Ok, so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this but this is what I understand about spirits and demons having played all three Dragon Age games.
A spirit and a demon are essentially the same species, what distinguishes them are the emotions they represent as well as their motive. While a spirit is defined by positive emotions, a demon represents bad or potentially destructive emotions. Also, spirits are not generally interested in seeing the world through mortal eyes whereas demons actively seek to possess people.
I don't believe this. Or rather, I don't believe this is true enough for a meaningful categorical distinction.
'Spirits' and 'Demons' appears to be a mostly Andrastian prism for looking at the fade, but it's primary weakness is that it's an ex post facto label- a judgement of what a spirit actually did, rather than a compositional or categorical distinction. Demons are demons because they are bad. Ergo, spirits are good because if they weren't they would be bad and thus demons. But since demons must be bad, a demon that isn't bad must be a spirit, and vice versa.
This might be good enough for theology, but it really isn't enough for science- and there certainly isn't enough hard evidence to really justify such broad-based conclusions. We certainly know that there are 'spirits' who are interested in the world... and thanks to Cole, we know not only that a manifesting spirit may not only act in a way that bystanders consider 'demonic' even as they fulfill their aspect, but that some spirits will hide their presence or even wipe memories of witnesses. So the manifestation of 'spirits' is going to be under-reported... similar to how the reports of demons are going to be over-represented, because demons are identified primarily by bad news and bad news travels fast and has a tendency to warp and repeat itself and all that. Whether demons are more likely than spirits to take interest in the world is something that could only be concluded if we had some reasonably accurate census of all demons, to take poll of some sort and see how many demons are content to stay in the Fade... or have manifestations that aren't particularly noticable by the world. The Nightmare, for example, was/is an incredibly powerful demon... but it also stayed in the Fade and it's actions virtually unnoticed by the real world.
Even aside from the reporting challenges, identity distinction is even harder because of an acknowledged tendency for the nature of spirits to twist under outside influences. Whether through merging with someone else's views of the concept (how Anders's concept of Justice led to obsession over a single category of injustice), being bound and pushed against it's precept (Solas's mission), or simply changing under the observation of expectations held by others (Solas dialogue). Being a spirit isn't a compositional identity, but a state of being as much transitional as anything else.
There's quite a bit we don't know. Are demons naturally formed, or only the result of corrupted spirits? If 'spirits' can become 'demons,' can demons become spirits? Is the fade a collective unconsciousness given form, or a separate medium which is shaped by a mixture of many small careless thoughts and fewer greater focused thoughts to give birth to an 'identity'? Is 'corruption' of a spirit even a meaningful perjorative for beings which can be changed merely through interaction with others with different viewpoints?
But for me, I eschew the concept of 'spirits' and 'demons' as meaningfully different and just lump them all under spirits. All spirits are dangerous- they are obsessed with their concept and have little emotional balance or maturity and limited intellectual awareness, to the point that even an aspect of compassion can be a serial killer. Some spirits (whether 'spirits' or 'demons') might have natures or contexts that can be channeled productively- but only so long as their needs and means to fulfill their aspect aligns with your context. If it doesn't, they can be forces of nature.
Retour en haut
