1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Reaverwind]

wcholcombe wrote...

Evandro_Junior wrote...

We do not know that Orsino is a blood mage but we know that someone within the circle is passing books for a blood mage who lives hidden in the city.

A Letter from the Circle


My dear friend,

I have obtained the books you requested. I'll leave them at our usual hiding spot. Please collect them as soon as possible. I would hate to see them in the wrong hands!

Your last letter was fascinating! You have proven me wrong, once again, by doing the impossible. I shouldn't have doubted your resolve, and I hope you will keep me apprised of further progress.

Your friend and colleague,
O

Actually-- Orsino admits it. I don't remember which way it works, but if you sister is still alive in one of the endings he admits to being O and aiding Quentin.  He claims to not have realized how far Quentin was going, but he still never stopped him.  And he turns himself into a Harvester through using blood magic. IE making himself a blood mage.

He admits it if Carver is alive, too.

[dragonflight288]

Reaverwind wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Rivain's Annulement was, in my opinion, a preventive act to stop Rivain from rebelling and escaping as the other Circles had begun to do.

I was under the impression it was annulled because word on that circle's questionable practices had finally gotten back to Val Royeaux.

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

I can't say I blame the Templars for believing the Ferelden Circle lost. Had it not been for the God Emperor of Mankind.. .err.. I mean the Grey Warden, and his godlike skillset, then the Circle would have been lost for sure.
Kirkwall was the most dodgey of the recent Annulments, but still a case could be made for it being invoked. The Circle had previously tried to overthrow the Knight Commander, and the First Enchanter was a Blood Mage. Even though the last one was an unknown at that time, Meredith had her suspecions, and Orsino tried to hinder any and all investigations into the matter. Even so, Orsino still harbored a Blood Mage, maybe several.
Dairsmund was a giant cluster ****. The Templars initially tried to force the Circle to conform, evidently with minemal loss of life. But since the mages resisted forcefully, the Tempalrs felt the Annulment was needed, since again the Circle was in open rebellion.

[wcholcombe]

eluvianix wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Silfren wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Also, the right of annulment has only been around for 600 or so years, and we have no record of when or how often it has been used.  Or the reasons for its use, except for the 2 or possibly 3 recent uses of it.  The circle/templars existed for 200-300 or so years prior to the creation of the Right of Annulment.

On the contrary, we DO know exactly how many times Annulment has been performed.  It was, in fact, spelled out in the post directly above yours that I quoted.  At the time of that codex in Origins, it had been performed 17 times.  Adding in Ferelden, and Rivain, and Kirkwall, it brings the total to 20, in 700 years.

Yes, that post was made while I was typing mine. I didn't remember the codex spelling out the number.  So roughly since its inception, the ROA has been used basically every 35 years...  Its doubtful that it is spread out like that. I would imagine ROAs get used in bunches as we have seen in the Dragon Age.  And actually, the ROA didn't occur in ferelden in my game, so it would be 19 times.  But that won't affect it too much. Also, what I find interesting in regards to the ROA was that the Lord Seeker in Asunder never used it.  That was open rebellion within a tower.  It could be that he didn't think the Divine would support it, or it could be that he didn't feel it was necessary.  Just another interesting thing about his character.  Supreme hardliner and a  bast@rd, but you can't fault the man for honestly following his convictions.

I would consider the fighting at the end Lambert's attempted Annulment.

No, most of the 1st enchanters survived the conclave they had.  Also, at no time did Lambert call for every mage to be put to the sword in the tower.  I am farily certain there were probably some Loyalist who stayed in the tower when the others left.  It was never annulled.

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Rivain's Annulement was, in my opinion, a preventive act to stop Rivain from rebelling and escaping as the other Circles had begun to do.

If that's the case (I personally don't think so) then what happened was the sanctioned slaughter of hundreds of men, women and children as a preventative measure when it comes to war.

That's a war crime.

Rivain was annuled after Asunder's events, right? Because Rivella sent that letter out. Is it that much of a stretch, considering other circles had begun to rebel?

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Rivain's Annulement was, in my opinion, a preventive act to stop Rivain from rebelling and escaping as the other Circles had begun to do.

I was under the impression it was annulled because word on that circle's questionable practices had finally gotten back to Val Royeaux?

But this all occurred after the events of Asunder. It is just a little reading in between the lines on my part.

It happens at the very end of Asunder, I think it happened before the Seekers and Templars left the Chantry, so they still had to respect the rule that the Grand Cleric was the one with the authority to give an Annulment.

They didn't.

[Silfren]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

But Orsino being a blood mage should not condemn the whole Circle. And the mages only tried to protect themselves after Meredith called for Annulment unjustly.

And since we know nothing of those first 17 Annulments, none of us can categorically say that they were proven irredeemable.  Nor can we say it about Rivain, which looks far less like justifiable Annulment and a lot more like templars getting pissy over uppity mages.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

I can't say I blame the Templars for believing the Ferelden Circle lost. Had it not been for the God Emperor of Mankind.. .err.. I mean the Grey Warden, and his godlike skillset, then the Circle would have been lost for sure.
Kirkwall was the most dodgey of the recent Annulments, but still a case could be made for it being invoked. The Circle had previously tried to overthrow the Knight Commander, and the First Enchanter was a Blood Mage. Even though the last one was an unknown at that time, Meredith had her suspecions, and Orsino tried to hinder any and all investigations into the matter. Even so, Orsino still harbored a Blood Mage, maybe several.
Dairsmund was a giant cluster ****. The Templars initially tried to force the Circle to conform, evidently with minemal loss of life. But since the mages resisted forcefully, the Tempalrs felt the Annulment was needed, since again the Circle was in open rebellion.

Hang on. When had the Circle attempted to overthrow the Knight Commander?

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

That is still a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened....

[EmperorSahlertz]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There havn't been a single annulment yet, where the Circle havn't proven itself to be irredeemable.. As dodgey as Meredith's was, she was proven correct in her suspecions when Orsino showed himself to be a Blood Mage (nevermind that the Mages continued to torch half the city in open rebellion, which would have called for retribution anyway).

There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

I can't say I blame the Templars for believing the Ferelden Circle lost. Had it not been for the God Emperor of Mankind.. .err.. I mean the Grey Warden, and his godlike skillset, then the Circle would have been lost for sure.
Kirkwall was the most dodgey of the recent Annulments, but still a case could be made for it being invoked. The Circle had previously tried to overthrow the Knight Commander, and the First Enchanter was a Blood Mage. Even though the last one was an unknown at that time, Meredith had her suspecions, and Orsino tried to hinder any and all investigations into the matter. Even so, Orsino still harbored a Blood Mage, maybe several.
Dairsmund was a giant cluster ****. The Templars initially tried to force the Circle to conform, evidently with minemal loss of life. But since the mages resisted forcefully, the Tempalrs felt the Annulment was needed, since again the Circle was in open rebellion.

Hang on. When had the Circle attempted to overthrow the Knight Commander?

The quest "Best Served Cold". It was a rebellion target specifically at dethroning Meredith. But that doesn't make it any less of a rebellion.

[Silfren]

eluvianix wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I don't think you understood Xil's point.  There are hundreds of mages in any given Circle, as I understand things, so Annulment automatically means a wholesale execution of hundreds of people.

Annulment isn't declared over one abomination.

It can be declared if the Circle is deemed irredeemable.  There's a lot of room there for considerable interpretation of what is irredeemable; abominations are NOT the only reason Annulments are or can be called.  The fact that blood magic cannot be detected and there's no way to know is one of the primary justifications given for slaughtering all the mages without an investigation or trial.

Hang on. I thought abominations were pretty much the go to reason for an attempt to annul the Circle. I know Dairsmuid is an exception though.

The relevant codex about Annulment says that Divine Galatea gave the Grand Clerics the right to purge a Circle if they decided it was irredeemable.  Also, bear in mind that Meredith didn't Annul the Circle over an abomination either, but her original reasoning was simply that the Circle was "corrupted."

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

That is still a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened....

I'm just saying that a Seeker noticed that mages were in contact with their families, and that got the ball rolling. The circle in Rivain was merely a formality at best because the country never truly converted to the Chantry (something I think annoyed Val Reyeaux to no end) and the mages had the popular support of all the mundanes.

Even their practices of allowing themselves to get possessed by spirits (not necessarily demons) were supported by the mundanes.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Ferelden: Abominations.
Kirkwall: Abominations.
Rivain: Abominations ruling over man.

Maybe it's mages falling to demons in bids for power that are becoming a frequent habit.

[dragonflight288]

The quest "Best Served Cold". It was a rebellion target specifically at dethroning Meredith. But that doesn't make it any less of a rebellion.

And it was led by a templar, who felt Meredith was severely abusing her power and taking far too much power than the Templars had any right to hold.

[LOLandStuff]

Meredith was inept. Kirkwall was hoarding blood mages running rampant and she couldn't do anything about them, so she took her frustration on the mages in the Circle. They were under her control and could justify her actions because of the crazies on the streets.
She was a very frustrated and paranoid woman, also a control freak, who kept bullying Circle mages because of her own incompetence.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

That is still a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened....

I'm just saying that a Seeker noticed that mages were in contact with their families, and that got the ball rolling. The circle in Rivain was merely a formality at best because the country never truly converted to the Chantry (something I think annoyed Val Reyeaux to no end) and the mages had the popular support of all the mundanes.

Even their practices of allowing themselves to get possessed by spirits (not necessarily demons) were supported by the mundanes.

Apartheid in South Africa was also supported by the commoners. **** Germany too. The masses rarely knows what is best for themselves.

[Silfren]

wcholcombe wrote...

Silfren wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Also, the right of annulment has only been around for 600 or so years, and we have no record of when or how often it has been used.  Or the reasons for its use, except for the 2 or possibly 3 recent uses of it.  The circle/templars existed for 200-300 or so years prior to the creation of the Right of Annulment.

On the contrary, we DO know exactly how many times Annulment has been performed.  It was, in fact, spelled out in the post directly above yours that I quoted.  At the time of that codex in Origins, it had been performed 17 times.  Adding in Ferelden, and Rivain, and Kirkwall, it brings the total to 20, in 700 years.

Yes, that post was made while I was typing mine. I didn't remember the codex spelling out the number.  So roughly since its inception, the ROA has been used basically every 35 years...  Its doubtful that it is spread out like that. I would imagine ROAs get used in bunches as we have seen in the Dragon Age.  And actually, the ROA didn't occur in ferelden in my game, so it would be 19 times.  But that won't affect it too much. Also, what I find interesting in regards to the ROA was that the Lord Seeker in Asunder never used it.  That was open rebellion within a tower.  It could be that he didn't think the Divine would support it, or it could be that he didn't feel it was necessary.  Just another interesting thing about his character.  Supreme hardliner and a  bast@rd, but you can't fault the man for honestly following his convictions.

You can, actually.  There's convictions, and then there's blind fanaticism, and Lambert was the latter.

[Reaverwind]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

That is still a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened....

I'm just saying that a Seeker noticed that mages were in contact with their families, and that got the ball rolling. The circle in Rivain was merely a formality at best because the country never truly converted to the Chantry (something I think annoyed Val Reyeaux to no end) and the mages had the popular support of all the mundanes.

Even their practices of allowing themselves to get possessed by spirits (not necessarily demons) were supported by the mundanes.

Sheesh, even the First Enchanter who wrote the letter about it fully admits to what was going on:

Our Circle at Dairsmuid is small and isolated; it exists largely as a facade to appease the Chantry. When the other Circle 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.

It amazes me that they got away with it for as long as they did. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Chantry heads rolled for this.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:19 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The quest "Best Served Cold". It was a rebellion target specifically at dethroning Meredith. But that doesn't make it any less of a rebellion.

And it was led by a templar, who felt Meredith was severely abusing her power and taking far too much power than the Templars had any right to hold.

Does this somehow not make it a rebellion?

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Ferelden: Abominations.
Kirkwall: Abominations.
Rivain: Abominations ruling over man.

Maybe it's mages falling to demons in bids for power that are becoming a frequent habit.

Ferelden: Correct

Kirkwall: Incorrect. Meredith specifically justifies it as "the people will demand blood." Her justification has nothing to do with abominations or blood magic.

Rivain: Incorrect. The mages were in contact with their families, and were continuing practicing the long-honored and widely supported traditions of their homeland inside the circle itself, and weren't exactly out among the populace, lording themselves over them. The only people their practices annoyed, was the Seeker who discovered they were visiting family members, and the big-wigs in Val Reyeaux.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

The quest "Best Served Cold". It was a rebellion target specifically at dethroning Meredith. But that doesn't make it any less of a rebellion.

And it was led by a templar, who felt Meredith was severely abusing her power and taking far too much power than the Templars had any right to hold.

Does this somehow not make it a rebellion?

No it doesn't, but it does change the context on who was leading it and the motivations for it. It wasn't mages trying to oust Meredith because of her cronies abuse of power in the Circle, it was a templar trying to get her out of power because he felt she undermined everything the templars stood for.

Granted, that same templar knowingly allied himself with blood mages, so he wasn't perfect either.

It's just important to have all the facts down.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Reaverwind wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Practices that the local Chantry and the entire populace of the country had no problem with. What got the whole thing started though was a Seeker finding out mages were in contact with their families.

That is still a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened....

I'm just saying that a Seeker noticed that mages were in contact with their families, and that got the ball rolling. The circle in Rivain was merely a formality at best because the country never truly converted to the Chantry (something I think annoyed Val Reyeaux to no end) and the mages had the popular support of all the mundanes.

Even their practices of allowing themselves to get possessed by spirits (not necessarily demons) were supported by the mundanes.

Sheesh, even the enchanter who wrote the letter fully admits to what was going on:

Our Circle at Dairsmuid is small and isolated; it exists largely as a facade to appease the Chantry. When the other Circle 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.

It amazes me that they got away with it for as long as it did. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Chantry heads rolled for this.

That's what I have been trying to tell him... The only account we got on what actually happened even tells us that mixing with their families was not the only reason. But the "time honored tradition" is an obviously enough horrid practice, that it tarnishes the Dairsmuid Circle's good name....

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
There have been 17 Annulments in 700 years, and only the first one gives any specifics in the lore.

Then we had the near (or actual) Annulment in Ferelden, the Annulment in Kirkwall, and the Annulment in Rivain, all in the space of 10 years.

It seems to be becoming a frequent habit, and its defintion liberally applied.

Ferelden: Abominations.
Kirkwall: Abominations.
Rivain: Abominations ruling over man.

Maybe it's mages falling to demons in bids for power that are becoming a frequent habit.

Ferelden: Correct

Kirkwall: Incorrect. Meredith specifically justifies it as "the people will demand blood." Her justification has nothing to do with abominations or blood magic.

Rivain: Incorrect. The mages were in contact with their families, and were continuing practicing the long-honored and widely supported traditions of their homeland inside the circle itself, and weren't exactly out among the populace, lording themselves over them. The only people their practices annoyed, was the Seeker who discovered they were visiting family members, and the big-wigs in Val Reyeaux.

So my question is who actually allowed the Circle in Rivain to be annuled? Who gave the order? Had Lambert an d the Seekers already seceded from the Chantry?