ianvillan wrote...
1) What if the first enchanter does not agree is it dropped or do they go over the head of the first enchanter anyway and then view the first enchanter as a danger. What if they want it on the first enchanter himself can he say he doesn't agree to it. Does the mage in question have a right to a trial in front of other mages and other knight commanders in case the knight commander of his circle has a grudge against him.
Bear in mind that information regarding this is limited indeed and even so, exactly how strictly the templars follow these rules is a bit varied, but this is my understanding of this anyways:
If the First Enchanter does not agree then the case remains opened until enough evidence can be gathered to sway either side or until the First Enchanter drops his opposition.
First Enchanters may not be tranquilised since they can only be chosen (with the KC having a right to veto) from senior enchanters. Since all enchanters have passed their harrowing (or they'd be dead) and noone that has passed a harrowing may be legally tranquilized (in theory, and mind this is pure speculation on my part, this would also mean they cannot legally tranquilize apostates).
From what I understand, trials are not normal procedures. For the most part, apprentices will not know they're being investigated for the Rite. It's a closed affair between Knight Commander and the First Enchanter. Much like the Harrowing is. The First Enchanter is supposed to represent you and the Knight Commander the security interests
2) The right of annulment is an extreme measure yet 3 (maybe 4) that we know of have been called in the last 10 -15 years with no penalties of those who called them and no outcry from the chantry to why the knight commanders have called so many.
What recourse does a circle have against the right of annulment do other circles come in to assess the situation and find out what happened and who if anyone is guilty, do other knight commander hold a meeting to see if it is justified in being carried out, where are the seekers who are meant to police the Templars do they investigate to see if it is justified. Or do the whole circle including children and elderly get punished with no recourse on the whim of one person.
As for having the reverend mother approve it we have been shown how a reverend mother cannot overrule a knight commander even if they wanted to. not taking into account incompetent reverend mother or ones in collusion with the knight commander.
This is less known. We know it's supposed to be issued by Grand Clerics (and only Grand Clerics).
Presumably, and this is me speculating again, it's to create a degree of separation between the decision and the circle itself. So that a frustrated Knight-Commander cannot issue one to deal with a rebellious tower. Instead the Grand Cleric, who has no direct oversight of the tower (since they're not in it nor in chanrge of the templars operation there) and is sworn to the protection of their flock (which includes the mages). I am guessing they'd prefer if it was issued by the Divine herself, since then there'd be two degrees of separation (and the Divine does not appoint her Knight Commanders) but that this is shot down due to practical reasons (when you have a tower full of abominations, you do not want to wait 2 months for a letter to come back from Val Royeux only to hear that her holiness is currently in Halamshiral).
As for oversight... the seekers are supposed to handle it. But we know little about how they work.
Given that the Right is only supposed to be called against abominations (or if no other alternative exist, blood mages) the point of having it challenged and examined is kind of moot. It's not supposed to deal with rebellion, but disaster. Remember, it was originally created following a single abomination killing every mage
and templar in the Nevarran circle.
I should note that it's blatantly clear that in the Dragon Age the Right of Annulment shows serious signs of being abused. Kinlochs hold was legally justified (since it was exactly the kind of disaster it's supposed to be used against) but unneccessary, Kirkwall and Darsmuid was definantely not. The remaining ones (1 or two if Kirkwall does not count after all) are unknown.
possessed by a fade being that has little understanding of the material world, and © your argument turns on itself at the end. Work on your sentence structure: either Uldred knows he can't stay and would make an effort to escape, or... he knows he can't stay, and doesn't make an effort to escape.
Retour en haut
