34 réponses à ce sujet

[Klidi]

True, but that's the danger of ANY power. Isn't Sleep and Horror and Waking Nightmare also influencing other people's minds? Or somniari, like the kid in DA2 - they don't need blood magic to mess up your dreams - and through your subconsciousness, your mind as well.

 

And, it's the danger also for TEMPLAR abilities. To have such control and power over people as they have over mages - isn't that also corrupting? So they don't influence their mind directly. But they take little kids from families, and rise them in isolation from others, making them believe that such discrimination is necessary and the best for them, making them incapable of independent life and making decision, practically brainwashing them. And we saw the results of such actions - because opression and discrimination can never end well. We saw what happened in the Tower, and even more, what happened in Kirkwall.

 

Does that mean all Templars are inherently evil, and potential lunatics like Meredith, or abusers like Karas?

[janddran]

I didn't use the word evil, I used the words more dangerous -- or can lead to evil. This aligns with what the quote said.

 

I don't know about you but if my neighbor could exert mind-control on me and cause me to put my knife to my throat (DA 2) I think I'd want them locked up along with anyone wielding said power. Mind control is an insidious weapon if you can turn people in all ranks of government to your cause, for example. Killing people only gets you so far, if only because you will likely be stopped.

 

The Templar vs. mages thing is a bigger discussion, and one I'd like to have -- after Inquisition especially. I find good and evil in both, such is humanity per se.

 

The entropy magics do have some mind control elements as you said but still they are within limits. Part of the allure of blood magic is that there is no limit, or so a demon might say and tempt with; and many blood mages have pushed those limits with bargains --whether bringing back the dead or taking over a people and their spirits like the Baroness in Awakening. Absolute power corrupts absolutely -- be it blood magic or lyrium idols.

[Klidi]

No, I wouldn't want anyone to be locked up just because they are potentially dangerous and capable of hurting me. Because in that case, I'd have to lock up whole populace. >.> I can never know all my neighbours, and what are they capable of.

 

I don't like to judge people in advance solely their potential of doing something, and without any evidence. That's what I call 'total power' that can be easily abused. I admit I'm biased - I've lived under such regime, where people were imprisoned, sent to a labour camp, or killed on a whim, because they didn't fit into someone's idea of an 'average' citizen. I much prefer democracy, thank you - even if it means taking the risk that some people will commit crimes.

 

So, no. Regardless they have the ability to control my mind, or the ability to drain me of my powers, hurt my spirit and knock me out or stun me (Smite), or if they survivors of emotional abuse, that made them insensitive to killing anyone (like ex-assassins), I would not want to have them locked up. Until they actually DO something, live and let live.

[Bardox9]

Without condoning the Rite of Tranquility, I do believe it has it's merits. The Rite doesn't remove their free will, according to the lore anyway, it just removes their magic abilities and emotions. They can still refuse a command. They still have personal preferences. I do think it's cruel to force it on someone, but considering the potential dangers, it is better than zealots blindly killing someone out of fear and/or bigotry.

 

I just don't think it's as bad as some make it out to be.

 

In Jowan's case, I think the ultimate outcome proves he was incapable of resisting the allure of blood magic and too weak willed (or just too stupid) to think he could resist a demon's influence should one take notice of him. Only after the horrors at Redcliff does he truely grasp the dangers of the path he was on. Making him tranquil, willing or not, is an appropriate action to take IMO.

[janddran]

No, I wouldn't want anyone to be locked up just because they are potentially dangerous and capable of hurting me. Because in that case, I'd have to lock up whole populace. >.> I can never know all my neighbours, and what are they capable of.

 

I don't like to judge people in advance solely their potential of doing something, and without any evidence. That's what I call 'total power' that can be easily abused. I admit I'm biased - I've lived under such regime, where people were imprisoned, sent to a labour camp, or killed on a whim, because they didn't fit into someone's idea of an 'average' citizen. I much prefer democracy, thank you - even if it means taking the risk that some people will commit crimes.

 

So, no. Regardless they have the ability to control my mind, or the ability to drain me of my powers, hurt my spirit and knock me out or stun me (Smite), or if they survivors of emotional abuse, that made them insensitive to killing anyone (like ex-assassins), I would not want to have them locked up. Until they actually DO something, live and let live.

 

While your intent is good and probably a common ideology, it is flawed in its logic -- not flawed as an opinion itself which we all have a right to. The thing is one cannot reasonably apply tenets of a modern-day learned democracy on a middle-age feudal system.  Well, you can, but most of what is wished for is not going to work as the knowledge and tools aren't available to make it viable. Democracies can't work in a vacuum.
 

If people with supernatural and dangerous powers were completely free without serious checks and balances (and even the Imperium had Templars and the Right of Annulment, the bar was just higher -- The Quanari have their methods, too) what happens to the freedom of the commoner or the noble? They have none or very little as they live in fear or become victims themselves, to include slavery and death (for their blood).

 

I'm just glad it's high-fantasy because no solution will end well.

[MouseHopper]

janddran I still don't entirely agree with you, but that last post was excellent and totally on point.  We are talking about a point in time that seemingly does not correlate to our own.  And as I suggested in an earlier post I may be attempting to politicize my responses based on today's reality, thus causing a sort of situational irony.  I also want to clarify specifically to you, that my issue with the Templars is primarily with the zealots among them, such as Merideth.  I recognize that many are well-meaning, if perhaps a bit malleable in the hands of their supervisors. 

[Kersh]

Jowan seemed to eventually mean well when you meet him after he you tell him to escape from Redcliffe.

Though I also feel like Jowan is just very good at manipulation.

[Klidi]

While your intent is good and probably a common ideology, it is flawed in its logic -- not flawed as an opinion itself which we all have a right to. The thing is one cannot reasonably apply tenets of a modern-day learned democracy on a middle-age feudal system.  Well, you can, but most of what is wished for is not going to work as the knowledge and tools aren't available to make it viable. Democracies can't work in a vacuum.
 

If people with supernatural and dangerous powers were completely free without serious checks and balances (and even the Imperium had Templars and the Right of Annulment, the bar was just higher -- The Quanari have their methods, too) what happens to the freedom of the commoner or the noble? They have none or very little as they live in fear or become victims themselves, to include slavery and death (for their blood).

 

I'm just glad it's high-fantasy because no solution will end well.

 

To use tentes of a modern-day democracy on a middle-age feudal system is maybe a flaw in logic... but tell that to Bioware, because they did just that. Thedas is NOT based on real-world middle age, and there are several democratic things that certainly were not possible in middle age in reality. For example, the acceptance of homosexuality or acteptance of women as equals.

 

By the way,  the 'freedom', is also a democratic concept from modern times. The commoners in the real world middle age were hardly 'free'. They were serfs  and belonged to the landlord. They had no rights, their word was nothing, and if they disobeyed, they were severely punished, even tortured and executed in public. They were not allowed to move or marry out of the landlord's area, since the landlord would lose manpower. They were uneducated and iliterate. They could buy themselves out, but the amount was very high, and with the taxes and levies they had to pay - which left them little more than just enough  to survive - it wasn't very likely. They were at the mercy of their landlord, and they did live in fear that they would become their victims.

 

Real world commoner in middle age couldn't even dream that he could become a commander of an army (especially women). Even if, by some miracle, they would be recruited into a knight order, they wouldn't know how to command. They wouldn't even know how to fight, in fact (maybe besides brawl in a pub).

 

So you see, trying to apply real-world middle-age system on Thedas is also a flaw in logic. Accepting democratic approach in some things while insisting on real-world middle age in others is just ridiculous.

[janddran]

That Bioware doesn't make historically accurate games like Paradox does changes nothing. Suspension of disbelief is required to play most RPGs. Some more than others.

 

So you see, trying to apply real-world middle-age system on Thedas is also a flaw in logic. Accepting democratic approach in some things while insisting on real-world middle age in others is just ridiculous.

 

I've been respectful of your opinion and apparently that is not how you roll. I didn't wholesale call your opinion ridiculous.

 

But to say I insist on a real-world middle age is inaccurate. I haven't insisted on anything. But aside from Bioware's decisions to modernize the game inconsistently, I recognize the limits of the time and how the world is set up both in government and technology. I use that as part of my decision-making process.

 

We disagree, so be it then.

[Merle McClure II]

My "canon" Grey Warden heard Jowan out, but after thinking things through she went to Irving, -NOT- because of the blood magic rumors, or even his desire to escape the Circle. She went to Irving because Jowan had never been tested via the Harrowing and she wasn't convinced that he had the will or foresight to survive demonic influences and wasn't naïve enough to believe Jowan's "I won't do magic if I escape!" nonsense. (She later executes him herself, although she does so more out of a vague sense of honoring their friendship, she sees it more of a mercy killing then an execution.)

 

 

She is able to coexist with Morgana mostly because she figures that Flemeth probably tested the witch at least as harshly as the Harrowing would have.