626 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

Silfren wrote...


Getting aside from what their reasons were for invoking it, what about the fact that the templars do not have the legal right to call down an Annulment?  They are required by law to get approval from a Grand Cleric or the Divine herself.  They can't just declare it of their own accord.

Who says they did?  The letter says they "called for the right of annulment".  To me this implies that they sent a request to the local Grand Cleric, but nobody can say for sure.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 02 octobre 2013 - 10:46 .

[Silfren]

JSlither wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And the only real reason ever stated in the lore was because some of the mages were in contact with their families.

"The Annulment at Dairsmuid

When we heard of the injustices against our fellow mages at the White Spire, the Circle of Magi in Val Royeaux, I feared what was to come. Our Circle at Dairsmuid is small and isolated. It exists largely as a façade to appease the Chantry.

When the other Circles rose up, the Chantry sent Seekers across the bay from Ayesleigh to investigate. They found us mixing freely with our families, training female mages in the traditions of the seers, and denounced us as apostates. Perhaps they thought we were spineless rubes who could be intimidated with a little bloodshed. Before I was First Enchanter, I was the daughter of Captain Revaud, of the Felicisima Armada. I know how to plan a battle.

They brought with them a small army of templars. We fought. And we might have won. But they invoked the Right of Annulment with all the unrelenting brutality that allowed. It is their right to put screaming apprentices to the sword, burn our “tainted” libraries, crash irreplaceable artifacts under their heels, tear down the very walls of our home. No mage has the right to disagree.

We of the Dairsmuid Circle wait now, behind barricades. I have sent word to our brother and sister mages of this outrage. When they break through, we will not die alone.
"

Kindly point out where, in all of that, is stated that the Circle was Annuled specifically and solely because the mages were mixing with their families.

^ I don't understand something here. The Templars show up with a small force. The mages fight and have the upper hand. The Templars call for the Rite Of Annulment. How did the mages even allow that to happen? As soon as the first sword was drawn every Templar should have died. They shouldn't have been able to send for anything.

Now the mages are holed up somewhere while the surviving Templars await reinforcements. Why don't the mages attack now when the Templars are vulnerable? Put them all to sleep, hit them with the vulnerability hex, then that critical hit hex, then horror. If they're still alive i'm sure they won't be in any condition to fight. Then it'll be time for some real fun >:]

It doesn't say the Templars sent for the Right (note that it is indeed Right, not Rite), but that they invoked it.  Huge difference there.  

[cjones91]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
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. 

I'm not saying we have. I'm saying that I would have killed any and all Seers who willingly became possessed due to the fact spirits are corruptible and that this was their choice and would have spared the men and girls too young to have become Seers.
Is that more palatable?

And you think those men and young girls would have THANKED you? 

He thinks telling people who interact with spirits that they are wrong and if they keep doing it is grounds for genocide.I will never understand how someone can sit there with a straight face and justify the massacre of hundreds of people simply because they were practicing harmless spirit possession.

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

To be honest though, do they need more? We have no other idea how "bad" the situation was in Dairsmuid, other than the First Enchanter's words, although I am more inclined to give the Circle the benefit of the doubt. The Chantry must have known what was going on all along. But in the wake of the White Spire, I can certainly understand how everyone would have been itching for a fight.

Rivain happened before the events at the White Spire.

Nope. First sentence of the entry, "When we heard of the injustices against our fellow mages at the White Spire, the Circle of Magi in Val Royeux, I feared what was to come."

Right. My bad.

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Silfren 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.

Which makes no sense.  We first learn about this Rivaini practice from the writings of a Chantry scholar, so obviously it wasn't a secret.  The Chantry did indeed know about it long before.

They knew it was a practice amongst hedge mages in Rivain.  They might not have known the Rivaini branch of the Circle was allowing such practices to be taught to the mages there.  The local chantry might have been willing to bend the rules, but a seeker straight from Orlais in the wake of the White Spire?  Probably not.

Yeah, I don't believe that, sorry.  Not when a scholar from the Chantry details the fact that the Chantry doesn't have much of a foothold.  I don't believe that the Chantry hasn't kept close tabs on that nation in its ongoing attempts to spread its own influence.

If the practice is prohibited by the Chantry then it most likely means it's not tolerated by them either when you consider it's stance on abominations.

[Heimdall]

Silfren wrote...


Yeah, I don't believe that, sorry.  Not when a scholar from the Chantry details the fact that the Chantry doesn't have much of a foothold.  I don't believe that the Chantry hasn't kept close tabs on that nation in its ongoing attempts to spread its own influence.

Are you listening?  I said that the Chantry did know about the Seers.  They just didn't know the Seers were being trained in the Circle and neither did that scholar.

If anything, the local Chantry probably kept it quiet to improve relations and conversions with the locals

[dragonflight288]

If the practice is prohibited by the Chantry then it most likely means it's not tolerated by them either when you consider it's stance on abominations.

And yet they allowed it to happen in Rivain for decades.

[Heimdall]

Silfren wrote...


It doesn't say the Templars sent for the Right (note that it is indeed Right, not Rite), but that they invoked it.  Huge difference there.  

Fair enough.  Though by this time the Templars are splitting from the Chantry and no longer recognize the authority of the Grand Cleric or the Divine.

[cjones91]

The Hierophant wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Silfren 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.

Which makes no sense.  We first learn about this Rivaini practice from the writings of a Chantry scholar, so obviously it wasn't a secret.  The Chantry did indeed know about it long before.

They knew it was a practice amongst hedge mages in Rivain.  They might not have known the Rivaini branch of the Circle was allowing such practices to be taught to the mages there.  The local chantry might have been willing to bend the rules, but a seeker straight from Orlais in the wake of the White Spire?  Probably not.

Yeah, I don't believe that, sorry.  Not when a scholar from the Chantry details the fact that the Chantry doesn't have much of a foothold.  I don't believe that the Chantry hasn't kept close tabs on that nation in its ongoing attempts to spread its own influence.

If the practice is prohibited by the Chantry then it most likely means it's not tolerated by them either when you consider it's stance on abominations.

The Chantry also prohibited blood magic but we all know that does'nt stop them from using it for their own ends.

[Silfren]

Lord Aesir wrote...

eluvianix wrote...


Um, that is not in the Annulment entry. When did they attempt to give the Circle one more chance?

I think he is referring to the portion of the letter that says the Templars only called for Annulment after the mages violently resisted them.

I do believe that letter actually alludes to the Templars shedding blood first. 

[dragonflight288]

Fair enough. Though by this time the Templars are splitting from the Chantry and no longer recognize the authority of the Grand Cleric or the Divine.

And that's a serious problem, because it means the templars feels they are above the law and are above the consequences of their actions. They are removing anyone who can effectively punish them for their abuse of power.

[MisterJB]

Look at all that harmless spirit possession.
Yeah, we've reached a point where we can't even ask that mages not be possessed.

Modifié par MisterJB, 02 octobre 2013 - 10:56 .

[Heimdall]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Fair enough. Though by this time the Templars are splitting from the Chantry and no longer recognize the authority of the Grand Cleric or the Divine.

And that's a serious problem, because it means the templars feels they are above the law and are above the consequences of their actions. They are removing anyone who can effectively punish them for their abuse of power.

They'd say they were removing dangerous abominations, I'm sure.

[Silfren]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Silfren wrote...


It doesn't say the Templars sent for the Right (note that it is indeed Right, not Rite), but that they invoked it.  Huge difference there.  

Fair enough.  Though by this time the Templars are splitting from the Chantry and no longer recognize the authority of the Grand Cleric or the Divine.

Irrelevant.  My point is that Annulment was a right created by the Chantry and must be authorized by the Chantry.  The templars didn't have the right to invoke it without authorization before, when they were affiliated with the Chantry.  They didn't gain the right to invoke it on their own when they split off.  Committing genocide in this context makes them all the more criminal.

[cjones91]

MisterJB wrote...



Look at all that harmless spirit possession.
Yeah, we've reached a point where we can't even ask that mages not be possessed.

Wynne said hello.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...



Look at all that harmless spirit possession.
Yeah, we've reached a point where we can't even ask that mages not be possessed.

This may be hard for you to believe, but Rivain didn't seem to be having many problems before the Seekers came a'knocking on their doors.

[Silfren]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Silfren wrote...


Yeah, I don't believe that, sorry.  Not when a scholar from the Chantry details the fact that the Chantry doesn't have much of a foothold.  I don't believe that the Chantry hasn't kept close tabs on that nation in its ongoing attempts to spread its own influence.

Are you listening?  I said that the Chantry did know about the Seers.  They just didn't know the Seers were being trained in the Circle and neither did that scholar.

If anything, the local Chantry probably kept it quiet to improve relations and conversions with the locals

I am reading, yes.  But the fact that YOU say what the Chantry did or didn't know has no bearing on the situation, because guess what, you don't know.  

Given that the Chantry was well aware of the Rivaini cultural tradition, and it was also known that standard Chantry doctrine was not at all widely accepted there, I don't believe for a moment that the Chantry somehow was not aware that such practices were part of the Rivaini Circle itself.

Given the Chantry's inherent suspicion of unauthorized magic, I don't believe that they wouldn't at the very least be suspicious of the Rivaini Circle being "tainted" by the local customs.

[cjones91]

eluvianix wrote...

MisterJB wrote...



Look at all that harmless spirit possession.
Yeah, we've reached a point where we can't even ask that mages not be possessed.

This may be hard for you to believe, but Rivain didn't seem to be having many problems before the Seekers came a'knocking on their doors.

MisterJB believes all mages who are possessed by spirits are evil,I wonder what he thinks of people like Wynne who were saved by a noble spirit.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

And yet they allowed it to happen in Rivain for decades.

This seems like a repeat of the same fallacious point you made below...

The Hierophant wrote...

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

[dragonflight288]

They'd say they were removing dangerous abominations, I'm sure.

Doesn't change the fact that they were acting outside the law, and therefore were criminals.

[Medhia Nox]

Can I ask something about Wynne?

What happened in Asunder when she died? Did they mention the Spirit of Faith?

I do not believe that she was an abomination or possessed - and I believe DA:O/2 do not support Spirit Healers being possessed. The text for spirit healer implies assistance - not possession - and there is a difference.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 02 octobre 2013 - 11:10 .

[Silfren]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Can I ask something about Wynne?

What happened in Asunder when she died? Did they mention the Spirit of Faith?

I do not believe that she was an abomination or possessed - and I believe DA:O/2 do not support Spirit Healers being possessed. The text for spirit healer implies assistance - not possession - and there is a difference.

She was possessed, though.  This is not in question, and her possession had nothing to do with her being a spirit healer at all.

Modifié par Silfren, 02 octobre 2013 - 11:11 .

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

They'd say they were removing dangerous abominations, I'm sure.

Doesn't change the fact that they were acting outside the law, and therefore were criminals.

How were they acting outside the law?

[dragonflight288]

This seems like a repeat of the same fallacious point you made below...

snip

...and what does that have to do with the fact that in that particular instance, the Chantry/templars were acting outside their accepted powers and were therefore criminals, and in the wrong?

[dragonflight288]

How were they acting outside the law?

They didn't get authorization for a right of annulment from the Grand Cleric in the area or from the divine, therefore they were acting outside Chantry law.