2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Stop making things up - the Codex on abominations does not signify when.

Find me the Codex or appropriate statement in one of the games where it specifically states they can only do it forcefully when the Veil is thin.

Otherwise - your assertions are baseless.

Show me anywhere in the game where it's happened when not in a thin Veil area. Your assertion that the codex stating a possibility also states that it can occur anytime and anywhere is itself false.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Codex on Abominations states that demons can possess by force.

They can... when the Veil is thin.

Whether or not this is a requirement, we have from Gaider that the Veil thins in areas where a whole lot of magic is done. (This was something he said during an interview where it was brought to his attention that having a Circle in Kirkwall of the missing Veil was a dumb idea.) So, the point is less important than you present it as.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:15 .

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Codex on Abominations states that demons can possess by force.

They can... when the Veil is thin.

Whether or not this is a requirement, we have from Gaider that the Veil thisn in areas where a whole lot of magic is done. (This was something he said during an interview where it was brought to his attention that having a Circle in Kirkwall of the missing Veil was a dumb idea.)

So creating a single centralized area where all magic is done is actually more dangerous? Hmmm.

The entire Circle quest in
Origins discredits it. Since Uldred forcibly created several
abominations.

After shredding the Veil.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:16 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The entire Circle quest in Origins discredits it. Since Uldred forcibly created several abominations.

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

[Br3admax]

leaguer of one wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Uh, Amalia is a mage. She's just young. Second, blood magic is stated to make one easier to possess. That's lore.

But the cat is a mage?

Where did I say this? 

[Br3admax]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

The entire Circle quest in Origins discredits it. Since Uldred forcibly created several abominations.

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

Even Uldred is disappoint. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The Codex on Abominations states that demons can possess by force.

They can... when the Veil is thin.

Whether or not this is a requirement, we have from Gaider that the Veil thisn in areas where a whole lot of magic is done. (This was something he said during an interview where it was brought to his attention that having a Circle in Kirkwall of the missing Veil was a dumb idea.)

So creating a single centralized area where all magic is done is actually more dangerous? Hmmm.

Except that its easier to harden one target than hundreds, especially considering that the innocents targeted by the abomination when it forms in a Circle are all at least slightly magical. If an abomination forms in a city, it's more likely to live a long and productive life. Edit: By which I mean go on a long rampage and stack up corpses.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:21 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

Hmm don't remember that. But you may be correct.

Uldred: Do you accept the gift I offer?
Broken Mage: *nods*
Uldred: *turns him*

[LobselVith8]

Steelcan wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I've seen plenty of people express the same views, actually.

That means nothing.

A thousand people saying bullsh*t does not change that it is still bullsh*t 

Kirkwall is a Tevinter Hellmouth, and if possession of mages is so effortless by denizens of the Beyond, why wasn't Thedas destroyed centuries before the Templar Order came into existence?

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

That'd be option 1 - live free and only practice in controlled, supervised circumstances with appropriate approvals. The Mages weren't satisfied with this arrangement before, but admittedly they were never allowed to do much.

That's why my situation has other mages doing the supervising, not the Chantry. Just do the groundbreaking experiments at the lab, not your own house.

I'd disagree.  When determining which uses of magic are worth endangering people for, you really need to have somebody representing the interests of the people in danger.  Mages could and should be involved, but the final decision should fall to someone who's more sympathetic to the common people than mages, and no mage is ever going to meet that criteria and it'd be unreasonable to expect them to.

I think an equal sharing of power works, not with someone having final authority over the other. I'd rather avoid dominance.

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice?

If 'mages' and 'not-mages' have equal voting rights, say X mages opposite to X non-mages, then you're giving wildly disproportionate representation to a tiny minority which has similarly disporportionate means to influence and coerce elements of the majority population group. Furthering the imbalance is that mages, being a smaller group, are easier to organize as a unit than the population majority group that has the same number of votes.

Equal voting systems routinely empower minority interests over majority interests. It's not an equal sharing of power because it gives disproportionate influence and advantage to the minority group.


If 'mages' and 'not-mages' have proportional voting rights, on the other hand, then the mages will be such a minority presence that they won't have power equal to the non-mages... who could simply vote to make the reforms/movements necessary to put them back in the towers.

Majority voting systems empower majority interests over minority rights.



And any system which allows the mages to induce gridlock, including variations of mixed majority-minority sytems, will ultimately give more power to the mages by allowing them to trump the majority interests with administrative injunction. This is particularly true in even-vote systems that don't have a resolution authority.

Gridlock-enabling voting systems empower minoritiy interests over majority interests by allowing autonomous groups to secure autonomy by blocking reprisal or movements by the larger group. Which isn't equal.




And this is all just on voting system mechanics, which any multi-party system will have to resolve. Then there are the questions of who gets how many votes: Do mages get a vote per fraternity or a proportional representation? Who represents the non-mages? Kingdoms? What happens to the vote if a kingdom falls or a new one rises? Should civil officials get a vote? How about the Chantry? Or the Templars?

Moreover, who is actually going to enforce this system, and under what conditions can these people act to punish rule breakers? If the system of threats is not credible (such as, to take a past Xil proposal, the idea that all other nations will create a coalition to invade and rectify a country that begins to incorporate mages into the state military rather than leave them an advantage untouched), what will keep people invested in this system?


And how are you going to resolve these questions who disagree with you, but whose by-in you need if you want an enduring system? (Assuming you care about enduring by in, rather than intend to have a treaty signed at the point of a sword.)

[Xilizhra]

If 'mages' and 'not-mages' have equal voting rights, say X mages opposite to X non-mages, then you're giving wildly disproportionate representation to a tiny minority which has similarly disporportionate means to influence and coerce elements of the majority population group. Furthering the imbalance is that mages, being a smaller group, are easier to organize as a unit than the population majority group that has the same number of votes.

I think this would apply more if this was a mage vs. nonmage argument for national governments, but as it stands, this just for the revised Circle system and nothing else. The idea is to have my sentinels as a safety check that have some power to enforce their concerns, but don't outright control the Circle. Given that the sentinels would likely be outnumbered by mages within the Circle organization, but would be given equal voting power, the balance might tip in a somewhat safer direction.

The rest, I really can't answer until I see the geopolitical status of DAI.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Stop making things up - the Codex on abominations does not signify when.

Find me the Codex or appropriate statement in one of the games where it specifically states they can only do it forcefully when the Veil is thin.

Otherwise - your assertions are baseless.

Show me anywhere in the game where it's happened when not in a thin Veil area. Your assertion that the codex stating a possibility also states that it can occur anytime and anywhere is itself false.

Logical fallacy, Xil. You should no better... especially since you know that your unfounded claim (that it can only be done where the Veil is then) is impossible to disprove as there is no metric on the strength of the veil or any known limit on what a possession threshhold is.

Logic, and ethical, integrity doesn't require anyone else disprove your claims... you yourself will have to support them. Which, given the previous problems with it, is impossible- you don't even know how the Veil works as a system, let alone how localized any weakening in it is.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

If 'mages' and 'not-mages' have equal voting rights, say X mages opposite to X non-mages, then you're giving wildly disproportionate representation to a tiny minority which has similarly disporportionate means to influence and coerce elements of the majority population group. Furthering the imbalance is that mages, being a smaller group, are easier to organize as a unit than the population majority group that has the same number of votes.

I think this would apply more if this was a mage vs. nonmage argument for national governments, but as it stands, this just for the revised Circle system and nothing else. The idea is to have my sentinels as a safety check that have some power to enforce their concerns, but don't outright control the Circle. Given that the sentinels would likely be outnumbered by mages within the Circle organization, but would be given equal voting power, the balance might tip in a somewhat safer direction.

I was under the impression that this was what the Circles were meant to be: the Templars serve as a safety measure, but the mages are not really forced to do anything.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Stop making things up - the Codex on abominations does not signify when.

Find me the Codex or appropriate statement in one of the games where it specifically states they can only do it forcefully when the Veil is thin.

Otherwise - your assertions are baseless.

Show me anywhere in the game where it's happened when not in a thin Veil area. Your assertion that the codex stating a possibility also states that it can occur anytime and anywhere is itself false.

Logical fallacy, Xil. You should no better... especially since you know that your unfounded claim (that it can only be done where the Veil is then) is impossible to disprove as there is no metric on the strength of the veil or any known limit on what a possession threshhold is.

Logic, and ethical, integrity doesn't require anyone else disprove your claims... you yourself will have to support them. Which, given the previous problems with it, is impossible- you don't even know how the Veil works as a system, let alone how localized any weakening in it is.

Perhaps... but to me, it seems that the idea that demons can possess mages regardless of Veil conditions actually requires more extraordinary assumptions about their level of power and danger as compared to what we've actually seen in the world. If "only when the Veil is thin" is an unfounded assumption, "anytime, anywhere" is equally unfounded.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

If 'mages' and 'not-mages' have equal voting rights, say X mages opposite to X non-mages, then you're giving wildly disproportionate representation to a tiny minority which has similarly disporportionate means to influence and coerce elements of the majority population group. Furthering the imbalance is that mages, being a smaller group, are easier to organize as a unit than the population majority group that has the same number of votes.

I think this would apply more if this was a mage vs. nonmage argument for national governments, but as it stands, this just for the revised Circle system and nothing else.

It doesn't matter if the non-mages are represented by governments, or private organizations, or random people. Non-mages are still the majority of the population, and any equal voting system that claims to be representing their interests isn't giving them equal power- it's empowering the mages at their expense.

The idea is to have my sentinels as a safety check that have some power to enforce their concerns, but don't outright control the Circle.

And if the sentinels see that there is a problem, but the mages say 'no' and keep them out?

Given that mages will be, well, mages, and the sentinals will be fewer numbers of mages and possibly (but less effectively) mundanes, you have a recipie for an impotent enforcement organization.

Given that the sentinels would likely be outnumbered by mages within the Circle organization, but would be given equal voting power, the balance might tip in a somewhat safer direction.

Unequal parties given equal voting power do not share equal power.

The rest, I really can't answer until I see the geopolitical status of DAI.

But you can, however, start planning how an effective institution would work, so that you can recognize and avoid creating an ineffective one.

[leaguer of one]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

The entire Circle quest in Origins discredits it. Since Uldred forcibly created several abominations.

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

No they did not. hey were tortured to the point they had no reconition.

[leaguer of one]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

Hmm don't remember that. But you may be correct.

Uldred: Do you accept the gift I offer?
Broken Mage: *nods*
Uldred: *turns him*

He did not nod.  He nod the mages head for him. Then the rest of the fight he turn mages to abombination with out even asking.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MisterJB wrote...

And should mages and non-mages ever sit to discuss what is to be done, I'd hope the mages would send representatives whose primary concern would be reaching an agreement that is satisfatory for their faction rather than someone unable to make concessions because of "inalienable human rigths".

The only satisfactory agreement would be one that doesn't include non-voluntary imprisonment for mages.

I don't see a peaceful solution.  I never have.  The mages need to assert their freedom through force.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

leaguer of one wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

The entire Circle quest in Origins discredits it. Since Uldred forcibly created several abominations.

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

No they did not. hey were tortured to the point they had no reconition.

Hence why I said technically. But I think that still counts for the purposes of whether the mage can be saved. (Not that that's even slightly practical to attempt here.)

[Xilizhra]

It doesn't matter if the non-mages are represented by governments, or private organizations, or random people. Non-mages are still the majority of the population, and any equal voting system that claims to be representing their interests isn't giving them equal power- it's empowering the mages at their expense.

But this body doesn't govern any nonmages.

And if the sentinels see that there is a problem, but the mages say 'no' and keep them out?

Given that mages will be, well, mages, and the sentinals will be fewer numbers of mages and possibly (but less effectively) mundanes, you have a recipie for an impotent enforcement organization.

My initial plan was to have them have templar abilities.

Of course, this may create further political difficulties if the mages dislike this arrangement as being too reminiscent of the old Circle. If so... that may be more difficult. Grace would definitely be needed.

Unequal parties given equal voting power do not share equal power.

I thought you were more worried about the mages taking power?

But you can, however, start planning how an effective institution would work, so that you can recognize and avoid creating an ineffective one.

True.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

leaguer of one wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Actually, that was consensual. Technically. The mage agreed under torture.

Hmm don't remember that. But you may be correct.

Uldred: Do you accept the gift I offer?
Broken Mage: *nods*
Uldred: *turns him*

He did not nod.  He nod the mages head for him. Then the rest of the fight he turn mages to abombination with out even asking.

I think I can see the forced nod, but he does ask the mages while he's trying to turn them. Whether or not that means the turning is consensual for magical purposes, I couldn't tell you.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

And should mages and non-mages ever sit to discuss what is to be done, I'd hope the mages would send representatives whose primary concern would be reaching an agreement that is satisfatory for their faction rather than someone unable to make concessions because of "inalienable human rigths".

The only satisfactory agreement would be one that doesn't include non-voluntary imprisonment for mages.

I don't see a peaceful solution.  I never have.  The mages need to assert their freedom through force.

And be slaughtered by Templars.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 03 octobre 2013 - 05:02 .