4643 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Raijin]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Lord raijin generalizes and profiles mages more the any protemplar I've ever seen. He just assumes ththat because they're mages, they are automatically in the right and the victims of everything. And he's just as quick to put the blame on someone else, because a mage cannot be a human being. Human beings are flawed and have variety to them, you can get a good and a bad human. But raijin doesn't accept that mages are human, and open to flaws. He wants them to be perfect blameless sterile dolls.

Its disgusting and the worse kind of biased viewpoint to take, imo.

I'm not trying to be rude, but have you even bothered to read any one of my posts? Or do you just enjoy making stuffs up for the sake of it? I've been preaching about mages being human beings all this time. Never did I said at any pointed time that I want them to be perfect and blameless. I want them to live the equal life like any other Non-mages once they've been properly trained to control their magic ability, and has been proven through the Harrowing that they can resist demon tempations.

I've been trying to lecture the pro-templars here that they have emotional feelings, and I was actually mocked for saying it. I provided a screenshot of Knight-Captain Cullen  spilling the beans out by saying that templars don't view mages as "People" and that they cannot be your friend and trusted. This kind of statement is a clearly distributing, especially when it comes out of a high ranked templars mouth who obviously suffers from PTSD due to past experiece. To me that is just disguesting, especailly when a Knight-commander blames mages for everything that happens due to her past family affair.

A templar cannot be a good templar if they're anti-mages, and unfortunetly theirs a lot of them around, which contributes to the failing system.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ultimately taking the Lyrium is a choice the Templar makes for himself.

I wouldn't nessassary say that taking Lyrium is a choice that a Templar chooses for himself. It is a requirement that every templar must consumed lyrium to built up their anti-magic ability to fight against the mages. David Gaider even confirmed this.

They're obligated to take lyrium.

If they want to be Templars, they must be willing to take the Lyrium. If they are unwilling totake Lyrium then tehy can't be Templars. Ultimately it is still their own choice.

And at the same type taking lyrium makes you unsuitable as a tamplar, If your caught in the police force with any form of dope you will be booted from the force because your corruptable. From what we have seen in DA2 and DAQ plenty of templars are corrupt in order to get their lyrium fix.

That analogy doesn't really work.
First of all Lyrium is a straight up rquirement for becoming a Templar. There is no way around that, so there is no use whining about that.
Secondly, it would not appear that Lyrium has any psychedelic effects. It only builts up an addiction and after prolonged use it deteriorates the consumer's mind. So there is no imediate adverse effect.
The only real problem with Lyrium is the strength of the addiction it creates. However, that is not something that can be circumvented, since Lyrium is a requirement for the Templars to develop his abilities. What is therefore needed is tighter control of the Lyrium market. However, even though there is a black market for smuggled Lyrium, it is obviously only a minority of Templars who participate in it. Evidenced by the fact that Templars find other Templars who succumb to the addiction as pathetic.

[Schneidend]

Lord Raijin wrote...

A templar cannot be a good templar if they're anti-mages, and unfortunetly theirs a lot of them around, which contributes to the failing system.

Probably the first reasonable thing you've ever said. Templars need to be unbiased in regards to how they police mages. Unless a mage is being belligerent or possessed, the relationship between mage and Templar should be tolerable, if not amicable.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lord Raijin wrote...
This kind of statement is a clearly distributing, especially when it comes out of a high ranked templars mouth who obviously suffers from PTSD due to past experiece. To me that is just disguesting, especailly when a Knight-commander blames mages for everything that happens due to her past family affair.

Funny... Comming from the guy who has been attempting to play the blame game for the better part of the past 40 pages....

[ScarMK]

Lord Raijin wrote...

I'm not trying to be rude, but have you even bothered to read any one of my posts? Or do you just enjoy making stuffs up for the sake of it? I've been preaching about mages being human beings all this time. Never did I said at any pointed time that I want them to be perfect and blameless. I want them to live the equal life like any other Non-mages once they've been properly trained to control their magic ability, and has been proven through the Harrowing that they can resist demon tempations.

No, you don't outright say it.  But you seriously imply it by trying to justify and by playing the blame game for any wrong doing mages do.  Anders blowing up the chantry?  Nope, they had it coming because they oppressed him.  Mages practicing blood magic?  If the chantry wasn't there, they wouldn't need to practice it.  Uldred and clique of blood magic?  They just wanted to be free from the chantry so it's ok.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Protecting the innocent from those trying to kill them, standing on principle and doing the right thing is worse than treason against the Chantry, slaughtering innocents, and a military coup?

Before I answer anything else, I'll ask you to tell me just what exactly is "the right thing" and who gets to determine it.

For one thing, following the spirit of what you're supposed to do, respecting the word of your superiors also works (Lambert blatantly dismissed the Divine's authority when he attacked, so what he did was an act of treason against the Chantry, which makes Evangeline's superior the Divine, since she's loyal to the Chantry)

Standing up for those being killed who are not guilty of the crime, so defending them is the right thing to do.

Staying true to the values and principles on which you stand and have been taught, no matter the consequences, such as protecting mages from the world just as much as protecting the world from mages, is the right thing to do.

If your superior orders you to do kill innocents who are uninvolved with the crime itself, it would be your duty to relieve them of command, so that would be the right thing to do.

Lambert didn't barge into the meeting, well his given reason wasn't because Fiona hijacked the meeting and tried to force a vote on Independence, it was because Pharamond had been murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room, and so he ordered all the First Enchanters back to their Circle's, bypassed the reason they were allowed to go there in the first place (discuss the truth that Tranquility is now curable, with Pharamond having been the proof,) and when they protested, he ordered the attack. Lambert started killing mages, not because they were discussing leaving the Chantry, but because they tried to retain their right to judge Rhys according to the Circle's laws since it was a mage/tranquil who was murdered, not a templar, not a demon, and not a non-mage.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ultimately taking the Lyrium is a choice the Templar makes for himself.

I wouldn't nessassary say that taking Lyrium is a choice that a Templar chooses for himself. It is a requirement that every templar must consumed lyrium to built up their anti-magic ability to fight against the mages. David Gaider even confirmed this.

They're obligated to take lyrium.

If they want to be Templars, they must be willing to take the Lyrium. If they are unwilling totake Lyrium then tehy can't be Templars. Ultimately it is still their own choice.

And at the same type taking lyrium makes you unsuitable as a tamplar, If your caught in the police force with any form of dope you will be booted from the force because your corruptable. From what we have seen in DA2 and DAQ plenty of templars are corrupt in order to get their lyrium fix.

That analogy doesn't really work.
First of all Lyrium is a straight up rquirement for becoming a Templar. There is no way around that, so there is no use whining about that.
Secondly, it would not appear that Lyrium has any psychedelic effects. It only builts up an addiction and after prolonged use it deteriorates the consumer's mind. So there is no imediate adverse effect.
The only real problem with Lyrium is the strength of the addiction it creates. However, that is not something that can be circumvented, since Lyrium is a requirement for the Templars to develop his abilities. What is therefore needed is tighter control of the Lyrium market. However, even though there is a black market for smuggled Lyrium, it is obviously only a minority of Templars who participate in it. Evidenced by the fact that Templars find other Templars who succumb to the addiction as pathetic.

So they are nothing more then a slave army to the ones that control the lyrium. Well i hope then that nobody gets the bright idea to take over the (red) lyrium business otherwise thedas is screwed with an army that will obey anything its new masters tell them to do no matter how criminal.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
Protecting the innocent from those trying to kill them, standing on principle and doing the right thing is worse than treason against the Chantry, slaughtering innocents, and a military coup?

Before I answer anything else, I'll ask you to tell me just what exactly is "the right thing" and who gets to determine it.

For one thing, following the spirit of what you're supposed to do, respecting the word of your superiors also works (Lambert blatantly dismissed the Divine's authority when he attacked, so what he did was an act of treason against the Chantry, which makes Evangeline's superior the Divine, since she's loyal to the Chantry)

Standing up for those being killed who are not guilty of the crime, so defending them is the right thing to do.

Staying true to the values and principles on which you stand and have been taught, no matter the consequences, such as protecting mages from the world just as much as protecting the world from mages, is the right thing to do.

If your superior orders you to do kill innocents who are uninvolved with the crime itself, it would be your duty to relieve them of command, so that would be the right thing to do.

Lambert didn't barge into the meeting, well his given reason wasn't because Fiona hijacked the meeting and tried to force a vote on Independence, it was because Pharamond had been murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room, and so he ordered all the First Enchanters back to their Circle's, bypassed the reason they were allowed to go there in the first place (discuss the truth that Tranquility is now curable, with Pharamond having been the proof,) and when they protested, he ordered the attack. Lambert started killing mages, not because they were discussing leaving the Chantry, but because they tried to retain their right to judge Rhys according to the Circle's laws since it was a mage/tranquil who was murdered, not a templar, not a demon, and not a non-mage.

That is not exactly how it happened though...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ultimately taking the Lyrium is a choice the Templar makes for himself.

I wouldn't nessassary say that taking Lyrium is a choice that a Templar chooses for himself. It is a requirement that every templar must consumed lyrium to built up their anti-magic ability to fight against the mages. David Gaider even confirmed this.

They're obligated to take lyrium.

If they want to be Templars, they must be willing to take the Lyrium. If they are unwilling totake Lyrium then tehy can't be Templars. Ultimately it is still their own choice.

And at the same type taking lyrium makes you unsuitable as a tamplar, If your caught in the police force with any form of dope you will be booted from the force because your corruptable. From what we have seen in DA2 and DAQ plenty of templars are corrupt in order to get their lyrium fix.

That analogy doesn't really work.
First of all Lyrium is a straight up rquirement for becoming a Templar. There is no way around that, so there is no use whining about that.
Secondly, it would not appear that Lyrium has any psychedelic effects. It only builts up an addiction and after prolonged use it deteriorates the consumer's mind. So there is no imediate adverse effect.
The only real problem with Lyrium is the strength of the addiction it creates. However, that is not something that can be circumvented, since Lyrium is a requirement for the Templars to develop his abilities. What is therefore needed is tighter control of the Lyrium market. However, even though there is a black market for smuggled Lyrium, it is obviously only a minority of Templars who participate in it. Evidenced by the fact that Templars find other Templars who succumb to the addiction as pathetic.

So they are nothing more then a slave army to the ones that control the lyrium. Well i hope then that nobody gets the bright idea to take over the (red) lyrium business otherwise thedas is screwed with an army that will obey anything its new masters tell them to do no matter how criminal. 

I see you havn't given up on headcanoning the Red Templars and their role yet.....

[dragonflight288]

That is not exactly how it happened though...

The mages gathered with permission from the Divine to discuss the fact that tranquility was now curable, Lambert pretty much through a temper tantrum earlier because the Divine pretty much ignored him over the word of Evangeline, who was there. At the meeting, Fiona tries hijacking it to force a vote on the Circle's declaring Independence, Wynne tries talking everyone else down, Lambert bursts in and orders the meeting closed and all the Enchanters sent back to their towers because Pharamond was murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room.

Fiona says they have authority from the Divine to be there and they will judge Rhys themselves. Lambert states that the Divine's authority no longer matters and ordered the attack.....

That's exactly what happened.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

That is not exactly how it happened though...

The mages gathered with permission from the Divine to discuss the fact that tranquility was now curable, Lambert pretty much through a temper tantrum earlier because the Divine pretty much ignored him over the word of Evangeline, who was there. At the meeting, Fiona tries hijacking it to force a vote on the Circle's declaring Independence, Wynne tries talking everyone else down, Lambert bursts in and orders the meeting closed and all the Enchanters sent back to their towers because Pharamond was murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room.

Fiona says they have authority from the Divine to be there and they will judge Rhys themselves. Lambert states that the Divine's authority no longer matters and ordered the attack.....

That's exactly what happened.

No.
Lambert interrupts the meeting and declares taht what the amges are discussing is treason, he therefore orders them all confined to their quarters. Furthermore he accuses Rhys of the murder of Pharamond since the murder weapon was found in Rhys quarters. He orders the mages to hand over Rhys, and when the mages refuse, he then decide to take Rhys by force. This leads to an accidental mage death, which then spurs the entire crowd, mage and Templar, into fighting. That is exactly what happened. Still the very first thing that Lambert says, is that the mages are commiting a treasonous act by even discussing rebellion.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 06 novembre 2013 - 10:21 .

[DKJaigen]

I see you havn't given up on headcanoning the Red Templars and their role yet.....

i have my suspicions about the red templars. which you should have as well instead blindly proclaiming them to be just faction. but you cannot deny that templars have a leash and the one that holds their leash ultimately decides what the templars are.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
For one thing, following the spirit of what you're supposed to do, respecting the word of your superiors also works (Lambert blatantly dismissed the Divine's authority when he attacked, so what he did was an act of treason against the Chantry, which makes Evangeline's superior the Divine, since she's loyal to the Chantry)

Standing up for those being killed who are not guilty of the crime, so defending them is the right thing to do.

Staying true to the values and principles on which you stand and have been taught, no matter the consequences, such as protecting mages from the world just as much as protecting the world from mages, is the right thing to do.

If your superior orders you to do kill innocents who are uninvolved with the crime itself, it would be your duty to relieve them of command, so that would be the right thing to do.

Why? Why are any of the things you mentioned "right"?
In one hand you claim respecting the orders of your superiors is right but then, in the other hand, you claim that disobeying them is "right". Therefore, you leave it up to personal criteria whether an order is right or wrong.
Why are the Divine's orders right but Lambert's wrong? Why are Lambert's actions of preventing a war less right than Evangeline's action of enabling one?

Is there not more righteousness into allowing the death of a dozen than in saving them and thus causing the deaths of thousands? Does the supposed innocence of these mages make their lives more important than that of everyone else in Thedas?
Is standing up for one's morals more important than the lives of people? Did Lambert also not simply stand up for what he believed in? Why are his morals less righteous than Evangeline's?

[MisterJB]

DKJaigen wrote...
i have my suspicions about the red templars. which you should have as well instead blindly proclaiming them to be just faction. but you cannot deny that templars have a leash and the one that holds their leash ultimately decides what the templars are.

By that logic, we're all slaves to whoever controls the food trade because we need food regularly and, without it, we will lose mental faculties and die.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

I see you havn't given up on headcanoning the Red Templars and their role yet.....

i have my suspicions about the red templars. which you should have as well instead blindly proclaiming them to be just faction. but you cannot deny that templars have a leash and the one that holds their leash ultimately decides what the templars are.

Oh I have no doubt that they are not just a faction but straight up enemies. I am however, not about to make some uninformed statement that they are absolutely goign to be like "this" or "that". All we know is that they are called Red Templars (presumably because they consume Red Lyrium), and that they are enemies of the Inquisition.

And no, I wouldn't say that Templars have a leash, as much as a liability. The Templars have been able to do pretty much what they thought was best for the Circle for the better part of a millenium. It doesn't seem like the Lyrium has ever been more than a neusance for them.
A case could be amde that now they've left the Chantry, Lyrium might end up harder to come by. But then again, another case could be amde that now they've left, the Chantry doesn't hold the means to enforce their monopoly anymore.

[dragonflight288]

Why? Why are any of the things you mentioned "right"?

Because they are not aspects of corrupt behavior, they do not take advantage of other people, victimize anyone, nor do such behaviors leave any room whatsoever for abuse of power.

In one hand you claim respecting the orders of your superiors is right but then, in the other hand, you claim that disobeying them is "right". Therefore, you leave it up to personal criteria whether an order is right or wrong.

Not quite what I meant. Following the orders of your superior is all well and good, but if you're given an order that harms innocent people, it is your duty to relieve them of command. Armies have those kinds of fail-safes.

If failing that, the Chantry should have the authority and power to court-marshal any Seeker or Templar, which Lambert definitely needed to be for his order to Evangeline to murder anyone who has evidence that Tranquility is curable. Or court-marshal the templars who killed the con-artist pretending to heal people based on suspicion alone, no evidence required and no punishments given to those who did so.

Why are Lambert's actions of preventing a war less right than Evangeline's action of enabling one?

Evangeline didn't initiate the attack, didn't kill a single mage who was not-guilty of any crimes, and defended them. Her actions could easily show the mages that there are templars you can work with comfortably and can be trusted. And if one is like this, surely there must be others.

Lambert's actions only gave weight to the argument that it doesn't matter what the Circle's do, they can still be slaughtered at the drop of a hat based on the templars/seeker's opinions and prejudices, and the Chantry is powerless to stop completely unnecessary and unjustified slaughter.

Ultimately in the end though, the Circle's didn't declare war. The templars, however, at the end of Asunder, did. Lambert didn't try to prevent the war, he helped start it. Evangeline's actions can be symbolic that peace with the templars and the Chantry is not impossible if a change in leadership is acquired.

Is there not more righteousness into allowing the death of a dozen than in saving them and thus causing the deaths of thousands? Does the supposed innocence of these mages make their lives more important than that of everyone else in Thedas?

The death of a single innocent is a tragedy, and one that deserves justice. If the templars are allowed to kill a dozen innocents for the sake of getting the one or two who are actually guilty to prevent the deaths of dozens or hundreds of others, then the deaths of those innocents are still not justified as they are not guilty of the crimes, and if those who committed such an act remain unpunished, then there actions cannot be called justice, or right. It would be murder. Sanctioned murder, but murder nonetheless.

Is standing up for one's morals more important than the lives of people? Did Lambert also not simply stand up for what he believed in? Why are his morals less righteous than Evangeline's?

Standing up for the right thing continually is one of the most important things anyone can do. Lambert may have done what he believed in, but by doing so, he himself committed the crimes of treason and murder. Nearly every single innocent in Asunder killed was done on his orders, and that simply cannot be justified, and so he is in the wrong for those actions. Evangeline, however, never acted without evidence and went out of her way to protect the innocents of the crimes all mages were accused of, despite only a few of them actually propagating Independence.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

That is not exactly how it happened though...

The mages gathered with permission from the Divine to discuss the fact that tranquility was now curable, Lambert pretty much through a temper tantrum earlier because the Divine pretty much ignored him over the word of Evangeline, who was there. At the meeting, Fiona tries hijacking it to force a vote on the Circle's declaring Independence, Wynne tries talking everyone else down, Lambert bursts in and orders the meeting closed and all the Enchanters sent back to their towers because Pharamond was murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room.

Fiona says they have authority from the Divine to be there and they will judge Rhys themselves. Lambert states that the Divine's authority no longer matters and ordered the attack.....

That's exactly what happened.

No.
Lambert interrupts the meeting and declares taht what the amges are discussing is treason, he therefore orders them all confined to their quarters. Furthermore he accuses Rhys of the murder of Pharamond since the murder weapon was found in Rhys quarters. He orders the mages to hand over Rhys, and when the mages refuse, he then decide to take Rhys by force. This leads to an accidental mage death, which then spurs the entire crowd, mage and Templar, into fighting. That is exactly what happened. Still the very first thing that Lambert says, is that the mages are commiting a treasonous act by even discussing rebellion.

They wouldn't have been guilty of treason from the Chantry unless a vote actually took place and they voted for it. Lambert interrupted before a single vote had been cast, and bypassed the Divine entirely.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

That is not exactly how it happened though...

The mages gathered with permission from the Divine to discuss the fact that tranquility was now curable, Lambert pretty much through a temper tantrum earlier because the Divine pretty much ignored him over the word of Evangeline, who was there. At the meeting, Fiona tries hijacking it to force a vote on the Circle's declaring Independence, Wynne tries talking everyone else down, Lambert bursts in and orders the meeting closed and all the Enchanters sent back to their towers because Pharamond was murdered and the knife was found in Rhys' room.

Fiona says they have authority from the Divine to be there and they will judge Rhys themselves. Lambert states that the Divine's authority no longer matters and ordered the attack.....

That's exactly what happened.

No.
Lambert interrupts the meeting and declares taht what the amges are discussing is treason, he therefore orders them all confined to their quarters. Furthermore he accuses Rhys of the murder of Pharamond since the murder weapon was found in Rhys quarters. He orders the mages to hand over Rhys, and when the mages refuse, he then decide to take Rhys by force. This leads to an accidental mage death, which then spurs the entire crowd, mage and Templar, into fighting. That is exactly what happened. Still the very first thing that Lambert says, is that the mages are commiting a treasonous act by even discussing rebellion.

They wouldn't have been guilty of treason from the Chantry unless a vote actually took place and they voted for it. Lambert interrupted before a single vote had been cast, and bypassed the Divine entirely.

I don't care about the reasoning and the semantics. All I care about is a series of event that you didn't acurately pass on.

[Lord Raijin]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How are their powers "false"? They are very real and tengible.

Also, how are they weak? Are you weak if you use body armro to fight agaisnt a guy with a gun?

Templars ant-mage ability is not a genuine skill as it's required to inject Lyrium to obtain the ability thats why their powers is false. It's a performance enhancing drug is what it is, and in all major sporting events it's highly illegal because it's considered cheating. People can ruin their careers by cheating.

Their weak because they depend on Lyrium too much to use to fight against the mages. The fact that the Quanri is far more signicant and far more advanced in the technology than the templars. And you used a very poor example.

False history does lie.
And real history is not applicable to mages, because..ya know.. real history didnt' have mages.

You keep barking up the wrong tree. It's not about innocence. It never was.

Really? So Knight-Commander Martel wasn't a blood mage co-conspirator? That everything that happen back in Orlais didn't happen? That Cassandra didn't save the Divine from a crazy blood mage and a power hungry Kight-Commander? That Cassandra's titles means nothing?

Anders meet Muderknife. Murderknife, meet Anders. - Me

Anders lived in my game.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Because they are not aspects of corrupt behavior, they do not take advantage of other people, victimize anyone, nor do such behaviors leave any room whatsoever for abuse of power.

Righ and wrong are subjective. What is right to you may be wrong to me.

Not quite what I meant. Following the orders of your superior is all well and good, but if you're given an order that harms innocent people, it is your duty to relieve them of command. Armies have those kinds of fail-safes.

If failing that, the Chantry should have the authority and power to court-marshal any Seeker or Templar, which Lambert definitely needed to be for his order to Evangeline to murder anyone who has evidence that Tranquility is curable.

And why are subordinates more apt to determine what is right, wrong or necessary than their superiors?
Or are you defending moral absolutism?

Or court-marshal the templars who killed the con-artist pretending to heal people based on suspicion alone, no evidence required and no punishments given to those who did so.

What are you talking about?

Evangeline didn't initiate the attack, didn't kill a single mage who was not-guilty of any crimes, and defended them. Her actions could easily show the mages that there are templars you can work with comfortably and can be trusted. And if one is like this, surely there must be others.

Lambert's actions only gave weight to the argument that it doesn't matter what the Circle's do, they can still be slaughtered at the drop of a hat based on the templars/seeker's opinions and prejudices, and the Chantry is powerless to stop completely unnecessary and unjustified slaughter.

Ultimately in the end though, the Circle's didn't declare war. The templars, however, at the end of Asunder, did. Lambert didn't try to prevent the war, he helped start it. Evangeline's actions can be symbolic that peace with the templars and the Chantry is not impossible if a change in leadership is acquired.

It doesn't matter what the Circles did or did not do. It matters what happened and they knew exceedingly well that declaring independence was tatamount to declaring war. Evangeline was also aware of this when she decided to allow them to do so.
Had no one interfered with Lambert's decisions, there would not even have been a conclave to crash to. The peace would not have been broken in the first place.
Lambert commited every single one of his actions in an attempt to prevent war and the death of innocents; Evangeline commited hers fully knowing they would lead to war and death.
How is she more right than Lambert?

The death of a single innocent is a tragedy, and one that deserves justice. If the templars are allowed to kill a dozen innocents for the sake of getting the one or two who are actually guilty to prevent the deaths of dozens or hundreds of others, then the deaths of those innocents are still not justified as they are not guilty of the crimes, and if those who committed such an act remain unpunished, then there actions cannot be called justice, or right. It would be murder. Sanctioned murder, but murder nonetheless.

So, is it acceptable for thousands of innocent to die just to prevent the capture of a few dozen?

Standing up for the right thing continually is one of the most important things anyone can do. Lambert may have done what he believed in, but by doing so, he himself committed the crimes of treason and murder. Nearly every single innocent in Asunder killed was done on his orders, and that simply cannot be justified, and so he is in the wrong for those actions. Evangeline, however, never acted without evidence and went out of her way to protect the innocents of the crimes all mages were accused of, despite only a few of them actually propagating Independence.

That is factually incorrect. Lambert neither ordered not killed a single innocent in the whole book.
The first; not accidental; casualties in the normal-mage conflict in that book were templars. Justinia ordered the death of innocents, not Lambert.

And, again, are Evangeline's morals more important than preventing war?

Modifié par MisterJB, 06 novembre 2013 - 11:13 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Lambert's approach reminds me of the ohio national guard's approach to dispersing the students at kent state. Horrible, and almost designed to create the worst situation imaginable.

[EmperorSahlertz]

MisterJB wrote...

Or court-marshal the templars who killed the con-artist pretending to heal people based on suspicion alone, no evidence required and no punishments given to those who did so.

What are you talking about?

He is referencing a con-artist that is mentioned in the description of a staff in Awakening. D'simms was a despicable man that conned sick and dying peasant for what little they possessed, by posing as a mage that could cure their illness. The Templars executed him.
In my book the Templars did the world a favor, and I am not certain why anyone would defend D'simms...

[Dave of Canada]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In my book the Templars did the world a favor, and I am not certain why anyone would defend D'simms...

Fight the oppression, free all innocent scam artists!

[MisterJB]

Thanks. Well, he clearly had it coming.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Or court-marshal the templars who killed the con-artist pretending to heal people based on suspicion alone, no evidence required and no punishments given to those who did so.

What are you talking about?

He is referencing a con-artist that is mentioned in the description of a staff in Awakening. D'simms was a despicable man that conned sick and dying peasant for what little they possessed, by posing as a mage that could cure their illness. The Templars executed him.
In my book the Templars did the world a favor, and I am not certain why anyone would defend D'simms...

More defending the process, then the man.

Let's say a hypothetical where instead of someone telling on d'simm, d'simm called the templars on someone innocent who, let's just say, threatened to expose him as a con.

The templars would take d'simms word that he was telling the truth, go to the other guy, and kill them. No questions asked. No trail, no due process.

That is the same exact thing, and just because d'simm happened to be guilty, doesn't mean the next person who gets reported to that templar is guilty.

That's the entire reason there are constant trails in the united states and questioned raised about warrents, due process, reasonable suspicion, totality of evidence, and all manner of what determines a persons guilt and what counts as a violation of rights. Not even mentioning that this was something the city guard should probably have handled.

Of course with this being the middle ages to rennisance period, we're lucky that warrentless murder is all that occured.

[Hazegurl]

dragonflight288 wrote...

That is not exactly how it happened though...

The mages gathered with permission from the Divine to discuss the fact that tranquility was now curable, Lambert pretty much through a temper tantrum earlier because the Divine pretty much ignored him over the word of Evangeline, who was there.

Lambert did not throw a temper tantrum. He said that the Templars will also allow the meeting if three conditions were met. The Divine granted him those conditions. The only thing he was ignored on was whether  or not to allow the news of Pharamond's research to be given to the Mages. He saw it as more ammo against the Templars. Something he was also correct on among other things. But it was too late anyway and he knew there was nothing he could do about that.  Lambert didn't come into the room to break up the meeting until the Templars ran for the door while others left, most likely to get him.

Oh and the fight didn't even begin until Fiona threatened Lambert and Evangeline drew her sword. They both made it very clear that they were prepared to fight. Even though Lambert told them all to return to their rooms unharmed and hand over Rhys for investigation. I blame the Mages completely for the fight that took place there. Sadly, Wynne didn't have the power to tell Fiona, Adrian, and Evangeline (the three b**ches) to leave.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 06 novembre 2013 - 11:45 .