1656 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...
Alain wasn't a blood mage just becasue he knew what GRACE did doesn't mean anything.

He...he does blood magic.  We watch him do blood magic. 

He is as much a blood mage as Malcolm Hawke is, when he was forced to use it by the Wardens or a non-blood mage Hawke is when they unseal Cyp (however his name is spelled) to defeat him. Just becasue he was forced to us it to wake up Hawke's sibling/lover/friend doesn't make him a blood mage. At least no in my mind.

Doesn't he admit to learning and practicing blood magic as a way to fight off the Templars (should that become necessary?  Now that I think about it didn't every mage that was part of Thrask's little coup practice blood magic for that same reason?  Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.  I disagree with you however.  Malcolm and Alain are blood mages, whatever their reasons they've learned how to use blood as mana and perform spells exclusive to blood magic.  Hawke is different because he/she's not actually doing any spells, the existing spells are responding to his/her blood, that's why a non-mage Hawke can still get in.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Samson seems to say the entire rebellion under Thrask seems to condone blood magic.

[vpacheco1984]

DPSSOC wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...
Alain wasn't a blood mage just becasue he knew what GRACE did doesn't mean anything.

He...he does blood magic.  We watch him do blood magic. 

He is as much a blood mage as Malcolm Hawke is, when he was forced to use it by the Wardens or a non-blood mage Hawke is when they unseal Cyp (however his name is spelled) to defeat him. Just becasue he was forced to us it to wake up Hawke's sibling/lover/friend doesn't make him a blood mage. At least no in my mind.

Doesn't he admit to learning and practicing blood magic as a way to fight off the Templars (should that become necessary?  Now that I think about it didn't every mage that was part of Thrask's little coup practice blood magic for that same reason?  Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.  I disagree with you however.  Malcolm and Alain are blood mages, whatever their reasons they've learned how to use blood as mana and perform spells exclusive to blood magic.  Hawke is different because he/she's not actually doing any spells, the existing spells are responding to his/her blood, that's why a non-mage Hawke can still get in.

Not all the mages in Thrask's group were blood mages the majority of them weren't blood mages at least the ones you fought in Hightown and the Wearhouse weren't. Also there were several templars and mages didn't even join the last main battle of the quest. I don't remember Alain ever saying he learned blood magic to fight off templars. 

Templars do and use blood magic all the time. The phylactories of mages are blood magic, even Evangeline called it blood magic. So you don't have to be a mage to use it. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Don't you have to be a mage to make phylacteries?

[vpacheco1984]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Don't you have to be a mage to make phylacteries?

Truthfully I don't know. I haven't seen anything about how they are made just how they are used and from Asunder that they go dark if a mage is killed or made tranquil.

[dragonflight288]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Don't you have to be a mage to make phylacteries?

Truthfully I don't know. I haven't seen anything about how they are made just how they are used and from Asunder that they go dark if a mage is killed or made tranquil.

All I know of the lore on phylacteries is that a vial of blood is taken from the mage upon entering the tower, and is placed in special vials (Irving to Duncan on what a phylactery is.) We know from Finn in Witch Hunt that many parties believe anything involving blood is blood magic, even if the blood isn't powering the spell, and the developers in turn have confrimed that the phylacteries are a form of blood magic because of the use of blood.

We know in Redemption that the templar uses a phylactery to follow Serrabas without the aid of a mage. But we don't know if mages are needed in making the phylacteries, or if templars can do it on there own.

Some may say that templars would need magic in order to use the blood, but Alistair and the Warden talk about how Templars already use magic themselves through their abilities, although the Chantry doesn't look at like that since their abilities only work on mages (much like the School of Spirit, I might add.) So we know that templars have some pretty basic magic abilities themselves, whether or not they think of their abilities as magic, and they can use the phylacteries, which is a form of blood magic.

I don't have any real point here; these are just some basic facts. I honestly don't know if mages are needed in the creation of phylacteries. I do know they aren't needed in the use of them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IIRC, what is or is not blood magic is contested even in TheDas.
DG said that plachyatries and the Joining *COULD* be seen as blood magic. But that's semantics.

[Ieldra]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
Long thread I admit I haven't read so I'll just drop my two cents like a bag of bricks:

There are no such things as natural rights and most of the arguments about the wrongs suffered by mages are hinged in natural rights arguments. A person only has whatever rights are given to him by law. We can make all kinds of arguments that extending civil rights to encompass new people or new rights can improve society in any number of ways and this is personally where I stand. Expanding certain civil rights to mages would certainly improve the situation of mages and of society, but I don't for a second think that mages are "just like everybody else" and they are owed the same "natural" rights by virtue of being human (or elven) and nothing else.

The disposition to recognize certain rights is based on an innate sense of fairness which all humans have to some degree, even though the specifics of what that entails vary by culture. At the same time, humans also have an innate tendency to apply that sense of fairness only to members of their in-group, justifying the exclusion of out-group humans with statements like "they're not like us".

For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions.  

Thus, the perceived problem of how mages and non-mages can live together is reduced to a pragmatic consideration. Pragmatic considerations can place additional restrictions for the sake of the greater good, but the "least harm" principle applies. Any measure loses its justification if it can be reasonably argued that it goes too far, and there is enough evidence towards that in the Circle system that it justifies a very thorough overhaul of the system at least.

At this point, a short discussion of the statement that power corrupts might be in order. First, I'll give the counter-statement: "If an individual gains power, they will express existing tendencies to a much greater degree than if they remained powerless". The perception that power corrupts comes from a number of misperceptions: the little evils of the powerless often go unremarked, being evil in little things often isn't worth it even if you're disposed towards it,
and if you're powerful enough that your job includes making decisions about the fate of a large number of people, you'll always ****** someone off, and those you ****** off will always say you're misusing your power. The only alternative is to do nothing, and then you're a bad leader, particularly in times of crisis. To get back to the mages, the problem of a mage's power lies not in some greater disposition towards evil, but in the fact that *if* a mage is disposed towards evil, it has much greater repercussions - and that is balanced by the fact that if a mage is uncommonly predisposed towards good, it also has much greater benefits. Thus we get back to the pragmatic considerations I mentioned above.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 juillet 2013 - 10:29 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

TTTX wrote...
I would like to point out we actually don't why Meredith wanted the tower search (Could be because of the bloodmages or simply because of the idol she has been holding on to for the last three years) or why Orsino was against it (Of course there is the research he got from serial killer, but we actually don't have any evidence that he hid it in the Circle).

We can only assume why they did as they did.

Of course. But that applies to anyone.
Maybe Anders didn't really blow up the Chantry to free mages, but jsut because he hates it.
Maybe Merril gave coins to a beggar purely to keep apperances. Or maybe she wants him to feel a moment of happines just to make the despair even deeper?

We can go all die trying to find ulterior motives for any action - and lord knows we can come up with a LOT of them. But it's ultimatively pointless.

The point is - was searching the tower a reasonable thing to do for any Knight-Commander? The answer is yes.

There is also that little fact that Meredith had the idol for about 3 years,

Wasn't it more than that?

As for Orsino opposition Meredith over a simple search it could merely be a plot device so why they are where they are (Act 3 is very badly written) or it could simply be that he has had enough of Meredith going around pushing around the mages in the Circle.

It could alos be he was afraid of what she might find.

If I had the option I would removed both Orsino and Meredith from power and moved the Circle to another place. Kirkwall was one of the worst places to have a circle and if I remember correctly it housed one of if not the biggest circle in all of Thedas.

True.
If only Cullen acted a bit sooner.
Hmm.... does a Knight Commander even have the authority to place a first Enchanter? I thought mages picked one?
I don't think there is a simple way of removing Orsino from his position.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MWImexico wrote...
If it's true, then I believe you are not different from the average mages in DA universe.

You mean, aside form having no magical ability and not being a gateway to the Fade or a demon beacon?

So you want mages to sacrafice a lot but mundanes should not?  In thedas your all in the same boat and if people do not like to row you throw from that boat. Mundanes right now a parasite to the mages. So the war the mages started is justified.

If i was a mage why should i lock myself up for a people who is stupid weak and cowardly to learn to defend themselves against abominations. I would say **** off and kill **** mundane who believes i should be in some tower.

[Ieldra]

You're not doing the side of the mages any favors with that attitude, DKJaigen.

I'd rather put it this way: why should mages be prevented from using their abilities for their own benefit like everyone else does, within the constraints of a law that doesn't discriminate? After all, there is no reason distinguish between "kill with magic" and "kill with a sword", or even "dominate another's will by magic" or "dominate another's will without magic" (that the latter appears impossible is not the point - I want to illustrate that the action you use magic for is the problem, not the use of magic as such).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Any measure loses its justification if it can be reasonably argued that it goes too far, and there is enough evidence towards that in the Circle system that it justifies a very thorough overhaul of the system at least.

and yet peopel cna always argue anything. Which means that everythng goes too far. Or not enough.

Obviously, the very word "reasonable" means differnt thing to different people.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...
So you want mages to sacrafice a lot but mundanes should not?  In thedas your all in the same boat and if people do not like to row you throw from that boat. Mundanes right now a parasite to the mages. So the war the mages started is justified.

If i was a mage why should i lock myself up for a people who is stupid weak and cowardly to learn to defend themselves against abominations. I would say **** off and kill **** mundane who believes i should be in some tower.

Mundanes are taking risk just by letting mages live.

And thus by the same logic I ask why should I risk my family and town for some crazy, power-hungry, stupid mage?
I would say f*** you and kill *** mage who belives he should be out of the tower.

[Ieldra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.
 

[dragonflight288]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.
 

This, I completely agree with. Unless there is statistical data that proves that mages are more inclined to evil or abuse of power than non-mages, then treating them as the Chantry had is unjustified.

Mandatory education and making sure they can control their power is an absolute necessity, but the Harrowing isn't really 100% needed, nor is it reasonable to say "Resist a demon or die, or we can take away your very emotions and what makes you, you, because we think you aren't strong enough to pass the Harrowing."

Unless the Chantry can show that they've tried other things, and those systems failed, then their adamancy that their way is the only way has no merits.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.

Mages have a greater disposition towards possession, which is what the Chantry adresses. Also, many mages are imeasureably powerful. The average mundane does not have much power which is open for abuse, whereas the average mage has. This leads to an inherently different standard of morality and responsibility between the two.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.

Mages have a greater disposition towards possession, which is what the Chantry adresses. Also, many mages are imeasureably powerful. The average mundane does not have much power which is open for abuse, whereas the average mage has. This leads to an inherently different standard of morality and responsibility between the two.

But the Chantry and templars see EVERY mage as a potential abomination, and its established that mages are by far not the only ones in danger. Heck, spirit warriors aren't mages at all but they act in close communion with the Spirits of the Fade, and are often mistaken for mages themselves because of it.

The only times I've ever seen in-game and in the lore of mages being in real danger of becoming an abomination is when they enter the Fade conscious and aware. Otherwise they are no different than a non-mage.

Fenriel being the exception since he's a somniari, and most somniari don't survive because their connection to the Fade is so strong.

[EmperorSahlertz]

*doublt post*

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.

Mages have a greater disposition towards possession, which is what the Chantry adresses. Also, many mages are imeasureably powerful. The average mundane does not have much power which is open for abuse, whereas the average mage has. This leads to an inherently different standard of morality and responsibility between the two.

But the Chantry and templars see EVERY mage as a potential abomination, and its established that mages are by far not the only ones in danger. Heck, spirit warriors aren't mages at all but they act in close communion with the Spirits of the Fade, and are often mistaken for mages themselves because of it.

The only times I've ever seen in-game and in the lore of mages being in real danger of becoming an abomination is when they enter the Fade conscious and aware. Otherwise they are no different than a non-mage.

Fenriel being the exception since he's a somniari, and most somniari don't survive because their connection to the Fade is so strong.

Spirit Warriors are exceedingly rare and are also under the scrutiny of the Templars, and often hunted as abominatios, so that argument falls short of its target... The Spirit Warriors connection to the Fade spirits, despite not being amges, represents a clear danger, that the Templars find intolerable.

And EVERY time a mage cast a spell, he is in danger of becoming possessed. A single wrong motion or incorrectly pronounced sylable, can potentially open them up for possession. A mundane, can only be possessed if the demon is forced inside of him, or if the demon have crossed the veil previously.

Feynriel is an extreme case indeed. But he also showcases that the more powerful the mage, the more demons, and also more powerful ones, he will attract, making the especially powerful mages, even more dangerous.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:02 .

[MWImexico]

@DKJaigen :
The circles do not only exist to protect the population against mages, they also exist to protect the mage against himself, to train him to develop his power and not yield to the temptation to make a pact with creatures from the Fade.
I do not know about you but, personally, become an abomination repulses me. Somehow mages carry a heavy burden all their lives they have to be careful.

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
Any measure loses its justification if it can be reasonably argued that it goes too far, and there is enough evidence towards that in the Circle system that it justifies a very thorough overhaul of the system at least.[/quote]
[/quote]
I agree. To begin with, I'm pretty sure that rape and unjustified violence have nothing to do in the circles. Pretty obvious.

Modifié par MWImexico, 09 juillet 2013 - 04:58 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...
So you want mages to sacrafice a lot but mundanes should not?  In thedas your all in the same boat and if people do not like to row you throw from that boat. Mundanes right now a parasite to the mages. So the war the mages started is justified.

If i was a mage why should i lock myself up for a people who is stupid weak and cowardly to learn to defend themselves against abominations. I would say **** off and kill **** mundane who believes i should be in some tower.

Mundanes are taking risk just by letting mages live.

And thus by the same logic I ask why should I risk my family and town for some crazy, power-hungry, stupid mage?
I would say f*** you and kill *** mage who belives he should be out of the tower.

In this world mundanes cannot survive without mages. Yet the the chantry or the templars give the mages any reason to stay loyal to the current chantry system. Even if the mundanes survive the darkspawn or qunuari will kill millions.

And yes you must take a risk. become a spirit warrior or reaver. their are worse dangers in the world of thedas then an abomination. you must be a masochist to just remain weak and feeble. so i will tell you this: if your family was killed by an abomination then you have failed as much as the mage.

[DKJaigen]

MWImexico wrote...

@DKJaigen :
The circles do not only exist to protect the population against mages, they also exist to protect the mage against himself, to train him to develop his power and not yield to the temptation to make a pact with creatures from the Fade.
I do not know about you but, personally, become an abomination repulses me. Somehow mages carry a heavy burden all their lives they have to be careful.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Any measure loses its justification if it can be reasonably argued that it goes too far, and there is enough evidence towards that in the Circle system that it justifies a very thorough overhaul of the system at least.

And the mundanes should not carry that burden as well? its so easily to sacrafice another people isnt it?

Modifié par DKJaigen, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:13 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
For much of human history, the stratification of society served as a justification to disenfranchise certain groups, while the disposition to distinguish between "us" and "them" supported social stratification in turn. Modern universalist ethics recognize that "us" vs. "them" distinctions do not hold true as a rule, as in everything that counts for basic morality, members of one group of humans are indeed pretty much the same as those of others. If you recognize that mages have, as a rule, the same desires and fears as other humans, there goes any justification to treat them as undeserving of basic considerations which apply to others as a matter of common consensus. If you cannot show that mages have a greater innate disposition towards evil than non-mages, you are not justified in making distinctions, and in that context it is important to recognize that power is not evil, and any innate disposition towards greater personal power, which mages do have, is balanced in that it can be used for good or for evil in equal measure, and also doesn't justify making distinctions. 

I disagree.
You base the entire reasoning on the fact that "mages feel like other people". Yes they do. So what?
Is "feeling" the only variable that is important? I say it is not.
Why should desires or fears matter at all (especially in this case)?

Because it means that mages don't have a greater disposition towards evil than non-mages, and thus treating them as if they had - as the Chantry does - is unjustified.

Mages have a greater disposition towards possession, which is what the Chantry adresses. Also, many mages are imeasureably powerful. The average mundane does not have much power which is open for abuse, whereas the average mage has. This leads to an inherently different standard of morality and responsibility between the two.

Once again you demand a sacrafice froma people who are vital for the well being of thedas. i call that suicide. right now with a demonic invasion going on i put the mundanes on the same level as mages. i wonder how many mundanes the templars will kill because they are to waek to resist possesion.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:12 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...
So you want mages to sacrafice a lot but mundanes should not?  In thedas your all in the same boat and if people do not like to row you throw from that boat. Mundanes right now a parasite to the mages. So the war the mages started is justified.

If i was a mage why should i lock myself up for a people who is stupid weak and cowardly to learn to defend themselves against abominations. I would say **** off and kill **** mundane who believes i should be in some tower.

Mundanes are taking risk just by letting mages live.

And thus by the same logic I ask why should I risk my family and town for some crazy, power-hungry, stupid mage?
I would say f*** you and kill *** mage who belives he should be out of the tower.

In this world mundanes cannot survive without mages. Yet the the chantry or the templars give the mages any reason to stay loyal to the current chantry system. Even if the mundanes survive the darkspawn or qunuari will kill millions.

And yes you must take a risk. become a spirit warrior or reaver. their are worse dangers in the world of thedas then an abomination. you must be a masochist to just remain weak and feeble. so i will tell you this: if your family was killed by an abomination then you have failed as much as the mage.

People cannot "just become a reaver of spirit warrior"...................

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 juillet 2013 - 05:12 .