1238 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

JulianWellpit wrote...

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.

I thought that Yavana had just recalled a time "before the Veil, before the mysteries were forgotten, when dragons ruled the skies," not necessarily a world where everyone had magic.

[Vulpe]

eluvianix wrote...

JulianWellpit wrote...

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.

I thought that Yavana had just recalled a time "before the Veil, before the mysteries were forgotten, when dragons ruled the skies," not necessarily a world where everyone had magic.

In Dragon Age: The Silent Grove, Yavana says that there was a time "before the Veil, before the mysteries were forgotten," when dragons ruled the skies.

When the Veil didn't exist, The Fade and the physical world were one.So it's a safe assumption that everyone was able to manipulate the world somehow like they can in The Fade and they were connected to the energies of the world as mages are with The Fade. If there were humans, elves, dwarves etc. in those times,at least how we know them, it's hard to say.

Also, there's Sandal prophecy that magic will come back and everyone will be as they were.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 15 novembre 2013 - 12:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is still however, just an assumption.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is still however, just an assumption.

True, but it is still a valid possibility.

[Xilizhra]

No they don't. Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.

Sometimes. Other times it's referred to as a curse. What it is tends to depend on the individual speaking it, and the Chantry itself is inconsistent on the matter.

[TK514]

Xilizhra wrote...

No they don't. Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.

Sometimes. Other times it's referred to as a curse. What it is tends to depend on the individual speaking it, and the Chantry itself is inconsistent on the matter.

Prove it.  Find me a quote where the Chantry teaches that Magic is a curse.  Not the opinion of an individual like Gregoire who is speaking metaphorically, but an actual teaching of the Chantry.

[Xilizhra]

TK514 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No they don't. Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.

Sometimes. Other times it's referred to as a curse. What it is tends to depend on the individual speaking it, and the Chantry itself is inconsistent on the matter.

Prove it.  Find me a quote where the Chantry teaches that Magic is a curse.  Not the opinion of an individual like Gregoire who is speaking metaphorically, but an actual teaching of the Chantry.

Anders confirms it in Questioning Beliefs, and it was taught enough for Keili to apparently believe it. But we never speak to any Chantry member who's involved in teaching things inside the Circle, so direct quotes--for either side--are impossible to come by.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I'd support the circle if they accept being supervised by states, as opposed to the Chantry.

[Hellion Rex]

TK514 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No they don't. Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.

Sometimes. Other times it's referred to as a curse. What it is tends to depend on the individual speaking it, and the Chantry itself is inconsistent on the matter.

Prove it.  Find me a quote where the Chantry teaches that Magic is a curse.  Not the opinion of an individual like Gregoire who is speaking metaphorically, but an actual teaching of the Chantry.

I am hunting the through the Chant, and I see no verses as of yet that directly condemn magic.

[Vulpe]

eluvianix wrote...

TK514 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

No they don't. Magic is specifically referred to by the Chantry as a Gift of the Maker.

Sometimes. Other times it's referred to as a curse. What it is tends to depend on the individual speaking it, and the Chantry itself is inconsistent on the matter.

Prove it.  Find me a quote where the Chantry teaches that Magic is a curse.  Not the opinion of an individual like Gregoire who is speaking metaphorically, but an actual teaching of the Chantry.

I am hunting the through the Chant, and I see no verses as of yet that directly condemn magic.

There are currently none. The Chant condems only the Maleficar. We know only parts of The Chant, most of it is unexistent. They might add some if they wish to later, but I don't see any reason to do it.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:26 .

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd support the circle if they accept being supervised by states, as opposed to the Chantry.

Would this help? Orlais is pretty much the same thing except more militaristic, Antiva would be an utter nightmare (you'd probably have the Crows de facto running the Circle), none of the other nations seem terribly nice themselves, and the system would lend itself to having far more mages enter ordinary and unimportant wars.

[Medhia Nox]

The demonization of the Chant of Light is purely BSN created.

Yes, the Chantry has become hostile to magic and mages - yes, the Red Templars have gone off the deep end (and the Templars before their creation were already prone to abuses).

====

This is a beautiful example of what happens to real world religions all the time.

And the Chant of Light is insanely short - and people STILL make up crap to support their pro or anti claims.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:28 .

[TEWR]

The Chant condems only the Maleficar..

Which in the context of its official Tevinter translation (one who is depraved) the Chantry interpretation of what a maleficar is happens to be only partially correct. A blood mage that's malevolent in their use is certainly a maleficar, but not all blood mages would qualify as maleficar.

Just as Ser Alrik would be a maleficar because of his depraved personality.

[Hellion Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd support the circle if they accept being supervised by states, as opposed to the Chantry.

Would this help? Orlais is pretty much the same thing except more militaristic, Antiva would be an utter nightmare (you'd probably have the Crows de facto running the Circle), none of the other nations seem terribly nice themselves, and the system would lend itself to having far more mages enter ordinary and unimportant wars.

Feredan could pull it off with Alistair as king, or your Grey Warden on the throne.

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Chant condems only the Maleficar..

Which in the context of its official Tevinter translation (one who is depraved) the Chantry interpretation of what a maleficar is happens to be only partially correct. A blood mage that's malevolent in their use is certainly a maleficar, but not all blood mages would qualify as maleficar.

Just as Ser Alrik would be a maleficar because of his depraved personality.

In what sense? Alrik had no magic, but are you saying that he is maleficar because he has misused his talents and authority as a templar?

[Xilizhra]

eluvianix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd support the circle if they accept being supervised by states, as opposed to the Chantry.

Would this help? Orlais is pretty much the same thing except more militaristic, Antiva would be an utter nightmare (you'd probably have the Crows de facto running the Circle), none of the other nations seem terribly nice themselves, and the system would lend itself to having far more mages enter ordinary and unimportant wars.

Feredan could pull it off with Alistair as king, or your Grey Warden on the throne.

Alistair won't be king forever, though.

[Hellion Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd support the circle if they accept being supervised by states, as opposed to the Chantry.

Would this help? Orlais is pretty much the same thing except more militaristic, Antiva would be an utter nightmare (you'd probably have the Crows de facto running the Circle), none of the other nations seem terribly nice themselves, and the system would lend itself to having far more mages enter ordinary and unimportant wars.

Feredan could pull it off with Alistair as king, or your Grey Warden on the throne.

Alistair won't be king forever, though.

True, but we have to start somewhere.

[Vulpe]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Chant condems only the Maleficar..

Which in the context of its official Tevinter translation (one who is depraved) the Chantry interpretation of what a maleficar is happens to be only partially correct. A blood mage that's malevolent in their use is certainly a maleficar, but not all blood mages would qualify as maleficar.

Just as Ser Alrik would be a maleficar because of his depraved personality.

A maleficar is a mage ( normal or blood mage ) that uses his power to do harm. Here's the passage:

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.

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:32 .

[Xilizhra]

True, but we have to start somewhere.

I think a central, international organization is too useful. If the Circle can't exist wholly independently, I'll go for my own Chantry integration plan.

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The demonization of the Chant of Light is purely BSN created.

Yes, the Chantry has become hostile to magic and mages - yes, the Red Templars have gone off the deep end (and the Templars before their creation were already prone to abuses).

====

This is a beautiful example of what happens to real world religions all the time.

And the Chant of Light is insanely short - and people STILL make up crap to support their pro or anti claims.

And I do not understand why they have to make up crap. The Chant is pretty straight forward, and I find it utterly fascinating. Some of these passages sounds like they come straight from the Bible, if you switch some words around.

[Hellion Rex]

JulianWellpit wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Chant condems only the Maleficar..

Which in the context of its official Tevinter translation (one who is depraved) the Chantry interpretation of what a maleficar is happens to be only partially correct. A blood mage that's malevolent in their use is certainly a maleficar, but not all blood mages would qualify as maleficar.

Just as Ser Alrik would be a maleficar because of his depraved personality.

A maleficar is a mage ( normal or blood mage ) that uses his power to do harm. Here's the passage:

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.

Ah, but you could make the argument that  "His gift" can be interpreted as one's authority or abilities in general. Not necessarily magic.

[TEWR]

In what sense? Alrik had no magic, but are you saying that he is maleficar because he has misused his talents and authority as a templar?

Correct. Because he flagrantly abused his authority as a Templar and acted in a depraved manner, he is a maleficar.

To me anyway, because maleficar translates in Tevene -- the Tevinter language -- to "one who is depraved". We, of course, must ignore its real world usage and different translation in regards to this.

I accept that blood mages can be maleficarum. I do not accept that maleficarum are always blood mages, or that all blood mages are by default maleficarum. And because the definition of maleficarum was interpreted by a Divine of the Chantry (and thus prone to human error) I see no reason not to think this.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:37 .

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

In what sense? Alrik had no magic, but are you saying that he is maleficar because he has misused his talents and authority as a templar?

Correct. Because he flagrantly abused his authority as a Templar and acted in a depraved manner, he is a maleficar.

To me anyway, because maleficar translates to "one who is depraved".

I accept that blood mages can be maleficarum. I do not accept that maleficarum are always blood mages, or that all blood mages are by default maleficarum. And because the definition of maleficarum was interpreted by a Divine of the Chantry (and thus prone to human error) I see no reason not to think this.

That is a very interesting take on the subject. I find myself somewhat agreeing on the Alrik point.

[TEWR]

A maleficar is a mage ( normal or blood mage ) that uses his power to do harm. Here's the passage:

I go by the actual translation of the word maleficar, as opposed to the Chant of Light's usage.

Gets more bang for your buck, if you catch my drift. Greater net to catch the douchebags of the world. If you're a depraved individual, you're a maleficar.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:38 .

[Vulpe]

eluvianix wrote...

Ah, but you could make the argument that  "His gift" can be interpreted as one's authority or abilities in general. Not necessarily magic.

 Here's the entire passage :

These truths the Maker has revealed to me:
As there is but one world
One life, one death, there is
But one god, and He is our Maker.
They are sinners, who have given their love
To false gods.

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.

All men are the Work of our Maker's Hands,
From the lowest slaves
To the highest kings.
Those who bring harm
Without provocation to the least of His children
Are hated and accursed by the Maker.

Those who bear false witness
And work to deceive others, know this:
There is but one Truth.
All things are known to our Maker
And He shall judge their lies.

All things in this world are finite.
What one man gains, another has lost.
Those who steal from their brothers and sisters
Do harm to their livelihood and to their peace of mind.
Our Maker sees this with a heavy heart.

--Transfigurations1:1-5

If you chose to see "His gift" as the gift of life, then yes, it's possible. They do seem to use the term "accursed" in a more general way.

Still, it seems that the second strophe refers only to magic. 

Modifié par JulianWellpit, 15 novembre 2013 - 02:45 .