Mundanes can be possessed by demons, mundanes can become reavers, hell, grey wardens can use a form of blood magic.
Ain't that much difference
What does possession have to do with abilities? It's the demons abilities not the mundanes, demons can possess inanimate objects as well. Reavers use dragon blood, which has some magical component to it, taint also has magical component to it.
there is no reason to believe it is true.
No reason except for rationality.
Lyrium is mana, nothing less nothing more. Mana is used to cast the spells, no mana no spells. Mundanes don't produce natural mana like mages do, so after they use their abilities enough time they need lyrium again, or else they won't have any fuel to cast their abilities.
Unless you can point me to where in the game it says this is true I won't believe it because that is not at all the impression of what lyrium is to me. Lyrium is a mineral with magical properties. Used in different ways to make magical effects. One example is rune enchanting weapons. If lyrium was just mana, then eventually the runes in weapons would run out of power but that is not the case. So I say again, unless there is somewhere in game that supports your claim it is untrue.
Unless you can point me to where in the game it says this is true I won't believe it because that is not at all the impression of what lyrium is to me. Lyrium is a mineral with magical properties. Used in different ways to make magical effects. One example is rune enchanting weapons. If lyrium was just mana, then eventually the runes in weapons would run out of power but that is not the case. So I say again, unless there is somewhere in game that supports your claim it is untrue.
Enchantment should have an expiry date yes. It just doesn't make sense otherwise, where does the energy to constantly fuel something come from?
No reason except for rationality.
Rationality would be to disbelieve until it is proven to be true. Which it has yet to be, thus it is rational to believe it is untrue.
Rationality would be to disbelieve until it is proven to be true. Which it has yet to be, thus it is rational to believe it is untrue.
Erm, I disbelieve Alistair until it is proven true?
Enchantment should have an expiry date yes. It just doesn't make sense otherwise, where does the energy to constantly fuel something come from?
And yet enchantment doesn't have an expiry date. Where the energy comes from is not relevant. From the fade maybe? It doesn't matter. The point is an enchanted weapon does not lose it's enchantment over time (or at least there is no evidence of such). So there is precedent already set that allow for Templars to not lose their abilities over time either. I highly doubt Fenris is going to lose his abilities over time either.
Erm, I disbelieve Alistair until it is proven true?
Fine disbelieve him all you want. But you can't deny the codex. Nothing I have said has anything to do with Alistair so I am not sure why you even bring him up.
Where the energy comes from is not relevant. It doesn't matter.
Very relevant and matters a lot.
And yet enchantment doesn't have an expiry date.
To be fair, not mentioned in the game.
I highly doubt Fenris is going to lose his abilities over time either.
I think he will.
But you can't deny the codex.
Yes I can, all codex is biased and comes not from the narrator but from the figures of DA, that can have faulty account, and merely display their opinion. This is why thinking and making logical chains is important.
Very relevant and matters a lot.
To be fair, not mentioned in the game.
I think he will.
Yes I can, all codex is biased and comes not from the narrator but from the figures of DA, that can have faulty account, and merely display their opinion. This is why thinking and making logical chains is important.
Not relevant to this conversation though.
Actually yes you are right. But we do know many enchanted weapons have lain in dungeons for a long time and still retain their power so it is not unlikely the powers for Fenris or Templars are the same. if they do run out, it is on such a small order that they would not likely have to worry about losing their powers within their lifetimes.
No evidence either way so we have to agree to disagree regarding Fenris.
Actually, codex is narrative. The only time it is not narrative is when it is followed with a clip saying it was from book or such in game. Not all the codex entries are like that. And the ones about lyrium and the Templars do not have these. therefore, they are narrative.
Actually yes you are right. But we do know many enchanted weapons have lain in dungeons for a long time and still retain their power so it is not unlikely the powers for Fenris or Templars are the same. if they do run out, it is on such a small order that they would not likely have to worry about losing their powers within their lifetimes.
Ok, so why can't a mage grab a bunch of lyrium and cast spells all day every day, for the rest of his lifetime?
Actually, codex is narrative. The only time it is not narrative is when it is followed with a clip saying it was from book or such in game. Not all the codex entries are like that. And the ones about lyrium and the Templars do not have these. therefore, they are narrative.
All codex in the game is written by someone. You literally find all the codex i the world, so it was written by some person.
Ok, so why can't a mage grab a bunch of lyrium and cast spells all day every day, for the rest of his lifetime?
All codex in the game is written by someone. You literally find all the codex i the world, so it was written by some person.
That's just how they present it to you in game. The codex itself is narrative though.
Edit: Sorry did not address your first question. Well lets assume that enchanted items and the templars will eventually lose power, which we have no evidence either way. There is 2 explanations for this. The scientific one is that mages consume a lot more power than items or Templar powers. Then there is the other one...magic. Because it is magic it can work one way for one situation and work in a completely different way for another. Hence why it is important to focus on what is actually stated in the game rather than drawing our own conclusions.
That's just how they present it to you in game. The codex itself is narrative though.
No, the codex is on purpose non-narrative, there is some truth to it, some bias, some crap, it's all a healthy mix.
What is presented to me? Nonsense, that non-mages can cast magic just like mages, but can do it as much as they want after they were exposed to lyrium once, while mages run out of mana? That is what is presented?
No, the codex is on purpose non-narrative, there is some truth to it, some bias, some crap, it's all a healthy mix.
What is presented to me? Nonsense, that non-mages can cast magic just like mages, but can do it as much as they want after they were exposed to lyrium once, while mages run out of mana? That is what is presented?
I addressed this already in my edit of previous post.
If you won't accept the codex as being narrative then we can't continue this conversation. Every RPG I have ever played, the codex was ALWAYS taken as gospel by everyone and it is always used as the final arbiter to end disputes. If you refuse to adhere to that then there is no proof of anything anywhere at all so there is no point continuing the conversation because no one has any way of proving anything.
Sorry did not address your first question. Well lets assume that enchanted items and the templars will eventually lose power, which we have no evidence either way. There is 2 explanations for this. The scientific one is that mages consume a lot more power than items or Templar powers. Then there is the other one...magic. Because it is magic it can work one way for one situation and work in a completely different way for another. Hence why it is important to focus on what is actually stated in the game rather than drawing our own conclusions.
Nah, I'm not taking this:
for an explanation.
The way templar abilities and enchantment are presented in game, it is magic, and there is no difference between mage spirit school and templar abilities, or enchantment and mage weapon infusion.
Mages need fuel for their abilities and that fuel runs out, so it should be no different for enchantment and abilities granted by lyrium.
If you have no logical explanation as to why these should be different, and you are going to say: ''It just is.'' and ''It's irrelevant why.'' Then there is nothing to discuss.
Nah, I'm not taking this:
Spoilerfor an explanation.
The way templar abilities and enchantment are presented in game, it is magic, and there is no difference between mage spirit school and templar abilities, or enchantment and mage weapon infusion.
Mages need fuel for their abilities and that fuel runs out, so it should be no different for enchantment and abilities granted by lyrium.
If you have no logical explanation as to why these should be different, and you are going to say: ''It just is.'' and ''It's irrelevant why.'' Then there is nothing to discuss.
It is magic. There is no other way to take it except that way. You can't really apply scientific reasoning to it. That's why you have to focus on what you know for sure rather than drawing your own conclusions. To blankly say you don't accept magic as an explanation for magic is rather silly, because magic is the ONLY explanation for magic.
EDIT: Like you said, it's that way because it is. That's the only explanation there can be because of the very nature of magic, it defies logic.
And also like you said, if you can't accept that then you're right. there is nothing more to discuss.
It is magic. There is no other way to take it except that way. You can't really apply scientific reasoning to it. That's why you have to focus on what you know for sure rather than drawing your own conclusions. To blankly say you don't accept magic as an explanation for magic is rather silly, because magic is the ONLY explanation for magic.
When writers create a world in which there is magic present they make rules for said magic, and I will draw my own logical conclusions until they touch in depth every little aspect of it. Abilities granted by lyrium were not discussed in depth, nor was enchantment, so I stick to what currently makes sense.
When writers create a world in which there is magic present they make rules for said magic, and I will draw my own logical conclusions until they touch in depth every little aspect of it. Abilities granted by lyrium were not discussed in depth, nor was enchantment, so I stick to what currently makes sense.
There is nothing wrong with that. The only thing I was pointing out is that it does not say anywhere that what you concluded was true, so it is just head canon until it does. And if I recall correctly you were the one that was disagreeing with me. So in essence you just told me that you were disagreeing with my in game codex lore because your head canon does not match up....not a good way to start a conversation.
There is nothing wrong with that. The only thing I was pointing out is that it does not say anywhere that what you concluded was true, so it is just head canon until it does. And if I recall correctly you were the one that was disagreeing with me. So in essence you just told me that you were disagreeing with my in game codex lore because your head canon does not match up....not a good way to start a conversation.
I disagreed with you because what you said made no sense to me, and described my logical conclusion. There's nothing wrong with challenging each others opinions no? Then again I was backed up by Gaider at one particular point, but you need to see it in-game so, need to wait.
I disagreed with you because what you said made no sense to me, and described my logical conclusion. There's nothing wrong with challenging each others opinions no? Then again I was backed up by Gaider at one particular point, but you need to see it in-game so, need to wait.
You are right about there being nothing wrong with expressing your opinion. But my statements were being made to dispute other people in the thread and then you joined in. Naturally I thought you were trying to disprove me, not just offering your opinion. For that I am truly sorry. For what's it's worth, I really did enjoy our discussion.
Red templars were such a stupid idea. Regular templars can be plenty evil without turning them into some kind of red stone giant. Maker I hate those oversized mechano toys every second gamehouse think is cool to put in game as "the evil opponent"! There is no need to have giganti colourful thing which screams "I am evil, kill me!".
Well I just had the companion discussion with Wynne literally hours before this conversation and I did not hear anything about Aneirin being stabbed in the chest. Even if that is true however, it does not mean that's how they deal with all escapees. It is more likely it just happen in a tussle, not that they were actively trying to kill him.
The Right of Annulment is a Templar thing true, but I was trying to point out that it was being used as it was meant to be used. There was no abuse of power. It is meant to be used as a last resort and that is how it was being used. By Gregoir anyways, Meredith is another issue entirely.
Why blood magic is forbidden is not relevant to the conversation. The fact that it is and is considered evil and the fact that in order to use blood magic you have to make a deal with a demon in order to learn it so if they are not already an abomination there is a good chance they will become one thus the Templars don't risk it and deal with it right away. I admit it's a grey area but the Chantry feels it is better to err on the side of caution. As for Jowan they already suspected him of being a blood mage, that's why Irving lets the mage player work with Jowan if you tell Irving about Jowan's plans to escape. Templars kill Maleficar, that is one of their major roles but like you said, they were not 100% sure he was so they were going to make him Tranquil. Since they thought he might be a blood mage they could not allow him to do his harrowing so there was no other option.
The reason they did not just kill Anders is they are not branded Maleficar until they use blood magic. If they simply escape they are labelled apostate and they try to capture them.
There is no evil, only opinion. Blood magic is seen as evil because the Chantry says it is. Plus you don't technically have to learn blood magic from a demon, it is an art that can be taught by someone who uses blood magic or it can even be self-taught. Fact is nobody knows the origins of blood magic, only that it is possible to learn it from demons. For example, Jowan never contacted any demon for his magic, he's been dabbling in it through self-teaching. Even the description for blood magic says that ever mage can feel it's call. Anders in DA2 asked Merrill if she cut her hand one day, saw the blood an felt/realised the power in it.
But this conversation is supposed to be about how bad Templars and Blood Magic compares. And I still say that my statement of Templars and an Organisation, are far worse than Blood Magic is still true.
Red templars were such a stupid idea. Regular templars can be plenty evil without turning them into some kind of red stone giant. Maker I hate those oversized mechano toys every second gamehouse think is cool to put in game as "the evil opponent"! There is no need to have giganti colourful thing which screams "I am evil, kill me!".
Actually red templars are very logical. Templars are addicted to Lyrium, the Chantry controls the Lyrium supply. As of Asunder the Templars have split from the Chantry hence to no more lyrium for Templars. They need to feed that addication and Red Lyrium is just as good to them.
There is no evil, only opinion. Blood magic is seen as evil because the Chantry says it is. Plus you don't technically have to learn blood magic from a demon, it is an art that can be taught by someone who uses blood magic or it can even be self-taught. Fact is nobody knows the origins of blood magic, only that it is possible to learn it from demons. For example, Jowan never contacted any demon for his magic, he's been dabbling in it through self-teaching. Even the description for blood magic says that ever mage can feel it's call. Anders in DA2 asked Merrill if she cut her hand one day, saw the blood an felt/realised the power in it.
But this conversation is supposed to be about how bad Templars and Blood Magic compares. And I still say that my statement of Templars and an Organisation, are far worse than Blood Magic is still true.
This conversation was from a couple days ago so I am not really sure if I recall what my point was exactly, however, like I said, the reasons why it is considered evil is not relevant. It is considered evil by a majority of the population. I am burnt out on this topic for the most part so I don't really feel like looking up codex entries on it anymore so I will concede the point about how you learn blood magic but as far as the Jowan and Anders/Merril banter go I just have this to say. Did Jowan learn it himself or did he learn it from a demon and just never said anything to anyone? And for the Anders/Merrill banter I just figured Anders was being snippy and baiting Merrill into admitting she made a deal with a demon. i did not feel he believed you could actually learn blood magic that way.
I don't feel Templars as an Organisation are worse than Blood Mages. The few examples of bad Templars does not out-weigh the potential for abuse of Blood Magic. I do however think Templars should have been more like a police force rather than prison guards. Hunt the ones who break the rules (mind control, sacrifice etc.) rather than the ones who can control it. Let the mages govern what is right or wrong as they see fit.
Edited for grammar.
Retour en haut
