626 réponses à ce sujet

[cjones91]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened... Of course the First Enchanter of the Circle would try and pass it off as that was the only reason they got annulled, but we both know that the Circle was far from operating ideally according to general Circle rules. They were intentionally creating Abominations, the mages were not contained, and the list goes on. The fact that the amges were allowed to visit family was not the only reason the Circle got annulled..

It was the official reason given.

No, no it was not. The only source of information from that particular Annulment comes from the First Enchanter who is biased; the Templars that participated have not said anything about it; and while Ferelden is a very liberal Circle, the White Spire also allowed its Harrowed Enchanters to visit Val-Royeaux and even in Kirkwall, the prospect of a trusted mage leaving the Circle to meet a suitor is nothing anyone bats an eyelash at; at least in the first years.
That makes three out of three Circles where we can see that mages are given a certain liberty to wander if they have proven themselves. Therefore, the idea that Rivain's Circle was Annuled more because they were mixing with their families; which could mean anything from a quick visit to staying the night, sleeping with their husbands/wives, children returning home daily, etc; rather than because their entire female population was possessed and ruling over communities does not hold water and it's a deliberate attempt by the Pro-Mages to make it seem like the Templars annuled that Circle for petty reasons.

The Chantry knew about the possessions for years.I'm willing to believe the Enchanter who was there when the maasacre happened than the people who did the killing to begin with.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

[dragonflight288]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

Most pro-mages don't advocate whole-sale slaughter either. Xilzra is pretty much completely anti-templar/chantry and wants them completely abolished, but most pro-mages don't want that and don't call for slaughter, genocide, or even unlimited freedom. Most simply want mages to have more basic rights like the ability to visit family members, raise their own children born in the system, and want the templars to be held accountable.

[EmperorSahlertz]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 02 octobre 2013 - 08:52 .

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Lambert interrupted an a legal meeting, ordered all the Enchanters, none of which commited any crimes to go back to their circles, seized the authority granted to them by the Divine, and when Fiona protested it, he launched an attack and started  slaughter.

Pretty straight forward and there is no changing those facts. Pro-templars try to justify it by saying that Fiona provoked him, but it does nothing to change the fact that Lambert pretty much stated that he no longer answered the Divine, and therefore was above any authority or punishment, and was acting outside the chantry's own laws, and therefore was the one in the wrong.

[addiction21]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happens, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Cognitive dissonance plays a large part in it.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Why is it so hard to believe the Rivaini mages were slaughtered because they had contact with families?They have been killed for far less and it was one of the many reasons they rebelled in the first place.

Modifié par cjones91, 02 octobre 2013 - 08:58 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The mages was having alawful meeting, talking about unlawful actions. They were both in the wrong, but, as the book clearly depicts, the entire outbreak of hostility was an accident.

Either way, I was talking about the annulment of the Rivaini Circle...

[EmperorSahlertz]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Why is it so hard to believe the Rivaini mages were slaughtered because they had contact with familes?They have been killed for far less and it was one of the many reasons they rebelled in the first place.

Because we have examples of other Cirlces who allows contact with family which havn't been annulled for that. So obviously the Chantry is fine with the mages having contact with their families.

[cjones91]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Why is it so hard to believe the Rivaini mages were slaughtered because they had contact with familes?They have been killed for far less and it was one of the many reasons they rebelled in the first place.

Because we have examples of other Cirlces who allows contact with family which havn't been annulled for that. So obviously the Chantry is fine with the mages having contact with their families.

Except for mages with extremely powerful families the only circle that allowed mages to have contact with their families is the Fereldan Circle.But it's already been stated that the Fereldan Circle is more liberal than the other Circles in Thedas and mages having outside contact with anyone that the Chantry does'nt approve of is often punishable by death.

[MisterJB]

cjones91 wrote...
Except for mages with extremely powerful families the only circle that allowed mages to have contact with their families is the Fereldan Circle.But it's already been stated that the Fereldan Circle is more liberal than the other Circles in Thedas and mages having outside contact with anyone that the Chantry does'nt approve of is often punishable by death.

I'll repeat myself. In Ferelden, plenty of mages were seen leaving the Circle. In the White Spire, it was routine for Harrowed mages such as Rhys and Adrian to visit Val-Royeaux. Even in Kirkwall, in act 1, a senior mage leaving to meet with a suitor was something no one batted an eyelash.
That is three out of three Circles where senior mages were allowed to leave the Circle on personal business.

And now, how about you give me a list of mages that were killed because they "met with someone the Chantry didn't want them to".

Modifié par MisterJB, 02 octobre 2013 - 09:07 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Pro-mage rhetoric at its finest most transparent levels.

I don't see Pro Mages trying to defend a massacre.

No, but I see a lot of them being straight up dishonest about a series of events. I know they are intellegent people, so I know they can figure out what really happened, yet they seem intent on misrepresenting what happened, and the reasons why. That is what I take issue with.

Why is it so hard to believe the Rivaini mages were slaughtered because they had contact with familes?They have been killed for far less and it was one of the many reasons they rebelled in the first place.

Because we have examples of other Cirlces who allows contact with family which havn't been annulled for that. So obviously the Chantry is fine with the mages having contact with their families.

Except for mages with extremely powerful families the only circle that allowed mages to have contact with their families is the Fereldan Circle.But it's already been stated that the Fereldan Circle is more liberal than the other Circles in Thedas and mages having outside contact with anyone that the Chantry does'nt approve of is often punishable by death.

And yet they weren't annulled. So we have examples of Circles where mages have contact with their families, which proves, that outside contact is not grounds for annulment.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The mages was having alawful meeting, talking about unlawful actions. They were both in the wrong, but, as the book clearly depicts, the entire outbreak of hostility was an accident.

Either way, I was talking about the annulment of the Rivaini Circle...

Nothing discussed was unlawful. At all. Fiona was Grand Enchanter, and it was her right to put any motion on the table. And it wasn't the first time the mages discussed independence from the Chantry. In Awakening, Wynne is getting Ines aid to try and dissuade the mages from voting to do so because it would result in a mass slaughter, not because it's illegal but because the Chantry wouldn't be able to handle mages voting to free themselves from the Chantry controlled Circle system.

EDIT: The Rivaini Circle is unjustifiable, period. If you want to dismiss the First Enchanter's letter and testimony because he's a mage, then provide us a Seeker's or Knight-Commander's reasons for why that annulment occured.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 02 octobre 2013 - 09:18 .

[The Hierophant]

cjones91 wrote...

The Chantry knew about the possessions for years.I'm willing to believe the Enchanter who was there when the massacre happened than the people who did the killing to begin with.

The letter indicates that the Seekers were ignorant of what was going on at Dairsmund's CoM, while it's been stated in the Rivain codex that the practice of Seers have been prohibited.

[dragonflight288]

The Hierophant wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

The Chantry knew about the possessions for years.I'm willing to believe the Enchanter who was there when the massacre happened than the people who did the killing to begin with.

The letter indicates that the Seekers were ignorant of what was going on at Dairsmund's CoM, while it's been stated in the Rivain codex that the practice of Seers have been prohibited.

And yet the local Chantry knew.

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

The Chantry knew about the possessions for years.I'm willing to believe the Enchanter who was there when the massacre happened than the people who did the killing to begin with.

The letter indicates that the Seekers were ignorant of what was going on at Dairsmund's CoM, while it's been stated in the Rivain codex that the practice of Seers have been prohibited.

And yet the local Chantry knew.

Yeah, and there's no way that Orlais was completely ignorant of the Rivaini seer situation. They would have most assuredly taken extra precaution to keep an eye on things in Rivain.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

The Chantry knew about the possessions for years.I'm willing to believe the Enchanter who was there when the massacre happened than the people who did the killing to begin with.

The letter indicates that the Seekers were ignorant of what was going on at Dairsmund's CoM, while it's been stated in the Rivain codex that the practice of Seers have been prohibited.

And yet the local Chantry knew.

You mean the same hypocritical local Chantry who breached the LLomerryn Accord by commiting genocide against the Rivaini converts because they refused to return to local customs or leave their homes? The same branch who's Templars didn't enforce established Chantry law in their own backyard and needed the Seekers to step in, and do their jobs?

Why bring up the Rivaini Chantry branch as it failed work in tandem with the main branch and enforce it's laws?

http://dragonage.wik...x_entry:_Rivain

http://dragonage.wik...omerryn_Accords

Modifié par The Hierophant, 02 octobre 2013 - 09:57 .

[addiction21]

So either it was a total secret or the locale chantry and/or the leaders were lenient of local customs and kept them secret from seekers... how long have seers been operating in the circle?

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

Even if they hadn't known, that still justifies instant attempts at Annulment?

[Heimdall]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
That seeker broke Chantry law just as much as the mages who weren't hurting anybody and were simply visiting their families were. Only the Chantry breaking its own law led to mass slaughter.

Well be fair.  The seeker was also reporting that female mages were being trained in the ways of the Seers.  Willing possession.  You can understand why that would elicit such a violent reaction from the rest of Andrastrian Thedas, though not condone.

And......exactly where is the problem? The Chantry is staunchly opposed to it, but the Rivaini nationals, their whole culture, accepts the practice. The chantry was enforcing its own rules upon an entire country that opposed those rules as part of their very society. And they aren't tevinter, so the Chantry doesn't have that excuse.

The problem is that you're arguing that the sole reason for the annulment was mages visiting their families.  The problem was that Circle mages were being systematically possessed.  Since when does the local government or law have any say in what the Chantry does to its circles?  We know Alistair's attempts to grant the Ferelden circle autonomy didn't pan out.  I'm afraid I see no precedent that what the Chantry did was illegal.  It's not like they rampaged through the countryside slaughtering every Seer in Rivain.  They only annulled the mages in the circle, those in their charge.

Note, I'm not approving of it, but I don't see the argument that what they've done was over letting mages see their families.

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

Even if they hadn't known, that still justifies instant attempts at Annulment?

What about; assuming it was possible; killing only those who willingly became possessed?

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

Even if they hadn't known, that still justifies instant attempts at Annulment?

...apprantely practicing local customs that the entire country was fine with and visiting family is worth genocide.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

Even if they hadn't known, that still justifies instant attempts at Annulment?

What about; assuming it was possible; killing only those who willingly became possessed?

The thing is, we have no conclusive evidence that the mages who had been possessed as seers were given a chance to give themselves up. All we know is that at the end of the day, the circle has been annuled. 

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Again... The Chantry knew about Seers. It didn't know that it was the Circle itself that kept the practice of these Seers going.

Even if they hadn't known, that still justifies instant attempts at Annulment?

What about; assuming it was possible; killing only those who willingly became possessed?

The thing is, we have no conclusive evidence that the mages who had been possessed as seers were given a chance to give themselves up. All we know is that at the end of the day, the circle has been annuled. 

And the only real reason ever stated in the lore was because some of the mages were in contact with their families.