4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Just because they passed it doesn't mean they still can't fall prey to demons, look at Uldred in DAO

What is the acceptable failure rate for a test to see if you can resist demonic influence?

[In Exile]

Acceptable as a sort of advanced Harrowing to qualify for certain things... assuming, of course, that like in basic training, the penalty for failure isn't death.

 

What else are the mages supposed to do with an abomination? Assuming the possession is voluntary I suppose they could try to pull a Connor-esque saving throw, but at some point that has to be too costly in lyrium to constantly go out and do (and obviously a non-starter in terms of blood, since it full stop requires someone to die). 

[Dean_the_Young]

Does it work though?

I know there's gameplay/story segregation, but it feels like DA II showed us dozens of mages who became abominations the moment they were put in danger. Not to mention Orsino turning himself into some sort of demon, blood magicy monster.

 

Just because they passed it doesn't mean they still can't fall prey to demons, look at Uldred in DAO

 

That's rather her point. Looking at Uldred and others, who exist with it, is the Harrowing actually an effective test? Does it weed out those who would succumb to demons, or just those who would succumb at the time and context of the test?

 

It's the difference between the Harrowing reducing abominations who would occur otherwise, and the Harrowing being little more than an occasionally lethal confidence test for the benefit of the Templars. It's an impossible question, of course, since we have no way to tell how many of the people killed by the Harrowing would have become abominations without it. But if the Harrowing doesn't prevent or limit damage, it would be senseless ritualistic murder.

 

(For the record, I don't think it's senseless: the demonic temptations in it are real and valid. I just don't consider it that great of a test either.)

[Xilizhra]

What else are the mages supposed to do with an abomination? Assuming the possession is voluntary I suppose they could try to pull a Connor-esque saving throw, but at some point that has to be too costly in lyrium to constantly go out and do (and obviously a non-starter in terms of blood, since it full stop requires someone to die). 

No, kill the demon before the possession happens.

[In Exile]

Does it work though?

I know there's gameplay/story segregation, but it feels like DA II showed us dozens of mages who became abominations the moment they were put in danger. Not to mention Orsino turning himself into some sort of demon, blood magicy monster.

 

Apparently demons can also just auto take over mages if they're in a state of enough fear/panic and the Veil is weak enough. Consent is optional for demon possession, apparently. 

[In Exile]

That's rather her point. Looking at Uldred and others, who exist with it, is the Harrowing actually an effective test? Does it weed out those who would succumb to demons, or just those who would succumb at the time and context of the test?

 

It's the difference between the Harrowing reducing abominations who would occur otherwise, and the Harrowing being little more than an occasionally lethal confidence test for the benefit of the Templars. It's an impossible question, of course, since we have no way to tell how many of the people killed by the Harrowing would have become abominations without it. But if the Harrowing doesn't prevent or limit damage, it would be senseless ritualistic murder.

 

(For the record, I don't think it's senseless: the demonic temptations in it are real and valid. I just don't consider it that great of a test either.)

A different example here would be Bethany, who as a GW never has to do the Harrowing but also avoids getting a +1 in her head at any point during the 30 or so years she was a mage. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Firstly, recall that for the original subject of this conversation is the enhanced Harrowing to ensure that one doesn't have to have guards on them at all times, not the one designed to ensure that you can live in that environment; as such, failure need not have any serious consequences beyond not getting the freedom of movement that you initially desired.

Hence why I framed consequence in terms of how long it would take until you could try again.

 

 

 

However, what you've said also applies to the original Harrowing. And for that, I think not passing it would probably lead to having continuous, apprentice-level curtailed access to anything that might increase one's powers until you do pass it, unless you volunteer for Tranquility. As for how often it'd be taken... I don't believe I have enough information to create a detailed schedule; if someone has a pattern of failing it, though, then I believe it's most important to find out why and try to correct whatever the root of the problem is.

If a person continually fails an objective standard that most can past, the root of the problem tends to be with the person.

[Dean_the_Young]

Apparently demons can also just auto take over mages if they're in a state of enough fear/panic and the Veil is weak enough. Consent is optional for demon possession, apparently. 

 

Why wouldn't fear/panic or even torture be considered consent for the purpose of demonic possession?

[Dean_the_Young]

A different example here would be Bethany, who as a GW never has to do the Harrowing but also avoids getting a +1 in her head at any point during the 30 or so years she was a mage. 

+1 in her head?

 

What, an ego? I don't understand.

[Xilizhra]

If a person continually fails an objective standard that most can past, the root of the problem tends to be with the person.

Often, but simply killing people because they're weak-willed is deeply unethical, so either they need to somehow be coached into greater personal strength, or they could potentially just stay apprentices indefinitely.

[In Exile]

Why wouldn't fear/panic or even torture be considered consent for the purpose of demonic possession?

 

I'm not entirely sure I follow your question, but I think the answer is because the person doesn't have to, apparently, direct their mind to actually letting the demon in - they just have to be in a vulnerable enough state and the demon just takes over. 

 

+1 in her head?

 

What, an ego? I don't understand.

 

The +1 is a reference to a demon. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Often, but simply killing people because they're weak-willed is deeply unethical, so either they need to somehow be coached into greater personal strength, or they could potentially just stay apprentices indefinitely.

 Killing weak-willed people is deeply unethical for us because weak-willed people are very marginal dangers to themselves or the public. That's very much not the case when their willpower is the primary restraining device of a small WMD.

[Maria Caliban]

This is how I imagine it:

Mages can be divided into three categories. Those who are highly resistant to demonic influence, those who are somewhat resistant to demonic influence, and those who are minimally resistant to demonic influence.

The Harrowing pulls out those who are minimally resistant. Even within the (relatively) safe and comfortable confines of the Circle, those with minimal resistance are a danger.

Mages who are highly resistant to demonic influence should be allowed outside the Circle, but there's no way to separate them from those who are somewhat resistant.

Killing weak-willed people is deeply unethical for us because weak-willed people are very marginal dangers to themselves or the public. That's very much not the case when their willpower is the primary restraining device of a small WMD.

Yes. In the real world, people who have mental illnesses are more likely to be the victims of violence or abuse. People who have low self-discipline or low self-esteem don't do as well as those with it.

In fantasy and science fiction, people with low mental fortitude will succumb to evil influences and go on murderous rampages.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm not entirely sure I follow your question, but I think the answer is because the person doesn't have to, apparently, direct their mind to actually letting the demon in - they just have to be in a vulnerable enough state and the demon just takes over. 

 

Fearful or panicking people are the easiest to get deals with, as the fear blinds them to long-term consequences and makes immediate action a priority. That's the ideal time for a whisper of demonic possession to strike a bargain and allow the demon in.

 

I can't recall any times when a fearful person was taken against their will.

 

 

The +1 is a reference to a demon.

 

Ah. Makes a tad more sense now.

[Xilizhra]

 Killing weak-willed people is deeply unethical for us because weak-willed people are very marginal dangers to themselves or the public. That's very much not the case when their willpower is the primary restraining device of a small WMD.

I'm reasonably certain that, while people IRL with extremely dangerous diseases would be quarantined, they wouldn't be killed out of hand even if said disease had WMD potential.

[Dean_the_Young]

This is how I imagine it:

Mages can be divided into three categories. Those who are highly resistant to demonic influence, those who are somewhat resistant to demonic influence, and those who are minimally resistant to demonic influence.

The Harrowing pulls out those who are minimally resistant. Even within the (relatively) safe and comfortable confines of the Circle, those with minimal resistance are a danger.

Mages who are highly resistant to demonic influence should be allowed outside the Circle, but there's no way to separate them from those who are somewhat resistant.

 

That's a good description of the dilemma. 

 

In theory the mages who are highly resistant could be identified by putting them through a highly intensive demonic trial. The problem here is, of course, there's no mutually agreed upon means or method for anything that would qualify as such. I doubt any mage wants to be tortured for the indeterminate amount of time that Irving went through, even if that advanced test was voluntary.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm reasonably certain that, while people IRL with extremely dangerous diseases would be quarantined, they wouldn't be killed out of hand even if said disease had WMD potential.

In the modern world?

If Thedas took place in a contemporary setting, a lot of the issues could be solved by giving police officers and citizens appropriate weaponry.

If you mean the pre-modern world, you don't have to worry about the rights of people with highly contagious, lethal diseases. They die due to lack of proper medical care.

[Xilizhra]

In the modern world?

If Thedas took place in a contemporary setting, a lot of the issues could be solved by giving police officers and citizens appropriate weaponry.

Undoubtedly. And while Thedas' ethics will certainly be different, trying to argue about what the Circle would do in a given situation instead of what we think it should do... well, that enters a wholly different realm that has nothing to do with what we believe to be best for the Circle.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm reasonably certain that, while people IRL with extremely dangerous diseases would be quarantined, they wouldn't be killed out of hand even if said disease had WMD potential.

 

Depending on the WMD, certainly. One that exceptionally to break the quarantine, or just kill others, is a serious threat to the stability of the quarantine.

 

A quarantine might hold in a biological agent, but not necessarily a chemical.

[mikeymoonshine]

Does it work though?

I know there's gameplay/story segregation, but it feels like DA II showed us dozens of mages who became abominations the moment they were put in danger. Not to mention Orsino turning himself into some sort of demon, blood magicy monster.

 

I think it's just meant to test if they are capable of resisting demons. It doesn't mean they are no longer in danger of being possessed, there would be much less of a reason for circles if that was the case. 

 

DA2 was very extreme and Orsino's thing was a last resort. Plus most of the mages in DA2 and the ones who rebelled in Ferelden were blood mages

[Xilizhra]

Depending on the WMD, certainly. One that exceptionally to break the quarantine, or just kill others, is a serious threat to the stability of the quarantine.

 

A quarantine might hold in a biological agent, but not necessarily a chemical.

Forgive me, but I've been unable to parse the grammar of the second sentence.

[Maria Caliban]

A chemical agent. If I introduced enough radioactive material into an environment, I could destroy the local ecosystem and make it too dangerous for humans to live in, and there's no way to quarantine that once it's been introduced.

[Xilizhra]

A chemical agent. If I introduced enough radioactive material into an environment, I could destroy the local ecosystem and make it too dangerous for humans to live in, and there's no way to quarantine that once it's been introduced.

I got the chemical part, just not "One that exceptionally to break the quarantine." In any case, I don't think demons do anything like what you mentioned; they're a fairly individual threat unless they start some kind of summoning cascade. I agree that it's a tricky issue, but I don't really think that death is the best answer.

 

Though, to be more on-topic... is Vivienne actually pro-templar?

[Maria Caliban]

No one is pro-Templar anymore.

[Dean_the_Young]

I got the chemical part, just not "One that exceptionally to break the quarantine." In any case, I don't think demons do anything like what you mentioned; they're a fairly individual threat unless they start some kind of summoning cascade. I agree that it's a tricky issue, but I don't really think that death is the best answer.

 

 

 

I dropped the work 'likely' after 'exceptionally.'

 

Demons are highly dangerous even as individuals. Going by lore, demons are still a 'need to mob' adversary, unlike gameplay's 'PC beats mobs'. The potential of a summoning cascade, or worse the corruption of other mages, is just more on top of that. The most dangerous abominations aren't the sort that immediately become homicidal- it's the ones that don't immediately become homicidal.

 

 

 

Though, to be more on-topic... is Vivienne actually pro-templar?

 

 

Not much to suggest it. Considering that her character profile indicates she turned the Court Enchanter position from a glorified jester to a position of real power and influence, I wouldn't be surprised if she views her actions as advancing Circle influence and interests in the field of politics.