8640 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Well, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of mages, and we only encounter at best a few dozen abominations, then mathematically speaking yes, abominations are extremely rare.

Well we saw only about 200 mages and many of them were abomnations so were not so rare even if it is 50/200 it is a lot...

People have had this conversation with you before. Just because you don't see people doesn't mean thy do not exist. For example Denerim does not only have a population of a couple hundred, half being soldiers. Same as a Circle does not house only a few dozen mages. There's hundreds in each, yet since most are simply living their lives, there is no reason to show them. Now abominations on the other hand are always attached to quests, thus you running into them so often. Again, Gameplay and Story Segregation.

Well but about what we argue did we saw something about well at most 200? Did we saw about few dozens abominations? i guess we are not argue about peoples shown in denerim just how many shown mages turned out to be abomnations because if you want we can speculate how many off-screen we have abominations...

quests are part of story not gameplay well they are as well but quests present story so trying lie out with gameplay and story segregation in that case is rather cheap...

[KaiserShep]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
If you want to be safe you have to sacrifice freedom of others it is how society is bulit...

In other words, sacrificing freedom is fine, so long as it's not yours.

Well depends what drives you in your life for me it is fine but i guess we are now in morality zone so here depends on your morality...

Think about that statement for a second. You are basically making my point for me.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Well, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of mages, and we only encounter at best a few dozen abominations, then mathematically speaking yes, abominations are extremely rare.

Well we saw only about 200 mages and many of them were abomnations so were not so rare even if it is 50/200 it is a lot...

People have had this conversation with you before. Just because you don't see people doesn't mean thy do not exist. For example Denerim does not only have a population of a couple hundred, half being soldiers. Same as a Circle does not house only a few dozen mages. There's hundreds in each, yet since most are simply living their lives, there is no reason to show them. Now abominations on the other hand are always attached to quests, thus you running into them so often. Again, Gameplay and Story Segregation.

Well but about what we argue did we saw something about well at most 200? Did we saw about few dozens abominations? i guess we are not argue about peoples shown in denerim just how many shown mages turned out to be abomnations because if you want we can speculate how many off-screen we have abominations...

quests are part of story not gameplay well they are as well but quests present story so trying lie out with gameplay and story segregation in that case is rather cheap...

As I said, abominations always have plots around them since they are villains. If there are benign abominations, then there's no real need to show them. Same as mages who are not involved in plot. Just need to show a few to show what all good mages are up to.

Thus, Gameplay and Story Segregation.

[TheKomandorShepard]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...


As I said, abominations always have plots around them since they are villains. If there are benign abominations, then there's no real need to show them. Same as mages who are not involved in plot. Just need to show a few to show what all good mages are up to.

Thus, Gameplay and Story Segregation.

You don't need to be villain to be shown in game so as i said you can only speculate how many "good" we have as far we have much much more destructive one.And well as well we don't had to see all abomnations so we can speculate as far we have something about 50/200 being inaccurate. 

KaiserShep wrote...

Think about that statement for a second. You are basically making my point for me.

If you say so but morality wont save you from abomnations so well point for me because you are dead killed by insane mages

Modifié par TheKomandorShepard, 16 février 2014 - 12:28 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm... What? If there was a benign Abomination ever, then there would be EVERY reason to show it, bcause it would be integral to our understanding of the game lore. It would show that Abominations can be more than power hungry maniacs on killing sprees.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... What? If there was a benign Abomination ever, then there would be EVERY reason to show it, bcause it would be integral to our understanding of the game lore. It would show that Abominations can be more than power hungry maniacs on killing sprees.

We already have seen one. Wynne. And that was my point. Every other abomination but her was destructive, thus them always being in the game in plots.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 16 février 2014 - 12:32 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Starsyn wrote...
While I think Anders and his actions certainly sped things up, sooner or later any of the Circles across Thedas were going to break down. Again, the whole system was a ticking bomb just waiting to go off.

Every human-run system is.

I don't think one can use the "mage-templar-war" as proof that the Circle system is bad. All thing eventually crumble.
And the circles lasted for almost 1000 years.
That's 4 time slonger than the US.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... What? If there was a benign Abomination ever, then there would be EVERY reason to show it, bcause it would be integral to our understanding of the game lore. It would show that Abominations can be more than power hungry maniacs on killing sprees.

We already have seen one. Wynne. And that was my point. Every other abomination but her was destructive, thus them always being in the game in plots.

Wynne is the result of Spirit possession, and as such is a whole different kind of Abomination. If there are examples of benign Demon possessions then they need to show them to us, since it will expand upon the lore and our understanding of it.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... What? If there was a benign Abomination ever, then there would be EVERY reason to show it, bcause it would be integral to our understanding of the game lore. It would show that Abominations can be more than power hungry maniacs on killing sprees.

There's Wynne....I would include Flemeth but I'm not sure if she fits the benign part.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... What? If there was a benign Abomination ever, then there would be EVERY reason to show it, bcause it would be integral to our understanding of the game lore. It would show that Abominations can be more than power hungry maniacs on killing sprees.

We already have seen one. Wynne. And that was my point. Every other abomination but her was destructive, thus them always being in the game in plots.

Wynne is the result of Spirit possession, and as such is a whole different kind of Abomination. If there are examples of benign Demon possessions then they need to show them to us, since it will expand upon the lore and our understanding of it.

I don't see the difference, personally. Even Justice who is a spirit called demons spirits, just ones "perverted by their desires".

Though I'll admit, I worded my post poorly, so I apologize for the confusion.

[SgtSteel91]

Anders also started out as a Spirit possession.

[The Elder King]

@LDS Darth Revan: i think that there are differences between the two types of possessions. Even when Anders started losing control of his body and Justice, the process isn't as Fast as 'demon' possession, when regardless if you're willing or not the demon assumes complete control over the host in moments. Furthermore, a willing spirit possession seems impossible to break, while a willing demon possession can be broken in certain cases (Connor).
I agree with you on what demons are, but the possessions seem to work differently.

[SgtSteel91]

Was Connor really possessed like any other abomination though? I thought it was a special case.

[Veruin]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Was Connor really possessed like any other abomination though? I thought it was a special case.

I'd say connor's is unlike others *That we've seen* since the demon controlled him from the fade and not physically inside him.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wynne is the result of Spirit possession, and as such is a whole different kind of Abomination. If there are examples of benign Demon possessions then they need to show them to us, since it will expand upon the lore and our understanding of it.

I don't see the difference, personally. Even Justice who is a spirit called demons spirits, just ones "perverted by their desires".

Though I'll admit, I worded my post poorly, so I apologize for the confusion.

Justice also gets a little mad whenever you call him a demon. The relevance of the example of Justice is to show that Spirit possessions certainly aren't always a good thing, like it was in the case of Wynne. We do not have a counterpart on the Demon possession side of things, to show that these kinds of possessions aren't always bad.

[KaiserShep]

Justice just needed a hug from Batman.

[The Baconer]

[quote]leaguer of one wrote...

The issue is a matter of translation from mage to chantry. You have to consider if the chartey and templars would care about that.[/quote]

Well ****, I would hope that something that increases the appearance of abominations would be seen as important.

Even then even the outside of kirkwall is crazy. the surounding area of kirkwall is an elvin buarial ground for the final stand with their war with Tevintor. Even the fereldin circle is near a thin veil and in tevintor make.
[/quote]

Kinloch hold is not of Tevinter make.

[quote]Starsyn wrote...

Well, dumping them in a prison and
showing them images of fear worked for a long long time. We all as
players need to forget that this system worked overall pretty well for
nearly 1000 years. That's a long time.[/quote]

Do you call it "well" because the rite wasn't called until the events of DA2? What were the actual conditions? Street gangs led by blood mages? Abominations and demons in the sewers?

[quote]The mages didn't know for sure; they were suspicious, but the Engima and the details behind it aren't so well known. [/quote]

If the veil is thin, then they know. The actual details regarding the enigma are irrelevant.

[quote]You're assuming also that the mages in Kirkwall have ever had any say about where they were locked up.[/quote]

When did I say they should be the ones deciding where to build the Circles? I would think the people who claim to be protecting both them and the common folk should be responsible enough to make a logical decision.

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Completely unsubstantiated claim.
The Gallows stood for over 900 years without ever falling. Do you
expect the Chantry to predict what will happen 900 years in the future
in all their decissions?[/quote]

And Tevinter held strong for 1000. Do you think that catastrophe was spontaneous in each case? They had the data, they knew the situation at the Kirkwall Circle was particularly deficient. 

[quote]What you are saying is that we moved all the components in the
Kirkwall incident away from he Gallows, then the incident would enver
have happened. Where is the proof to back up this claim?[/quote]

Where do you have the propensity of failed harrowings, blood mages, and abominations? Where do you have the flow of escaped mages living in the sewers or among the populace? Where do you have Orsino running to the Grand Cleric in order to impede proper investigation? Most of the conditions that helped to escalate tensions and bring harm to those living in the city no longer exist.

[MisterJB]

KaiserShep wrote...
In other words, sacrificing freedom is fine, so long as it's not yours.

We have sacrificed our freedoms in order to coexist. That is the purpose of law; restrict our freedoms based on what we might do because human beings are dangerous.
It is only logical that those who pose an even greater danger ; the mages; should sacrifice more of their freedoms than those who are less threatening.

[Dean_the_Young]

KaiserShep wrote...
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

...said the man who defended slavery on grounds of economic stability, and helped establish a centralized government with the same sort of compromise at its heart.

I get that many Americans have a fetish for the cult of the Founding Fathers, but they were hardly the dispensers of context-less gospel that applies whenever a quote feels cool. Had Benjamin Franklin lived in a setting in which the phrase 'all men are created equal' was comedy rather than visionary, his views likely would have changed somewhat as well.

I also can't say that quote has ever sat particularly well with me- it's very much the words of a person who went from having little to lose to exceptional security, and I've rarely seen it used by anyone who actually risked suffering from a lack of security they are condemning. It's little more than a moral condemnation of people who would make a different balance than others, and frequently reeks of contempt and ignorance to the concerns of the people who collectively make such compromises.

[leaguer of one]

MisterJB wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
In other words, sacrificing freedom is fine, so long as it's not yours.

We have sacrificed our freedoms in order to coexist. That is the purpose of law; restrict our freedoms based on what we might do because human beings are dangerous.
It is only logical that those who pose an even greater danger ; the mages; should sacrifice more of their freedoms than those who are less threatening.

I partly agree with JB. We do have to put some limits on freedom to maintain order. But that does not mean we have to take away most freedoms from that group. The ideal from of order is that it changes when need be. That one ideal of order is not force on every problem that comes up. That order must be maintain not imposed.

That said giving the mages more freedoms is not a bad thing. Letting have families, a town ship, and free access in the tower should be  minimale requirements for the circle. Order should not come as a boot to the head.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 02:27 .

[leaguer of one]

The Baconer wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

The issue is a matter of translation from mage to chantry. You have to consider if the chartey and templars would care about that.

Well ****, I would hope that something that increases the appearance of abominations would be seen as important.

Even then even the outside of kirkwall is crazy. the surounding area of kirkwall is an elvin buarial ground for the final stand with their war with Tevintor. Even the fereldin circle is near a thin veil and in tevintor make.

Kinloch hold is not of Tevinter make.

1.They would need proof that is the case. Everything that came up with Kirkwall were based around  thearies that took years to come together.

Do you think at the time they decided to use the gallows they knew about what Tevntor was doing in Kirkwall?

2. I was not taking about that.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 02:35 .

[MisterJB]

[quote]Inprea wrote...
The entire circle isn't devoted to a single mage. If you want to talk about how a mage lives let's look at the space an individual mage has. If you're an apprentice you have part of a bunk bed and a chest. Everything else you share amongst several others. Then after your death match you have a single room that doesn't even have a door to itself in most cases.[/quote]
Much like families share homes in poorer conditions. None of that changes the fact that the White Spire is located in Drakon's former palace. The orlesian mages are, literally, living in a palace.
I'd rather share a palace than live by myself in a pigsty.

[quote]What good is an education if you're not allowed to put it to use to benefit yourself? All it means if you've put a lot of work into learning something you can't use.[/quote]
Mages conduct business with the outside world and there possibilities for ascension withint he hierarchy of the Circle. Just because mages are not free to selects careers outside of the realm of magic doesn't mean they can't put their studies to use. After all, in medieval times, your profession was, more oftne than not, dictated by your family. If your father was a smith, chances are you'd be one as well. It's not so different.
Plus, knowledge for knowledge's sake.

[quote]
When was the last time a mage was allowed to own a sheep to be slaughtered? Unless memory fails me mages aren't even allowed to own land.[/quote]
Mages are allowed to purchase private proprierty. How far this extends, I don't know.

[quote]How often is your average person locked away and denied to go see their family just because of what they were born as? A mage finds themselves in danger of losing their life whenever they try to better their situation. [/quote]
So do peasants. Thedas is an extremely dangerous place and commoners face starvation, disease, abuse of power, bandits, darkspawn and they have less powers with which to combat these threats when compared to mages.

And no is denied to see their families. Leandra and Gamlen visited Bethany quite frequently. The reasons most mages don't see their families are twofold:
1-Most families disown their progeny when they reveal themselves to be mages.

2-There are no cars people can used to travel around and while this isn't a problem if the Circle is located in a city; which brings its own set of problems as DA2 proved; in countries like Ferelden,  a peasant family trying to make a trip from Denerim to the Circle for a visit would be nearly unthinkable.

[quote]
Because the guardsmen have the same population density as the templars do amongst the mages and stand around inside the home of the citizens.[/quote]
It's a matter of numbers? And here I tought your point was that Templars are somehow more prone to abuses than guardsmen.

[quote]
So all those templars that fought alongside Alrick didn't exist?[/quote]
Alrik had supporters, true, but he even threatened a few so they would keep quiet which shows that the higher echelons of the Order don't just ignore abuses of this magnitude.

[quote]Do you also ignore the existance of every blood mage and abomination that wasn't given a name? [/quote]
Well, I don't think we can take their numbers at face-value, no, or the ratio of criminals to upstanding citizens in Kirkwall would 50:1.

[quote]
They had no trouble stabbing them, even when they're a child, such as in Aneirin's case.
[/quote]
Anders was brought back seven times. I'm willing to give the Templars the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that Aneirin might have done something to merit more violent treatment such as attacking the Templars sent to retrieve him.

[quote]They have no trouble forcing the mages into a death match with a demon or destroying their self with tranquility. A mage goes 20 or so years without turning into an abomination then they're forced into a death match. [/quote]
That is a completely different issue. The Harrowing is the ultimate test to determine just how safe a mage can truly be considered. Just because the Templars are unwilling to accept mages who have not proven themselves against demons amongst their midst doesn't mean they are drowning babies for kicks.

[quote]
What makes you think that it's free?[/quote]
I'm talking about coin here.

[quote]Seems to me the mage is paying with their ability to raise children, chance to better their situation, severe carreer restrictions, possibly their life and in some cases any land they might have recieved from their parents.[/quote]
They make some sacrifices and in return are granted benefits commoners could only dream of.

[quote]Is there even any proof that the chantry is the one paying for that food, clothing and shelter? The mages do produce goods to sell. If the mages are the ones paying for all that then those things aren't free they're just paid back later.[/quote]
Mages are a resource. Even if they suddenly became unable to provide for themselves, the Chantry would never let them starve.

[quote]Given how desperate some mages are to avoid going to the circle should show how much some people value freedom and how horrible of a price they consider it.[/quote]
True but that doesn't change the fact their standard of living; which is something that can be measured in objective terms; is superior to that of the average Thedosion.
They doth protest too much.
 
[quote]

That depends on if the mages were allowed to organize rather then being forced to hide. [/quote]
They are organized. That is what the Circle is; an organization composed of mages that represent their interests. They are just kept in check by other organizations such as the Templars and the Chantry which is preferable to letting them pursue their interests with complete impunity.

[quote]Malchom Hawke had no trouble teaching his child/children. [/quote]
We don't know that.


[quote]
Would that have happened if they didn't have to hide her but a mage would have been allowed to come and mentor her? [/quote]
So, we are just going to provide every single mage child with a private tutor? Who is going to pay for that tutor? How is he going to reach his destination? Will he stay with the family of the child in question? Can magic even be mentored in a common house? What if there is an accident? What if the child is possessed.

[quote]Besides I don't believe you think there is no other options. You've brought up ideas that you believed superior to the current circle system yourself.[/quote]
I don't believe it's posible for normal parents to keep their mage children and vice-versa.

[quote]It's just no one has bothered looking for one or the chantry has prevented them from being attempted.
[/quote]
There have been plenty of attempts to search for middle ground. They just keep on failling.

[Dean_the_Young]

MisterJB wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
In other words, sacrificing freedom is fine, so long as it's not yours.

We have sacrificed our freedoms in order to coexist. That is the purpose of law; restrict our freedoms based on what we might do because human beings are dangerous.
It is only logical that those who pose an even greater danger ; the mages; should sacrifice more of their freedoms than those who are less threatening.

If we really want to point out about people sacrificing freedoms and opportunities, then it should be pointed out that the mages aren't the only ones losing rights and opportunities in the Circle system. Like any military, the Templars themselves are bearing costs, restrictions, and risks that mages might find familiar: committed for life to a group and community, restrictions and difficulty in emotional relationships including family, tools of the establishment both used and kept tied to the institution by lyrium addiction, a life with regular risks and dangers that can grind an individual under an overpowering, uncaring boot. They are, for all intents and purposes, wedded into a military heirarchy, and anyone in the military of a liberal democracy knows how many rights you give up. In a setting without many rights in the first place, even less is claimed.

It would be fair to argue the mages give up more and receive fewer breaks: a mage can't go off duty and rent a room at the inn for a semblence of privacy. It would be completely correct to point out that mages don't have a choice in the matter either, that Templars are volunteers. That is a significant difference in the moral weight. No one is claiming the Templars have it as bad as the mages... but the Mages aren't the only ones losing opportunities.

[Travie]

Sometimes there aren't two sides to the story, there is just the truth and lies.

[leaguer of one]

Travie wrote...

Sometimes there aren't two sides to the story, there is just the truth and lies.

But in this case it's both.