. Blood magic is good when it helps the Chantry to control mages (phylacteries) but bad when mages use their own blood to defend themselves against the threat of Tranquility (Jowan). There's more ideology speaking out of that than I can let stand without a very close examination. Also, "Asunder" hints that the spirit world might be a little more grey than the Chantry might want to believe. Of course abominations running amok and spirits subverting humans can't be tolerated, but that's just the extreme bad end. Judging things by their extremes isn't usually the best way to get an accurate picture of them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juillet 2013 - 08:25 .

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@LobselVith8:  I've heard your protests before, and while I would never ask you to stop making them - I must confess I'm uninterested.  You ONLY appeal to the "possible" good use of blood magic to justify the use of it. 

There are plenty of people willing to condemn blood magic entirely simply because it can be misused. I find it necessary to point out that blood magic can, and has, been used for benevolent purposes.

Medhia Nox wrote...

When you should know full well that the storytelling implications of these powers are not just... utility spells for a moment of danger.

Being able to abuse power doesn't make it inherently evil. That's the crux of the dichotomy you and I face; I'm wholly uninterested in the vilification of blood magic simply because some people abuse this school of magic, while ignoring others who don't misuse it.

Medhia Nox wrote...

What if I want to Tranquilize a few mages - just for safe transport?  Then untranquilize them?  Mind rape - is mind rape.  ((Now that we know it can be reversed.))

I'm talking about using blood magic to stop the darkspawn from eating people and violating women, or preventing Vaughan from abducting women out of the Alienage. Don't try to compare such scenarios with the Rite of Tranquility.

Medhia Nox wrote...

Also - I cannot help but ignore that you're appeal to "religious organization" over and over belies the reality of a real world prejudice.  I'm not religious, but I also believe the mage-support group is rife with personlization and projection of their real world issues onto the mage debate.  I think this cripples any real examination of the topic - as so many things (like your excuses for blood slave) are excused in the name of "free mages now!"

Using religion to subjugate mages is the problem, which is why I address it. The 'moderate' Cullen (in the words of the developers) even proclaimed that templars have "dominion over mages by divine right", which is the issue. And you're incredibly disingenuous by trying to say that people disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles because they conflate it with other real world issues.

Medhia Nox wrote...

And - if you're truly looking at the mage topic unbiased... then we simply disagree.  *shrugs* 

I think it's safe to say that's been the case for years now.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 juillet 2013 - 11:19 .

[dragonflight288]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@dragonflight288: And your point?

I didn't have one. Was merely commenting on the previous statement, and how much blood magic covers under the definition of the Chantry. Including things that don't qualify as blood magic, like anatomy and some science.

I do not support anyone into self-mutilation - they need support and professional help and possibly medication. As for blood mages who kill others - they should simply be crushed.

A spell not powered by blood isn't blood magic to me.

Fair enough...for your average cutter, (I know one personally [my cousin actually] so I know firsthand that professional help can be needed) but when cutting yourself can save you from a rapist abusing their power and authority over you, I think that can be excused.

And what's your opinion of spells that aren't powered by blood, but blood is a key component? Like the Joining. The Joining itself is considered blood magic because of the use of darkspawn and archdemon blood. As is the Reaver joining ritual because of the use of dragon blood.

The blood in those rituals aren't powering the spell, but are very key components. And we know from Finn that using blood as a component is considered to be blood magic by many in the Chantry. So kudos to you for not sharing that viewpoint, but it is a reality of Thedas, and must be addressed as an issue within the game.

Just because I don't support rebellions who use demonologists, self-mutilators and have a terrorist as a mascot... doesn't mean I support the Templars. That org. is going the way of the dodo in my game as well (depending on what is actually allowed in these games).

Er....most mages aren't demonolgists, and many blood mages aren't either because demons aren't the only source of learning blood magic. Many mage supporters put Anders to death so he isn't the mage-supporters mascot (I assume that's your point, and if I'm wrong then let me know. I hate to have misconceptions but the general feeling I get from many pro-templars I debate is that most mage supporters actually agree with Anders and support his actions. I don't and I always execute him. If I'm wrong and that's not your point, then I apologize.)

And cool. The feeling is mutual on the templars. But we do have to face realities. Without lyrium, which the Chantry has the monopoly on for trade, the templars will be going completely nuts as they go through lyrium withdrawal, possibly even die from it, and the mages who, up to this point in Thedas history, have been able to use lyrium instead of blood magic for the application of their spells and rituals, will find themselves with a severe shortage. Many mages will turn to blood magic like Merrill did in DA2 simply because of the lack of supply, in addition to the fact that it'll amplify their magic and templars can't negate it.

It's simply logical, so I figure that there will be many cases in Inquisition where I'll probably want to strangle a mage or two in addition to a religious zealot as well because, quite frankly, the world will be in chaos and the line between good and evil will blur.

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: But who, beside the PC, uses bloodmagic in your hypothetical way?

You've never advocated it against darkspawn that I know of until this very thread. You've always advocated it against just "your enemy" (usually the Templars in your examples) A very dangerous - too dangerous - zealous mindset for me to side with.

You might - but I haven't seen one person who has not abused blood magic (liberally in fact).

@Ieldra2: Ever bring up Ser Alrik? I bet you have. Why is it okay for you to appeal to the extremes? No, not every Templar everywhere supports raping Tranquil - just like every mage doesn't support blood sacrifices.

@dragonflight288: I hope your cousin is doing well.

"the power" is not an excuse. For your example - I believe he was attacking Tranquil (correct me if I'm wrong) - and even if he weren't... fireball isn't good enough? You HAVE to resort to blood magic?

Even "if" blood magic can be learned from other sources (a confusion between game mechanics and lore) - demons think blood mages are an absolute gaff and quite enjoy their antics (see: Avernus)

I never said "most" anything.  If it helps - I condemned Wynne's connection as well (while finding her the most morally upstanding mage on Thedas). 

Begrudgingly accepting a mage who questions her own connection with a spirit - and siding with that bat**** nuts Justice/Vengeance - I feel is a world of difference.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@LobselVith8: But who, beside the PC, uses bloodmagic in your hypothetical way?

Besides the Grey Wardens fighting the darkspawn? Merrill? Finn? The blood mages who simply use it as a matter of survival, and not for the sake of enpowering themselves for selfish reasons?

Medhia Nox wrote...

You've never advocated it against darkspawn that I know of until this very thread. You've always advocated it against just "your enemy" (usually the Templars in your examples) A very dangerous - too dangerous - zealous mindset for me to side with.

I've mentioned the darkspawn before. I've also brought up enemies besides the templars as well.

Medhia Nox wrote...

You might - but I haven't seen one person who has not abused blood magic (liberally in fact).

Merrill says hello.