100 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Oh god. KomandorShepard and IanPolaris got into an argument.

 

The thread is doomed, but at least it will be interesting to see who gives up first.

I don't have to give up ,i love to argue and point fact that im right.   

[GoldenAngelHeart]

Just out of curiosity, because I can't seem to find the post anywhere, how can I get Leliana to be named Devine? I always end up with Cassandra being named.

[luna1124]

No

[MisterJB]

 It's very clear that the in-game expert (Lord Seeker Lucius) calls each and every Seeker an abomination and Cassandra who is our other in-game expert agrees with him.

 

I don't feel like getting in the middle of this but this must be corrected because well, TKS won't do it.

In Thedas, "Abomination" can be a state of being AKA someone who is possessed by a demon but that does not mean that the connotation associated with the word "Abomination" has ceased to exist. That is to say, something monstruous.

 

Now, in "Asunder", Pharamond says that one does not need to be possessed in order for Tranquility to be reversed, all it takes is for a denizen of the Fade to reach over and touch the mortal's mind. This can be found in page 248 and the words "touch my mind" are explicitly used.

 

Now, this codex uses the very same words

http://dragonage.wik..._of_Tranquility

"The candidate must be pure. If the candidate proved worthy, the spirit would touch his mind... and he would be freed from Tranquility as well as made into a Seeker in truth."

 

Cassandra never raises the possibility she might be possessed, only that she was Tranquil once. The logical conclusion being that, Seekers of Truth had their minds touched by spirits but were never actually possessed by one and Lucius is simply using the connotation of the word "Abomination" when he calls the Seekers such.

[IanPolaris]

I don't feel like getting in the middle of this but this must be corrected because well, TKS won't do it.

In Thedas, "Abomination" can be a state of being AKA someone who is possessed by a mage but that does not mean that the connotation associated with the word "Abomination" have ceased to exist. That is to say, something monstruous.

 

Now, in "Asunder", Pharamond says that one does not need to be possessed in order for Tranquility to be reversed, all it takes is for a denizen of the Fade to reach over and touch the mortal's mind. This can be found in page 248 and the words "touch my mind" are explicitly used.

 

Now, this codex uses the very same words

http://dragonage.wik..._of_Tranquility

"The candidate must be pure. If the candidate proved worthy, the spirit would touch his mind... and he would be freed from Tranquility as well as made into a Seeker in truth."

 

Cassandra never raises the possibility she might be possessed, only that she was Tranquil once. The logical conclusion being that, Seekers of Truth had their minds touched by spirits but were never actually possessed by one and Lucius is simply using the connotation of the word "Abomination" when he calls the Seekers such.

 

Lucius specifically says that all Seekers are abominations and it's pretty clear what the context is.  It's also clear that Lambert was in the wrong as well.

 

Sorry, but if the writers didn't mean possession or at least soul-riding (a la Wynne), they should have used a different word (and DG was in charge of that).

[TheKomandorShepard]

I don't feel like getting in the middle of this but this must be corrected because well, TKS won't do it.

In Thedas, "Abomination" can be a state of being AKA someone who is possessed by a mage but that does not mean that the connotation associated with the word "Abomination" have ceased to exist. That is to say, something monstruous.

 

Now, in "Asunder", Pharamond says that one does not need to be possessed in order for Tranquility to be reversed, all it takes is for a denizen of the Fade to reach over and touch the mortal's mind. This can be found in page 248 and the words "touch my mind" are explicitly used.

 

Now, this codex uses the very same words

http://dragonage.wik..._of_Tranquility

"The candidate must be pure. If the candidate proved worthy, the spirit would touch his mind... and he would be freed from Tranquility as well as made into a Seeker in truth."

 

Cassandra never raises the possibility she might be possessed, only that she was Tranquil once. The logical conclusion being that, Seekers of Truth had their minds touched by spirits but were never actually possessed by one and Lucius is simply using the connotation of the word "Abomination" when he calls the Seekers such.

 

You might be correct, he could have used word abomination by its definition in real world and it would make sense, tough it wouldn't be smart decision on writer part as it would as we see bring confusion.

 

When it comes for seekers not being possessed i already pointed that it was never stated they were possessed only they were touched by the spirit what reversed tranquility , though i discussed scenario in that they were possessed.

 

 

Lucius specifically says that all Seekers are abominations and it's pretty clear what the context is.  It's also clear that Lambert was in the wrong as well.

 

Sorry, but if the writers didn't mean possession or at least soul-riding (a la Wynne), they should have used a different word (and DG was in charge of that).

No, it isn't clear what context is because in fact both definitions would fit or should i say your version would only fit if devs changed lore and definition of word abomnation what you have no evidence for.  Also no, Lambert wasn't in the wrong ,unless you mean it moral sense but then once again what is moral and immoral is up to individual opinion. 

 

As MisterJB pointed word abomnation can have several meanings thus they can use it of course it would create confusion here and it did but they can still use it.

[MisterJB]

Lucius specifically says that all Seekers are abominations and it's pretty clear what the context is.  It's also clear that Lambert was in the wrong as well.

 

Sorry, but if the writers didn't mean possession or at least soul-riding (a la Wynne), they should have used a different word (and DG was in charge of that).

Do notice that while I have provided evidence corroborating my point as well as the absence of evidence corroborating yours, all you said was "They used the word abomination I think it's pretty clear they meant it literally and not metaphorically" and presented nothing beyond your own impressions.

 

Sorry, but I have the stronger argument.
 

[TK514]

Do notice that while I have provided evidence corroborating my point as well as the absence of evidence corroborating yours, all you said was "They used the word abomination I think it's pretty clear they meant it literally and not metaphorically" and presented nothing beyond your own impressions.

 

Sorry, but I have the stronger argument.
 

I was under the impression that "Your points are invalid because I don't like them" was considered the height of debating finesse these days.

[IanPolaris]

Do notice that while I have provided evidence corroborating my point as well as the absence of evidence corroborating yours, all you said was "They used the word abomination I think it's pretty clear they meant it literally and not metaphorically" and presented nothing beyond your own impressions.

 

Sorry, but I have the stronger argument.
 

 

We also know that Seekers can't be possessed.  There is only one way in Thedas lore that happens and that's if the vessel is already occupied.  We are told that specifically so that corroborates my point here.  [Yes Tranquil CAN be possessed.]

 

Edit PS:  More to the point especially in context the writers clearly chose the word "abomination". 

[TK514]

Just out of curiosity, because I can't seem to find the post anywhere, how can I get Leliana to be named Devine? I always end up with Cassandra being named.

 

Bend over backwards to do whatever most benefits the mages and elves.

[MisterJB]

We also know that Seekers can't be possessed.  There is only one way in Thedas lore that happens and that's if the vessel is already occupied.  We are told that specifically so that corroborates my point here.  [Yes Tranquil CAN be possessed.]

See, now this is an actual point.

Yes, Seekers are said to be impossible to possess which could be explained by them already being possessed.

However, there is both ways to explain it and evidence it must work against thus making it a weak point.

 

First, it can be easily explained by the fact that Seekers have special powers to begin with (such as burning lyrium in mage's veins) which were never exhibited by anyone who had been possessed before. Not even Wynne's whose spirit was one of Faith, same as the one that is used in the initiation ritual of the Seekers. It's far more likely the resistance to possession is simply another of these powers when it can't explain...

 

1-The fact that the actual description of the actual ritual in the actual book of secrets deliberately uses the words "touch the mind" which had been used in previous DA works by the elf who discovered how to reverse Tranquility.

 

2-The fact that Cassandra never once presents the possibility she might be possessed despite her being the one with the most interest in it.

 

3-The fact that, despite fighting some of the most dangerous creatures in the world, no Seeker ever discovered they had a spirit inside them until they read the book.

If they really had a spirit inside them, it would never manifest itself? Not even when a Seeker faces certain death?

 

 

 

Edit PS:  More to the point especially in context the writers clearly chose the word "abomination". 

No, not more to the point. The point above is better.

This is still just you interpreting a word in a certain way because it can be used that way despite the fact it has other connotations and does not make sense in this context.

 

 

[DebatableBubble]

Exactly. Her faith essentially boils down to "the Maker wants what I want", and nothing shows that more clearly than this. I didn't really care for that attitude even in Origins when she was a meaningless nobody -- now that she is in a position of power (first as Left Hand, then as part of the leadership of the Inquisition) with the potential to gain even more as Divine, it really puts me off. Plus, she is such a f*cked-up mess of a character that her going the self-serving happy fee-fees route becomes an even bigger problem because she's not remotely stable and consistent enough to be trusted. This has, IMO, little or nothing to do with a realistic portrayal of a traumatized and conflicted person -- it is never even acknowledged how much of a Jeykll/Hyde she is beyond a few throwaway remarks of how she scares people. She's like a glob of putty squeezed and streched into whatever shape the writers want in a given moment.
 
I rather liked her in Origins and still want to like her, but she's just gone downhill steadily both personally and in the way she is used.

Reminds me of another Bioware character in a certain game whose character is all over the place and had no business inheriting such an important position as a spymaster. Sigh.


I really liked Leliana when she was a nobody but she really should have stayed a one-shot character like Zevran or Oghren.

[kal_reegar]

as it has ben said, her faith essentially boils down to "the Maker wants what I want", and nothing shows that more clearly than this.

 

A the perfect example? After trespasser, if Warden-romanced, she "decreed that all members of the Chantry, from initiate to Divine, would be allowed to engage in romantic relationships".

 

Why? Because she thinks that this is the right thing to do? Because she believe that in this way she can improve the Chantry? No, because she want to continue her love affair with the Warden openly and without scandal.

 

And who is accused to persue power for her own goals interest? Vivienne, of course

[IanPolaris]

Actually if you carefully examine both characters and class specializations that involve contact with the fade and I think it's pretty clear that Lucius was using 'abomination' to mean 'possessed by a spirit'.  Here's why:

 

While it's true that contact with a spirit can break tranquility w/o being possessed, it's not true in general that it provides any resistance or special powers.  However possession (even passive possession) by a spirit always does, mage or mundane.  It's also worth remembering that being touched by a spirit does not protect against possession (for example spirit healers and spirit warriors can be possessed), but those that are already possessed (even passively and benignly) can NOT be possessed.

 

It's also worth noting that some sorts of possession are so complete that there is no longer any effective difference between the spirit and the person.  Flemeth talks about this explicitly (and she'd know).  It's also true that spirit possession can be so passive that the person may not be aware that they are being ridden at all (and even if spirit does help, it doesn't always mean that the person thinks that it's a possessing spirit....especially if they've been told otherwise).

 

As for powers like "setting the lyrium in blood on fire", Cassandra always tells you that Seeker powers vary widely from Seeker to Seeker and her power was particularly rare.  That is consistant with having a variety of very different (but related) spirits riding the Seekers giving them special powers (especially when we note they ONLY get that power after they've been contacted by said spirit) but NOT consistant with only being touched by spirits.  After all both Spirit Healers and Spirit Warriors are also touched by spirits, but they aren't possessed (usually) and they don't show these powers.

 

Finally it's worth noting that the Jaws of Hakkon also strongly imply that at best the Seekers are ridden by a spirit (rather than merely touched).  After all if you talk to the Trainer in JoH, he tells you flat out [and the Augur confirms it] that spirits are encouraged to touch Avaar warriors to help them in battle.  If being touched by a spirit were all it took, we should see a lot of Avaar warriors that are immune from possession.  We know that this is not the case.

 

Finally (yes really), no matter how much some try to dismiss it, one CAN NOT ignore that the in-game experts (and thus it was approved by DG and the writers) deliberately used the term abomination which in Thedas is a very emotionally loaded term with a very specific implication of spirit possession.

[kal_reegar]

Actually if you carefully examine both characters and class specializations that involve contact with the fade and I think it's pretty clear that Lucius was using 'abomination' to mean 'possessed by a spirit'.  Here's why:

 

While it's true that contact with a spirit can break tranquility w/o being possessed, it's not true in general that it provides any resistance or special powers.  However possession (even passive possession) by a spirit always does, mage or mundane.  It's also worth remembering that being touched by a spirit does not protect against possession (for example spirit healers and spirit warriors can be possessed), but those that are already possessed (even passively and benignly) can NOT be possessed.

 

It's also worth noting that some sorts of possession are so complete that there is no longer any effective difference between the spirit and the person.  Flemeth talks about this explicitly (and she'd know).  It's also true that spirit possession can be so passive that the person may not be aware that they are being ridden at all (and even if spirit does help, it doesn't always mean that the person thinks that it's a possessing spirit....especially if they've been told otherwise).

 

As for powers like "setting the lyrium in blood on fire", Cassandra always tells you that Seeker powers vary widely from Seeker to Seeker and her power was particularly rare.  That is consistant with having a variety of very different (but related) spirits riding the Seekers giving them special powers (especially when we note they ONLY get that power after they've been contacted by said spirit) but NOT consistant with only being touched by spirits.  After all both Spirit Healers and Spirit Warriors are also touched by spirits, but they aren't possessed (usually) and they don't show these powers.

 

Finally it's worth noting that the Jaws of Hakkon also strongly imply that at best the Seekers are ridden by a spirit (rather than merely touched).  After all if you talk to the Trainer in JoH, he tells you flat out [and the Augur confirms it] that spirits are encouraged to touch Avaar warriors to help them in battle.  If being touched by a spirit were all it took, we should see a lot of Avaar warriors that are immune from possession.  We know that this is not the case.

 

Finally (yes really), no matter how much some try to dismiss it, one CAN NOT ignore that the in-game experts (and thus it was approved by DG and the writers) deliberately used the term abomination which in Thedas is a very emotionally loaded term with a very specific implication of spirit possession.

 

a question.

 

A person who has been fully possessed by a spirit/demon, but has "overcome/heal" this possession, can be possessed again (by another spirit)?

[IanPolaris]

a question.

 

A person who has been fully possessed by a spirit/demon, but has "overcome/heal" this possession, can be possessed again (by another spirit)?

 

I don't think you can "overcome" possession.  Apparently (per JoH and also DAO by negotiating with the demon) you can entice/force a spirit/demon to leave.  Once the spirit leaves, you can be possessed (either by the same spirit or another).  OTOH if the spirit merges with the person (see Flemeth), I believe you retain possession immunity in that case.

[kal_reegar]

I don't think you can "overcome" possession.  Apparently (per JoH and also DAO by negotiating with the demon) you can entice/force a spirit/demon to leave.  Once the spirit leaves, you can be possessed (either by the same spirit or another).  OTOH if the spirit merges with the person (see Flemeth), I believe you retain possession immunity in that case.

 

are we sure? I mean, have we examples of someone who as been possessed, has expelled the demon (example: Connor) and after that, has been possessed again?

Maybe it's like measels... you get ill once, and if you survive, you can get it anymore.

 

 

Gray Warden -> drink dark spaw blood (taint inside them) -> "master the taint" -> they become immune to corruption

 

Seekers -> being possessed (demon inside them) -> "master the demon" (kill/expelled/subjogate it?) -> the become immune to possession

 

Saying that seekers are abomination is like saying that GW are darkspawn, IMO.

They've a connection, something in common, but they're not the same thing.

[MisterJB]

Actually if you carefully examine both characters and class specializations that involve contact with the fade and I think it's pretty clear that Lucius was using 'abomination' to mean 'possessed by a spirit'.  Here's why:

 

While it's true that contact with a spirit can break tranquility w/o being possessed, it's not true in general that it provides any resistance or special powers.  However possession (even passive possession) by a spirit always does, mage or mundane.  It's also worth remembering that being touched by a spirit does not protect against possession (for example spirit healers and spirit warriors can be possessed), but those that are already possessed (even passively and benignly) can NOT be possessed.

 

It's also worth noting that some sorts of possession are so complete that there is no longer any effective difference between the spirit and the person.  Flemeth talks about this explicitly (and she'd know).  It's also true that spirit possession can be so passive that the person may not be aware that they are being ridden at all (and even if spirit does help, it doesn't always mean that the person thinks that it's a possessing spirit....especially if they've been told otherwise).

 

As for powers like "setting the lyrium in blood on fire", Cassandra always tells you that Seeker powers vary widely from Seeker to Seeker and her power was particularly rare.  That is consistant with having a variety of very different (but related) spirits riding the Seekers giving them special powers (especially when we note they ONLY get that power after they've been contacted by said spirit) but NOT consistant with only being touched by spirits.  After all both Spirit Healers and Spirit Warriors are also touched by spirits, but they aren't possessed (usually) and they don't show these powers.

 

Finally it's worth noting that the Jaws of Hakkon also strongly imply that at best the Seekers are ridden by a spirit (rather than merely touched).  After all if you talk to the Trainer in JoH, he tells you flat out [and the Augur confirms it] that spirits are encouraged to touch Avaar warriors to help them in battle.  If being touched by a spirit were all it took, we should see a lot of Avaar warriors that are immune from possession.  We know that this is not the case.

First, it's worth noting that we have no reason to believe that anything the Spirit Warriors, Healers or Avvar do is the exame same process involved in the Seeker's ritual. In fact, we have seen the recounting of different summonings and none of them allude at a meeting of minds.

In fact, the excerpt taken from the book of the Seekers states that it doesn't work on mages to begin with making it undoubtedly different from what a Spirit Healer does.

 

Second, even if the process is the same, none of these groups were Tranquil before it happened which likely makes all the difference.

 

Third, before Asunder there was no inkling that Tranquil could be possessed so, simply saying that before we had more information on the Seekers there was no inkling that a Tranquil non-mage having his or her mind touched by a spirit of Faith grants special power is hardly evidence.

 

It was not true in general before we were told it is exactly what happens.

 

 

Finally (yes really), no matter how much some try to dismiss it, one CAN NOT ignore that the in-game experts (and thus it was approved by DG and the writers) deliberately used the term abomination which in Thedas is a very emotionally loaded term with a very specific implication of spirit possession.

 

Ok, what Lucius actually says is:

 

"We are abominations, Cassandra. We created a decaying world and sought to preserve it even as it crumbled around is."

 

Obviously, the two ideas here are connected. If the writers wanted for it to be a great, big revelation about how Seekers are possessed, they would have followed it with an explanation of how their powers are granted by spirits.

However, that is not what they did. What Lucius is clearly saying is that Seekers are abominations because of what they did, not because they are possessed.
 

[thesuperdarkone2]

Just out of curiosity, because I can't seem to find the post anywhere, how can I get Leliana to be named Devine? I always end up with Cassandra being named.

Ally with mages and NEVER say cass has good ideas or would be a good divine

[The Baconer]

In fact, the excerpt taken from the book of the Seekers states that it doesn't work on mages to begin with making it undoubtedly different from what a Spirit Healer does.

 

It said the first mage who tried had failed (as in, they were not able to attract a Faith spirit), not that it doesn't work on mages. 

[sniper_arrow]

@Dean_the_Young

 

I almost agree with your assessment with Lelana as Divine, but she's not the first one who would implement the changes based on her own wants. For example, Amara III enjoyed burning apostates and ruled the Chantry with an iron fist until it was implied that she was assassinated.  Vivienne, if made Divine, will also made changes based on her needs (no matter how much she would sugar coat it) that would result Cassandra to leave the Exalted Council.

[sniper_arrow]

Ally with mages and NEVER say cass has good ideas or would be a good divine

 

Also, do not exile the Wardens.

[Tidus]

One more thing to consider  about Leliana being the Devine and IMHO it may be very important in the grand scheme. Leliana knows how to play the game just as well as any Orlesian Nobel and in Orlais that's very important if any one in power wishes to survive..

[Gervaise]

No, you can get Leliana as Divine and still exile the Wardens.    The conditions for who becomes Divine are complicated   Allying with the mages definitely sways it in her favour, as does putting Briala on the throne of Orlais.      However, I managed it with allying with mages, reconciling Celene and Briala and exiling the Grey Wardens.    Conversely, if you conscript the mages, reconcile Celene and Briala and keep the Grey Wardens it seems virtually impossible to get anyone but Vivienne.

[AedanStarfang]

Lucius specifically says that all Seekers are abominations and it's pretty clear what the context is.  It's also clear that Lambert was in the wrong as well.

 

Sorry, but if the writers didn't mean possession or at least soul-riding (a la Wynne), they should have used a different word (and DG was in charge of that).

Yea he's using the term abomination like it's a 'travesty' or heresy, not the actual physical being, sheesh.