645 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Plenty of that on both sides. Don't see why it's being considered just a mage thing. And I don't think you can break a contract that wasn't finalized or agreed upon by all parties yet.

[Master Warder Z_]

Silfren wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

You can't possibly be serious. 

The mages locked themselves in the choir loft.  Obviously there was no violence because nothing in the codex suggests that the templars perceived them as a dangerous threat.  All they did--mages and non-mages both, apparently--was shout back and forth at each other.  The Divine was even discouraged by her templars from calling an Exalted March.  That indicates rather strongly and obviously that the mages had done absolutely NOTHING to warrant violence. 

Completely.

And it had nothing to do with the structuring they were hunkering down in?

[Cainhurst Crow]

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

Yes, because it always looks good to the common citizen when armed forces start opening fire on culturally important landmarks. That's sure to ensure people recognize your forces as legitimate and not warmongering tyrants like the imperium aristocracy of old. Let's tear down a huge statue of andraste and smash it for the catapults while we're at it.

[Master Warder Z_]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Plenty of that on both sides. Don't see why it's being considered just a mage thing. And I don't think you can break a contract that wasn't finalized or agreed upon by all parties yet.

The Mages of the time agreed to the Circle System,. The Inquistion (Later the Templars and Seekers both) Agreed to the circle system and the Chantry agreed to it.

All parties had say and agreed to it.

It was broken by two of said parties.

I do believe it was anulled if by nothing else then Majority abandoning it.

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...
I was being completely sarcastic. Ummm, we only have one agreement between the mages and anyone else, so it's only been broken once, and I believe both sides had a hand in shredding the Accord.

I understood that you were being sarcastic and that you wished for the Chantry to talk with the mages which they did.
But first, the mages complained that they wanted to use their magic. The Chantry conceded and allowed them to so long as they did it away from society. And when that no longer suited them, Fiona called for a disband of the Circle.
When will enough be enough for the mages?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

Actually, it seems to me this can best be described as a labor strike. The places those are illegal tend to be regarded as backwards.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

As I've previously noted, the mage's leverage seems to have been that the people who were in charge of doing this sympathized more with the mages than the priests.

[Master Warder Z_]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

Yes, because it always looks good to the common citizen when armed forces start opening fire on culturally important landmarks. That's sure to ensure people recognize your forces as legitimate and not warmongering tyrants like the imperium aristocracy of old. Let's tear down a huge statue of andraste and smash it for the catapults while we're at it.

Exactly my point.

The mages were using Faith as a shield.

They were using the Structure and the Religion both to leverage the situation in their favor; Just makes me wonder about the event as a whole what else was lost to the perspective of the one who wrote said codex.

Given the Bioware team themselves have stated repeatedly that the codexes are rather limited given they are only individual perspective.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Plenty of that on both sides. Don't see why it's being considered just a mage thing. And I don't think you can break a contract that wasn't finalized or agreed upon by all parties yet.

The Mages of the time agreed to the Circle System,. The Inquistion (Later the Templars and Seekers both) Agreed to the circle system and the Chantry agreed to it.

All parties had say and agreed to it.

It was broken by two of said parties.

I do believe it was anulled if by nothing else then Majority abandoning it.

So the majority abandonded the circle system by locking themselves in a church, the place they were supposed to stay on orders of the divine because " the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry",  then reaffirmed it after they left the church?

Wat?

[Silfren]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

.....They barricaded themselves inside the choir loft.  You're overstating things JUST a tad.

You don't think the location was the only reason the building wasn't basically smashed into rubble with the weapons of siegecraft?

._. They used the one place in the faith that they knew the Chantry and thus the Templars would hesistate to use force on.

Overstating things? Perhaps? Disliking that Exortion actually resulted in Mage victory? Very much so. That said i guess i approve of the end result well enough.

You're being completely ridiculous now.  The mages did not SEIZE the Chantry as if they were an external part of it and decided to start a small-scale war.  They were INSIDE the Chantry, being a PART of it, and decided they were so sick of their assigned role that they went inside and locked themselves in the choir loft.  The reason that the Chantry and the Templars didn't use siegecraft is because there were OTHER people in the building and there was no such situation as of the mages keeping hostages or using the entire Chantry as their headquarters. 

You're making it sound like the mages stormed the place and kicked all the Chantry personnel out, and the templars chose not to raze the building because it was a holy site.  All that is a complete misrepresentation of what was actually happening. 

The entire thing was NOTHING more than a shouting match between disgruntled mages and stubborn Chantry officials.  So no, I DON'T think the only reason the building wasn't smashed into rubble is because of location.  The reason it wasn't smashed to the ground is because the mages hadn't given anyone cause for that kind of terroristic violence.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
I was being completely sarcastic. Ummm, we only have one agreement between the mages and anyone else, so it's only been broken once, and I believe both sides had a hand in shredding the Accord.

I understood that you were being sarcastic and that you wished for the Chantry to talk with the mages which they did.
But first, the mages complained that they wanted to use their magic. The Chantry conceded and allowed them to so long as they did it away from society. And when that no longer suited them, Fiona called for a disband of the Circle.
When will enough be enough for the mages?

Hold up here, Fiona called for rebellion for so much more than simply not being allowed to use their magic as they desired. Let's also remember the litany of Templar abuses that occured within Circles, to boot.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

Yes, because it always looks good to the common citizen when armed forces start opening fire on culturally important landmarks. That's sure to ensure people recognize your forces as legitimate and not warmongering tyrants like the imperium aristocracy of old. Let's tear down a huge statue of andraste and smash it for the catapults while we're at it.

Exactly my point.

The mages were using Faith as a shield.

They were using the Structure and the Religion both to leverage the situation in their favor; Just makes me wonder about the event as a whole what else was lost to the perspective of the one who wrote said codex.

Given the Bioware team themselves have stated repeatedly that the codexes are rather limited given they are only individual perspective.

Consdering by the sound of the codex histroy the mages weren't allowed to leave the chantry, it would be pretty hard for them to do anything but stage their protests in the chantry, since they were relegated to lighting candles and lamps and perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves, which isn't really something I would expect mages to be bussed into the chantry from the circle to do unless they were staying there longer then to just light a few fires and leave.


I also don't see your point, since if the tables were turned and it was a rebellion in the imperium, normal people would try and stage their protests in places of significance as well, where the chances of being murdered were less.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
I was being completely sarcastic. Ummm, we only have one agreement between the mages and anyone else, so it's only been broken once, and I believe both sides had a hand in shredding the Accord.

I understood that you were being sarcastic and that you wished for the Chantry to talk with the mages which they did.
But first, the mages complained that they wanted to use their magic. The Chantry conceded and allowed them to so long as they did it away from society. And when that no longer suited them, Fiona called for a disband of the Circle.
When will enough be enough for the mages?

Wait? Are we talking historical events or new events?

Wat are we even talking about anymore?

[Master Warder Z_]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

Actually, it seems to me this can best be described as a labor strike. The places those are illegal tend to be regarded as backwards.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

As I've previously noted, the mage's leverage seems to have been that the people who were in charge of doing this sympathized more with the mages than the priests.

1. A difference of perspective, Some call Grenada uprising a revolution rather then a hostile communist take over. Some Call the American Civil War a valid fight for state sovereignity while others disagree. Point of it is; You see Labor strike, I see illegal seizure of property and holding it against the will of its owners while using it as a shield for negoiation.

And plenty of the nations who view Labor strikes in a positive light have issues enough of their own that they shouldn't be judging others.

2. Or them holding an icon of the Faith Hostage 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I thought we all agreed that organized mages and templars both sucked.

[Master Warder Z_]

Silfren wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

.....They barricaded themselves inside the choir loft.  You're overstating things JUST a tad.

You don't think the location was the only reason the building wasn't basically smashed into rubble with the weapons of siegecraft?

._. They used the one place in the faith that they knew the Chantry and thus the Templars would hesistate to use force on.

Overstating things? Perhaps? Disliking that Exortion actually resulted in Mage victory? Very much so. That said i guess i approve of the end result well enough.

You're being completely ridiculous now.  The mages did not SEIZE the Chantry as if they were an external part of it and decided to start a small-scale war.  They were INSIDE the Chantry, being a PART of it, and decided they were so sick of their assigned role that they went inside and locked themselves in the choir loft.  The reason that the Chantry and the Templars didn't use siegecraft is because there were OTHER people in the building and there was no such situation as of the mages keeping hostages or using the entire Chantry as their headquarters. 

You're making it sound like the mages stormed the place and kicked all the Chantry personnel out, and the templars chose not to raze the building because it was a holy site.  All that is a complete misrepresentation of what was actually happening. 

The entire thing was NOTHING more than a shouting match between disgruntled mages and stubborn Chantry officials.  So no, I DON'T think the only reason the building wasn't smashed into rubble is because of location.  The reason it wasn't smashed to the ground is because the mages hadn't given anyone cause for that kind of terroristic violence.

How do you know the siege began? Unless if they were holding the Chantry Personal hostage it would make sense to boot them out before Negoiations began given that when you are in an attic and you have people below capable of getting you it tends to end poorly.

We can safely assume that given it lasted for near on a month that the mages did indeed kick every one else out or if they did not made them incapable of breaching the door to their location.

And considering the Divine's reaction it seems all that was standing between that place and being razed was it being a holy site.

We will simply have to agree to disagree upon our interpretations of events i suppose.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Isn't this assuming that the templars actually agreed with the divine on how the mages should be treated/what they should do with their magic? And that they didn't obey her orders to storm the place out of not wanting to follow this crazy old bat and get their men needlessly hurt/hurt the mages who they didn't disagree with?

Seems like the mages got a **** deal anyway, since they helped to end the blights, and their rewards were to be made housekeepers for the chantry's to make sure the place was well lite and dust free. And I'm sure more then a few templars, who would probably have been alive to witness the blight and know that there were mages helping the grey wardens (and probably andraste's original movement as well) and might not agree on their treatment now.

Assumptions and infered events can go both ways it seems.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 14 février 2014 - 01:11 .

[Master Warder Z_]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Plenty of that on both sides. Don't see why it's being considered just a mage thing. And I don't think you can break a contract that wasn't finalized or agreed upon by all parties yet.

The Mages of the time agreed to the Circle System,. The Inquistion (Later the Templars and Seekers both) Agreed to the circle system and the Chantry agreed to it.

All parties had say and agreed to it.

It was broken by two of said parties.

I do believe it was anulled if by nothing else then Majority abandoning it.

So the majority abandonded the circle system by locking themselves in a church, the place they were supposed to stay on orders of the divine because " the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry",  then reaffirmed it after they left the church?

Wat?

We were talking about the breaking of the current accord by both Mages, Seekers and Templars in 9:40 Dragon ending the Accord after near 900 Years of use.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Plenty of that on both sides. Don't see why it's being considered just a mage thing. And I don't think you can break a contract that wasn't finalized or agreed upon by all parties yet.

The Mages of the time agreed to the Circle System,. The Inquistion (Later the Templars and Seekers both) Agreed to the circle system and the Chantry agreed to it.

All parties had say and agreed to it.

It was broken by two of said parties.

I do believe it was anulled if by nothing else then Majority abandoning it.

So the majority abandonded the circle system by locking themselves in a church, the place they were supposed to stay on orders of the divine because " the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry",  then reaffirmed it after they left the church?

Wat?

We were talking about the breaking of the current accord by both Mages, Seekers and Templars in 9:40 Dragon ending the Accord after near 900 Years of use.

Well then maybe in your post you could have indicated that somehow.

What happened in the past has nothing to do with what happened in asunder and kirkwall. The two scenarios are completely different as are the circumstances and events, and really every side should just sit and spin for their part in it happening.

[Silfren]

Master Warder Z wrote...
How do you know the siege began? Unless if they were holding the Chantry Personal hostage it would make sense to boot them out before Negoiations began given that when you are in an attic and you have people below capable of getting you it tends to end poorly.

We can safely assume that given it lasted for near on a month that the mages did indeed kick every one else out or if they did not made them incapable of breaching the door to their location.

And considering the Divine's reaction it seems all that was standing between that place and being razed was it being a holy site.

We will simply have to agree to disagree upon our interpretations of events i suppose.

You need to read that codex again, because you have it completely wrong.  There WAS. NO. siege.  You're flat out wrong on this.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 février 2014 - 01:14 .

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...
Hold up here, Fiona called for rebellion for so much more than simply not being allowed to use their magic as they desired. Let's also remember the litany of Templar abuses that occured within Circles, to boot.

While those are issues, the correct procedure would be to deal with them and ensure the Circles work as they are supposed to. Rather, Fiona asked for a complete dissolution of the agreement between the Chantry and the mages.
It is evident that she did not do it simply because of abuses but because of the very nature of the Circle which is to restrict mages.
Which is why I am saying that whenever mages are not happy with the restrictions placed upon them, they feel free to do whatever they please regardless of previous accords. It has happened twice now.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Master Warder Z wrote...

1. A difference of perspective, Some call Grenada uprising a revolution rather then a hostile communist take over. Some Call the American Civil War a valid fight for state sovereignity while others disagree. Point of it is; You see Labor strike, I see illegal seizure of property and holding it against the will of its owners while using it as a shield for negoiation.

That's apparently not atypical of labor strikes in some parts of the world (my dad ended up on a Mexican campus once during a faculty strike), even if I personally see it as somewhat extreme. On the other hand, where else were they supposed to stay while refusing to work?

And plenty of the nations who view Labor strikes in a positive light have issues enough of their own that they shouldn't be judging others.

I'm actually from a nation where half the problems are caused by the people who view them in a negative one.

2. Or them holding an icon of the Faith Hostage 

That is something that would have likely gotten them Smote and killed. The Codex supports the idea that the mages were just peacefully protesting and refusing to work, and that while the Divine was inclined to punish them the Templars found her less sympathetic than the mages. (Which I can understand. Boredom can really suck.) I'm aware that the Codexes aren't 100% reliable, and I think there is an inherent danger of attacking mages who aren't yet attacking you that the Codex is dancing around, but I also think there's less coercion in the situation than you're seeing in it.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 février 2014 - 01:18 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Hold up here, Fiona called for rebellion for so much more than simply not being allowed to use their magic as they desired. Let's also remember the litany of Templar abuses that occured within Circles, to boot.

While those are issues, the correct procedure would be to deal with them and ensure the Circles work as they are supposed to. Rather, Fiona asked for a complete dissolution of the agreement between the Chantry and the mages.
It is evident that she did not do it simply because of abuses but because of the very nature of the Circle which is to restrict mages.
Which is why I am saying that whenever mages are not happy with the restrictions placed upon them, they feel free to do whatever they please regardless of previous accords. It has happened twice now.

Isn't it amazing that people don't want to be constricted but rather have as much freedom as allowed, especially when recent years proved that the entire system wasn't working as it was supposed to?

And mages have been unhappy for centuries, yet this only happened twice now as you said, thus defeating your "whenever they feel like it" argument.

[Cainhurst Crow]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Hold up here, Fiona called for rebellion for so much more than simply not being allowed to use their magic as they desired. Let's also remember the litany of Templar abuses that occured within Circles, to boot.

While those are issues, the correct procedure would be to deal with them and ensure the Circles work as they are supposed to. Rather, Fiona asked for a complete dissolution of the agreement between the Chantry and the mages.
It is evident that she did not do it simply because of abuses but because of the very nature of the Circle which is to restrict mages.
Which is why I am saying that whenever mages are not happy with the restrictions placed upon them, they feel free to do whatever they please regardless of previous accords. It has happened twice now.

The circle is there to keep mages from turning into abominations and teach them how to use their powers in a safe way. Not to restrict them in using magic. And let's not forget that templars are also open to these kinds of "restriction resisting" measures, in fact everyone is, so claiming it's only mages, like you imply with your "whenever mages are not happy", which suggest this only happens with mages.

Since we're annectodally using fiona in this example, remember otto? He completely ignored the procedures and restrictions one has when making mages tranquil and just did whatever he pleased regardless of previous accords.

The whole "you cannot tranquil a mage without approval from the first enchanter" and the "you cannot make a mage tranquil who has passed their harrowing" rules meant nothing to him, and he was far from being a mage.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 14 février 2014 - 01:20 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Hold up here, Fiona called for rebellion for so much more than simply not being allowed to use their magic as they desired. Let's also remember the litany of Templar abuses that occured within Circles, to boot.

While those are issues, the correct procedure would be to deal with them and ensure the Circles work as they are supposed to. Rather, Fiona asked for a complete dissolution of the agreement between the Chantry and the mages.
It is evident that she did not do it simply because of abuses but because of the very nature of the Circle which is to restrict mages.
Which is why I am saying that whenever mages are not happy with the restrictions placed upon them, they feel free to do whatever they please regardless of previous accords. It has happened twice now.

Really?  Because what I took from that passage was that Fiona recognized that the Chanty was NEVER going to "Deal with them and ensure the Circles work as they are supposed to."  The entire reason that Fiona pushed for dissolution was BECAUSE of the abuses never, ever being addressed and rectified. 

Modifié par Silfren, 14 février 2014 - 01:21 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fiona pushing for the abolition of the circle was bad, and she should feel bad for doing it.