A "Tempest Arquebusier" would instantly blow himself to smithereens when he ignited his powder.
If not he still has to reaload his arquebus. A process that's a liiittle bit more complex and time consuming than pulling an arrow out of a quiver.
But hey... I'm sure that specialisation would be all the rage.
@Addictress: Bianca is already pretty advanced.
I wanted to reverse engineer it and make more for my armies.
Fiery, when the flames detonate the gaatlok. If not, it would look like the gun is firing a glowing projectile. I don't see why that's such a terrible thing.So i ask, those alchemy of yours never work on a Qunari musketeer? If it does, how do you imagine it will be look like?
@Addictress: Bianca is already pretty advanced.
I wanted to reverse engineer it and make more for my armies.
How many times i want to repeat myself? Magic/religion and science are opposing values, they will never add up with each other, like cats and rats, either cats eat rats or rats overrun cats, cats and rats don't breed catrats...if ever catrats exist, they are abominations should be put on the torch and shun among the society, they should be fonged and stoned
Repeating yourself doesn't do any good when each of your points has been countered and refuted.
Besides, magic isn't a matter of belief in this setting. It is real. It can be observed, studied, and understood. It isn't something you need to have faith in.
Repeating yourself doesn't do any good when each of your points has been countered and refuted.
Besides, magic isn't a matter of belief in this setting. It is real. It can be observed, studied, and understood. It isn't something you need to have faith in.
Exactly. Qis is making the mistake of trying to fit all of this in our real life history. Magic and science in our world are opposing because before intellectuals discovered advanced scientific theories that explained phenomena, people assumed it was magical/spiritual. In the world of Thedas, magic is a reality, it's not just an term used to explain something one doesn't understand.
How can magic and science not coexist? Obviously, boats, cannons, alchemy, etc... was all developed due to scientific advancements, so why would further scientific advancement cease simply due to magic? If anything, I'd assume it would at LEAST parallel what happened in the real world, if not advance at a faster rate! If people can generate elemental energy, with magic, that would save A LOT on resources/time in scientific R&D. I know it's weird to imagine, because usually popular media only portrays the use of magic in some historical setting like medieval times... Hell, even Harry Potter's world was devoid of conventional technology... but that's just because magic in a historical setting is an idea people are comfortable with.
For the sake of argument, I also would NOT say weapons(as we know today) would make magic obsolete, who says you have to choose one or the other? The use of magic would likely evolve with time and increased technology. I'd say, weapons that amplify a mage's natural magical powers or supercharged conventional weapons.
You have to look outside the idea of how the term "magic" in real life was used to describe something we don't know how to explain and look at it as if it's a fact.
If you add religion, magic and science together, you will go crazy and shoot yourself in the head, like many people do in the past, do you guys know how many people going suicide because of it?
There have been plenty of religious scientists throughout history. Nicolaus Copernicus died at seventy, probably from a stroke (although it can be hard to figure this stuff out from sixteenth-century medical descriptions, it sure wasn't suicide.) Isaac Newton died peacefully in his sleep at the age of eighty-four. Michael Faraday died of old age and illness at seventy-five. And that's just the more famous Christians that sprung immediately to mind. I don't suppose you have any actual counter-examples?
The reason there are fewer prominent religious scientists in the modern era (although it's not like they've actually died out) is that all the evidence suggests there's no such thing as magic in our universe, and it's increasingly possible to explain its existence and everything about it without reference to any supernatural entity. This is obviously not true of Thedas, where magic is a fact of life.
The reason there are fewer prominent religious scientists in the modern era (although it's not like they've actually died out) is that all the evidence suggests there's no such thing as magic in our universe, and it's increasingly possible to explain its existence and everything about it without reference to any supernatural entity.
I would say it has less to do with that and more to do with religion's decline in social importance in increasingly secular western society.
A surprising number of scientists today do still believe in a higher power, but they tend to be Deists.
That is why there should not be any advance technology in Dragon Age
i. Tevinter Imperium have war with Qunari for so long, they know Qunari have gun powder, why those Mages never steal this thing and used it against Templars?
ii. With a gun, there is no need to waste years learning magic to become powerful just because want to compete with Templar anti-magic power
iii. No need to deal with demons for Blood Magic, the reason to use blood instead of mana is because want to against Templar who can drain mana and nulify magic
iv. Qunari will sure conquering the world because nothing can stop gun unless someone in Thedas is Neo who can stop bullet in mid air
v. Anders know how to make bomb, powerful bomb it is, so it is just logic Mages know how to make one themselves, why they never make it to against the one who opress them all these time?
vi. All the Mage vs Templar conflict can just simply solved with gun
Didn't read through all 14 pages of this topic, so forgive me if I'm just regurgitating someone else's previous comment. Here is my take on these points..
I. Qunari generally stay isolated, so it would be difficult for a rogue mage or extremist mage sympathizers to get a hold of this without getting killed.
II. In the current DA universe, the only people that have "guns" are those guys in the Descent DLC(which was probably just rapid fire crossbow bolts). Obviously this tech was developed exclusively within their civilization and has not been developed/discovered by anyone else. Also, you're born with magic powers, they just go to school to learn to harness and control it... which only makes sense, even if you weren't harnessing it for war.
III. If you're a blood mage, why not summon demons to help you in battle? Or use any other typical blood mage ability?
IV. Qunari haven't developed firearms at this point. They essentially just had developed a compound mixture that was a highly potent explosive. And even if/when they did develop firearms, it would likely transpire like actual history did. There would probably be a one sided war in an area, and the rest of the world would eventually catch up to their technology. Even in real life though, this process of from making explosive "gun powder" to actually implementing them into firearms took a LONG time... and the first firearms were pretty rough to the point that skilled bowmen/magic projectiles would be much preferable to someone with a gun.
V. Because not everyone is so violent that they are willing to commit mass murder. Take the current real world for example... You don't exactly need to be an explosives specialist to make a bomb (IE: Boston Bomber / OKC bombing). Those guys involved weren't scientists... What makes the difference is that you have to be willing to kill a large number of people willingly. Even people who are historically oppressed end up just accepting how things are and just rolling with it. It takes a real extremist to do something like bomb a building and kill countless people.
VI. Well since neither side has guns, I don't see the argument. I assume at this point(post-DA:I), the Mage/Templar conflict is over for the most part. But if you're talking about future conflicts, what's to stop magic users from implementing their magic into guns? See my previous post.
I would say it has less to do with that and more to do with religion's decline in social importance in increasingly secular western society.
A surprising number of scientists today do still believe in a higher power, but they tend to be Deists.
There are also a surpising number of scientists and professors who are highly devote even if they aren't vocal about it or are even priests and monks at least in the catholic church which has also several academies of science and a observatory on top of the various universities.
Ultimately it really depends on the religion really though its ironically the more traditional and oldest sects of Christians such as the Catholics and the orthodox who tend to not have issues with science and indeed often embrace it as a tool to understand gods creation and the laws that control it much to the horror of some other religious sects and some atheists who can't seem to accept the idea that religion and science don't need to conflict.
There are also a surpising number of scientists and professors who are highly devote even if they aren't vocal about it or are even priests and monks at least in the catholic church which has also several academies of science and a observatory on top of the various universities.
Ultimately it really depends on the religion really though its ironically the more traditional and oldest sects of Christians such as the Catholics and the orthodox who tend to not have issues with science and indeed often embrace it as a tool to understand gods creation and the laws that control it much to the horror of some other religious sects and some atheists who can't seem to accept the idea that religion and science don't need to conflict.
Sects that outright oppose things like evolution are a minority, generally, though they tend to grab the most headlines.
Makes for more sensational news I guess, same with the militant atheists especially if they are going at each other.
Oh yes it's definitely advanced.
Just wanted to point out I still don't think we ought to get carried away and call Bianca or the things we saw in Descent, guns. No gun powder
Within the context of gameplay mechanics, they're guns without the gunpowder. They are also significantly more advanced than anything made before... the 19th century? What is with the obsessive fixation on "guns" when this stuff already exists?
Boom-powder is not the turning point for Dragon Age people think it would be.
Bianca is certainly advanced given that while a variety of repeating and rapid reloading crossbows did exist in the middle ages in both Europe and Asia they tended to be weaker than conventional crossbows.
Here's my pointless post for the thread: I'm not sure why I read the OP's posts.
@Qis: Can you repeat yourself one more time? I don't think I get what you mean.
Even in fantasy universe there must be realism, limits, and this come from real life values, it is because we take values from real life, we the player (or readers,viewers) are from the real life. You can't make Gandalf and Aragorn using guns, them both makes Legolas look like a ******. Who is more cooler? Gandalf with gun or Legolas with bow and arrows? If Legolas can take down an elephant, Gandalf can take down an elephant too, what makes Legolas archery so special? Legolas shoot the elephant being on top of it's head, Gandalf shoot the elephant 500 yards away...Anduril will not be so special if Aragon using MP4 sub-machinegun....and what if the Orc steal the technology and using guns themselves?
There have been plenty of religious scientists throughout history. Nicolaus Copernicus died at seventy, probably from a stroke (although it can be hard to figure this stuff out from sixteenth-century medical descriptions, it sure wasn't suicide.) Isaac Newton died peacefully in his sleep at the age of eighty-four. Michael Faraday died of old age and illness at seventy-five. And that's just the more famous Christians that sprung immediately to mind. I don't suppose you have any actual counter-examples?
When you are seriously mix science with religion, you become like them, crazy and kill yourself
http://topdocumentar...rous-knowledge/
There are limits in everything, of course you can be a scientist as well a religious person, but one of the two will be your dominant attribute, if you level both, you will bang your head on the wall.
Don't you guys see how ridiculous this is? Dragon Age will become like this if having advance technology in it. Why bother making primitive weapons? "Human have guns, we steal their guns!"
It only take 100 years everybody throw away their swords and starting to use guns in war. The big medieval sword replaced by tiny duel sword called rapier, and later no one use sword anymore, it just for ceremonial by officers.
It is because human always progress and improving, it come from struggles, human will make things better than what the opposition have. This is true in real world. Only magical world do not progress and stay as it were, because of magic itself. magic do not make human progress because everything can be performed with magic. You want to fly, you use magic. You want to blow something up, you use magic. You don't need to create jet engine and study aerodynamic and stuff, you don't need to study physic.
Sigh as noted before guns did not make people stop using swords and other melee weapons, the socket bayonet that became widely adopted in the late 1760s is what lead to the sword being phased out at least for line infantry, before that a short single edged slightly curved sword called hangers were standard issue for line infantry to go with their guns or pikes with pole-arms such as halberds and spontoons and longer swords being standard issue for infantry officers and non-commissioned officers.
Even then battles were not won by shooting guns but by charging the enemy and ether forcing them to flee from the force of your charge or breaking them in melee not by shooting at them well into the 19th century. This is because even the advanced military guns of the late 18th and early 19th century were extremely inaccurate weapons that were more likely to miss a target at even close range then hit it and generally became to hot to fire after a few rounds of firing.
Also gunpowder weapons such as guns and canons came onto the scene in the mid 13th century, it wasn't until the 15th, 16th century that they became powerful enough to be a force on the battlefield and wasn't until the end of the 17th century before they became powerful enough to render armor too costly.
When you are seriously mix science with religion, you become like them, crazy and kill yourself
http://topdocumentar...rous-knowledge/
There are limits in everything, of course you can be a scientist as well a religious person, but one of the two will be your dominant attribute, if you level both, you will bang your head on the wall.
Totally untrue and nothing in that documentary supports your idea.
Why are you so dead set on these things being incompatible? What's your stake? Why is this so inconceivable to you?
When it comes down to it, science is just a methodology. It's use is in examining and understanding the world. The use of religion is in expressing morality, creating existential context, and establishing a basis for community in common beliefs. Those things don't conflict unless one takes a literalist stance on religion, but many don't. In fact, many scientist still take the Deist approach because they see the ordered complexity of the universe as indicating a divine hand in its creation. Einstein held such a belief.
Don't you guys see how ridiculous this is? Dragon Age will become like this if having advance technology in it. Why bother making primitive weapons? "Human have guns, we steal their guns!"
Having advanced technology would be silly, yes.
Primitive guns, however, wouldn't be a problem. They aren't advanced technology, not by the standards you're holding. Throwing out pictures of automatic weapons when the guns at issue would be muzzle-loaded single shot affairs with lengthy reload times, to say nothing of being unable to hit the broadside of a barn, just makes it impossible to take you seriously.
Hyperbole is never an effective argument.
So, Isabela, a pirate, shouldn't have a bomb?
You didn't complain about the Eluvian, magical portal who probably is going to exist in 40 century but you complain about a simple pistol?
Totally untrue and nothing in that documentary supports your idea.
Why are you so dead set on these things being incompatible? What's your stake? Why is this so inconceivable to you?
When it comes down to it, science is just a methodology. It's use is in examining and understanding the world. The use of religion is in expressing morality, creating existential context, and establishing a basis for community in common beliefs. Those things don't conflict unless one takes a literalist stance on religion, but many don't. In fact, many scientist still take the Deist approach because they see the ordered complexity of the universe as indicating a divine hand in its creation. Einstein held such a belief.
It is fine if just believing, there is a difference between just believe in religion and become a devout religious person. Anyone can claim believing in God or higher power, but do they really following the doctrine and dogmas of their religion? In reverse any religious person may claim to accept what science and technology can offer, but are they really accept it as the whole? There will be a point where belief will clash with reasoning, everyone will use own justifications toward it.
Let say, the life support machine failed, the patient dead. How you view on it? The person dead because of the machine failed or because God take the person life? You may say "it is God's will" or you may say "the machine failed", or you say "it is God who make the machine failed"...so what you say? You blame God or you blame the machine?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut