1420 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

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 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.

And how does that change the facts that the local chantry likely knew, and that these mages were popular among the mundanes, who by Chantry logic, should hate/fear them for those practices?

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

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.

Circle mages joined him. That is all that is going to matter for other Templars. The Circle Mages should for all intends and purpose stay clear of internal Templar affairs. just like the Templars shouldn't decide who becomes First Enchanter (and they never do).

[wcholcombe]

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.

In WOT it states the chantry sent seekers to investigate their circle after the other circles started rebelling.  The seekers were shocked to fine them mixing freeley with their families and training mages to be seers.  They denounced them as apostates and sought to reform the circle to Chantry standards.  Instead of being cowered into submission the mages fought back and were winning until the Seeker invoked ROA.

Since the chantry sent the Seeker to Dairsmuid I am guessing this was before Lambert broke with the Chantry.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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....

Hardly horrid if no one but the Seeker who stumbled upon it had issues with the practice.

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

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?

Can't say. I don't have the answers to those questions. I know it happened at the very end of Asunder, but it's unclear on whether or not the templars and seekers had left the Chantry at the point it happened. If they hadn't, then it was likely an illegal Annulment.

[Hellion Rex]

wcholcombe 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.

In WOT it states the chantry sent seekers to investigate their circle after the other circles started rebelling.  The seekers were shocked to fine them mixing freeley with their families and training mages to be seers.  They denounced them as apostates and sought to reform the circle to Chantry standards.  Instead of being cowered into submission the mages fought back and were winning until the Seeker invoked ROA.

Since the chantry sent the Seeker to Dairsmuid I am guessing this was before Lambert broke with the Chantry.

But at that point, who actually granted the right of Annulment? 

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

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?

Can't say. I don't have the answers to those questions. I know it happened at the very end of Asunder, but it's unclear on whether or not the templars and seekers had left the Chantry at the point it happened. If they hadn't, then it was likely an illegal Annulment.

It says the "Chantry" sent the Seekers to investigate. While I could see Justinia sending someone to investigate, I can't see her giving the OK for an annulment.

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

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?

Can't say. I don't have the answers to those questions. I know it happened at the very end of Asunder, but it's unclear on whether or not the templars and seekers had left the Chantry at the point it happened. If they hadn't, then it was likely an illegal Annulment.

It says the "Chantry" sent the Seekers to investigate. While I could see Justinia sending someone to investigate, I can't see her giving the OK for an annulment.

But I do see Lambert giving the OK...even though I don't think he'd have the authority for it.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Kirkwall: Incorrect. Meredith specifically justifies it as "the people will demand blood." Her justification has nothing to do with abominations or blood magic.

Mages from the Circle were constantly becoming Abominations; the First-Enchanter was a blood mage and an Abomination commited a terrorist attack. That's grounds for Annulment.

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.

The practices of the Seers involves allowing yourself to be possessed; which makes you an Abomination; and the World of Thedas page 80 makes it absolutely clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that Seers rule the communities of Rivain. I can copy it word by word if you want.
Therefore, Abominations ruling over man.
It doesn't matter if the locals enjoy this nonsense or not, these are two big no-nos to the Chantry.
If the local tradition involved sacrifing a virgin each week to appease the sun god, should we just go along with it?
Again those are grounds for Annulment.

Modifié par MisterJB, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:27 .

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

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?

Can't say. I don't have the answers to those questions. I know it happened at the very end of Asunder, but it's unclear on whether or not the templars and seekers had left the Chantry at the point it happened. If they hadn't, then it was likely an illegal Annulment.

It says the "Chantry" sent the Seekers to investigate. While I could see Justinia sending someone to investigate, I can't see her giving the OK for an annulment.

But I do see Lambert giving the OK...even though I don't think he'd have the authority for it.

I agree. And that is why I think Lambert is the one who probably ended up giving the order.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

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.

Widely supported is debateable as an unknown portion of the population continues to convert to the Qunari, while the nationalists commited genocide against a large population of their countrymen during the Storm Age for refusing to denounce their faith.

[MisterJB]

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

Modifié par MisterJB, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:29 .

[wcholcombe]

No one. If the 1st Enchanter's account is accurate. The Seeker with templars ordered the ROA.I doubt seriously the seeker left to go track down the grand cleric while his templars were being defeated.

Also, again if the chantry sent the seekers, than I would assume this was prior to Lamber's split.

Though theoretically it is possible that the seeker and templars in question choose to remain loyal to the chantry alla Cassandra and I figure Cullen.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

[wcholcombe]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

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?

Can't say. I don't have the answers to those questions. I know it happened at the very end of Asunder, but it's unclear on whether or not the templars and seekers had left the Chantry at the point it happened. If they hadn't, then it was likely an illegal Annulment.

It says the "Chantry" sent the Seekers to investigate. While I could see Justinia sending someone to investigate, I can't see her giving the OK for an annulment.

But I do see Lambert giving the OK...even though I don't think he'd have the authority for it.

I agree. And that is why I think Lambert is the one who probably ended up giving the order.

 Actually I don't think so.  Lambert showed some measured restraint in the White Spire.  He could have had the entire conclave of 1st enchanters killed, much less put the entire tower to the sword.  I believe it was the seeker who was on the ground with the Templars who ordered the ROA, illegally.  But the Templars/Seekers overstepping their authority is one of the primary issues at the heart of this whole mess.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Annulment at Dairsmuid entry in World of Thedas describes it happening after the "injustices against our fellow mages at the White Spire" and after the other Circles rose up.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:34 .

[dragonflight288]

And to bring this thread back on topic, the templars, as an arm of the Chantry overextending their authority in such a manner, is a form of Chantry corruption.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

Only if they weren't under borders from the Divine, as the Rivaini branch of the Chantry has failed to do their job.

[dragonflight288]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Annulment at Dairsmuid entry in World of Thedas describes it happening after the other Circles rose up.

But did it happen before or after the templars and seeker left the Chantry? That's the heart of it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

The Circle is actively creating Abominations, and refused to stop the practice. That right there is grounds for Annulment.

[dragonflight288]

The Hierophant wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

Only if they weren't under borders from the Divine, as the Rivaini branch of the Chantry has failed to do their job.

Any annulment needs the authority of the Grand Cleric. Without that authority, it's illegal.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

The Circle is actively creating Abominations, and refused to stop the practice. That right there is grounds for Annulment.

Again, without the authority given from a Grand Cleric or the Divine, it's illegal.

[The Hierophant]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Annulment at Dairsmuid entry in World of Thedas describes it happening after the "injustices against our fellow mages at the White Spire" and after the other Circles rose up.

If so then it's an illegal annulment, regardless of the existence of abominations.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Annulment at Dairsmuid entry in World of Thedas describes it happening after the other Circles rose up.

But did it happen before or after the templars and seeker left the Chantry? That's the heart of it.

OK I haven't read Asunder but I had thought Lambert annulled the Nevarran Accord immediately after the incident at the White Spire?

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:37 .

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Also, given the fact that the Qun is more popular on Rivain than anywhere in Thedas and that there are Andrastians there as well, I'm going to say that not everyone is fond of the idea of Abominations ruling over the population.

edit: ninja'ed

If this is the case, then it was an illegal Annulment.

The Circle is actively creating Abominations, and refused to stop the practice. That right there is grounds for Annulment.

Again, without the authority given from a Grand Cleric or the Divine, it's illegal.

Or a Knight-Commander. They have the authority when the Grand Cleric or Divine cannot be reached.

Edit: Scratch that. The Knight Commanders have the ability to invoke, but not outright perform the act immediately.

Modifié par eluvianix, 24 octobre 2013 - 07:39 .