1158 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Morality can be based on emotions, but not necessarily. There can be logic behind it.

Most things have assumptions behind them, anyway, such as believing efficiency is a good thing, because production is believed to be a good thing, because stuff happening is good, blah, blah, blah. Pragmatism can be believed as good because of assumptions. Science assumes everything is intelligible.

If one assumes a single author on existence, like The Maker (maybe?), then morality, right and wrong, is based on the author. If one assumes Chaos, then there is no morality. One can assume that reason and logic are the ultimate, but that is just another assumption or idea based on another assumption.

Assumptions are used in logic and reason all the time. I said morality, right and wrong, isn't subjective, because reason and logic can be applied (if x is true, then y sort of stuff). Yes, assumptions are involved, but assumptions are in every understanding of reality.

Others can disagree based on other assumptions, but if my assumption turns out to be true, then they are wrong, and vice versa.

... okay, this is why appeals to morality are often dismissed in professional debates, but the philosophies of ethics and morality can involve as much logic and reasoning as any science.

 

Morality always base on emotions and opinion because it breaks actions and motives into right and wrong ones, and while morality can loosely base on facts in the end it's core base is an opinion.Can you say slavery is objectively right or wrong, or any other type of action?

 

Science is more about discovering way universe functions not labeling motives and actions as right or wrong on subjective basis.

 

As for author, now question is why exactly right or wrong is base on the author?

 

Morality is dismissed because it is a subjective and doesn't apply to anything else than human interactions while people can't even agree on what is right or wrong.

[Daerog]

Yet the Chantry also uses blood magic. (I have blood mage Hawke.)

Well, good thing that they don't after DAI. The Circle and College do their own thing now and not under the Chantry.

Also, there is only one way to use blood magic, through pain. Without pain, blood magic is impotent. One can argue the morality on that, but self harm is a bad thing when alternatives are available.

[Sports72Xtrm]

If a spirit can judge without possessing, then that's great, remove the Harrowing. Although, as is shown in the Mage Origin, the test isn't a battle of power, the test wasn't against the rage demon, it is a test on being able to know the dangers of the Fade and not be fooled by demons. The test in Origins was against the pride demon, the rage demon was a distraction made by the pride demon.

If they can choose to be more than their roles, like Cole can, then they can choose power over love like any mortal. Spirits are not immune to corruption, as can be seen with the Nightmare. Even Solas' angst is probably influencing a spirit in the Fade.

Spirits can help, without possessing. Spirits can also get corrupted and become demons. People can and have had their souls imprisoned by demons, so it is a risk dealing with spirits in the first place, even without possession.

The possesion stuff is unnecessary and just adds to the risk.

Nobody is asking not to keep an eye on the spirit. Unlike Mundanes however, when spirits turn to demons you know when they are corrupted. They start disappearing like Cole, who got addicted to killing just to be "remembered", or turn grotesque as Cole says their visage mimics their emotions since the world doesn't make sense to them so they can't maintain their form. Of course, if a spirit is corrupted, you kill it. But their corruption is more obvious than that of a mundane. There's a difference between learning to be human and being a human. Despite Cole being more human, he's not human. He's a spirit.

[Macha'Anu]

We've had to choose between the two sides in all three games and the large majority of players choose mages without thinking twice.

And why wouldn't they? One's first instinct is to help the oppressed. But if it is to be presented as a choice, it shouldn't be so black and white.

While there are a few reasons to be pro Circle and respect the templars' real purpose, the games failed to provide one that is just as compelling as the noble cause of mage freedom.

I don't always choose mages for over the years I've learned mages are as at fault and or corrupt as templars. Look at Orsino, choose his side and he still turns to a demon thing to win. I still think there needs reform and mages need more independence but Vivienne isn't wrong when she says circles are needed if only to help mages properly learn their magic and control it. We just needn't imprison them like they are prisioners. Both sides need to see that they both are at fault in some respect. Barris proves that some templars really are looking out for the safe of mages to protect them from ignorance and fear. And I definitely do not agree with the right of tranquility. But there has to be a way to protect a mage should thru not be able to cope with their magic without lobotomizing them. Just my two cents but mages aren't always innocent. That was shown in all three games that both sides need to grow up and figure things out.

[Catilina]

Well, good thing that they don't after DAI. The Circle and College do their own thing now and not under the Chantry.

Also, there is only one way to use blood magic, through pain. Without pain, blood magic is impotent. One can argue the morality on that, but self harm is a bad thing when alternatives are available.

 

Without a doubt. (One of my favorite Hawke is a self-propelled jerk. But not evil.)

[Daerog]

Morality always base on emotions and opinion because it breaks actions and motives into right and wrong ones, and while morality can loosely base on facts in the end it's core base is an opinion.Can you say slavery is objectively right or wrong, or any other type of action?
 
Science is more about discovering way universe functions not labeling motives and actions as right or wrong on subjective basis.
 
Morality is dismissed because it is a subjective and doesn't apply to anything else than human interactions while people can't even agree on what is right or wrong.

That depends on how you define right and wrong. One can define "right" as being in step with reason, and "wrong" being without reason or illogical.

Science attempts to discover things because it assumes they can be discovered, and there are wrong ways to go about science, such as lying about data. There is plenty of arguing in quantum physics, but that doesn't make science subjective.

Every idea at its core is an assumption, a belief, a faith, an opinion. To say morality is subjective because of that is like dismissing science because it has the opinion that reason and logic are the right way to perceive reality.

[Daerog]

Nobody is asking not to keep an eye on the spirit. Unlike Mundanes however, when spirits turn to demons you know when they are corrupted. They start disappearing like Cole, who got addicted to killing just to be "remembered", or turn grotesque as Cole says their visage mimics their emotions since the world doesn't make sense to them so they can't maintain their form. Of course, if a spirit is corrupted, you kill it. But their corruption is more obvious than that of a mundane. There's a difference between learning to be human and being a human. Despite Cole being more human, he's not human. He's a spirit.

I've only been arguing against possession, we seem to agree here, though.

[thesuperdarkone2]

If a spirit can judge without possessing, then that's great, remove the Harrowing. Although, as is shown in the Mage Origin, the test isn't a battle of power, the test wasn't against the rage demon, it is a test on being able to know the dangers of the Fade and not be fooled by demons. The test in Origins was against the pride demon, the rage demon was a distraction made by the pride demon.

If they can choose to be more than their roles, like Cole can, then they can choose power over love like any mortal. Spirits are not immune to corruption, as can be seen with the Nightmare. Even Solas' angst is probably influencing a spirit in the Fade.

Spirits can help, without possessing. Spirits can also get corrupted and become demons. People can and have had their souls imprisoned by demons, so it is a risk dealing with spirits in the first place, even without possession.

The possesion stuff is unnecessary and just adds to the risk.

Actually the harrowing is a fight at times. This is shown by anders and Vivienne's harrowing where they both had to fight a demon and nothing else.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Speaking of the Harrowing, you can completely agree to let the Pride Demon possess you and he just chastises you for being a trusting idiot and warns you not to do it again. Not much of a test to prove something if you ask me.

[Melbella]

The how's and what's of the Harrowing make no sense to me. Do the senior mages and Templars have some sort of agreement with these demons to test their new mages for them? How the heck does it work exactly? Are they bound somehow? And there is Alistair's description of some girl having a demon "put inside her." Uh, what? That isn't anywhere close to what happens in the mage origin.

[thesuperdarkone2]

The how's and what's of the Harrowing make no sense to me. Do the senior mages and Templars have some sort of agreement with these demons to test their new mages for them? How the heck does it work exactly? Are they bound somehow? And there is Alistair's description of some girl having a demon "put inside her." Uh, what? That isn't anywhere close to what happens in the mage origin.

That also brings up the point of why do apprentices have to fight PRIDE demons?

[Jedi Comedian]

That also brings up the point of why do apprentices have to fight PRIDE demons?

Prefer not to know.

[Hellion Rex]

That also brings up the point of why do apprentices have to fight PRIDE demons?

Well, we only know that the Kinloch Hold Tower used a Pride demon. Others might use any demon that they can bind. But perhaps the theory is that if you can overcome a demon of pride (supposedly one of the strongest types) then you can deal adequately with any demonic threat.

[Lulupab]

The harrowing makes no sense. I can see why it exists, but why shouldn't a mage be able to not go through harrowing and instead always remain in the confined circle without becoming a tranquil? This is like forced military service but much worse. There are only two countries in the world who practice it btw (Iran and Israel).

 

They are forcing every single mage into a life threatening situation, and then they are not even getting adequately rewarded with the freedom they deserve for going through such a thing. Fight demons and prove yourself or become a tranquil, resist and die.

 

When I remember all these flaws about old circle system I'm simply glad that they are gone in every single ending of DA:I. (not necessarily circles themselves, but their old system)

[raging_monkey]

Harrowing might stay since even the vints use them still and vints are arguably the most currently advanced mages so it has purpose even in a alien system

[Lulupab]

Harrowing might stay since even the vints use them still and vints are arguably the most currently advanced mages so it has purpose even in a alien system

 

As I said I didn't have a problem with Harrowing itself, but the way it was used in the south. Its like a "test" but the south didn't apply it properly.

 

I think the Vints let the mages leave circles frequently after the harrowing, or even permanently. I mean mages have families and houses in Tevinter, I seriously doubt they stay in circles all their lives. And we have no information about the harrowing being mandatory in Tevinter. Its quite likely they allow "weak" mages to not take the test.

[Tidus]

I will never ever side with those thug Templars that has killed, raped and beaten mages for years while the Chantry looked the other way while continuing to spew hate and fear against the mages all in the name of the Maker  and the Seekers was no better. Read "Asunder" for the cold facts and don't rush through the discussions with Cassandra about the seekers once she obtains the Seekers book. Even she was shaken by the facts.

 

Every time I killed hundreds of Templars in Haven's avalanche I smile. "Do not question! You have a higher calling! said the Templar in Val Royeaux.

 

Yup..That higher calling was being buried in my avalanche.

[raging_monkey]

As I said I didn't have a problem with Harrowing itself, but the way it was used in the south. Its like a "test" but the south didn't apply it properly.

I think the Vints let the mages leave circles frequently after the harrowing, or even permanently. I mean mages have families and houses in Tevinter, I seriously doubt they stay in circles all their lives. And we have no information about the harrowing being mandatory in Tevinter. Its quite likely they allow "weak" mages to not take the test.

how do we apply it properly? Tests are test regardless of curriculum

[Lulupab]

how do we apply it properly? Tests are test regardless of curriculum

 

If mages want to leave the circles or simply have more freedom, they need to prove themselves by passing the harrowing. This is acceptable as far as tests go and how dangerous an untrained mage can be. But it should not be forced upon them like "Harrowing or tranquility or death". Forget "human rights" this violates the right to live. This sort of ultimatum can be seen as indirect murder. Its one thing to confine them because of potential danger, its another thing to force them into an ultimatum that 2/3 of the results are quite brutal aka death or tranquility.

 

So what I purpose is allowing mages to not take the harrowing if they don't want to but instead making their confinement permanent until they decide to take the test. I mean the forced confinement is enough, they don't need added ultimatum of prove yourself or we will kill you, your mind or yourself.

[Iakus]

 

So what I purpose is allowing mages to not take the harrowing if they don't want to but instead making their confinement permanent until they decide to take the test. I mean the forced confinement is enough, they don't need added ultimatum of prove yourself or we will kill you, your mind or yourself.

In doing that, though, you are potentially endangering everyone in the Circle when/if said mage eventually goes abomination, and they have to be killed anyway.

 

Unless you're proposing confining them in a prison cell or something.  And I doubt that's the case.

[Xilizhra]

The Harrowing solution is extremely simple: have it, but also have a more experienced mage on hand who can rescue the apprentice if need be.

[Lulupab]

In doing that, though, you are potentially endangering everyone in the Circle when/if said mage eventually goes abomination, and they have to be killed anyway.
 
Unless you're proposing confining them in a prison cell or something.  And I doubt that's the case.

 
How many of them will become an abomination though? Very small minority. They take the harrowing once they are adult anyway and children are a lot easier to possess. Its a flawed concept in general. 
 
And you are talking an accidental abomination here, unlike Uldred who as a full trained mage summoned a pride demon into the waking world in attempt to revolt. It so didn't go his way but that's beside the point.  Accidental abominations have never been a serious problem when they happened inside the circles because they were close to thousand Templars AND Mages to stop them.
 
You do realize when a harrowing fails the mage becomes an abomination right? Like guaranteed result. Its quite possible the vast majority of people who failed the harrowing could have had simple lives in the circles. Also the circle is more than capable to fight and kill the said abomination. Templars might die, but its their job and they signed up for it.
 

The Harrowing solution is extremely simple: have it, but also have a more experienced mage on hand who can rescue the apprentice if need be.

 
Now sure if it can work, but if it does then its indeed the best solution.

[TheKomandorShepard]

That depends on how you define right and wrong. One can define "right" as being in step with reason, and "wrong" being without reason or illogical.

Science attempts to discover things because it assumes they can be discovered, and there are wrong ways to go about science, such as lying about data. There is plenty of arguing in quantum physics, but that doesn't make science subjective.

Every idea at its core is an assumption, a belief, a faith, an opinion. To say morality is subjective because of that is like dismissing science because it has the opinion that reason and logic are the right way to perceive reality.

Aside that it would make morality redundant because to every motive or action reason can be given, right and wrong in context of morality is what is acceptable and unacceptable for an individual, what comes to personal opinion.

 

Sciene assumes there is objective reality and it's laws can be discovered, however science just objectively observes while morality judges behavior.Problem with science is that it is conducted by humans that are prone to bias or misinformation so errors can happen. 

 

As i said morality is subjective because it requires you make subjective judgement of human behavior, while science is about merely about observing objective reality and way it functions.

 

 

The Harrowing solution is extremely simple: have it, but also have a more experienced mage on hand who can rescue the apprentice if need be.

 

And why we would do that? Harrowing is a test that exist to prove that mage at least have chance resisting demon, if they can't they have to go.

 

 

 
How many of them will become an abomination though? Very small minority. They take the harrowing once they are adult anyway and children are a lot easier to possess. Its a flawed concept in general. 
 
And you are talking an accidental abomination here, unlike Uldred who as a full trained mage summoned a pride demon into the waking world in attempt to revolt. It so didn't go his way but that's beside the point.  Accidental abominations have never been a serious problem when they happened inside the circles because they were close to thousand Templars AND Mages to stop them.
 
You do realize when a harrowing fails the mage becomes an abomination right? Like guaranteed result. Its quite possible the vast majority of people who failed the harrowing could have had simple lives in the circles. Also the circle is more than capable to fight and kill the said abomination. Templars might die, but its their job and they signed up for it.
 

 
Now sure if it can work, but if it does then its indeed the best solution.

 

Enough of them to cause tremendous amount of damage and numbers of death for sake of the few.

 

Mage during Harrowing is immediately killed in case of possession before s/he does any damage , while suprise attack from an abomnation can cause tremendous amount of damage and can lead to situation similar to Uldred, not to mention if we are talking about more powerful and cunning demons. So no thanks but sacrificing many (mages and templars in tower) for sake of few (some mages that will die or be made tranquil) is silly idea.

[Hellion Rex]

The Harrowing solution is extremely simple: have it, but also have a more experienced mage on hand who can rescue the apprentice if need be.

I have no issue with that. Have the apprentice remanded for more training, if possession has not been found within the mage. However, there should be a limit to how many tries an apprentice should have at the Harrowing. Because I think at some point you either get it or you don't. It isn't the physical that's necessarily the issue.

[Xilizhra]

I have no issue with that. Have the apprentice remanded for more training, if possession has not been found within the mage. However, there should be a limit to how many tries an apprentice should have at the Harrowing. Because I think at some point you either get it or you don't. It isn't the physical that's necessarily the issue.

I'll accept that, provided that you have a solution that doesn't involve death or Tranquility.