1428 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

They can, and they have.

That's a shade, not an abomination. You're still wrong.

[Pierce Miller]

Gameplay/story segregation. An abomination is a possessed mage. Anything else is just possession. 

Have they ever really specifically made that distinction though? Mundane posession is so rare that they really don't have a name for it but I haven't heard them state that they're not abominations too. 

[Keroko]

Gameplay/story segregation. An abomination is a possessed mage. Anything else is just possession. 

 

The story disagrees as well. They are called abominations in the dialogue too. It's just that it's extremely rare for living people to be taken over, as it requires a mage's assistance. So it's rarely called such, because it never really comes up.

[The Baconer]

They can, and they have.

 

No, no, no. See, he turned into a Shade, and summoned Abominations who were buried in the earth for some reason. #DA2encounterlogic

[Tevinter Soldier]

he wont listen my friend* shakes head in annoyance* his arguements are broken and generally paranoid best let it go since he will always go in circles

 

eh i've been bored waiting for tech support to recover access to companys mainframe so its passed the time.

[raging_monkey]

Pretty much same argument was used about black peoples that currently now is wrong because society says so i can use same toward mages normals humans dominated them so that means mages are less capable than normal humans...
 
I call that life.
 
This is about being mage what means colosal danger to society and whole world mare are born with destructive and unstable weapon that can't be taken (safe for RoT) they are treated by humans as such end of the story.So to repeat myself they are gigantic danger to society by their very nature and they are treated as such everything in our would as well.
 
Because chances that i will be attacked by serial killer is very very low for many reasons chances that mages will blow me up are high enough (as da univesre shows us) considering unstable nature of mages and magic i can be blown up because single mage decided he wanted revenge on someone so he created curse.Not mention damage that serial killer can do and mage can do.
So no you can't compare serial killer to mage that destroys veil and world have to face horde of superpowerful dangerous creatures.

ok im calling bull to equate a mage to a black person and using a "white society supremacy" arguement shows how wrong you are... idk what to say bout that

[Br3admax]

Have they ever really specifically made that distinction though? Mundane posession is so rare that they really don't have a name for it but I haven't heard them state that they're not abominations too. 

The codex just uses it as a definition. 

The story disagrees as well. They are called abominations in the dialogue too. It's just that it's extremely rare for living people to be taken over, as it requires a mage's assistance. So it's rarely called such, because it never really comes up.

Hawke is the only one that calls them abominations. Literally no one else does. Finally, it's a definition. Kind of hard to override. 

[Hellion Rex]

The codex just uses it as a definition. 

Hawke is the only one that calls them abominations. Literally no one else does. Finally, it's a definition. Kind of hard to override. 

Bread, dear, I don't think he's gonna listen to reason.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Pretty much same argument was used about black peoples that currently now is wrong because society says so i can use same toward mages normals humans dominated them so that means mages are less capable than normal humans...

 

I call that life.

 

This is about being mage what means colosal danger to society and whole world mare are born with destructive and unstable weapon that can't be taken (safe for RoT) they are treated by humans as such end of the story.So to repeat myself they are gigantic danger to society by their very nature and they are treated as such everything in our would as well.

 

And civilised peoples did that a lot of times and word innocent pretty is up to person.Justice doesn't exist outside human side and can mean different things for different peoples for me it means nothing just attempt to make yourself look better.

 

Because chances that i will be attacked by serial killer is very very low for many reasons chances that mages will blow me up are high enough (as da univesre shows us) considering unstable nature of mages and magic i can be blown up because single mage decided he wanted revenge on someone so he created curse.Not mention damage that serial killer can do and mage can do.

So no you can't compare serial killer to mage that destroys veil and world have to face horde of superpowerful dangerous creatures.

 

the bolded is where we fundamentally disagree, white supremacy is a blight on human history and rightly toppled for its barbaric and sick mentally. shrugging your shoulders and just saying, "eh" in regards to fellow humans being oppressed is disgusting.

 

I'm done with you.

[TheKomandorShepard]

ok im calling bull to equate a mage to a black person and using a "white society supremacy" arguement shows how wrong you are... idk what to say bout that

I can why i can't?I mean white peoples could (of course now it is "horrible" argument) but back then it was fine it is all about social standards with 1 society trying paint themselves prettier than other.

 

He thinks animals are worse because he sees them as worse i don't see problem with other person doing that toward other group. 

 

 

 

the bolded is where we fundamentally disagree, white supremacy is a blight on human history and rightly toppled for its barbaric and sick mentally. shrugging your shoulders and just saying, "eh" in regards to fellow humans being oppressed is disgusting.

 

I'm done with you.

Disagree as long you want those peoples saw themselves as civilized as you think you are civilized and as orlesians see themselves civilized.Like it or not but that is fact you see world by your (current society) morals standarts as those peoples saw by their for few hundreds your (society) views can be seen as barbaric and cruel.

[raging_monkey]

Like TKS i have nothing to say on im just going to ignore the bull****

[TheKomandorShepard]

Like TKS i have nothing to say on im just going to ignore the bull****

Well truth hurts it is easier hide behind lies.

[Br3admax]

Bread, dear, I don't think he's gonna listen to reason.

Fine. Since this went race wise, it's probably a good time to abandon thread anyway. 

[raging_monkey]

Well truth hurts it is easier hide behind lies.

ugh thats a disgusting implication... your truth is the lie

[Master Warder Z_]

Fine. Since this went race wise, it's probably a good time to abandon thread anyway.

But the Mages!

[TheKomandorShepard]

ugh thats a disgusting implication... your truth is the lie

Nope my truth is based on reality and your truth base pretty much only on morality of current society that claims something is wrong or something is right when in other society they claim other things are right or wrong. 

[Hero]

Sometimes I wonder if TKS is as cartoonishly bigoted as he seems or whether it's just an act for his own amusement.

[Keroko]

The codex just uses it as a definition. 

Hawke is the only one that calls them abominations. Literally no one else does. Finally, it's a definition. Kind of hard to override. 

 

You did watch the video, right? The possessed mage herself says "how many abominations can they discover among their own, before it drives the Knight Commander mad?"

 

She literally calls templar possessed by demons abominations.

 

And nowhere does the codex say that the term abomination is exclusive to a mage. It's just commonly applied to mages because mages are the only ones who can get possessed without outside help.

 

So codex not saying abomination is exclusive to mages + hawke, Cullen and an abomination calling possessed non-mages abominations = abominations is a catch-all term for humanoids possessed by demons.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Sometimes I wonder if TKS is as cartoonishly bigoted as he seems or whether it's just an act for his own amusement.

Im not bigoted im just efficient if you talk about mages if you talk about something else well then i don't know what you are even talking about. 

[Br3admax]

*snip*

Actually that's exactly what the codex says, when a mage and a demon meet the union is an abomination. It doesn't say, but abominations can be any possesed being, just mages. Controversially, Tarohne is insane. I'd blame Varric trying to remember details of something that happened a decade prior, but eh. 

[Hellion Rex]

Actually that's exactly what the codex says, when a mage and a demon meet the union is an abomination. It doesn't say, but abominations can be any possesed being, just mages. Controversially, Tarohne is insane. I'd blame Varric trying to remember details of something that happened a decade prior, but eh. 

Indeed. And even still, that's one nutjob versus the rest of DAO and DA2 that says otherwise.

[Br3admax]

Besides, word of god > word of you or me, or the codex even: 

 

Regular people can be possessed by demons, and are still dangerous, but they are not abominations. Abominations have access to a mage's full power -- even a weak mage turned into an abomination is dangerous -- while a possessed human (or possessed anything) is only as dangerous as the demon that did the possessing. 

Source: http://forum.bioware...e-abominations/

[Keroko]

Besides, word of god > word of you or me, or the codex even: 

 

Source: http://forum.bioware...e-abominations/

 

Ah. Yeah. That's.... no way around that.

 

I stand corrected.

[Hellion Rex]

Besides, word of god > word of you or me, or the codex even: 

 

Source: http://forum.bioware...e-abominations/

/drops mic

 

Excellent find.

[Hero]

@TheKomandorShepard

 

I was talking about the mages yes, it's just that how you used the black person made you sound sorta bigoted. I suppose I should have read more of your posts before posting, and I apologize if my assessment was unfair. I suppose I can understand that you are trying to come at the matter with a purely logical and pragmatic approach. I don't agree with it, it's too "coldhearted" for me I suppose, but I guess I can understand it.