1238 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

Bardox9 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Bardox9 wrote...

SgtSteel91 wrote...

What the Komandor is proposing is that as soon as a person, usually a kid, shows to have magic potential they kill him/her. And you keep killing those with magic potential as soon as they spring up for eternity.

Templars killing children... can't imagine why the Chantry wouldn't like that image in peoples heads when they talk about "the love of the Maker" can you?

If they really hated Mages, they've had over a thousand years to teach people that Mages, even children, are worthy of death.  With that kind of time to indoctrinate, it wouldn't matter what age the Mage was, they'd be viewed as monsters to be destroyed.

But you can hardly advocate that the Chantry has a stellar record in regards to public perception of mages though. Up until Justinia at least.

The Chantry routinely tells people that magic is evil and a mages are cursed by the Maker. I have yet to see any cleric with a basic understanding of the Circle or magic in general.

No they don't.  Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.  Specific Mages, namely the Tevinter Magisters, are held up as an example of flawed mankind abusing the Maker's Gift with tragic consequences, and as a warning and explanation as to why Mages need to be watched.

[Icy Magebane]

TK514 wrote...

Bardox9 wrote...

The Chantry routinely tells people that magic is evil and a mages are cursed by the Maker. I have yet to see any cleric with a basic understanding of the Circle or magic in general.

No they don't.  Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.  Specific Mages, namely the Tevinter Magisters, are held up as an example of flawed mankind abusing the Maker's Gift with tragic consequences, and as a warning and explanation as to why Mages need to be watched.

No... magic is looked at as a curse and priests are highly suspicious of it.  Remember the female mage in the mage origin who was terrified of her power?  If you tell her that she should ask to be made Tranquil, she is overjoyed at the idea of "no longer being reviled by common folk and Chantry."  Then there's Ostagaar, where Uldred tried to intervene at the final planning meeting.  He offered to use the mages' power to light the signal beacon, but a priestess jumped in and told him to save his spells for the darkspawn and that they wouldn't entrust their lives to mages.  Then there's the Revered Mother at Redcliffe, who is shocked that a mage would help them...   Etc... there are many examples of this.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 15 novembre 2013 - 09:06 .

[HiroVoid]

That's what I was wondering as well. Is it proven that the Chantry tells people magic is evil. The main thing I remember in regards to that is Gregaior saying magic is both a gift and a curse. The Chant even says its a bad thing to abuse the gifts given.

[Bardox9]

Icy Magebane wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Justinia cared. And she runs the Chantry, so I think we might find some unexpected help in that regard.

I guess... sometimes it only takes one visionary to get the ball rolling.  We'll see what happens.

I would be very surprised... but Justina is considered the finest play in the Grand Game. So... maybe?

[Lotion Soronarr]

JulianWellpit wrote...
If a mage is forcefully possessed ( like the members of The Circle of Ferelden  were by Uldred if you didn't use The Litany Of Andralla on time ) there's nothing that can be done. They must be killed.

If a mage accepts or is tricked in accepting to bind with the demon, and thus letting the demon posses him, then that mage can be saved via the ritual that Irving and the mages did on Connor.

IIRC; there is also a difference between someone being possesed across the Fade (the demon is still in the Fade), and someone being possesed directly, by a demon that physicly enters the real world.

[Hellion Rex]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...
If a mage is forcefully possessed ( like the members of The Circle of Ferelden  were by Uldred if you didn't use The Litany Of Andralla on time ) there's nothing that can be done. They must be killed.

If a mage accepts or is tricked in accepting to bind with the demon, and thus letting the demon posses him, then that mage can be saved via the ritual that Irving and the mages did on Connor.

IIRC; there is also a difference between someone being possesed across the Fade (the demon is still in the Fade), and someone being possesed directly, by a demon that physicly enters the real world.

Would Wynne and Anders be of the physical possession variety then?

[TK514]

Icy Magebane wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Bardox9 wrote...

The Chantry routinely tells people that magic is evil and a mages are cursed by the Maker. I have yet to see any cleric with a basic understanding of the Circle or magic in general.

No they don't.  Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.  Specific Mages, namely the Tevinter Magisters, are held up as an example of flawed mankind abusing the Maker's Gift with tragic consequences, and as a warning and explanation as to why Mages need to be watched.

No... magic is looked at as a curse and priests are highly suspicious of it.  Remember the female mage in the mage origin who was terrified of her power?  If you tell her that she should ask to be made Tranquil, she is overjoyed at the idea of "no longer being reviled by common folk and Chantry."  Then there's Ostagaar, where Uldred tried to intervene at the final planning meeting.  He offered to use the mages' power to light the signal beacon, but a priestess jumped in and told him to save his spells for the darkspawn and that they wouldn't entrust their lives to mages.  Then there's the Revered Mother at Redcliffe, who is shocked that a mage would help them...   Etc... there are many examples of this.

So, you're evidence is that certain individuals are distrustful of Mages?  No kidding.  That's one of the things the Chantry DOES teach, that magic can be abused and has been in the past, so Mages need to be watched.  None of which is anything like proof that the Chantry teaches that Mages, or magic, are evil.  Which it explicitly doesn't.

It does, however, teach that those who abuse Magic are evil.  Specifically, from the Chant of Light:

Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children.

They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.

They shall find no rest in this world

Or beyond.

So, yeah.  The Chantry does not teach that magic is evil.

Feel free to look up the relevant Codex entries yourself.  This one comes from "The Commandments of the Maker"

Modifié par TK514, 15 novembre 2013 - 09:28 .

[Icy Magebane]

@TK514 - If you want to take the Chant that literally and ignore the sentiment felt by those who teach it and those who follow it, be my guest.

[TK514]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@TK514 - If you want to take the Chant that literally and ignore the sentiment felt by those who teach it and those who follow it, be my guest.

How else should it be taken, when we have Chantry members quoting the passage, and calling Magic 'a gift of the Maker'?  Not a lot of ambiguity there.  I challenge you to find me a Chantry official in game who calls Chantry approved Magic evil.  Not even Meredith does so.

Modifié par TK514, 15 novembre 2013 - 09:32 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Icy Magebane wrote...
No... magic is looked at as a curse and priests are highly suspicious of it.  Remember the female mage in the mage origin who was terrified of her power?  If you tell her that she should ask to be made Tranquil, she is overjoyed at the idea of "no longer being reviled by common folk and Chantry."  Then there's Ostagaar, where Uldred tried to intervene at the final planning meeting.  He offered to use the mages' power to light the signal beacon, but a priestess jumped in and told him to save his spells for the darkspawn and that they wouldn't entrust their lives to them.

Etc... there are many examples of this.

Wrong. Don't confuse specific people (even if they are priests) with the official Chantry stance.
Gaider himself clarified the Cahntrys stance when he talked about templar powers.

[Icy Magebane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wrong. Don't confuse specific people (even if they are priests) with the official Chantry stance.
Gaider himself clarified the Cahntrys stance when he talked about templar powers.

If I need to read a random post on a website to understand a video game, don't you think that's a bit of a problem?  How am I supposed to know what Gaider said at any given time?  If he made things clear in the game itself, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

[Hellion Rex]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wrong. Don't confuse specific people (even if they are priests) with the official Chantry stance.
Gaider himself clarified the Cahntrys stance when he talked about templar powers.

If I need to read a random post on a website to understand a video game, don't you think that's a bit of a problem?  How am I supposed to know what Gaider said at any given time?  If he made things clear in the game itself, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Well unfortunately it was not made clear enough, hence his post on the BSN.

[TEWR]

If he made things clear in the game itself, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Doubtful. People would probably still misinterpret things.

Frankly, the Chantry's official stance fluctuates with who's in charge. As of now, it's benevolent.

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If he made things clear in the game itself, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Doubtful. People would probably still misinterpret things.

Frankly, the Chantry's official stance fluctuates with who's in charge. As of now, it's benevolent.

Under Justinia, I am finding that I have no issues with the Chantry. It just the interpretations of some individuals within the system that are too prejudiced.

[TEWR]

Quite true. The GC of Ferelden (the woman who snapped at Uldred at the war meeting) has a rather distasteful attitude towards Mages, especially since it's a fact that Mages have helped out in Blights and Exalted Marches in the past.

[Sir JK]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Quite true. The GC of Ferelden (the woman who snapped at Uldred at the war meeting) has a rather distasteful attitude towards Mages, especially since it's a fact that Mages have helped out in Blights and Exalted Marches in the past.

Do we really know this? Is Elamena's attitudes towards mages shown anywhere other than her reaction to Uldred? We know she sent a message to another mage as well... but do we see or hear anything else of her in the entire game?

For all we know she might just have had a problem with Uldred.

[Lotion Soronarr]

eluvianix wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IIRC; there is also a difference between someone being possesed across the Fade (the demon is still in the Fade), and someone being possesed directly, by a demon that physicly enters the real world.

Would Wynne and Anders be of the physical possession variety then?

Anders, yes. Justice was physicly present.

Wynne? Dunno.

[TEWR]

Sir JK wrote...

Do we really know this? Is Elamena's attitudes towards mages shown anywhere other than her reaction to Uldred? We know she sent a message to another mage as well... but do we see or hear anything else of her in the entire game?

For all we know she might just have had a problem with Uldred.

In both instances, it's clear what her idea of mages is: not very nice. She sent Alistair to the Mage as a means to annoy him, because he was a former Templar.

But aside from those other things? Nothing that I can recall. Perhaps a Chanter's Board quest description or offhand comment talks more about her. Since those are however the only things we have, and they showcase a consistent attitude towards mages, it seems safe to say she's got a problem with mages.

And if her problem was just with Uldred, she probably could've said "We'll not trust any lives to your spells, Uldred" rather then punctuating her comment with "Mage".

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 novembre 2013 - 10:11 .

[TEWR]

Wynne? Dunno.

Asunder sheds some light on the nature of her possession, but not much. The spirit and her are one being, such that spirit mediums are actually incapable of sensing it. The spirit is a part of her soul.

Make of that what you will.

[Vulpe]

eluvianix wrote...

Perhaps. I just found the wording that Lotion used to be a little misleading. Connor and Pharamond were "fully possessed", at least IMO. It is just that their situation is reversible....But then again, I guess you say Anders and Wynne were more...complete, I guess?

I just read my initial post and found that I was a little vague in my explanations. I was tired and I'm sorry for my poor chose of words.

So let's finish this.

If a spirit leaves the Fade and enters in the mage, then that's a permanent binding. In the case of demons it's forced because eighter they are introduced in the mage's body through magic ( like Uldred did ) or the mage leaves his guard down and the demon enters in his body. In case of spirits the binding is not forced, at least not litteraly. The only one that is "forced" is the benevolent spirit because it has to leave the Fade and cease to exist in it, the body of his host being its new home.

In the case of Connor and Pharamond the connection was indirect. The demon was only linked with them, most of it was still in The Fade.That's why they must go in The Fade to defeat it - to sever that link.

I hope I was more explicit this time. 

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Wynne? Dunno.

Asunder sheds some light on the nature of her possession, but not much. The spirit and her are one being, such that spirit mediums are actually incapable of sensing it. The spirit is a part of her soul.

Make of that what you will.

I would agree with that assumption. Anders was similar. You would not know of the spirit's presence unless it manifested directly through Anders.

[Hellion Rex]

JulianWellpit wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Perhaps. I just found the wording that Lotion used to be a little misleading. Connor and Pharamond were "fully possessed", at least IMO. It is just that their situation is reversible....But then again, I guess you say Anders and Wynne were more...complete, I guess?

I just read my initial post and found that I was a little vague in my explanations. I was tired and I'm sorry for my poor chose of words.

So let's finish this.

If a spirit leaves the Fade and enters in the mage, then that's a permanent binding. In the case of demons it's forced because eighter they are introduced in the mage's body through magic ( like Uldred did ) or the mage leaves his guard down and the demon enters in his body. In case of spirits the binding is not forced, at least not litteraly. The only one that is "forced" is the benevolent spirit because it has to leave the Fade and cease to exist in it, the body of his host being its new home.

In the case of Connor and Pharamond the connection was indirect. The demon was only linked with them, most of it was still in The Fade.That's why they must go in The Fade to defeat it - to sever that link.

I hope I was more explicit this time. 

Oh, ok. That clears it up. Thanks.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wrong. Don't confuse specific people (even if they are priests) with the official Chantry stance.
Gaider himself clarified the Cahntrys stance when he talked about templar powers.

If I need to read a random post on a website to understand a video game, don't you think that's a bit of a problem?  How am I supposed to know what Gaider said at any given time?  If he made things clear in the game itself, there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.

Is it so hard to understand that the oppinion of priest X does not represent the stance of the Chantry?

Trought history there have been preists who have done and said things contrary to the tents of their faith. Trouhg ignorance, misunderstanding, misinterpretation or prejudice.. It doesn't matter.

Either way, it was clear enough to me.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Indeed. So? The very fact that he was cured form his possession proves one of two things. Either A: it was with his consent, thus allowing him to be cured in the future. Or B: Being tranquil somehow changes the rules of possession.

I've got Asunder and I've been reading it, and the details are that Pharamond was Tranquil throughout the entire thing. He drew runes (in blood IIRC) that managed to keep him trapped should he become possessed. He managed to attract a demon's attention (I don't think it was actually summoned, since they save him in the Fade) and consented to the possession.

And then he was cured.

But possession itself is not the requirement. The mind just needs to be touched by a spirit.

I realize that. All I was arguing was, that since we don't see the initial possession taking place, that we couldn't know if it was consentual or not. But that if it wasn't then the fact that he was Tranquil would be the "x"-factor in this case, and that other ofrceful possession still wouldn't be cureable.

[Vulpe]

Bardox9 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

They can't just kill all mages, that would be literally impossible; instead, they pull this off to keep them leashed.

Why they can't i often hear that argument from pro-mages when it is possible

But well at least few points are rights so im surprised

Killing all mages is not possible. Any human/elf child has the potential to be a mage. A mages parents may have no history of magic in their family and still have a mage child. You can't kill all mages any more than you can kill all bigots.

Let's not forget what Yavana said of the time when everyone had magic. If you think about it, the non-mages are the anomalies. So yes, it would be impossible to stop the conception of mage children even if they succed, by absurd, to instantly kill all the mages in the world and their families.