2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that the quote at the beginning of the thread heavily implies that that's not the case. You're basing this on the fact that the player never has the trouble the Chantry claims you should? I'm aware that PCs never get possessed or lose control or anything, but there's a reason for this that has little or nothing to do with the Chantry being unambigously wrong.

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

To whatever extent possible, that's what should be done. But the games understate the danger, according to the quote at the start of the thread. So, ultimately, abominations will form. It'll be rare, I think, but it'll happen. And it's best that the target be a hardened facility with as few innocents in harm's way as possible. It's easier to put as few innocents as possible in harm's way by placing the innocents who are directly effected in quarantine. It's easier to harden one or two targets per country than giving each village. So, apart from the bigotry, the rape, and the religious claptrap, this isn't too far off the system I'd probably have made.

Then I'll need to see those alleged abominations before making a system off of them.

The Codex, dev quotes, and Thrask's daughter are evidence they exist. If that's not enough, then we'll probably see such things in the mage army; they're being put to serious stress.

[Xilizhra]

The Codex, dev quotes, and Thrask's daughter are evidence they exist. If that's not enough, then we'll probably see such things in the mage army; they're being put to serious stress.

Kirkwall isn't safe; demons can pretty much wander in whenever they feel like. The Codex is mostly in-universe stuff written by the Chantry, and the dev quotes are remarkably vague.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

My opinion is that the one where the worst level of suffering is lesser is the more rational one.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

My opinion is that the one where the worst level of suffering is lesser is the more rational one.

That's fine, and relative levels of suffering are something to take into account. But your scale will also give you a skewed result, if you don't take the number of people suffering versus the number of people gaining into account. Mages are a minority, and from the fact that the Chantry even managed to keep a lid on their system as long as they did, I'd figure a rather small one. That has to be taken into account.

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

My opinion is that the one where the worst level of suffering is lesser is the more rational one.

That's fine, and relative levels of suffering are something to take into account. But your scale will also give you a skewed result, if you don't take the number of people suffering versus the number of people gaining into account. Mages are a minority, and from the fact that the Chantry even managed to keep a lid on their system as long as they did, I'd figure a rather small one. That has to be taken into account.

It's better that three million people be inconvenienced to avoid one person being in agony.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

My opinion is that the one where the worst level of suffering is lesser is the more rational one.

That's fine, and relative levels of suffering are something to take into account. But your scale will also give you a skewed result, if you don't take the number of people suffering versus the number of people gaining into account. Mages are a minority, and from the fact that the Chantry even managed to keep a lid on their system as long as they did, I'd figure a rather small one. That has to be taken into account.

It's better that three million people be inconvenienced to avoid one person being in agony.

Oh yes, absolutely. But the stakes for mundanes are worse than that. A mage might snap, go abomination, and kill them or a relative. Other reasons the Chantry gives are to prevent mages abusing their powers (which some mages will absolutely do, though probably not to the point of justifying this without the other reasons) and in order to give mages a place to stay that won't lynch them (which seems quite justifiable, what with their being evidence in-game that some mages are rejected by their own parents.) That's enough to justify a Circle, especially taken all together.

[Xilizhra]

Oh yes, absolutely. But the stakes for mundanes are worse than that. A mage might snap, go abomination, and kill them or a relative. Other reasons the Chantry gives are to prevent mages abusing their powers (which some mages will absolutely do, though probably not to the point of justifying this without the other reasons) and in order to give mages a place to stay that won't lynch them (which seems quite justifiable, what with their being evidence in-game that some mages are rejected by their own parents.) That's enough to justify a Circle, especially taken all together.

It's enough to justify something, but never the Circle as it stands. Something that can protect mages from demons, but that won't make its primary use be imprisonment.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh yes, absolutely. But the stakes for mundanes are worse than that. A mage might snap, go abomination, and kill them or a relative. Other reasons the Chantry gives are to prevent mages abusing their powers (which some mages will absolutely do, though probably not to the point of justifying this without the other reasons) and in order to give mages a place to stay that won't lynch them (which seems quite justifiable, what with their being evidence in-game that some mages are rejected by their own parents.) That's enough to justify a Circle, especially taken all together.

It's enough to justify something, but never the Circle as it stands. Something that can protect mages from demons, but that won't make its primary use be imprisonment.

And what else will protect mages from possession?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 13 octobre 2013 - 05:07 .

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh yes, absolutely. But the stakes for mundanes are worse than that. A mage might snap, go abomination, and kill them or a relative. Other reasons the Chantry gives are to prevent mages abusing their powers (which some mages will absolutely do, though probably not to the point of justifying this without the other reasons) and in order to give mages a place to stay that won't lynch them (which seems quite justifiable, what with their being evidence in-game that some mages are rejected by their own parents.) That's enough to justify a Circle, especially taken all together.

It's enough to justify something, but never the Circle as it stands. Something that can protect mages from demons, but that won't make its primary use be imprisonment.

And what else will protect mages from possession?

Hopefully my prior ideas will be a start.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh yes, absolutely. But the stakes for mundanes are worse than that. A mage might snap, go abomination, and kill them or a relative. Other reasons the Chantry gives are to prevent mages abusing their powers (which some mages will absolutely do, though probably not to the point of justifying this without the other reasons) and in order to give mages a place to stay that won't lynch them (which seems quite justifiable, what with their being evidence in-game that some mages are rejected by their own parents.) That's enough to justify a Circle, especially taken all together.

It's enough to justify something, but never the Circle as it stands. Something that can protect mages from demons, but that won't make its primary use be imprisonment.

And what else will protect mages from possession?

Hopefully my prior ideas will be a start.

I forget what they are and can't find them. This is one insanely long thread.

[Xilizhra]

I forget what they are and can't find them. This is one insanely long thread.

I'd dig them up, but I'd rather sleep right now. Ah well.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Clearly the only practical solution is to feed everyone to the Darkspawn.

Then they'll kill each other off and the world will finally know absolute peace...

https://encrypted-tb...tdI4zTh8fq_wF9g

It is an inevitability.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because the reason I'm fighting this war is to do everything in my power to ensure that this never happens again. Compromise is what got us into this mess to begin with, compromise and letting other powers take too much. We have to stand firm here. If we give too much ground, then the whole war's been for nothing.
...
Simply having the Circles exist for the time being is a huge concession. Don't lose sight of what might be sacrificed here.

This isn't giving any ground at all though. In this approach you're asking the Chantry to provide the full extent of it's resources and then some, but you're not giving anything. The Chantry does not want to remain tied to the circle for fun, it's a means to an end. That end cannot be undermined.

Some things might be able to be achieved. Maybe the RoA can be removed (or shared between a First Enchanter and a Grand Cleric, both beeing needed to issue it), maybe the RoT can be removed. Villages might be tolerated. Maybe a set of rights can be established and a system of trials.

But say blood magic... you're never getting peace if you want the ban to be lifted. Not without a overwhelming victory. And mages don't have the numbers for that.

Remember... if push comes to shove... the Chantry has it's information network. It can find round up all the fresh mages and put them in a tower while they slowly bleed the rebellion to death. The Chantry has a much greater chance of winning a sustained war than the mages does. And if they do, mages get only scraps of what they want.

A compromise is not what the Chantry needs, it's what the mages need.

Then remove both options. Only kill if necessary, in battle.

In battle? Not after a due process? Because battles are much easier and much more prone to abuse. "He attacked me first" is actually damned difficult to contradict without witnesses.

And what if templars and fellow mages agree that a mage is too dangerous to be allowed magic? But this mage is anything but cooperative?

It's up to the families in question.

I suppose so.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll grant the other two bits, though with the qualification that Thrask's daughter's fate was in line with the rules as represented by the Chantry. As for the dev quotes being vague, the one at the start of the thread really isn't. It specifically states that you can make a rational argument for either side, which I'll grant. I just think the one where fewer people suffer is the more rational one.

My opinion is that the one where the worst level of suffering is lesser is the more rational one.

That's fine, and relative levels of suffering are something to take into account. But your scale will also give you a skewed result, if you don't take the number of people suffering versus the number of people gaining into account. Mages are a minority, and from the fact that the Chantry even managed to keep a lid on their system as long as they did, I'd figure a rather small one. That has to be taken into account.

It's better that three million people be inconvenienced to avoid one person being in agony.

Define inconvience. Is this inconvenince as in "I'm sorry, but you'll need to go around this building to get to the market. shouldn't take more than 5 minutes."

Or inconvenienced as in "Sorry, but I'm going into a demon possessed rage and need to ripe out your organs. Hope you don't need them for anything. K' Thanx!"

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Wrong way around. It's "if nonmages gain more than mages lose." It's not about numbers, it's about magnitude of suffering.

Numbers are a factor in a magnitude of suffering.

Or do you think that 100 people who die at the hand of a crazed mage or abomination do not count as "suffering"?

I'm basing this on the fact that being possessed by a demon that neither you nor anyone summoned, in a safe environment, simply does not happen from what we've been shown in-game. If Inquisition wants to change that, fine, I'll look at that when it comes. Keeping the environment safe and emotionally troubled mages close to those who can soothe them should take care of nearly everything.

Aha.
That is SOOOO easy to do and feasble.
I'm sure we will have a 99% reduction of such incident as soon as your magical solution is ut in place. Yep. Definately.

Mages will ALWAYS be around the exact people who can help them. Always. Because that's how life works.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's better that three million people be inconvenienced to avoid one person being in agony.

It's better than a hunderd mages be inconvenienced to avoid a single person dying to an abomination.

No, wait..

It's better than a hunderd mages be segragated to avoid thousands dying to abominations and mage weakness.

[Xilizhra]

This isn't giving any ground at all though. In this approach you're asking the Chantry to provide the full extent of it's resources and then some, but you're not giving anything. The Chantry does not want to remain tied to the circle for fun, it's a means to an end. That end cannot be undermined.

Some things might be able to be achieved. Maybe the RoA can be removed (or shared between a First Enchanter and a Grand Cleric, both beeing needed to issue it), maybe the RoT can be removed. Villages might be tolerated. Maybe a set of rights can be established and a system of trials.

But say blood magic... you're never getting peace if you want the ban to be lifted. Not without a overwhelming victory. And mages don't have the numbers for that.

This is just one of the many things I'll need to look at Inquisition for, but while we might not be able to have an overwhelming conventional victory, the Veil tear may well complicate matters. And I'm willing to wait for a time for the blood magic ban to be lifted, it doesn't need to be in the first round of negotiations.

Remember... if push comes to shove... the Chantry has it's information network. It can find round up all the fresh mages and put them in a tower while they slowly bleed the rebellion to death. The Chantry has a much greater chance of winning a sustained war than the mages does. And if they do, mages get only scraps of what they want.

Actually, the Chantry can't do crap, because it either has no army or a severely diminished army, and it was actually willing to just let the mages go anyway. We only really have to worry about the templars in terms of the war.

In battle? Not after a due process? Because battles are much easier and much more prone to abuse. "He attacked me first" is actually damned difficult to contradict without witnesses.

And what if templars and fellow mages agree that a mage is too dangerous to be allowed magic? But this mage is anything but cooperative?

Claims of being attacked first would exist with or without a due process method of killing them. And a prison system could still exist. I'm also willing to consider the possibility of temporary Tranquility, though I'm still not fond of the idea.

It's better than a hunderd mages be inconvenienced to avoid a single person dying to an abomination.

No, wait..

It's better than a hunderd mages be segragated to avoid thousands dying to abominations and mage weakness.

Theoretically, you could just imprison everyone to end most crime.

[Sir DeLoria]

Power corrupts. Mages have a lot of power. Do we really want another Tevinter-esque totalitarian slaver state?

The thought, that mages will just peacefully coexist and not abuse their power to dominate and enslave non-mages is more than naïve.

[Xilizhra]

Power corrupts. Mages have a lot of power. Do we really want another Tevinter-esque totalitarian slaver state?

This is a very shaky axiom. Tevinter isn't slaveholding because it's a magocracy, it's slaveholding because of ancient traditions of it.

[Sir DeLoria]

Xilizhra wrote...

Power corrupts. Mages have a lot of power. Do we really want another Tevinter-esque totalitarian slaver state?

This is a very shaky axiom. Tevinter isn't slaveholding because it's a magocracy, it's slaveholding because of ancient traditions of it.

The very principle of a magocracy is just f***ed up. What gives mages the right to rule over non-mages? 

So magic isn't the cause of the slavery, but only the means? Sure, that's much better and really speaks for your side:whistle:

[Heimdall]

Necanor wrote...
The very principle of a magocracy is just f***ed up. What gives mages the right to rule over non-mages? 

So magic isn't the cause of the slavery, but only the means? Sure, that's much better and really speaks for your side:whistle:

Seldom as it is that I feel inclined to agree with Xil.  Mages have the same right to rule as every conqueror in history, power.  In that way they aren't different from, say, Orlais.