2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@MisterJB: But killing off all the mages (not actually possible) won't stop demons from trying to use mortals.

But intense training of mages and forming close relationships with them in a system that STILL takes into account the inherent dangers that they uniquely possess - is a far greater asset than hoping a host of alien minds can be bent to your will.

The power mages wield is a danger - because it is a born power, and will be mistaken as privilege by a great many mages. Yes, we must always be cautious (and that is as a mage player)... but Tevinter was born in a much different way than the freedom the Circle Mages are asking for.

Paranoia leads to just as many evils as tyranny.

[dragonflight288]

Add in that a demons codex makes it clear that demons in the hierarchy simply see mortals as tools or bargaining chips in their own games with other demons.

If there are no mages, there would be nothing distracting demons from the mundanes.

[Gwydden]

MisterJB wrote...

Slavery was always about having workers that you didn't need to pay, not necessity. Certainly, it was more accepted by society and there might even have been some slaves that lived better than your average peasant but the reports we have of how slaves are treated in Tevinter is downright ghastly. They're proprierty and are treated as such.
I daresay that the number of people that have suffered because of the society of Tevinter that used to span the whole continent is much greater that the number of people whose village was attacked by a random demon.

Was a great empire built because of it? Yes, it was and I can see how civilization might justify those actions; but probrably not to non-mages since their role in that civilization is that of luggage.

My point is that for early civilizations slavery is a logical developement. People suffered under Tevinter. People also suffer under Orlais, with is slavery-in-everything-but-name and general opression of unlucky majority of commoners, and the qunari, who practice slavery openly, the same as Tevinter. Both nations stand against unpoliced mages, but they still commit the same attrocities old and current Tevinter do. Mundanes may be luggage in Tevinter. Commoners are luggage in Orlais.

Also, you can't put blame on every mage for sharing a genetic trait with the rulers, past and present, of Tevinter. It would be like blaming everyone who fits into the ****s ideals of racial superiority for their crimes.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I should think you would already be able to guess my response to this question and thus not really need to ask it.  

Obviously, I think it's an abhorrent idea all 'round.  Even Caridin made it clear he ultimately came to hate his creation even in the face of having volunteers for golems, and not unwilling prisoners.  That speaks volumes to me, and even without Caridin's own clear contempt for the Anvil I would be against its use.  Not unlike Tranquility, volunteering to be made a golem isn't exactly an informed choice since you can't know what the reality is going to be like until the process is completed, and it apparently is quite a torturous process.  I would not submit anyone to that under any circumstances, volunteer or no.  

But quite beyond that, we already saw in Origins how the Anvil was abused and unwilling people were put to it in no small part as a means of silencing dissent.  I should think you of all people would be against the Anvil on those grounds alone.  But I find it kind of despicable that you would think it's perfectly acceptable to do this to all mages, everywhere, just for the sake of mitigating any threat they pose.  

How, praytell, is forcing unwilling people--and even you couldn't deny that many, arguably most, would be unwilling--to undergo the process of being made into a golem, an acceptable solution?  It is de facto genocide.

I wasn't actually being serious(mostly anyway) when I said we should do it but you said that this idea was not "well thought out".
Well, this to me refers to practical concerns rather than moralistic ones. Do you see any practical concern with turning all mages into golems?
They would retain their usefulness because the average mage is weaker than the average golem and they wouldn't be dangerous because of the control rods.

I don't see how it can be definitively said that mages are weaker than golems.  It should also be pointed out that we don't know what the result of putting a mage soul into a golem would do. 

But let me be clear:  I will not address the question of practicality because this particular scenario is so morally abhorrent to me that the moral question trumps ALL.  I don't think that practical concerns should make it okay to brutalize people in this fashion, which is precisely the reason I don't even stop to think about saving the Anvil in Paraon of Her Kind, but always, always destroy it, no matter what kind of Warden I'm playing.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 octobre 2013 - 06:28 .

[dragonflight288]

There is a moral line that must be drawn, otherwise we become the very evil we claim to fight.

[DKJaigen]

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that would've undermined the entire "Tower overrun by abominations." bit.

Then they shouldn't have made that plot if they couldn't translate it into gameplay. Or just been explicit about the Chantry being wrong about abominations.

Or they could've did what they did. Lore doesn't always translate properly into gameplay. For any game.

In this case the lore is given by the chantry. yet despite the warnings we never heard of cities or armies being destroyed to the last man because of abominations. The fact that tthe chantry allows mages to join war which is by definition the most ideal place to become an abomination basically tells me they dont believe their own nonsense. 

Remember that part of the chantry's power stems from the fear or magic. should mages suddenly live among mundanes and they make themselves usefull a lot of chantry teaching will be called into question

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

MisterJB wrote...

I think you just gave me a brilliant idea.
Magic is useful, no one denies this. Killing all mages would be wasting resources and it could place the Southern kingdoms at a disadvantage against Tevinter or the Qunari.
On the other hand, I'd say the average golem is more dangerous than the average mages. And golems have control rods that allows one perfect control over them.

Therefore, let's just turn all mages into golems! They'll retain their usefulness but won't be a danger anymore! It's brilliant!

This is brilliant!

[MisterJB]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: But killing off all the mages (not actually possible) won't stop demons from trying to use mortals.

But intense training of mages and forming close relationships with them in a system that STILL takes into account the inherent dangers that they uniquely possess - is a far greater asset than hoping a host of alien minds can be bent to your will.

The power mages wield is a danger - because it is a born power, and will be mistaken as privilege by a great many mages. Yes, we must always be cautious (and that is as a mage player)... but Tevinter was born in a much different way than the freedom the Circle Mages are asking for.

Paranoia leads to just as many evils as tyranny.

I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying but I can't agree with it as well. A violent rebellion can easily lead to a state of tyranny and the tear in the veil is a powerful bargaining tool for mages, one that they will exploit in order to force the normal people to make concessions that will give them far too much liberty. Hence the consideration of exploiting demons in order to remove this from the table.
But this is an extreme situation; normally, there are other solutions. Like the Circle altough I'll place more faith in the intense training and the steel doors than on "close relationships".

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 octobre 2013 - 07:15 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that would've undermined the entire "Tower overrun by abominations." bit.

Then they shouldn't have made that plot if they couldn't translate it into gameplay. Or just been explicit about the Chantry being wrong about abominations.

Or they could've did what they did. Lore doesn't always translate properly into gameplay. For any game.

In this case the lore is given by the chantry. yet despite the warnings we never heard of cities or armies being destroyed to the last man because of abominations. The fact that tthe chantry allows mages to join war which is by definition the most ideal place to become an abomination basically tells me they dont believe their own nonsense. 

Remember that part of the chantry's power stems from the fear or magic. should mages suddenly live among mundanes and they make themselves usefull a lot of chantry teaching will be called into question

The Chantry only reluctantly let mages go join battles, even if the enemy is a Blight. So obviously they believe in it themselves. We also have it from the devs, that Abominations have been severely underpowered in gameplay, and that they would look to rectify that in future games.
That being said, I don't think that the average Abomination would be able to destroy an army or entire city. But, some Abominations are. Hell, the entire backstory of Dragon Age: Legends, was about an Abomination who single-handedly almost destroyed the Free March city of Kaiten. So obviously there is something true to the warnings of the Circles.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: But killing off all the mages (not actually possible) won't stop demons from trying to use mortals.

But intense training of mages and forming close relationships with them in a system that STILL takes into account the inherent dangers that they uniquely possess - is a far greater asset than hoping a host of alien minds can be bent to your will.

The power mages wield is a danger - because it is a born power, and will be mistaken as privilege by a great many mages. Yes, we must always be cautious (and that is as a mage player)... but Tevinter was born in a much different way than the freedom the Circle Mages are asking for.

Paranoia leads to just as many evils as tyranny.

I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying but I can't agree with it as well. A violent rebellion can easily lead to a state of tyranny and the tear in the veil is a powerful bargaining tool for mages, one that they will exploit in order to force the normal people to make concessions that will give them far too much liberty. Hence the consideration of exploiting demons in order to remove this from the table.
But this is an extreme situation; normally, there are other solutions. Like the Circle altough I'll place more faith in the intense training and the steel doors than on "close relationships".

I dunno.  That you actually think that trying to consort with demons is a better idea than *gasp* making concessions to mages seems more like a Greek tragedy taken to epic levels, showing what extremes people driven by fanatical paranoia will go to.  You're basically saying you would sooner risk the entire world than allow mages even a chance at bargaining power.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 octobre 2013 - 08:18 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that would've undermined the entire "Tower overrun by abominations." bit.

Then they shouldn't have made that plot if they couldn't translate it into gameplay. Or just been explicit about the Chantry being wrong about abominations.

Or they could've did what they did. Lore doesn't always translate properly into gameplay. For any game.

In this case the lore is given by the chantry. yet despite the warnings we never heard of cities or armies being destroyed to the last man because of abominations. The fact that tthe chantry allows mages to join war which is by definition the most ideal place to become an abomination basically tells me they dont believe their own nonsense. 

Remember that part of the chantry's power stems from the fear or magic. should mages suddenly live among mundanes and they make themselves usefull a lot of chantry teaching will be called into question

The Chantry only reluctantly let mages go join battles, even if the enemy is a Blight. So obviously they believe in it themselves. We also have it from the devs, that Abominations have been severely underpowered in gameplay, and that they would look to rectify that in future games.
That being said, I don't think that the average Abomination would be able to destroy an army or entire city. But, some Abominations are. Hell, the entire backstory of Dragon Age: Legends, was about an Abomination who single-handedly almost destroyed the Free March city of Kaiten. So obviously there is something true to the warnings of the Circles.

If abominations where that  dangerous i would not allow mages to fight at all. a single mage turned abomination could destroy an entire army if it caused a disruption in the rear. and legends was an abomination that used guile and cunning to destroy a  city (hey humans have that to) not raw power. and the templars where as usual completely useless in the matter. perhaps this will change in DAI. oh no wait they are ACTUALLY aiding the demons and sniffing red lyrium.

[DKJaigen]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: But killing off all the mages (not actually possible) won't stop demons from trying to use mortals.

But intense training of mages and forming close relationships with them in a system that STILL takes into account the inherent dangers that they uniquely possess - is a far greater asset than hoping a host of alien minds can be bent to your will.

The power mages wield is a danger - because it is a born power, and will be mistaken as privilege by a great many mages. Yes, we must always be cautious (and that is as a mage player)... but Tevinter was born in a much different way than the freedom the Circle Mages are asking for.

Paranoia leads to just as many evils as tyranny.

I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying but I can't agree with it as well. A violent rebellion can easily lead to a state of tyranny and the tear in the veil is a powerful bargaining tool for mages, one that they will exploit in order to force the normal people to make concessions that will give them far too much liberty. Hence the consideration of exploiting demons in order to remove this from the table.
But this is an extreme situation; normally, there are other solutions. Like the Circle altough I'll place more faith in the intense training and the steel doors than on "close relationships".

I dunno.  That you actually think that trying to consort with demons is a better idea than *gasp* making concessions to mages seems more like a Greek tragedy taken to epic levels, showing what extremes people driven by fanatical paranoia will go to.  You're basically saying you would sooner risk the entire world than allow mages even a chance at bargaining power.

It seems he has that warhammer 40 k mindset. who cares if you sacrafice everything as long as the enemy is death right.

[Medhia Nox]

@DKJaigen: But that isn't the 40K mindset at all.

The Imperium of Man would NEVER choose to consort with daemons over psykers... and that storyline is a hundred million times more grimdark than Dragon Age.

Without the psykers - the Imperium cannot work. Nobody would see the Astronomican - and the Navigators would not be able to navigate the Warp - plus the Astropaths would not be able to keep up communications. Etc. etc.

Though - to be fair - 40K has had... I think... 4 decades so far to develop it's mythos?

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
I dunno.  That you actually think that trying to consort with demons is a better idea than *gasp* making concessions to mages seems more like a Greek tragedy taken to epic levels, showing what extremes people driven by fanatical paranoia will go to.  You're basically saying you would sooner risk the entire world than allow mages even a chance at bargaining power.

And why not? Isn't that what many mages have done over the centuries? What are the rules of the Circle if not concessions made to the non-mages? And how many mages have resorted to demons to escape it? Tear it down?

[Medhia Nox]

@MisterJB: The Circle is not, in it's current form, any sort of concession to mages.

If you're referring to how it was begun - to stop the original Inquisition - then, perhaps, but what it has currently become is a system of sanctioned fear.

I will not concede that it is as bad as some paint it - but it still remains a place where those prone to abuse against mages seem to go largely unpunished (not unlike modern prisons).

Though I wholeheartedly disagree with rebellion - it is only because Sir Alrik's solution was not enacted and was, in fact, rebuked by both Elthina and Merideth (according to game lore - not interested in headcanon's) that I still believe that the Chantry/Templars haven't fallen completely into despotism.

And how has it turned out for those mages who turned to demons? Pretty damn bad. Not a single one of them has had a good showing of it. Thedas is absolutely chock full of some of the stupidest mages ever presented in fiction... let's not also add some of the stupidest mundanes.

Dagna is still holding the last torch of knowledge in Thedas.

[Senya]

Indeed. The Circle needs reform.

[MisterJB]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: The Circle is not, in it's current form, any sort of concession to mages.

If you're referring to how it was begun - to stop the original Inquisition - then, perhaps, but what it has currently become is a system of sanctioned fear.

I was referring to how the principle behind it is largely the same. The Circles can be said to be concessions the mages make to non-mages; that is to say, an acknowledgement of how dangerous they are and that restrictions are necessary.
But many mages are not willing to make these concessions and turn to demons; therefore, it seems rather unfair to hold templars to an higher standard and call it a "greek tragedy" when the mages have been doing it for centuries.

I'm not trying to say the Circle couldn't use some reform: but I'm sure that just as mages fear templars and believe they will never be treated fairly, the same can be said of the templars.

And how has it turned out for those mages who turned to demons? Pretty damn bad. Not a single one of them has had a good showing of it. Thedas is absolutely chock full of some of the stupidest mages ever presented in fiction... let's not also add some of the stupidest mundanes.

The Warden tricked a demon due to his/her awesome PC powers. Powers the Inquisitior should also have.

Dagna is still holding the last torch of knowledge in Thedas.

I wouldn't mind seeing more scholars, no. Altough, there were more than Dagna; humans, mages, dwarvens.

[Medhia Nox]

@MisterJB: Careful - if you use Plotarmor PCs to make your arguments - you have to also then concede that mages cannot be corrupted by demons and blood magic can be used safely without any fear of abuse.

I don't believe the PC should ever be used as an example - he/she is the extreme exception to EVERY rule.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MisterJB: The Circle is not, in it's current form, any sort of concession to mages.

If you're referring to how it was begun - to stop the original Inquisition - then, perhaps, but what it has currently become is a system of sanctioned fear.

I was referring to how the principle behind it is largely the same. The Circles can be said to be concessions the mages make to non-mages; that is to say, an acknowledgement of how dangerous they are and that restrictions are necessary.
But many mages are not willing to make these concessions and turn to demons; therefore, it seems rather unfair to hold templars to an higher standard and call it a "greek tragedy" when the mages have been doing it for centuries.

Saying that the Circle could be said to be a concession by mages to non-mages is a pretty big oversimplification.  There is conflicting lore on the point of whether the original Circle was something that mages willingly agreed to or were coerced, but however you look at it, I think there is some implication, albeit vague perhaps, that the original Circles might have been considerably different than what they were just prior to the end of DA2.  Since in their final incarnation however, it was NOT something that mages were able to willingly submit to, but was the legal requirement all were expected to submit to, their willingness to comply not being part of the equation at all, it can hardly be called a concession. 

That some mages, like Wynne, and, more extremely, Keili, may acknowledge the danger of magic and accept the Circle system, does not change the fact that the law is not interested in their opinion--they are compelled to submit regardless.  How exactly do you justify the idea that this could be construed as a concession by mages as a group?

Modifié par Silfren, 14 octobre 2013 - 10:28 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
Saying that the Circle could be said to be a concession by mages to non-mages is a pretty big oversimplification.  There is conflicting lore on the point of whether the original Circle was something that mages willingly agreed to or were coerced, but however you look at it, I think there is some implication, albeit vague perhaps, that the original Circles might have been considerably different than what they were just prior to the end of DA2.  Since in their final incarnation however, it was NOT something that mages were able to willingly submit to, but was the legal requirement all were expected to submit to, their willingness to comply not being part of the equation at all, it can hardly be called a concession. 

That some mages, like Wynne, and, more extremely, Keili, may acknowledge the danger of magic and accept the Circle system, does not change the fact that the law is not interested in their opinion--they are compelled to submit regardless.  How exactly do you justify the idea that this could be construed as a concession by mages as a group?

A concession is never something that you are happy to admit or give up. By its very definition, a concession is something that you are forced to acknowledge because the opposing party has enough pull; political, military, financial, whatever; to force this and because you hope to get something more important in return. If mages made the concession of being isolated from society while non-mages made the concession of allowing mages to practice magic inside the Circle walls, these are still concessions even if the alternative was a war.
And when leaders of organized groups meet to discuss an agreement, they don't exactly ask their citizens/members/whatever if they agree with every concession they plan to make. And the next generation of citizens won't have the option to decide whether they wish to be part of the nation or not. They're born into it and they abide by the rules that were agreed upon by their ancestors. Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 octobre 2013 - 10:58 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except that would've undermined the entire "Tower overrun by abominations." bit.

Then they shouldn't have made that plot if they couldn't translate it into gameplay. Or just been explicit about the Chantry being wrong about abominations.

Or they could've did what they did. Lore doesn't always translate properly into gameplay. For any game.

In this case the lore is given by the chantry. yet despite the warnings we never heard of cities or armies being destroyed to the last man because of abominations. The fact that tthe chantry allows mages to join war which is by definition the most ideal place to become an abomination basically tells me they dont believe their own nonsense. 

Remember that part of the chantry's power stems from the fear or magic. should mages suddenly live among mundanes and they make themselves usefull a lot of chantry teaching will be called into question

The Chantry only reluctantly let mages go join battles, even if the enemy is a Blight. So obviously they believe in it themselves. We also have it from the devs, that Abominations have been severely underpowered in gameplay, and that they would look to rectify that in future games.
That being said, I don't think that the average Abomination would be able to destroy an army or entire city. But, some Abominations are. Hell, the entire backstory of Dragon Age: Legends, was about an Abomination who single-handedly almost destroyed the Free March city of Kaiten. So obviously there is something true to the warnings of the Circles.

If abominations where that  dangerous i would not allow mages to fight at all. a single mage turned abomination could destroy an entire army if it caused a disruption in the rear. and legends was an abomination that used guile and cunning to destroy a  city (hey humans have that to) not raw power. and the templars where as usual completely useless in the matter. perhaps this will change in DAI. oh no wait they are ACTUALLY aiding the demons and sniffing red lyrium.

The demon which corrupted Kaiten did not just use cunning and guile. The city was devolving into a hedonistic orgy, which doesn't happen naturally. Obviously it was exerting some kind of influence upon the citizens. It did however have to work from behind the scene, to not alarm anyone before it was too late.
And it was the Templars, which you are so fond of hating, who put an end to it. It was the Templars that succesfully slew the demon, and ended the corruption of Kaiten.

And we don't yet know what the end game of the Red Templars is, but it probably isn't anything good. With that being said, the Red Templars are not all the Templars it would seem, since there apparently is a need for a distinction still. The moniker "Red" signifying a difference betweena "Red Templar" and a normal "Templar".

[In Exile]

MisterJB wrote...
If mages made the concession of being isolated from society while non-mages made the concession of allowing mages to practice magic inside the Circle walls, these are still concessions even if the alternative was a war.

But that's not the concession, since mages are under constant templar patrol, can be unilaterally sentenced to death without input, and can't practice any magic of their choosing. 

It's not very close to exile in a Tower. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I'd say it is a concession, just one that is harder to swallow than simple isolation.

I don't see what this has to do with anything though.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 14 octobre 2013 - 11:06 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Silfren wrote...

2.Well first real flamerhrower is much powerful than mage one unless we talk about homemade version i don't think that was problem if you have shield what effectively blocks that and well anti-magic equipment.

You're just making things up now.  There's no lore comparing mages to flamethrowers, obviously, and at this point your entire argument is devolving into "mages are weak because I think they are,"

If I remember correctly, this comparison came up as he was describing the "weak" spells most mages are limited to. His argument is that the flamethrower is weak because it doesn't burn people in-game as well as the laws of physics applied to that animation should require. I argue that gameplay and story segregation.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 octobre 2013 - 11:11 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'd say that it should be an obvious case of gameplay and lore segregation. A sword through the chest doesn't kill you in DA eithers, but ofc it is supposed to. Basically if the thing kills in one strike/spell/look/whatever in a cutscene, it is deadly.