93 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

Guise, it's "Right," not "Rite."

[Silfren]

Crow_22 wrote...

Anyway, back to the subject. Knight-Commander wouldn't be able to act if it supercedes Chantry rule, if there is no ruler to keep someone in check then they can do w/e the heck they want. Thus why Meridith did what she did. The Knight-Commander, if grand Cleric was dead and the ruler was still alive, would probably need to contact the local ruler or council and ask them permission. Then it'd come down to the rulers decision.

Of course if the Knight-Commander was like Meridith, wouldn't matter. No, Meridith didn't have a 'dire need' because she could not prove there were abominations. Therefore! I was correct, the Grand Cleric would have to be a 'green light' for the Kinght-Commander because he/she answers TO her. And so does the First Enchanter.

No.  The Knight Commander patently does NOT have to ask the local ruler or council for permission, so where you got that, I haven't a clue.  The only person they have to ask is the Grand Cleric, and, at least as far as I know, the Divine--insofar as if the Grand Cleric refuses, a Knight-Commander can go over their head to the next (and final) authority.  At no point is a Knight Commander ever required to seek permission from anyone else, much less someone outside of the Chantry's hierarchy of command.  They don't answer to secular rulers for Chantry affairs, period. 

I'm not sure what you mean by referring to "if it supercedes Chantry rule," because what we're talking about here is whether the Knight Commander has the authority to invoke the Right if there isn't a Grand Cleric around to ask, and it has been established by WoG that they most certainly do have that authority.  So there's no "superceding" of Chantry rule going on here--it is within the rules for a Knight Commander to act under her own authority if circumstances call for it, as in the case of a dead Grand Cleric.

You're missing the point about "dire need."  I never said anywhere that Meredith actually had a dire need, I said the question of "dire need" was a moot point in that, or any similar situation, because a Knight Commander in a position of not having a Grand Cleric to ask for permission has the authority to invoke a Right on her own counsel.  Therefore, by the time anyone questions the justification for her calling of it, it's too late, as the mages are already dead.  The only people the Divine can ask, if she chooses to question the veracity of her Knight Commander's word, are the templars, who may or may not have agreed with the decision to Annul the Circle, and thus what they have to say will depend on their own perspectives, and on their willingness to go against their immediate supervisor.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 juin 2011 - 05:39 .

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

Ambeth wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

How can anyone NOT?  It housed thousands of miserable slaves for centuries, with many, MANY people dying there.

Actually, your own character can question it early on, asking why the mages were housed in the Gallows.  The answer is 'it was a big, empty building just going to waste.'  Which means either someone along the line was VERY blind to reality (when even a newcomer thinks it's a bad idea) or someone was setting the mages up to fail.

If you're referring to the dialogue with the guard at the gates who is barring refugees from going in, Hawke doesn't question the wisdom of locking mages in the Gallows.  Upon learning that the mages were housed in the Gallows, she simply asks if mages were imprisoned in Kirkwall, and is told that the prison was converted into a Circle.  At no point there does she suggest that she thinks its a bad idea for there to be a Circle to be in Kirkwall.

If I recall correctly, Ambeth is talking about dialogue Hawke has with Grand Cleric Elthina about the Gallows.

[Silfren]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise, it's "Right," not "Rite."

A) Why do people insist on focusing on the least important detail of the whole matter?  Nitpicking people's spelling is insenstive and uptight at best, and extremely rude at worst. 

 Supposedly it's been confirmed that the proper spelling is "right" but most of the confusion lies in the fact that both variants are used in the games themselves, whether because the writers themselves couldn't figure out the spelling (or connotation) they wanted to confer, or there was just confusion between groups on which was the official spelling.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ambeth wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think they knew the Veil was thin. The Band of Three seem to be the only people who actually discovered how thin the Veil was aside from the ancient Tevinters.

How can anyone NOT?  It housed thousands of miserable slaves for centuries, with many, MANY people dying there.

Actually, your own character can question it early on, asking why the mages were housed in the Gallows.  The answer is 'it was a big, empty building just going to waste.'  Which means either someone along the line was VERY blind to reality (when even a newcomer thinks it's a bad idea) or someone was setting the mages up to fail.

If you're referring to the dialogue with the guard at the gates who is barring refugees from going in, Hawke doesn't question the wisdom of locking mages in the Gallows.  Upon learning that the mages were housed in the Gallows, she simply asks if mages were imprisoned in Kirkwall, and is told that the prison was converted into a Circle.  At no point there does she suggest that she thinks its a bad idea for there to be a Circle to be in Kirkwall.

If I recall correctly, Ambeth is talking about dialogue Hawke has with Grand Cleric Elthina about the Gallows.

Really?  I assume this must be in Act 1, then, since it's supposed to be early on?  I don't believe I've ever spoken to Elthina prior to Act 2, but I never got this dialogue.

[mesmerizedish]

Silfren wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise, it's "Right," not "Rite."

A) Why do people insist on focusing on the least important detail of the whole matter?  Nitpicking people's spelling is insenstive and uptight at best, and extremely rude at worst. 

 Supposedly it's been confirmed that the proper spelling is "right" but most of the confusion lies in the fact that both variants are used in the games themselves, whether because the writers themselves couldn't figure out the spelling (or connotation) they wanted to confer, or there was just confusion between groups on which was the official spelling.

A) I'm just setting everyone straight. I think your response indicates that you're a good deal more uptight than I am

I don't see what that has to do with anything. "Right" is right, "Rite" is wrong. Yes, that means that the games themselves are sometimes wrong. So what?

[Silfren]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Silfren wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise, it's "Right," not "Rite."

A) Why do people insist on focusing on the least important detail of the whole matter?  Nitpicking people's spelling is insenstive and uptight at best, and extremely rude at worst. 

 Supposedly it's been confirmed that the proper spelling is "right" but most of the confusion lies in the fact that both variants are used in the games themselves, whether because the writers themselves couldn't figure out the spelling (or connotation) they wanted to confer, or there was just confusion between groups on which was the official spelling.

A) I'm just setting everyone straight. I think your response indicates that you're a good deal more uptight than I am

I don't see what that has to do with anything. "Right" is right, "Rite" is wrong. Yes, that means that the games themselves are sometimes wrong. So what?

And you think that nobody else has ever bothered to try "setting everyone straight"?  Or that other people won't just as quickly set YOU straight and insist that it's "rite?"  Or that anyone should take you as the final authority?  And I wonder if I should now point out that you meant "guys," not "guise," which made your correction rather ironic.

Correcting people's spelling is rude.  That's all there is to it.  Save it for when you're leaving a review for a written piece over at ff.net, or wait until you're asked to proofread. 

As for I don't think there's ever been de facto confirmation that "rite" is incorrect.  Supposedly there has been, but I've never seen such.  It could just as easily be "Rite."  The biggest difference is that "rite" implies a different connotation than the other variant.

[mesmerizedish]

Silfren wrote...

And you think that nobody else has ever bothered to try "setting everyone straight"?  Or that other people won't just as quickly set YOU straight and insist that it's "rite?"  Or that anyone should take you as the final authority?  And I wonder if I should now point out that you meant "guys," not "guise," which made your correction rather ironic.

I did not, in fact, mean "guys." I meant "guise." And people trying to "set me straight" by pointing out that it's "rite" would be wrong.

Correcting people's spelling is rude.

Actually, it's not. But being wrong is wrong.

As for I don't think there's ever been de facto confirmation that "rite" is incorrect.  Supposedly there has been, but I've never seen such.  It could just as easily be "Rite."  The biggest difference is that "rite" implies a different connotation than the other variant.

Now you have.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 06 juin 2011 - 02:24 .

[ipgd]

Silfren wrote...

And I wonder if I should now point out that you meant "guys," not "guise," which made your correction rather ironic.

You just used the word ironic in a semantic catfight. Danger, danger.

[Silfren]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I did not, in fact, mean "guys." I meant "guise." And people trying to "set me straight" by pointing out that it's "rite" would be wrong.

Correcting people's spelling is rude.

Actually, it's not. But being wrong is wrong.

No, correcting people's spelling is rude.  End of story.  If people don't ask you to proofread their writing, there is no call for you to do so.  Whether they're wrong in how they spelled something is irrelevant.  Some people have English as a second language, and get confused.  Others are dyslexic.  Some are just plain rotten spellers.  

As for I don't think there's ever been de facto confirmation that "rite" is incorrect.  Supposedly there has been, but I've never seen such.  It could just as easily be "Rite."  The biggest difference is that "rite" implies a different connotation than the other variant.

Now you have.

Fair enough.  Again, however, how you spell the damned word is the least important detail on the forums.  Not everyone has seen that confirmation, and a lot are going by what they see in the game.  Doesn't matter if what they see in the game is incorrect, it's still what they have to go by.  Unless you plan to make it your mission to shove that link at everyone who ever spells the word as "Rite" you'd best be prepared for people to argue vehemently with you, because they saw it spelled as "Rite" in the codex.  

Again, correcting people's spelling when it is not called for is rude.  Pointless, too, but mostly just rude. 

Modifié par Silfren, 06 juin 2011 - 02:34 .

[TEWR]

I don't bother with grammar/spelling corrections. But if I see a train wreck of a post I do reply with some snark.


But only after I see if I can understand what's trying to be conveyed. If I understand it, I throw in some snark and then go serious. If I can't, I ask politely for clarification before I initiate snark mode.


But grammar/spelling wasn't the point of this thread was it?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 juin 2011 - 02:50 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't bother with grammar/spelling corrections. But if I see a train wreck of a post I do reply with some snark.


But only after I see if I can understand what's trying to be conveyed. If I understand it, I throw in some snark and then go serious. If I can't, I ask politely for clarification before I initiate snark mode.


But grammar/spelling wasn't the point of this thread was it?

It's never the point, but that doesn't seem to stop people from being oh-so-helpful, does it?

[Maria Caliban]

It's actually the Right of Annulment.

[dragonflight288]

....I'm against the Right of Annulment, and I would be even more against a Rite of Annulment, having a magical spell use to kill a group. lol.

[Kaiser Shepard]

dragonflight288 wrote...

....I'm against the Right of Annulment, and I would be even more against a Rite of Annulment, having a magical spell use to kill a group. lol.

Well, a single spell or ritual would make the whole ordeal more humane, assuming the Circle in question is actually beyond salvation.

[Ambeth]

Silfren wrote...

*snip to avoid a pyramid*

If you're referring to the dialogue with the guard at the gates who is barring refugees from going in, Hawke doesn't question the wisdom of locking mages in the Gallows.  Upon learning that the mages were housed in the Gallows, she simply asks if mages were imprisoned in Kirkwall, and is told that the prison was converted into a Circle.  At no point there does she suggest that she thinks its a bad idea for there to be a Circle to be in Kirkwall.

When questioning the guard about housing the mages in the Gallows, it's not explicitly stated that it's 'bad' or 'good' or anything else.  It's just a question.  But I had to ask myself why my character had the option to ask and the implication I got was that we, the players, are to understand it was a questionable thing to do, i.e. 'bad'.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The veil of any Circle is thin, by virtue of housing mages casting magic. No one knows the dire state of the Veil in Kirkwall. They know that it is a particularly unruly Circle, but they don't know about the experiments of Tevinter below the city.

In short, they have no reason to think the veil is any thiner in this Circle than any other Circle.

[Wulfram]

They were apparently able to work out that the veil at the ferelden Tower was damaged and therefore decide to move it in DA:O.

Modifié par Wulfram, 06 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[YeGodz]

There are any number of reasons to maintain the Circle in Kirkwall, in spite of its reputation. The Chantry can trade its services to the local rulers, use it as a defense against another Qunari invasion, etc. Politics trumps common sense in Thedas all the time.

I think the questioning in act one had more to do with the obvious symbolism of housing the Circle in a Tevinter prison.

[dragonflight288]

Politics trumps common sense in real life too.

[GavrielKay]

YeGodz wrote...

There are any number of reasons to maintain the Circle in Kirkwall, in spite of its reputation. The Chantry can trade its services to the local rulers, use it as a defense against another Qunari invasion, etc. Politics trumps common sense in Thedas all the time.

I think the questioning in act one had more to do with the obvious symbolism of housing the Circle in a Tevinter prison.

I'm sure there were practical reasons why the Chantry might establish a circle in Kirkwall.  I believe that they must know there is something wrong with the veil in Kirkwall - there are several times in the games where someone will mention the veil being thin (even in the Blackmarsh I believe) so there must be a way to tell even if no one still remembers the details of why.  So, if the Chantry chose expediency over safety then that doesn't speak very highly of them.  While it is obvious that politics of a fashion plays a role in most everything, the Chantry can still lose credibility for giving in to that and endangering thousands of lives.  They look foolish claiming to be doing only what's best for everyone by keeping mages locked up in circles and then housing one of those circles in an insanely dangerous place.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Again: The Veil is thin in all Circles. The Chantry has no reason to believe that Kirkwall's is any worse. On the other hand they have many reasons to believe that the Circle is corrupt, since so many of them turn to blood magic. Wether or not the reason for this is magical in nature, is doubtfully debated at length amongst the clergy. Mainly because they really don't know, not being mages themselves.

[Ambeth]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again: The Veil is thin in all Circles. The Chantry has no reason to believe that Kirkwall's is any worse. On the other hand they have many reasons to believe that the Circle is corrupt, since so many of them turn to blood magic. Wether or not the reason for this is magical in nature, is doubtfully debated at length amongst the clergy. Mainly because they really don't know, not being mages themselves.

Can you point me to where you learned that the veil is thin in all Circles?  This is not a bit of lore I remember reading about.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The veil is thin whereever magic is cast. If cast often enough, or a single spell of enough power, and you will weaken the veil permanently. A Circle is full of mages casting magic and practicing their skills constantly. Furthermore, most of the Circles are situated in places of previous magical study, or places of great pain and/or death.
I don't recall it being stated directly that the veil in every circle is thiner than the rest of the world, but the lore of the game pretty much tells us this, through logical deduction.