8640 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...



Clearly you see only a single demension of the issue.

The rite is also a warning and threat, it it can be applied to magical criminals even those whom have passed a harrowing (Legally) if they are deemed a risk. Apostates if captured are often made tranquil, But no i am not afraid of the reversal i am merely aware of what happens when a weapon no longer strikes fear into people that are meant to be commanded by it.

The current situation sums that up nicely.

And if it also happens to fall into the possession of Mage criminals seeking to "free" other criminals, traitors and what have you just acceptable losses then? And reciting this codex doens't do much besides showing that occasionally a mage is actually self aware and intelligient enough to realize they posses weakeness as well.

Pity it seems a great majority don't possess such traits.

How do you not understand that it's not sapposed to be used as weapon or a threat. It's ageinst chantry law to use it that way. The very theat of it to be used that way is illigal and put the tempar in the wrong. Sorry, but it's you who does not get it. 

It 's not sapposed to be use as how the templars as using it as. To regulate this the cure was found. What you don't get the the chantry has the resposibility to regulate both the mages and the templars. If the templar do wrong the chantry duty is to correct it. What you're saying is that it's ok  to allow crooked cops to do illigal activities because because the act of correcting them and policing them would make the police force look flawe. You're ignoring the fact that no one is above the law.

You don't see how flawed your logic is?

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...


Don't recall stating he ever claimed to stop them because the situation was screwed up by magic; I do however recall stating several times that searching the cure did result in those deaths though.

Because again all he knew of the attempt was what was conveyed in a letter by the Divine whom had merely stopped recieving reports.

The possibility of a cure however was enough to motivate him but it also doesn't magically negate what he said later in the novel either in which he wouldn't be opposed for the expriments continuing in more stable times under templar supervision.

So yeah three mages or a secret cure that can possibility threaten the stability of all 15 circles of white Thedas and plunge an already unstable world into war.

Hard choice.

And i was being entirely sacrastic.

1. Not his chouce to make.
2. The danger was never there.

The man is acting on paranoia.

[dragonflight288]

Lambert as a Seeker answers only to the Divine If she gave an order to stand down, he MUST stand down.

And Leaguer of One is correct. Lambert says point blank that he doesn't want the mages to know that tranquility can be cured. It's not about how many people died in the experiment. It's not about how unethical it turned out to be since the on conducting no longer had the emotions to feel right or wrong as he was tranquil, it was all about making sure the mages never found out that tranquility has a cure.

[Master Warder Z_]

leaguer of one wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...



Clearly you see only a single demension of the issue.

The rite is also a warning and threat, it it can be applied to magical criminals even those whom have passed a harrowing (Legally) if they are deemed a risk. Apostates if captured are often made tranquil, But no i am not afraid of the reversal i am merely aware of what happens when a weapon no longer strikes fear into people that are meant to be commanded by it.

The current situation sums that up nicely.

And if it also happens to fall into the possession of Mage criminals seeking to "free" other criminals, traitors and what have you just acceptable losses then? And reciting this codex doens't do much besides showing that occasionally a mage is actually self aware and intelligient enough to realize they posses weakeness as well.

Pity it seems a great majority don't possess such traits.

How do you not understand that it's not sapposed to be used as weapon or a threat. It's ageinst chantry law to use it that way. The very theat of it to be used that way is illigal and put the tempar in the wrong. Sorry, but it's you who does not get it. 

It 's not sapposed to be use as how the templars as using it as. To regulate this the cure was found. What you don't get the the chantry has the resposibility to regulate both the mages and the templars. If the templar do wrong the chantry duty is to correct it. What you're saying is that it's ok  to allow crooked cops to do illigal activities because because the act of correcting them and policing them would make the police force look flawe. You're ignoring the fact that no one is above the law.

You don't see how flawed your logic is?

Debatable considering the Chantry has authorized it to be used as a punishment.

And very debatable considering both parties agreed to manage the circle together, It wasn't as clear cut a domination as many i assuredly wish it was now i assume. You know what with Lambert rallying the order behind him, Leaving the Chantry, it going into Schism the world falling into the brink of war all because of a stupid decision by the Divine.

Its sort of amusing having this back and forth its like agruing how the world isn't black and white but various shades of gray with my ten year old niece. (lovely girl)

But given how this Fuedalistic society works yes; You ignore petty corruption, rip out major corruption and basically don't rock the boat. Its how many Nations today manage to stay stable and active, And it works well for the circle in some cases again until some one rocks the boat. Upsets the balance, whatever you want to call it.

You don't see how your perspective is flawed?

Putting petty morality ahead of lives pfft.

Self Righteous much?

[Master Warder Z_]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lambert as a Seeker answers only to the Divine If she gave an order to stand down, he MUST stand down.

And Leaguer of One is correct. Lambert says point blank that he doesn't want the mages to know that tranquility can be cured. It's not about how many people died in the experiment. It's not about how unethical it turned out to be since the on conducting no longer had the emotions to feel right or wrong as he was tranquil, it was all about making sure the mages never found out that tranquility has a cure.

._.

Except when he has enough of her pro mage bs and leaves...along with the templar order and the other seekers. And the Divine is just sitting on the throne pondering about how she played chicken with the wrong man.

And why would he?

It upsets the stability of the circles when its already hanging by the thread.

I wouldn't want that sort of secret getting out regardless, After that nutter terrrorist anders let up the kirkwall chantry like a lightbulb and the anullment there every circle was tense, add fuel to that by annoucning a cure for tranqulity? One of the few things holding together any semblence of order?

You might as well have had that mage assasinate the divine.

You would end up in the same situation as we are now.

Honestly it surprises me how often people think indivualistic terms when it comes to the management of Nations, Guilds and Armies. Logistics, morale and Supply always matter, Trying to run a nation on morales will see it fail faster then the communist uprising on Grenada.

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...




Debatable considering the Chantry has authorized it to be used as a punishment.

No it's not being that the chantry did not make it legal.

http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Tranquil
"It is the judgment of the Knight-Commander whether a mage needs to be made Tranquil.[2] Chantry law forbids performing the Rite of Tranquility without significant provocation and the agreement of the relevant Circle's First Enchanter. "Provocation", in this case, means that the mage either cannot control their magic or has shown no signs of willingness to do so.Since a mage who has passed the Harrowing is deemed to be of strong enough will to resist demonic possession, forcibly making them Tranquil is theoretically against Chantry law."

Point blank, forcing it on a mage is illigal via chantry law.

My point stands. You're just making sure crooked cop arn't corrected because doing so make the police force look bad.

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lambert as a Seeker answers only to the Divine If she gave an order to stand down, he MUST stand down.

And Leaguer of One is correct. Lambert says point blank that he doesn't want the mages to know that tranquility can be cured. It's not about how many people died in the experiment. It's not about how unethical it turned out to be since the on conducting no longer had the emotions to feel right or wrong as he was tranquil, it was all about making sure the mages never found out that tranquility has a cure.

._.

Except when he has enough of her pro mage bs and leaves...along with the templar order and the other seekers. And the Divine is just sitting on the throne pondering about how she played chicken with the wrong man.

And why would he?

It upsets the stability of the circles when its already hanging by the thread.

I wouldn't want that sort of secret getting out regardless, After that nutter terrrorist anders let up the kirkwall chantry like a lightbulb and the anullment there every circle was tense, add fuel to that by annoucning a cure for tranqulity? One of the few things holding together any semblence of order?

You might as well have had that mage assasinate the divine.

You would end up in the same situation as we are now.

Honestly it surprises me how often people think indivualistic terms when it comes to the management of Nations, Guilds and Armies. Logistics, morale and Supply always matter, Trying to run a nation on morales will see it fail faster then the communist uprising on Grenada.

How is it pro mage bs if mages are allowed to do the things they were orginally allwoed to do?

Added, what mages who are outside of the circle do should not effect the regulation of mages who are in the circle.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 17 février 2014 - 06:42 .

[dragonflight288]

And very debatable considering both parties agreed to manage the circle together, It wasn't as clear cut a domination as many i assuredly wish it was now i assume. You know what with Lambert rallying the order behind him, Leaving the Chantry, it going into Schism the world falling into the brink of war all because of a stupid decision by the Divine.

History of the Circle Codex specifically says that it was to be governed by a council of Senior Enchanters, and watched over by the mages.

It was never meant to be governed by templars.

Its sort of amusing having this back and forth its like agruing how the world isn't black and white but various shades of gray with my ten year old niece. (lovely girl)

I'm glad to hear your niece is lovely. So is mine. But strictly looking at legalities, the only two people in the wrong were Adrian and Lambert. Adrian for killing Pharamond and framing Rhys, and Lambert for going behind the Divine's back, declaring her authority over him no longer existed to the mages before ordering his templars in, and pretty much destroying any hope for peace.

Fiona, despite the fact that I do not like her, I must acknowledge that although she provoked Lambert and the Templars, she was well within her rights to put mage autonomy on the table as she was the Grand Enchanter. It's been on the table twice before and neither time resulted in a slaughter or a rebellion, and Wynne could've, and likely would've talked the other First Enchanters down so it wasn't likely to happen. Whether you like her or not, it was within her rights to do so, even if you don't agree with her.

In the eyes of the law, there are no shades of grey. There is only innocent and guilty. Shades of Grey is simply philosophy.

Putting petty morality ahead of lives pfft.

How about legal justice? That adamantly declares Lambert and Adrian are the guilty parties, and no more than they are responsible. Lambert as a Seeker answers only to the Divine. He went against her and launched an attack on a legal meeting.

He is guilty of treason against the Chantry. If we use medieval societies, that would be punishable by death.

Adrian is guilty of murdering Pharamond, framing Rhys and provoking a war, and that too is punishable by death. With those two actions, justice would be served, the law's demands upheld, and the mages, if not happy should at least be appeased.

[Master Warder Z_]

leaguer of one wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...




Debatable considering the Chantry has authorized it to be used as a punishment.

No it's not being that the chantry did not make it legal.

http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Tranquil
"[color=rgb(213, 212, 212)">It is the judgment of the ] whether a mage needs to be made Tranquil.[/color][2][color=rgb(213, 212, 212)"> ] law forbids performing the Rite of Tranquility without significant provocation and the agreement of the relevant Circle's [/color]First Enchanter[color=rgb(213, 212, 212)">. "Provocation", in this case, means that the mage either cannot control their magic or has shown no signs of willingness to do so.Since a mage who has passed the ] is deemed to be of strong enough will to resist demonic possession, forcibly making them Tranquil is theoretically against Chantry law."[/color]

Point blank, forcing it on a mage is illigal via chantry law.

My point stands. You're just making sure crooked cop arn't corrected because doing so make the police force look bad.

Theoritical law is theorictical both in theory and practice.



And go into a court and present such a flimsy pretext and watch them laugh at it along with me.

Like i said Chantry allows it, It allows it because it doesn't condemn it.

[dragonflight288]

Theoritical law is theorictical both in theory and practice.



And go into a court and present such a flimsy pretext and watch them laugh at it along with me.

Like i said Chantry allows it, It allows it because it doesn't condemn it.

Except the Divine ordered it not to happen.

[Dean_the_Young]

dragonflight288 wrote...

SgtSteel91 wrote...

COUGHmeredith'ssisterwasalsoachildabominationCOUGH

Just because child mages are not as good as adult mages doesn't mean demons won't go for them.

And so that begs the question....Why haven't we seen more than two child abominations? If abominations are as common as Kommander would have us believe, then why isn't all of Thedas, pre-veil tear, overrun with demons possessing these children?

Because Bioware is a company that is trying to sell a product, and child-murder simulators aren't a particularly viable one.  It's also why we don't see rape, canibalism, torture, people taking ****s, childbirth, or penetrative sex without underwear on, despite all being well established or at least very strongly implied in the setting.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 17 février 2014 - 06:47 .

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...




Debatable considering the Chantry has authorized it to be used as a punishment.

No it's not being that the chantry did not make it legal.

http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Tranquil
"[color=rgb(213, 212, 212)">It is the judgment of the ] whether a mage needs to be made Tranquil.[/color][2][color=rgb(213, 212, 212)"> ] law forbids performing the Rite of Tranquility without significant provocation and the agreement of the relevant Circle's [/color]First Enchanter[color=rgb(213, 212, 212)">. "Provocation", in this case, means that the mage either cannot control their magic or has shown no signs of willingness to do so.Since a mage who has passed the ] is deemed to be of strong enough will to resist demonic possession, forcibly making them Tranquil is theoretically against Chantry law."[/color]

Point blank, forcing it on a mage is illigal via chantry law.

My point stands. You're just making sure crooked cop arn't corrected because doing so make the police force look bad.

Theoritical law is theorictical both in theory and practice.



And go into a court and present such a flimsy pretext and watch them laugh at it along with me.

Like i said Chantry allows it, It allows it because it doesn't condemn it.

Objectively it 's  the first enchanter of the tower has the final say on the matter. If the first enchanter says no, it illigal and normally they say no for post horrowing mages to be tranquil. If the templar force it on the mage with out the say of the first enchater it's illigal and the templaer were doing it.

Sorry but my point stands.
Even the divine says it's wrong.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 17 février 2014 - 06:48 .

[dragonflight288]

Because Bioware is a company that is trying to sell a product, and child-murder simulators aren't a particularly viable one. It's also why we don't see rape, canibalism, torture, people taking ****s, childbirth, or penetrative sex without underwear on, despite all being well established or at least very strongly implied in the setting.

There should be more examples of it, whether in conversations, codex entries and so forth. Taking into account all the information we have from games and novels (and comics), we have Connor, Orana, Meredith's sister and possibly Amalia based on player's choice.

That's not a lot of examples if abominations are as common as the Chantry says. And Orana sounded a lot like Feynriel's special case as a dreamer.

[leaguer of one]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

SgtSteel91 wrote...

COUGHmeredith'ssisterwasalsoachildabominationCOUGH

Just because child mages are not as good as adult mages doesn't mean demons won't go for them.

And so that begs the question....Why haven't we seen more than two child abominations? If abominations are as common as Kommander would have us believe, then why isn't all of Thedas, pre-veil tear, overrun with demons possessing these children?

Because Bioware is a company that is trying to sell a product, and child-murder simulators aren't a particularly viable one.  It's also why we don't see rape, canibalism, torture, people taking ****s, childbirth, or penetrative sex without underwear on, despite all being well established or at least very strongly implied in the setting.

1.Off screen.
2.we do see that in tthe quest for the avnil of the void.
3. Off screen.
4.off screen.
5. There's a mod for that.

And we have plenty of child killing.

[Master Warder Z_]

dragonflight288 wrote...

And very debatable considering both parties agreed to manage the circle together, It wasn't as clear cut a domination as many i assuredly wish it was now i assume. You know what with Lambert rallying the order behind him, Leaving the Chantry, it going into Schism the world falling into the brink of war all because of a stupid decision by the Divine.

History of the Circle Codex specifically says that it was to be governed by a council of Senior Enchanters, and watched over by the mages.

It was never meant to be governed by templars.

Its sort of amusing having this back and forth its like agruing how the world isn't black and white but various shades of gray with my ten year old niece. (lovely girl)

I'm glad to hear your niece is lovely. So is mine. But strictly looking at legalities, the only two people in the wrong were Adrian and Lambert. Adrian for killing Pharamond and framing Rhys, and Lambert for going behind the Divine's back, declaring her authority over him no longer existed to the mages before ordering his templars in, and pretty much destroying any hope for peace.

Fiona, despite the fact that I do not like her, I must acknowledge that although she provoked Lambert and the Templars, she was well within her rights to put mage autonomy on the table as she was the Grand Enchanter. It's been on the table twice before and neither time resulted in a slaughter or a rebellion, and Wynne could've, and likely would've talked the other First Enchanters down so it wasn't likely to happen. Whether you like her or not, it was within her rights to do so, even if you don't agree with her.

In the eyes of the law, there are no shades of grey. There is only innocent and guilty. Shades of Grey is simply philosophy.

Putting petty morality ahead of lives pfft.

How about legal justice? That adamantly declares Lambert and Adrian are the guilty parties, and no more than they are responsible. Lambert as a Seeker answers only to the Divine. He went against her and launched an attack on a legal meeting.

He is guilty of treason against the Chantry. If we use medieval societies, that would be punishable by death.

Adrian is guilty of murdering Pharamond, framing Rhys and provoking a war, and that too is punishable by death. With those two actions, justice would be served, the law's demands upheld, and the mages, if not happy should at least be appeased.

The Circle should be commanded by Both but i'd agrue giving Templars ultimate authority considering they are the wall protecting the mages from the outside world and vice versa. But we can agrue that at a later point.

Do you want to speak of pretext and justification? I grant you that while the accord was techically in effect when Lambert declare he was no longer under the authority of the Divine, Deouncing her and what have you he obviously has the authority to leave her service and well. Take his orginization with him if he wants.

The legalities of it aside (I have heard that Gaider considered it Lamberts actual authority to do so and thus it would be legal)  A seperation would occur shortly there after, Not to mention acting in his capacity as the Circles Knight Commander it was his place both as Lord Seeker and commander of the Templars there to offer them one final alternate conclusion.

He gave Fiona, The rest of the Mages assembled there a way out, They didn't take it, They fought back and while i normally loath to admit fault here for a faction i favor i do acknowledge that Templars were taking the aggressive first but the mages attacked first.

Fiona speaks as Grand Enchanter thus has the right to bring up the issue to the Chantry, But it isn't the position of the Conclave to be a self sustaining govermental body that is autonomous, So i'd not grant her the right to speak of secession, rebellion or the declaration of war. Regardless of how you view it.

Furthermore Lambert legally anulled the authority the Divine had over him.

So ._. He only commited treason if the Divine actually manages to win which seems increasingly more unlikely as more speculation leaks out about the upcoming DAI. Not to mention i doubt those that flocked to his Banner consider themselves traitors, Oath Breakers or anything of the sort, the Divine after all struck first, Killed them first. So even in Feudalistic socities that would be the point were many mercenaries, Guilds and what have you part way from religious authorities or whatever orginization they aligned. 

So just because its obscure it doesn't mean that the legal right didn't rest with Lambert be my final point.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Chaoticos wrote...

IMHO there where three major people (+ their direct supporters ofc) to blame for the events:

1. Fiona (+Adrian), the Grand Enchanter: She was not interested in the normal people, she just
cared for the mages, she wanted total freedom. She refused any compromise. She even refuses
to actually accept ANY arguments against her position.

2. Lambert, Lord Seeker: Again, no interest in any compromise what-so-ever. Thanks to
his memorys of Tevinter he believes that every mage is a criminal once "unshackled" and
thus must be restrained for his/her own good. He is a Templer-hardliner who dismisses every
opposing argument as nativity - and this is never a good base.

3. Justinia, white Divine: She completly underestimates the ..feriocity of Lamberts & Fionas
believes. She wants a rather drastic revolution -instead of a gradual improvement- and thinks
tricking the Templars into them is going to work -as if they were some nobles of the orlesian
court. She is completly unable to calm the two hardliner and tries a modernization instead.

Seeing you put the blame on the leader of each faction reminded me of this: 

[Master Warder Z_]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Theoritical law is theorictical both in theory and practice.



And go into a court and present such a flimsy pretext and watch them laugh at it along with me.

Like i said Chantry allows it, It allows it because it doesn't condemn it.

Except the Divine ordered it not to happen.

Good for her?

You think stability survived for a thousand years by those words being followed?

Do you think that only the current generation of templars has gone rotten?

No, Peace for the most part survived because mouthes were kept shut.

Which is my point.

[Rinshikai10]

Wouldn't this discussion be better on another forum?

[leaguer of one]

Master Warder Z wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Theoritical law is theorictical both in theory and practice.



And go into a court and present such a flimsy pretext and watch them laugh at it along with me.

Like i said Chantry allows it, It allows it because it doesn't condemn it.

Except the Divine ordered it not to happen.

Good for her?

You think stability survived for a thousand years by those words being followed?

Do you think that only the current generation of templars has gone rotten?

No, Peace for the most part survived because mouthes were kept shut.

Which is my point.

"You think stability survived for a thousand years by those words being followed?"
Yes.

"Do you think that only the current generation of templars has gone rotten?"

Much longer and still needs to be corrected.

"No, Peace for the most part survived because mouthes were kept shut."

*Looks at the 1960's during the time african americans peacefully nagtiated  to gain equal rights"

Please say that again?

"Which is my point."

Which is something you can't see you're wrong about.

[Dean_the_Young]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Discussing Templar viewpoint, not ability. The PC and any warrior, and Hawke can have Templar abilities. Does nothing to balance the lack of a Templar viewpoint, sadly.

I actually would love a reasonable templar's perspective, one who can give us statistics we currently lack, like how many mages are forced into tranquility verse how many undergo the Harrowing. How many runaways there are compared to how many mages follow the rules. How many children going to their tearcher/mentors for comfort because of being troubled in their sleep.

EDIT: And how many mages volunteer for tranquility, not out of fear of the Harrowing but out of fear for themselves when they sleep.

If your basis of reasonable-ness is empericism, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. The writers will almost certainly not give any hard numbers or statistics for the same reason they don't give population figures elsewhere: hard numbers in an arbitrary setting inevitably start clashing with eachother and create contradictory implications. DAO started struggling with this in the whole gameplay and story segregation of the mages: a half dozen mages is considered a huge boon for an army, but are cut down with ease in a battle, and are equivalent to a mundane army of Templars.

At best you might get numbers for one particular circle, not necessarily representative of the greater whole, or relative fractions. But actual empericism? 

[dragonflight288]

I'll be back to debate later. I'm feeling rather crappy right now, so I'm going to go lie down and take a nap. Hopefully I don't fall too far behind the pages.

[The Hierophant]

Yeah Lambert was acting on paranoia but the cure for tranquility hinges on possession and abominations are dangerous. Controlled environment or not. Remember the massacre at the fortress? But despite confidentiality Wynne told everyone and their mother about it regardless of it's viability, and now that knowledge is out there for anyone good or bad to take advantage of.

The positive of the research is that illegally or wrongly tranquiled mages can be cured but on the flipside that now applies to violent criminals too, wether it's by accident or is intentional.

Another positive is that tranquility can't be used by abusive Templars to control their victims, but on the flipside it can't be used as a deterrent against potential criminals or blood mages since the consequence reversible.

I have a feeling that everything won't be sunshine and rainbows, but anything can happen in regards to the writers' intentions. Like there being all peace on Thedas with no violence or magical abuse, evah.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 17 février 2014 - 07:16 .

[Dean_the_Young]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

If Conner is indeed a Dreamer, it may explain why the import system tracks whether you killed him or not even though I see no reason why to do so since he is just the son of an Arl.

...being an outcome of one of the unavoidable RPG decisions of a primary quest isn't reason enough? And was an epilogue-slide factor in DAO?

The import system tracks things far less relevant than one of the primary examples of an abomination in the games.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

If Conner is indeed a Dreamer, it may explain why the import system tracks whether you killed him or not even though I see no reason why to do so since he is just the son of an Arl.

...being an outcome of one of the unavoidable RPG decisions of a primary quest isn't reason enough? And was an epilogue-slide factor in DAO?

The import system tracks things far less relevant than one of the primary examples of an abomination in the games.

When I said that, I was referring to that choice being one of the ones highlighted as one of the dozen or so choices in DA2. And I'm just hypothesizing based on what others were saying since the Connor Fate import always seemed too important for having no effect in DA2. Plus ever since DAO people have been wondering whatimportance Connor may have in the future, and a Dreamer is a possible outcome.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

DAO:
Mages -> Some lawful, some blood loving
Templars -> Mostly lawful, moderate and justified

DA2:
Mages -> Majority are lolevil blood mages
Templars -> more than half are zealot to the degree of madness, less than half are moderate

The whole DA2 is messed up... both sides fuel the fire for the other side to become more extreme.

Modifié par Kaiser Arian, 17 février 2014 - 07:24 .