2497 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

We've seen non-mages get possessed. Many, in fact. They also inhabit corpses, animals and friggin' trees.

If demons truly had no interest in mundanes whatsoever, that wouldn't be happening. Rather, demons want to break through to the mortal plane, by any means necessary.

Magical power makes a target more attractive, as does political power or any other kind of power, but just because you prefer steak doesn't mean you won't eat a hamburger.

I remeber 3 times it happened in all of the dragon age series, and one of them was because a demon was forcibly placed inside of them by blood magic.

There've been hundreds. Every templar fought in the Ferelden Circle, every walking corpse or skeleton, every sylvan, was an individual example of a non-magical lifeform being posessed or otherwise under the influence of a demon.

As for the instance where the possession was forced; if demons had literally no interest whatsoever in non-mages, then they wouldn't acquiesce to living inside a non-mage. Why would the demon consent to being crammed into a worthless host? And if the mages can force it without the demon's consent, then it doesn't make sense for resisting demons to be so damn difficult.

Once demons pass through the veil, lore states that demons are often confused by the physicallity of the world, and thus tend to possess the first and ebst thing they can get close to. Be that a tree, a corpse, or a man. Once the demon has passed through, who is to say why they don't search out a new host? Perhaps leaving their old, would force them to return to the Fade first. There can be all kinds of reasons for as to why they don't seek out mages constantly.

[Xilizhra]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

We've seen non-mages get possessed. Many, in fact. They also inhabit corpses, animals and friggin' trees.

If demons truly had no interest in mundanes whatsoever, that wouldn't be happening. Rather, demons want to break through to the mortal plane, by any means necessary.

Magical power makes a target more attractive, as does political power or any other kind of power, but just because you prefer steak doesn't mean you won't eat a hamburger.

I remeber 3 times it happened in all of the dragon age series, and one of them was because a demon was forcibly placed inside of them by blood magic.

There've been hundreds. Every templar fought in the Ferelden Circle, every walking corpse or skeleton, every sylvan, was an individual example of a non-magical lifeform being posessed or otherwise under the influence of a demon.

As for the instance where the possession was forced; if demons had literally no interest whatsoever in non-mages, then they wouldn't acquiesce to living inside a non-mage. Why would the demon consent to being crammed into a worthless host? And if the mages can force it without the demon's consent, then it doesn't make sense for resisting demons to be so damn difficult.

Technically, several of the templars you fight were just charmed by a desire demon. But many other templars were possessed, yes; if a way to the mortal world is open, demons'll fly into whatever will fit.

If I had to guess, though, possessing nonmages might frequently be fatal to the nonmage in question, which is why Tahrone had to keep performing experiments to find vessels who'd live through the possession... unless what she meant is that she could create possessed vessels who could actually hide their possession long enough to sabotage the templars. Which may make more sense overall.

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...




Physical distance means nothing to demons. The Fade have no measurement of distance, you are closer to what you want. Since demons want power, a powerful mage, will attract more demons, and a lesser mage will not. It is as simple as that.

Totally wrong. That is not how it works. The fade may have no measure of distace but a demon is not going to totaly ignore weaker mages. In fact in stoy is show they go after them as well. Sorry, it anyone with magic ability not the one with enogh power. Heck, it even says in the lore you stated the templar watch these low level mage just as well just in case. Why do you think they do?

In the newest Dragon Age comic, it shows how the Fade works. The Fade will always guide you towards what you want. What demons want is power, thus the Fade will guide them towards powerful mages.

And yes of course they watch those low level mages, they are still mages after all, and thus will attract demons, however, the chance of that happening is so insignificant that it doesn't necessitate them being confined to the Circles. I never said that the weak mages didn't attract demons, all I said was that demons find the more powerful mages far more appetizing and thus polarize towards those.

You're not understanding my point. I understand that the fade has no point a or b and works by will. It was like that from dao. The comic shows nothing new. I'm saying a demon is not going to totally ignore a mage because of there powers. That why the guide states the templars whats low level mages as well . It's not that the chances of them becoming an abomination is 0, it's just  a lower chance of that happening  then a normal mage. That still means it can happen. It's uncharacteristic for the chantry to take any chances at all with mages.

[Wissenschaft]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As David says, that mages are people clouds the issue considerably. But it becomes much clearer if the mages stop viewing non-mages as people.

 

And that kind of view makes Mages seeking freedom into cliche villians. The end result is DA 2 and its ton of blood mages that wish to rule over all with blood magic and demons because its their rightful place.

There is a thrid way of keeing the circle but seperating it from the Chantry. Why is it that a religious organzation has control over the circle and not say the secular governments?

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...




Physical distance means nothing to demons. The Fade have no measurement of distance, you are closer to what you want. Since demons want power, a powerful mage, will attract more demons, and a lesser mage will not. It is as simple as that.

Totally wrong. That is not how it works. The fade may have no measure of distace but a demon is not going to totaly ignore weaker mages. In fact in stoy is show they go after them as well. Sorry, it anyone with magic ability not the one with enogh power. Heck, it even says in the lore you stated the templar watch these low level mage just as well just in case. Why do you think they do?

In the newest Dragon Age comic, it shows how the Fade works. The Fade will always guide you towards what you want. What demons want is power, thus the Fade will guide them towards powerful mages.

And yes of course they watch those low level mages, they are still mages after all, and thus will attract demons, however, the chance of that happening is so insignificant that it doesn't necessitate them being confined to the Circles. I never said that the weak mages didn't attract demons, all I said was that demons find the more powerful mages far more appetizing and thus polarize towards those.

You're not understanding my point. I understand that the fade has no point a or b and works by will. It was like that from dao. The comic shows nothing new. I'm saying a demon is not going to totally ignore a mage because of there powers. That why the guide states the templars whats low level mages as well . It's not that the chances of them becoming an abomination is 0, it's just  a lower chance of that happening  then a normal mage. That still means it can happen. It's uncharacteristic for the chantry to take any chances at all with mages.

I have NEVER, not even ONCE, said that weak mages had ZERO possibility of being possessed. I said that the chacne of it happening was so neglible that there was no reason for them to live in the Circles, since their magical talent wouldn't be able to advance either. However, the chance would always be tehre, hence why the Templars would keep an eye on them.

Matter of fact is, and this is what I have been saying ALL ALONG, weak mages have a smaller chances of being noticed and haunted by demons, than powerful ones.

[dragonflight288]

Matter of fact is, and this is what I have been saying ALL ALONG, weak mages have a smaller chances of being noticed and haunted by demons, than powerful ones.

And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

[Dave of Canada]

A stronger mage has more demons after him but he's stronger, thus he can fight more of them off.

A weaker mage has less demons after him but he'd more likely to succumb if  a powerful one did try to go through.

Not all demons want the strongest mage possible and all mages are vulnerable to demons.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:06 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Matter of fact is, and this is what I have been saying ALL ALONG, weak mages have a smaller chances of being noticed and haunted by demons, than powerful ones.

And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

No. As I literally just said in the post you quoted, the weaker mages are exactly NOT as great a danger. First of all their magical talent is negligible, that they will never be able to cast an actually dangerous spell (their magical talent seems to be in the "change eye color" category). Secondly the weaker mages attract less demons, and probably weaker ones if they even do happen to attract one, which is highly unlikely. The chance of it happening is simply so small, that there is no reason for it to impact their life in a mjaor way.

That is not the case with an average mage.

Dave of Canada wrote...

A stronger mage has more demons after him but he's stronger, thus he can fight more of them off.

A weaker mage has less demons after him but he'd more likely to succumb if  a powerful one did try to go through.

Not all demons want the strongest mage possible and all mages are vulnerable to demons.

That isn't entirely true. A demon wants power. That is all it cares for. If the mage in question has no magical talent to speak of, and doesn't hold any rank at all, the demon will have no interrest in possessing him. Only a truly pathetic and weak demon would want to, and even a weak mage should be able to stave of such weak and pathetic creatures.

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

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That isn't entirely true. A demon wants power. That is all it cares for.

Citation needed... and canon counter-examples ignored.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DG said it. When it comes to mages possession, demons care about power first, and power second. And that is any kind of power, be that magical or otherwise. For instance, that was what made Conner such a tasy morsel for the Desire Demon, since he was a mage in a posistion of power.
There are of course exceptions. For instance Kitty wanted to possess Amalia, not because of her power, but probably becasue Kitty was sick and tired of being stuck inside that same old room for years on end.
The thread is over a year old however, so I'm not even sure if it is still around in the archive.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wissenschaft wrote...

And that kind of view makes Mages seeking freedom into cliche villians.

I don't see that at all.  They're freedom fighters who are defending their liberty against oppression from the ignorant masses.  Like the industrialists in Atlas Shrugged.

Not the most sympathetic protagonists ever, but still protagonists.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]What's extraordinary about it? They can tempt you in a remote, backwoods town. They can tempt you in a castle with no major mage population. They can tempt you in a tower. They can be found in crowded cities.[/quote]
Which one is the first one?[/quote]Shale's recruitment.

[quote]The tower was when previous demon summoning had already let a bunch through,[/quote]You're trying to put the cart before the horse that already rode through.
[quote]the one in the castle had been deliberately called, [/quote]By a mage-kid with no major training and who didn't need special tools or circumstances besides being tempted.

Which, you know, describes most mages in general.
[quote]
and the crowded city was a blood-soaked sacrificial glyph. [/quote]First I've heard that Ferelden's capital was a sacrificial glyph.

[quote]Unless you mean the ones that crossed over into the Alienage orphanage after the slaughter there,[/quote]Let's point out that if that counts as a slaughter, people die in comparable numbers quite frequently in the setting, and especially in cities where tons of people are always dying on a daily basis, even without disasters or accidents. When the 'dangerous demonic-vulnerable areas that mages are unsafe to be around' include 'major population centers', we've kind of addressed whether Mages are a danger to the general public or not.
[quote]
and they didn't even possess anyone.[/quote]And? They were clearly able to make their presence there. Are you going to claim that because they didn't, they couldn't have?
[quote]
[quote]Demons don't need a level of power to overwhelm and posses someone- in fact, that isn't their modus opperandi. Demons just need a person with a moment of weakness. It can be coerced (torture), it can be tricked (the mage origin), it can be instigated and planned (the Pride demon targetting Merrill), or it could be unrelated happenstance (Redcliffe, in which entirely unrelated issues made a young boy fear for his father).[/quote]
Merrill was a red herring; the demon was actually after Marethari. Just FYI.[/quote]Arguable, as it could have been a gambit regardless, but irrelevant to the point.
[quote]
[quote]None of these required the demons to overpower people... it required people, under stress, to open themselves up just once. Which is what is meant by any time, anywhere.[/quote]
And I have not seen that.[/quote]You've seen it in just about every abomination character with a motivation to date.

The Mage Origin begins with a demon trying to trick its way in. The Ferelden circle started with a willing abomination and culminated into torturing people into consent. Conner wanted a way to save his father. Anders was frustrated by the treatment of the mages, and the Duchess (or whatever her name was) did it for pure power. In DA2 we have someone whose wife left them, a mentor who sacrificed themself for a beloved pupil, an entire sidequest about demonic temptation and possession, and a number of doomed souls who want to take as many enemies down with them as they could.

If you haven't seen that, you haven't been paying attention to how it's been shown to work.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 03 octobre 2013 - 06:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DG said it. When it comes to mages possession, demons care about power first, and power second. And that is any kind of power, be that magical or otherwise. For instance, that was what made Conner such a tasy morsel for the Desire Demon, since he was a mage in a posistion of power.

Now why do I have a suspicion you're twisting Gaider's words into a message that suits you more than the original context?

There are of course exceptions. For instance Kitty wanted to possess Amalia, not because of her power, but probably becasue Kitty was sick and tired of being stuck inside that same old room for years on end.
The thread is over a year old however, so I'm not even sure if it is still around in the archive.

Ah, yes. Because the canonical counter-examples are bloody obvious.

'Demons only care about power, except for when they don't. Like people or inanimate objects without it.'

Yeah, you can't even keep what David Gaider said straight. I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect his context was more nuanced than anything you've presented.

[Xilizhra]

Shale's recruitment.

That's a demon who's already in the material world.

You're trying to put the cart before the horse that already rode through.

I don't see how.

By a mage-kid with no major training and who didn't need special tools or circumstances besides being tempted.

Which, you know, describes most mages in general.

Yes, making the Circle less terrifying probably could have helped avoid that.

Let's point out that if that counts as a slaughter, people die in comparable numbers quite frequently in the setting, and especially in cities where tons of people are always dying on a daily basis, even without disasters or accidents.

It has to be a lot of people in a relatively short time, and I think it might have to be from the same source. Deliberate violence also seems necessary, so illness and accident wouldn't count. I also recall reading that the back of the orphanage was right next to that one house full of blood mages, but I could be wrong.

And? They were clearly able to make their presence there. Are you going to claim that because they didn't, they couldn't have?

They could have, yes, including nonmages.

You've seen it in just about every abomination character with a motivation to date.

The Mage Origin begins with a demon trying to trick its way in. The Ferelden circle started with a willing abomination and culminated into torturing people into consent. Conner wanted a way to save his father. Anders was frustrated by the treatment of the mages, and the Duchess (or whatever her name was) did it for pure power. In DA2 we have someone whose wife left them, a mentor who sacrificed themself for a beloved pupil, an entire sidequest about demonic temptation and possession, and a number of doomed souls who want to take as many enemies down with them as they could.

If you haven't seen that, you haven't been paying attention to how it's been shown to work.

All of those are deliberate summoning or under the thin Veil circumstance.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...
And that kind of view makes Mages seeking freedom into cliche villians.

I don't see that at all.  They're freedom fighters who are defending their liberty against oppression from the ignorant masses.  Like the industrialists in Atlas Shrugged.

Not the most sympathetic protagonists ever, but still protagonists.

...

I was going to dismiss this from one angle, but I'll address it from a more succinct and accurate angle instead.

Rand had a set world view, and wrote her protagonists and antagonists to project her world view.  To her, the author, the business men (and one woman) were down-trodden heroes, underdogs, but unambigously correct.

I'm fairly certain the 'shades of gray' tone that DA writers takes is saying that both Mages and Templars are people, some good, some bad, and some breaking and becoming bad when put in seemingly no-win situations.  I don't think Rand's industrialists (to Ayn, completely morally perfect) are on the same plane of existence as the mages in Thedas (they fall anywhere on the moral compass, but always face persecution AND temptation.)

To Rand, individualism, ingenuity and privatism are undeniably positive traits.  To the DA writers, magic is a tool, and mages are either blessed or cursed, but there's no black and white about it.

I'm failing to see where the analogy holds.  A reader who shares Rand's view will agree the business people are GOOD.  To those who disagree with objectivism, they will still see that the 'world of the novel' holds said characters as goodk, even if the reader disagrees with the premise of said novel.
Whereas there is no "mages are good / bad" view put forth from the writers, and no clear-cut "all mages are good / all mages are bad" premise.  I am fairly certain the point of the world and setting is that magic, alone, doesn't make someone good or bad, and wanting to police those who can use magic (i.e. Templars) might be necessary, if not a necessary evil - ambiguity is the name of the game here.  With said ambiguity, it falls to the players / readers to decide what they think of mages overall, and that seems to be the writers' intent.

The comparison of the two - what is the crux of your analogy, StM?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DG said it. When it comes to mages possession, demons care about power first, and power second. And that is any kind of power, be that magical or otherwise. For instance, that was what made Conner such a tasy morsel for the Desire Demon, since he was a mage in a posistion of power.

Now why do I have a suspicion you're twisting Gaider's words into a message that suits you more than the original context?

There are of course exceptions. For instance Kitty wanted to possess Amalia, not because of her power, but probably becasue Kitty was sick and tired of being stuck inside that same old room for years on end.
The thread is over a year old however, so I'm not even sure if it is still around in the archive.

Ah, yes. Because the canonical counter-examples are bloody obvious.

'Demons only care about power, except for when they don't. Like people or inanimate objects without it.'

Yeah, you can't even keep what David Gaider said straight. I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect his context was more nuanced than anything you've presented.

I was talking about purely mage possession. So tell me why exactly you are bringing in possession of inanimate objects?

[BlueMagitek]

Are you talking about the Baronness from DA:A?

[Nerdage]

I don't expect a revolution would have an "obviously good" resolution, but I'd still support it entirely.

I expect the first thing which would happen once it succeeded - soon after if not immediately - would be another war, between the mages who want to live relatively normal lives and those who want to subjugate non-mages. But a war which the former would win because of popular support, and the outcome of which would be a system in which moderate mages police and train one-other and those who abuse their power are treated as the criminals they are.

Which to me seems like the best possible outcome. The current system is unsustainable if neither side are willing to compromise; it practically breeds unrest, and it's already on its last legs after DA2. So short of killing / making tranquil all mages as soon as their powers manifest, which to my mind is entirely unjustifiable anyway, there's not much hope of 'containing' them forever.

So if I have to pick a side it simply won't ever be the Templars, because - even if my best-case prediction for the mages is hugely optimistic - I don't even see a best-case scenario for the Templars, and no amount of greyness will change that.

Modifié par nerdage, 03 octobre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]Shale's recruitment.[/quote]
That's a demon who's already in the material world.
[/quote]Which hasn't been a requirement for possession to this point.

[quote]
[quote]You're trying to put the cart before the horse that already rode through.[/quote]
I don't see how.[/quote]Your argument rests on that demons can only be present to possess people in places that the Veil is thin because demons were already present to possess people. This is circular reasoning. Which is a fallacy.
[quote]
[quote]By a mage-kid with no major training and who didn't need special tools or circumstances besides being tempted.

Which, you know, describes most mages in general.[/quote]
Yes, making the Circle less terrifying probably could have helped avoid that.[/quote]Specific case? Maybe, but irrelevant. it's the underlying motivation that matters: Connor didn't make a pact with the demon because the Circle was terrying. Connor made a pact with a demon because of a type of stressor that will apply regardless of the Circle situation in Ferelden: family. He wasn't in a thin-Veil situation.


[quote]
It has to be a lot of people in a relatively short time, and I think it might have to be from the same source. Deliberate violence also seems necessary, so illness and accident wouldn't count. I also recall reading that the back of the orphanage was right next to that one house full of blood mages, but I could be wrong.
[/quote]You're certainly inventing rules and parameters to suit you. Lots of people die every day in cities- it's not something new, and in the DA setting it's not particular rare either.

[quote]
[quote]And? They were clearly able to make their presence there. Are you going to claim that because they didn't, they couldn't have?[/quote]
They could have, yes, including nonmages.
[/quote]Good. I'm glad we've agreed that your previous counterargument was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[quote]
[quote]You've seen it in just about every abomination character with a motivation to date.

The Mage Origin begins with a demon trying to trick its way in. The Ferelden circle started with a willing abomination and culminated into torturing people into consent. Conner wanted a way to save his father. Anders was frustrated by the treatment of the mages, and the Duchess (or whatever her name was) did it for pure power. In DA2 we have someone whose wife left them, a mentor who sacrificed themself for a beloved pupil, an entire sidequest about demonic temptation and possession, and a number of doomed souls who want to take as many enemies down with them as they could.

If you haven't seen that, you haven't been paying attention to how it's been shown to work.[/quote]
All of those are deliberate summoning or under the thin Veil circumstance.[/quote]Amazingly you continue to repeat this when you've already conceded that you can't quantify what makes a strong veil vs weak, support any evidence of a veil threshhold for possession, and  can't explain or control any geographic relationship of how the veil translates. Things that would be rather important to supporting your theory are completely absent from your arguments, and unsurprisingly the lore itself.

Instead, you headcanon an undefinable conditional that outright disqualifies over half of the franchise, liberally stretch it to try and disqualify any inconvenient counter-point even if you have to reverse cause and effect to do so, and begin to insist
that it can't happen anywhere else because your conditional, which you made up,
isn't met.

Xil, your argument is an atrocious logical fallacy that makes baby mages cry.

[Dean_the_Young]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DG said it. When it comes to mages possession, demons care about power first, and power second. And that is any kind of power, be that magical or otherwise. For instance, that was what made Conner such a tasy morsel for the Desire Demon, since he was a mage in a posistion of power.

Now why do I have a suspicion you're twisting Gaider's words into a message that suits you more than the original context?

There are of course exceptions. For instance Kitty wanted to possess Amalia, not because of her power, but probably becasue Kitty was sick and tired of being stuck inside that same old room for years on end.
The thread is over a year old however, so I'm not even sure if it is still around in the archive.

Ah, yes. Because the canonical counter-examples are bloody obvious.

'Demons only care about power, except for when they don't. Like people or inanimate objects without it.'

Yeah, you can't even keep what David Gaider said straight. I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect his context was more nuanced than anything you've presented.

I was talking about purely mage possession. So tell me why exactly you are bringing in possession of inanimate objects?

Because the existence (and, in some respects, prevalence) of demons who seek or settle on possessions on the basis of opportunity rather than power disprove claims that demons will only seek or settle on possessions on the basis of power rather than opportunity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wissenschaft wrote...
There is a thrid way of keeing the circle but seperating it from the Chantry. Why is it that a religious organzation has control over the circle and not say the secular governments?

You really don't see how that would backfire horribly?

Take a look at the political stage and history and think for a bit.

[Xilizhra]

Which hasn't been a requirement for possession to this point.

No, but it seems to make it far easier.

Your argument rests on that demons can only be present to possess people in places that the Veil is thin because demons were already present to possess people. This is circular reasoning. Which is a fallacy.

The demons were there because they'd been summoned earlier, not because of a weakened Veil that had existed before the summoning.

Specific case? Maybe, but irrelevant. it's the underlying motivation that matters: Connor didn't make a pact with the demon because the Circle was terrying. Connor made a pact with a demon because of a type of stressor that will apply regardless of the Circle situation in Ferelden: family. He wasn't in a thin-Veil situation.

I'll agree, but with the clarification that, really, any strong emotional attachment could produce that reaction.

You're certainly inventing rules and parameters to suit you. Lots of people die every day in cities- it's not something new, and in the DA setting it's not particular rare either.

And yet the entire city isn't full of angry spirits, so I'm trying to determine why it had been weakened in that one spot.

Amazingly you continue to repeat this when you've already conceded that you can't quantify what makes a strong veil vs weak, support any evidence of a veil threshhold for possession, and can't explain or control any geographic relationship of how the veil translates. Things that would be rather important to supporting your theory are completely absent from your arguments, and unsurprisingly the lore itself.

I make the Veil argument only when the game itself has stated that it's been weakened. At least, that's my intention.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

[Dave of Canada]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Xil, your argument is an atrocious logical fallacy that makes baby mages cry.

Should we send them to the Circle?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...
There is a thrid way of keeing the circle but seperating it from the Chantry. Why is it that a religious organzation has control over the circle and not say the secular governments?

You really don't see how that would backfire horribly?

Take a look at the political stage and history and think for a bit.

Monarchs would never abuse demi-gods! Never!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 octobre 2013 - 07:26 .