546 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No.  The mages have the right to withdraw and they did.  Also just because Wynne was arguing the point doesn't make her right.  The Grand Enchanter had th legal right to call the vote and once that vote was made, Lambert had NO AUTHORITY to do anything to Rhys.  So no, you are not right about Lambert.  Even if you were, his futher actions were in complete abrogation of every vow he ever took.

The mages had no right to call for a voting of separation in a meeting that was previously extablished to be to discuss Pharamond's research after the doors have been closed. That is abusing the good will of the Chantry. Even if the Grand Enchanter could just call for a vote on whatever she pleases, she can't do so on the spot. Wynne says as much.
And based on the evidence, Lambert had every authority to arrest Rhys and to use force to do so if need be. Templars police mages.

Wynne has been known to be mistaken by quite a lot.  The mages regard the call for the vote to be valid and it's done.  Once done, the Templars have no authority over Rhys.  There is no evidence that the Grand Enchanter can't call the vote on the spot. Wynne's word is not enough.  Wynne objects but Wynne was always a loyalist (and not really an Aquaetarian IMO regardless of what she officially calls herself).  Frankly Wynne would object (and often does) to anything that criticises the Chantry and is frequently wrong.  Indeed in DAO Wynne is wrong more often than she is right.

It happens all the time.  Just because you call a session to discuss one thing does not automatically preclude the discussion of other things no matter what some may wish.  Once the call for the vote was made and the mages seperated from the Chantry, the Templars lost all legal authority.

False.  The Circle is independant.  The chantry has always allowed mages the hypothetical freedom of voting to seperate.  That may be a technicality that most in the Chantry has forgotten, but the Liberatarians are a legal fraternity and they call for the open break with the Chantry.  That alone says that calling for the vote was in fact legal.  What's more, it's not the first time such a vote has been called (see Cumberland).

Even if the Circle was independant from the Chantry, it is not from the Templars. The First Enchanter can't even enter a room without the Knight Commander being present.

False.  That may be the rule in the White Spire, but it's not the universal rule.  We know for a fact that First Enchanter Irving in the Fereldan circle can go pretty much wherever he pleases save for the repository room.  The difference here is that KC Gregoire actually follows the rules and insists his Templars do as well.  It is Gregoire that reminds the warden that the First Enchanter runs the circle and that the circle is indepdant of the Templars whose role is to guard and advise.  The fact that the Templars (and Chantry) have ignored this for most of a thousand years doesn't change this.

Therefore, even if the mages could vote for separation the templars would have to be involved. They weren't consulted.

False.  See above.

Which is still treason and explicit disobiedence of a lawful superior...not to mention attempted murder.

Entirely justifiable.

So you are admitting it then?  Disobediance of a lawful order by a lawful superior IS treasonous.

The Divine has all the spine of Milquitoast.  That doesn't excuse Lambert or justify his actions in any way.
-Polaris

This Divine is employing bards, Seekers, facing down blood mages and speaking out in front of nobles.
It just so happens Lambert's caution was justified.

My chararization of the Divine is entirely justified.  She is afraid of taking a stance and like Elthina in Kirkwall allows herself to get steamrolled by events rather than getting out in front of them.  It doesn't help that she is poorly served by her advisers most especially Lelianna.

-Polaris

[shepard1038]

Okay.

1. The Circle is governed and monitored by the Chantry.

2. The meeting was established by the Divine to discuss Pharamond's research. Going againts that is going againts the Divine autorithy.

[IanPolaris]

shepard1038 wrote...

Okay.

1. The Circle is governed and monitored by the Chantry.

Actually if you read the Hiearchy of the Circle Codex, technically it is not (governed anyway).  It is by agreement monitered by the Chantry vis a vis the Templars, but technically (as Knight Commander Gregoire tells the Warden), the CIrcles are independant.  The First Enchanter is supposed to be the first and last word of what the that circle does (and this is per KC Gregoire).

2. The meeting was established by the Divine to discuss Pharamond's research. Going againts that is going againts the Divine autorithy.

It is going against the Divine's wishes, but the College of Enchanters is not subject to Chantry Rule, technically.  Sure it was a slap in the face and a direct provocation, but the Grand Enchanter didn't do this out of kicks.  She felt that her hand was being forced by an overzealous Lambert (and indeed Lambert revolted against the Chantry when he didn't get his way which gives forced to Fiona's reasons).

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Wynne has been known to be mistaken by quite a lot.  The mages regard the call for the vote to be valid and it's done.  Once done, the Templars have no authority over Rhys.  There is no evidence that the Grand Enchanter can't call the vote on the spot. Wynne's word is not enough.  Wynne objects but Wynne was always a loyalist (and not really an Aquaetarian IMO regardless of what she officially calls herself).  Frankly Wynne would object (and often does) to anything that criticises the Chantry and is frequently wrong.  Indeed in DAO Wynne is wrong more often than she is right.

It happens all the time.  Just because you call a session to discuss one thing does not automatically preclude the discussion of other things no matter what some may wish.  Once the call for the vote was made and the mages seperated from the Chantry, the Templars lost all legal authority.

No, it doesn't happen all the time. Even if the chairman can decide topics to be approaced in a meeting, he has to inform those who will be attending the meeting of said topics at least three days before the meeting so as to give them time to prepare, form an opinion, come up with arguments.
Calling for a vote of such importance on the spot without previously warning anyone is completely absurd.
And no one had voted before Lamber appeared to arrest Rhys, their vote was conducted days later in Andoral's Reach, not the White Spire.

And Wynne is, by far, one of the best mages in the DA universe.

False.  That may be the rule in the White Spire, but it's not the universal rule.  We know for a fact that First Enchanter Irving in the Fereldan circle can go pretty much wherever he pleases save for the repository room.  The difference here is that KC Gregoire actually follows the rules and insists his Templars do as well.  It is Gregoire that reminds the warden that the First Enchanter runs the circle and that the circle is indepdant of the Templars whose role is to guard and advise.  The fact that the Templars (and Chantry) have ignored this for most of a thousand years doesn't change this.

The extent to which the templars control the lifes of mages vary from tower to tower but there are some rules that are universal such the rule regarding entry into the repository and the rule regarding Tranquilities, both of which require the approval of both thr FE and the KC; or the rule that templars police mages.
The very idea that an entire community of people could simply vote to no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the police is truly detached from reality. "We know that you guard us to protect both ourselves and the mundanes but we don't want it any more, we'lld just do it ourselves, trust us. Now, please be on your merry way."

So you are admitting it then?  Disobediance of a lawful order by a lawful superior IS treasonous.

Technically, he didn't disobey. The Divine never ordered him to not kill Wynne.
Regardless, I don't care. I like Wynne and Shale but this time, it would have been better if they had both died.

My chararization of the Divine is entirely justified.  She is afraid of taking a stance and like Elthina in Kirkwall allows herself to get steamrolled by events rather than getting out in front of them.  It doesn't help that she is poorly served by her advisers most especially Lelianna.
-Polaris

You mean that she is smart enough to understand the simple truth that the nail that sticks out, gets hammered down.
She is doing what she can subtly, but she is certainly not inactive. Comissioning the research into the Rite of Tranquility and luring Lambert and most of his Templars and Seekers away from the White Spire while sending Leliana in are actions I disagree with but they still qualify as acting.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Wynne has been known to be mistaken by quite a lot.  The mages regard the call for the vote to be valid and it's done.  Once done, the Templars have no authority over Rhys.  There is no evidence that the Grand Enchanter can't call the vote on the spot. Wynne's word is not enough.  Wynne objects but Wynne was always a loyalist (and not really an Aquaetarian IMO regardless of what she officially calls herself).  Frankly Wynne would object (and often does) to anything that criticises the Chantry and is frequently wrong.  Indeed in DAO Wynne is wrong more often than she is right.

It happens all the time.  Just because you call a session to discuss one thing does not automatically preclude the discussion of other things no matter what some may wish.  Once the call for the vote was made and the mages seperated from the Chantry, the Templars lost all legal authority.

No, it doesn't happen all the time. Even if the chairman can decide topics to be approaced in a meeting, he has to inform those who will be attending the meeting of said topics at least three days before the meeting so as to give them time to prepare, form an opinion, come up with arguments.
Calling for a vote of such importance on the spot without previously warning anyone is completely absurd.
And no one had voted before Lamber appeared to arrest Rhys, their vote was conducted days later in Andoral's Reach, not the White Spire.

Citation needed.  I am not going to take your word on any of this.  As for arresting Rhys, that was a convenient excuse and you know it.  Lambert acted in open defiance and rebellion against his lawful superior.

And Wynne is, by far, one of the best mages in the DA universe.

Wynne has always been a chantry apologist and frankly I kill Wynne in most of my DAO games...and gladly even when I do side with the mages.

False.  That may be the rule in the White Spire, but it's not the universal rule.  We know for a fact that First Enchanter Irving in the Fereldan circle can go pretty much wherever he pleases save for the repository room.  The difference here is that KC Gregoire actually follows the rules and insists his Templars do as well.  It is Gregoire that reminds the warden that the First Enchanter runs the circle and that the circle is indepdant of the Templars whose role is to guard and advise.  The fact that the Templars (and Chantry) have ignored this for most of a thousand years doesn't change this.

The extent to which the templars control the lifes of mages vary from tower to tower but there are some rules that are universal such the rule regarding entry into the repository and the rule regarding Tranquilities, both of which require the approval of both thr FE and the KC; or the rule that templars police mages.
The very idea that an entire community of people could simply vote to no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the police is truly detached from reality. "We know that you guard us to protect both ourselves and the mundanes but we don't want it any more, we'lld just do it ourselves, trust us. Now, please be on your merry way."

Actually it happens quite often.  See political history since WWII.  People vote (legally) to divorce themselves of oversight all the time.

So you are admitting it then?  Disobediance of a lawful order by a lawful superior IS treasonous.

Technically, he didn't disobey. The Divine never ordered him to not kill Wynne.
Regardless, I don't care. I like Wynne and Shale but this time, it would have been better if they had both died.

Killing someone that the Divine (your direct superior) has tasked to do an important task (thus preventing them from doing it) constitutes disobediance by any reasonable standard.

My chararization of the Divine is entirely justified.  She is afraid of taking a stance and like Elthina in Kirkwall allows herself to get steamrolled by events rather than getting out in front of them.  It doesn't help that she is poorly served by her advisers most especially Lelianna.
-Polaris

You mean that she is smart enough to understand the simple truth that the nail that sticks out, gets hammered down.
She is doing what she can subtly, but she is certainly not inactive. Comissioning the research into the Rite of Tranquility and luring Lambert and most of his Templars and Seekers away from the White Spire while sending Leliana in are actions I disagree with but they still qualify as acting.

Far too little and far too late.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

Correct me if I'm wrong about your discussion Polaris and JB, but didn't Fiona bring up the vote on separating from the Chantry and it was put on the agenda, but Lambert attacked and started killing mages before it was actually voted on? Then when a First Enchanter tried to surrender without a fight, and was killed, that drove the other mages into a frenzy that helped them escape Lambert's ambush, and it was AFTER the attack that they officially voted on seceding from the Chantry entirely, when all the First Enchanters at all the circles knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that trying to appease Lambert would still probably end in death.

[IanPolaris]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong about your discussion Polaris and JB, but didn't Fiona bring up the vote on separating from the Chantry and it was put on the agenda, but Lambert attacked and started killing mages before it was actually voted on? Then when a First Enchanter tried to surrender without a fight, and was killed, that drove the other mages into a frenzy that helped them escape Lambert's ambush, and it was AFTER the attack that they officially voted on seceding from the Chantry entirely, when all the First Enchanters at all the circles knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that trying to appease Lambert would still probably end in death.

Now that you mention it, I believe you are right.  It also neatly underlines that Lambert is at fault and was acting contrary to his oaths.  It also pretty much confirms (imo) Lambert as Meredith II, i.e. it confirms that Meredith wasn't an isolated loonie but that she was more the norm than the exception with the Templars.

Point is that the College of Enchanters had the right to call for such a vote given their technical independance.  It also neatly highlights the futility of a mage getting a fair shake from the Templars.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong about your discussion Polaris and JB, but didn't Fiona bring up the vote on separating from the Chantry and it was put on the agenda, but Lambert attacked and started killing mages before it was actually voted on? Then when a First Enchanter tried to surrender without a fight, and was killed, that drove the other mages into a frenzy that helped them escape Lambert's ambush, and it was AFTER the attack that they officially voted on seceding from the Chantry entirely, when all the First Enchanters at all the circles knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that trying to appease Lambert would still probably end in death.

In order for something to be put on an agenda, you have to give a period of time for those involved to form an opinion on the topic. In my country, that's around three days. I have the law somhewere in my college papers, just don't feel like looking it up right now.
Well, it's common sense, really. Walking into a meeting and going "Alright guys, World War 3, yes or no? I expect your answers in the next five minutes" like Fioana did is just absurd.
In the confrontation that follows, there are some things to take into consideration. First and foremost, Adrian provoked it by killing Pharamond, she knew very well what she was doing and she bears part of the responsablity.
Now, it is true that Lambert opened hostilites but not only was Fiona abusing the goodwill of the Chantry by proposing a separation only after the doors had been closed but the mages were also the ones who stopped Lambert from performing his duty; arrest Rhys; regardless of how convincing the evidence was.
Neither side was willing to back down and trust the other to trest Rhys in an unbiased manner thus, both sides bear the the guilt equally with Adrian being the greater instigator.
And the mages didn't escape on that day. They were imprisioned which proves that Lambert did not attack intending to kill, the deaths were caused by the heat of battle. It happens.

Think of it this way. Lambert opened hostilities but hadn't Adrian murdered Pharamond and Fiona hijacked the meeting, nothing would have happened. Both the representatives of the mages and templars bear equal parts of guilt in this situation.

Modifié par MisterJB, 30 janvier 2013 - 04:04 .

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong about your discussion Polaris and JB, but didn't Fiona bring up the vote on separating from the Chantry and it was put on the agenda, but Lambert attacked and started killing mages before it was actually voted on? Then when a First Enchanter tried to surrender without a fight, and was killed, that drove the other mages into a frenzy that helped them escape Lambert's ambush, and it was AFTER the attack that they officially voted on seceding from the Chantry entirely, when all the First Enchanters at all the circles knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that trying to appease Lambert would still probably end in death.

In order for something to be put on an agenda, you have to give a period of time for those involved to form an opinion on the topic. In my country, that's around three days. I have the law somhewere in my college papers, just don't feel like looking it up right now.

That applies to your country not Thedas.

Well, it's common sense, really. Walking into a meeting and going "Alright guys, World War 3, yes or no? I expect your answers in the next five minutes" like Fioana did is just absurd.

And a college could have voted to table to the motion which is what Wynne wanted.  They didn't (admittedly no one got the chance).

In the confrontation that follows, there are some things to take into consideration. First and foremost, Adrian provoked it by killing Pharamond, she knew very well what she was doing and she bears part of the responsablity.
Now, it is true that Lambert opened hostilites but not only was Fiona abusing the goodwill of the Chantry by proposing a separation only after the doors had been closed but the mages were also the ones who stopped Lambert from performing his duty; arrest Rhys; regardless of how convincing the evidence was.

With a motion to seperate on the table, it wasn't clear at all that Lambert had any authority to arrest anyone.  In any event, even if he did, Policed Procedures 101 (a course Lambert Failed at sadly) indicates that you at least try to negioate a peaceful settlement if possible.  Lambert didn't even try.

Neither side was willing to back down and trust the other to trest Rhys in an unbiased manner thus, both sides bear the the guilt equally with Adrian being the greater instigator.
And the mages didn't escape on that day. They were imprisioned which proves that Lambert did not attack intending to kill, the deaths were caused by the heat of battle. It happens.

No, he intended to turn them into slaves (well tranquil but that amounts to the same thing).  Lambert was not intending to give the mages tea and donoughts.

Think of it this way. Lambert opened hostilities but hadn't Adrian murdered Pharamond and Fiona hijacked the meeting, nothing would have happened. Both the representatives of the mages and templars bear equal parts of guilt in this situation.

Lambert opened hostilities against the wishes of the Divine.  Full stop.  It was Lambert that went into rebellion.


-Polari9s

[dragonflight288]

Think of it this way. Lambert opened hostilities but hadn't Adrian murdered Pharamond and Fiona hijacked the meeting, nothing would have happened. Both the representatives of the mages and templars bear equal parts of guilt in this situation.

But Lambert was still the party at fault for breaking the law. While it's true the mages may have given Rhys far more consideration than Lambert would, Lambert broke the law, completely disregarded the Divine's orders, and ordered an unprovoked attack.

Fiona may have hijacked the meeting, but it was well within her rights to put the motion on the table.

The way I see it is pretty straight forward. Fiona and the mages like her pushed for freedom, something the templars and the Chantry would never willingly allow, but by the technicalities of the Nevarran Accord, it was perfectly legal and legitimate. We don't even know how that would've ended up either. Lambert forced the issue before it was voted on and put the mages into a position where it's independence and dying on their feet, or dying right then and there by Seeker Lambert (whose job is actually investigating templars and not mages) and the templars under his command.

Lambert turned it into a situation where it's death or tranquility and nothing in between. No matter what the mages did in THAT situation, they got the short end of the stick, so they chose to fight.

That is the long and short of that situation in my opinion.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
But Lambert was still the party at fault for breaking the law. While it's true the mages may have given Rhys far more consideration than Lambert would, Lambert broke the law, completely disregarded the Divine's orders, and ordered an unprovoked attack.

Fiona may have hijacked the meeting, but it was well within her rights to put the motion on the table.

The way I see it is pretty straight forward. Fiona and the mages like her pushed for freedom, something the templars and the Chantry would never willingly allow, but by the technicalities of the Nevarran Accord, it was perfectly legal and legitimate. We don't even know how that would've ended up either. Lambert forced the issue before it was voted on and put the mages into a position where it's independence and dying on their feet, or dying right then and there by Seeker Lambert (whose job is actually investigating templars and not mages) and the templars under his command.

Lambert turned it into a situation where it's death or tranquility and nothing in between. No matter what the mages did in THAT situation, they got the short end of the stick, so they chose to fight.

That is the long and short of that situation in my opinion.

Fiona's so caleld "rigths" are irrelevant. The Chantry won't accept separation, it can't, it shouldn't. Rather, it was attempting to grant some concessions so as to negotiate some lasting peace with the Circle which the Grand Enchanter promtly spat back at the Divine's face. It's not a matter of what is legal or not.

In my opinion, Lambert's actions were less than optimal and probrably directly contributed to many Aequitarians voting to fight but Fiona's were just as reprehensible by being offered an opportunity to cooperate with the Chantry and the Templars and deciding to provoke a fight instead; if the templars can be censured by not trusting mages because of the actions of a few, then so can the mages when they do the same; and Adrian is the worst of the lot.

And the job of the Seekers is also to act if the templars fail in their duties such as failing to discovering a murderer or in preventing a mage rebellion.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
But Lambert was still the party at fault for breaking the law. While it's true the mages may have given Rhys far more consideration than Lambert would, Lambert broke the law, completely disregarded the Divine's orders, and ordered an unprovoked attack.

Fiona may have hijacked the meeting, but it was well within her rights to put the motion on the table.

The way I see it is pretty straight forward. Fiona and the mages like her pushed for freedom, something the templars and the Chantry would never willingly allow, but by the technicalities of the Nevarran Accord, it was perfectly legal and legitimate. We don't even know how that would've ended up either. Lambert forced the issue before it was voted on and put the mages into a position where it's independence and dying on their feet, or dying right then and there by Seeker Lambert (whose job is actually investigating templars and not mages) and the templars under his command.

Lambert turned it into a situation where it's death or tranquility and nothing in between. No matter what the mages did in THAT situation, they got the short end of the stick, so they chose to fight.

That is the long and short of that situation in my opinion.

Fiona's so caleld "rigths" are irrelevant. The Chantry won't accept separation, it can't, it shouldn't. Rather, it was attempting to grant some concessions so as to negotiate some lasting peace with the Circle which the Grand Enchanter promtly spat back at the Divine's face. It's not a matter of what is legal or not.

What is LEGAL is very much the point.  Fiona was acting within the law.  It may be a technicality, but under the Nevarran accord, Fiona was within her rights.  The Divine knew that.  In fact it's not even the first time the proposal had been put on the table.  In fact one could argue fairly convincingly that such a motion on the table puts the mages in a far stronger negotiationg position.

In my opinion, Lambert's actions were less than optimal and probrably directly contributed to many Aequitarians voting to fight but Fiona's were just as reprehensible by being offered an opportunity to cooperate with the Chantry and the Templars and deciding to provoke a fight instead; if the templars can be censured by not trusting mages because of the actions of a few, then so can the mages when they do the same; and Adrian is the worst of the lot.

Less than optimal?  Is that what you're calling it?  Fact is that Lambert initiated hostilities and was in direct violation of his legal superior and in contravention of his oaths.  Lambert's authority was over TEMPLARS as has already been noted not mages.

And the job of the Seekers is also to act if the templars fail in their duties such as failing to discovering a murderer or in preventing a mage rebellion.

Lambert took the law into his own hands and then started a rebellion (and hissy fit) when he didn't get his way.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

Legality does not equal morality. Having the "legality" to call for something that you know is going to start a world war does not make your action right.
How curious. Hours ago you were defending Hawke taking the law into his own hands by killing Alrik. Bah.

[LobselVith8]

shepard1038 wrote...

Okay.

1. The Circle is governed and monitored by the Chantry.

True, the Chantry of Andraste controls the Circles of Magi (despite the Circle "technically" being independent), but not everyone believes the Chantry and the Order of Templars should have absolute authority over mages. Why should the Chantry and the templars have such power over mages? As Cullen points out, templars have "dominion over mages by divine right". The Chantry controlled Circles are even condemned as slavery by multiple characters and labeled as such by some authors in Thedas. I don't think an anti-mage religious organization that has preached propaganda vilifying mages for centuries (that has lead to the torture and murder of mages throughout history) should have any authority over the lives of people with magical ability.

shepard1038 wrote...

2. The meeting was established by the Divine to discuss Pharamond's research. Going againts that is going againts the Divine autorithy.

I think the subjugation and oppression of the mages should be opposed, regardless of what Divine Justina V believes.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

Legality does not equal morality. Having the "legality" to call for something that you know is going to start a world war does not make your action right.
How curious. Hours ago you were defending Hawke taking the law into his own hands by killing Alrik. Bah.

Actually Alrik died because Hawke was defending a helpless girl against rape.  No jury in the world would or should convict a person for doing that.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  In such a situation, there is even a term for it:  "Justifiable Homicide"

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:35 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
should

Ah, so you acknowledge that what you perceive as a moral action affects your view of what was a non legal action, good.
BTW, Alrik wasn't naked, Elia wasn't naked, at worst he threatened to make her a Tranquil. No jury would absolve Hawke based on so little evidence.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

should

Ah, so you acknowledge that what you perceive as a moral action affects your view of what was a non legal action, good.
BTW, Alrik wasn't naked, Elia wasn't naked, at worst he threatened to make her a Tranquil. No jury would absolve Hawke based on so little evidence. 

Alrik implied he would rape her by making her tranquil, which he has done to other female mages. Given how the Grand Cleric and the Knight-Captain don't seem to care in the least about what Alrik was doing, I suppose you're right - Andrastian society might not care that Hawke was protecting a child mage (per Bethany's letter) from being raped by a templar. Perhaps they might make the argument that interfering in a templar's duty is an offense against the Maker, which was a similar argument used against Loghain at the Landsmeet.

I'm reminded of why I dislike Andrastian society so much...

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
should

Ah, so you acknowledge that what you perceive as a moral action affects your view of what was a non legal action, good.
BTW, Alrik wasn't naked, Elia wasn't naked, at worst he threatened to make her a Tranquil. No jury would absolve Hawke based on so little evidence.

Ella Pleading on her knees:  "Don't make me tranquil.  I will do anything."

Alrik:  That's right, once you are tranquil you will do anything I ask.

This is moments after Alrik with a cold reptillian stare declares: "You know what happens to mage girls that don't toe the line around here."

Not only that but in the gallows you hear first hand evidence that Alrik routinely uses tranquil as his sex dolls.

You don't have to see someone naked for someone to have a reasonable suspicion of attempted rape...and btw this is NOT a non-legal action.  Defending another is a perfectly legal action.  So is defending yourself (and that IS recognized as a right throughout Thedas except maybe in Tevinter for slaves). It's called justifiable homocide.

Any legal rights Alrik might have had ended the moment he used deadly force against Hawke.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

Legality does not equal morality. Having the "legality" to call for something that you know is going to start a world war does not make your action right.

While I agree that legality and morality don't always work together, Lambert was not in a moral position and the mages didn't decide on World War. The templars and Lambert forced that one.

From a moral standpoint, it was Lambert, not Fiona, who had attempted cold blooded murder to cover up evidence for something he didn't agree with. It was Lambert, not Fiona, who called for punishing an entire people, creating a genocidal mindset that- (and this will be sensitive, but the mindset is exactly the same, so bear in mind I mean no offense by mentioning this)-was shared by people like Hitler and Pol Pot.

It was Lambert, not Fiona, who went over the chain of command to enforce his own will because he was upset he wasn't getting his way.

Fiona is a brash and fiery mage, but she has ALWAYS gone along with what the College of Cumberland has agreed upon. She is very vocal about her point of view and works hard to ensure she gets her way, but she respects the chain of command and has not done attempted murder, destruction of evidence, or even started the fighting...she provoked the templars certainly, but she did not cast the first spell or swing the first sword as it were.

If anyone is to blame for forcing the war, it would be Lambert. I think the war would've happened anyway given the climate and how the system pretty much is a failure in what it's supposed to stand for, and how much the Chantry as a whole merely tolerates magic.

[shepard1038]

Actually Fiona started the Templar-Mage War by separating the Circle of Magi from the Chantry/Templar. Arguing against that is arguing against lore. 

Modifié par shepard1038, 30 janvier 2013 - 09:10 .

[thats1evildude]

Guys, guys! It was neither Fiona nor Lambert. That situation could have been resolved peacefully if it weren't for Adrian's meddling.

[IanPolaris]

shepard1038 wrote...

Actually Fiona started the Templar-Mage War by separating the Circle of Magi from the Chantry/Templar. Arguing against that is arguing against lore. 

Wrong.  Fiona was within her rights and what's more we know that such votes have happened before (see Wynne and Dragon Age Awakening).

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

shepard1038 wrote...

Actually Fiona started the Templar-Mage War by separating the Circle of Magi from the Chantry/Templar. Arguing against that is arguing against lore. 

The motion was on the table itself, and it was provoking the templars with its audacity (but it wasn't the first time it was voted on.) This time, however, the measure was never once voted on, before Lambert started killing mages. Lambert started the slaughter before the mages separated.

If he never attacked, the Loyalists and a few Aequitarians who agree with the Loyalists may have gathered enough support to deny the measure. But when Lambert attacked and started killing mages, including a First Enchanter who tried to give up without a fight, it quickly became a do or die moment for the mages. Even the loyalists would have to fight just for the chance to live, because Lambert was obviously not taking prisoners.

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...
Defending another is a perfectly legal action.  So is defending yourself (and that IS recognized as a right throughout Thedas except maybe in Tevinter for slaves). It's called justifiable homocide.

Any legal rights Alrik might have had ended the moment he used deadly force against Hawke.

-Polaris

Yes and no.  You are right that defending another and defending yourself are legal, however we require context. At this moment Hawke is trespassing, Hawke is also guilty of abstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a fugitive.  Like it or not by the law Ella is a criminal and Alrik is an officer of the law (Chantry Law which is recognized within the Free Marches).  Regardless of what you may think of their conduct preventing an officer from making an arrest is abstruction of justice.  You can argue the arrest after the fact to the proper authorities but direct interference is a crime and given the temper of the period Alrik is probably well within his authourity to kill Hawke.

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Defending another is a perfectly legal action.  So is defending yourself (and that IS recognized as a right throughout Thedas except maybe in Tevinter for slaves). It's called justifiable homocide.

Any legal rights Alrik might have had ended the moment he used deadly force against Hawke.

-Polaris

Yes and no.  You are right that defending another and defending yourself are legal, however we require context. At this moment Hawke is trespassing, Hawke is also guilty of abstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a fugitive.  Like it or not by the law Ella is a criminal and Alrik is an officer of the law (Chantry Law which is recognized within the Free Marches).  Regardless of what you may think of their conduct preventing an officer from making an arrest is abstruction of justice.  You can argue the arrest after the fact to the proper authorities but direct interference is a crime and given the temper of the period Alrik is probably well within his authourity to kill Hawke.

Ah, but Hawke didn't interfere with the arrest.  Had Hawke and company attacked first, you might have a point, but Ser Alrik never attempted to enforce his legal rights.  He simply attacked with deadly force.  The moment he did that, he voided any legal sanction he might have had.

-Polaris