Possession can be avoided by other means that don't require such torture, and Annulment is unnecessary when all you have to do is kill demons. Also, the actual codex entry for that Nevarran incident says that the abomination killed "mages and templars alike," but not necessarily all of them.
Now you're just arguing semantics.
Possession can be avoided by other means that don't require such torture, and Annulment is unnecessary when all you have to do is kill demons. Also, the actual codex entry for that Nevarran incident says that the abomination killed "mages and templars alike," but not necessarily all of them.
The Right of Annulment is the right of the templars to kill all mages in a Circle of Magi used as a last resort to restore order.[1]
Divine Galatea granted the Right of Annulment to all the Grand Clerics of the Chantry in 2:83 Glory after an abomination slaughtered all mages and templars in the Nevarran Circle.[2][3] Normally, the Right can only be invoked by a Grand Cleric or a de facto successor (Revered Mother); if there is no access to a Grand Cleric or Revered Mother, then Knight-Commanders of the Templar Order have legal authority to invoke the Right.[4] Depending on the exact circumstances and how long it takes the relevant Grand Cleric to respond, the Right can be invoked but not carried out.
By the beginning of the Fifth Blight, the Right has been invoked 17 times. The Right was requested three more times between 9:30 and 9:40 Dragon, and was carried out in at least two of these instances.
According to Fenris, the Imperial templars also possess the Right of Annulment, but the line that mages must cross for it to be invoked is "elsewhere".
Good, you quoted the wiki. One of the sources of that line, the codex entry, does not state that it was all of them who died. Can something in World of Thedas prove otherwise?
Good, you quoted the wiki. One of the sources of that line, the codex entry, does not state that it was all of them who died. Can something in World of Thedas prove otherwise?
sadly no. While there is a section on Harrowing and Tranquil there isn't much mention of ROAs.
Possession can be avoided by other means that don't require such torture,
Tranquility is not torture in any meaningful modern sense of the word, and it's goal isn't even avoidance in the first place: it's prevention. Which it does hold as the only known means to prevent possession.
Also, the actual codex entry for that Nevarran incident says that the abomination killed "mages and templars alike," but not necessarily all of them.
and Annulment is unnecessary when all you have to do is kill demons.
When Annulments are being used, the ability to exorcise demons is already lost.
Tranquility is not torture in any meaningful modern sense of the word, and it's goal isn't even avoidance in the first place: it's prevention. Which it does hold as the only known means to prevent possession.
To see whether this is actually necessary and not just a means for the Chantry to make money from enchantments, we'll need to see how Tevinter handles it. Also, it does appear to be psychologically agonizing as described in Asunder.
When Annulments are being used, the ability to exorcise demons is already lost.
You don't have to kill mages who aren't possessed.
You don't have to kill mages who aren't possessed.
It's the most surefire way to ensure a circle is made safe again though.
To see whether this is actually necessary and not just a means for the Chantry to make money from enchantments, we'll need to see how Tevinter handles it.
Until we find any lore that indicates Tevinter can prevent abominations via means other than tranquility, it is dishonest to claim that such means exist.
Also, it does appear to be psychologically agonizing as described in Asunder.
The process of undergoing, or the result of being? The Tranquil are the ones whose opinion matter about if their existence is torturous.
You don't have to kill mages who aren't possessed.
You also don't have to kill soldiers who are attacking you. It may not be feasible to do anything else, however.
Until we find any lore that indicates Tevinter can prevent abominations via means other than tranquility, it is dishonest to claim that such means exist.
It's also dishonest to claim that Tranquility will always prevent abominations from occurring; we can't even assess whether or not it has a significant effect on abomination outbreaks because we lack the data.
The process of undergoing, or the result of being? The Tranquil are the ones whose opinion matter about if their existence is torturous.
The result of being, as we may learn from Karl and Pharamond.
You also don't have to kill soldiers who are attacking you. It may not be feasible to do anything else, however.
I doubt all mages would attack templars who came up to clear the Circle of demons.
It's also dishonest to claim that Tranquility will always prevent abominations from occurring; we can't even assess whether or not it has a significant effect on abomination outbreaks because we lack the data.
The result of being, as we may learn from Karl and Pharamond.
I doubt all mages would attack templars who came up to clear the Circle of demons.
As Gaider has stated, there is no way to detect possession of a mage if they aren't physically an abomination. Technically once abominations are loose in the tower all mages would be suspect. I have always appreciated Gregoire's humanity that he takes Irving's word as enough to assure him the abominations are all dealt with.
Me saying this, I have yet to play a game where I ROA'd the circle in Ferelden. I just can't do it. The lunacy in Kirkwall is another matter.
It's the most surefire way to ensure a circle is made safe again though.
You misspelled empty.
You misspelled empty.
They can be repopulated, rebuilt.
It has been done before.
And they will lack the blood mages, abominations and demon worshipers of the prior batch, they will likely have their own but that's an issue for tomorrow and not the present.
They can be repopulated, rebuilt.
It has been done before.
And they will lack the blood mages, abominations and demon worshipers of the prior batch, they will likely have their own but that's an issue for tomorrow and not the present.
That's not a consolation. Parents who lose a child might be able to make another one, but that doesn't make the loss any less keenly felt.
Even without those things, the Circle would never be "safe". Not for mages. They'll never be safe in a system where they can be slaughtered at the whim of a few.
That's not a consolation. Parents who lose a child might be able to make another one, but that doesn't make the loss any less keenly felt.
Even without those things, the Circle would never be "safe". Not for mages. They'll never be safe in a system where they can be slaughtered at the whim of a few.
You mean the Divine, Grand Cleric and Knight Commander in that order?
For the most part, they all have better things to do then randomly annul circles.
Just saying.
They can be repopulated, rebuilt.
It has been done before.
And they will lack the blood mages, abominations and demon worshipers of the prior batch, they will likely have their own but that's an issue for tomorrow and not the present.
I will accept this if we purge a group of Templars who have known to have some recruits abusing their ranks. God forbid the doctrine could affect other recruits as well because they have no mind of their own and cannot defend themselves.
Agreed?
As Gaider has stated, there is no way to detect possession of a mage if they aren't physically an abomination.
Technically, Merrill was able to detect whether or not there were any demons in Kerran's blood, so it's not impossible.
Technically once abominations are loose in the tower all mages would be suspect. I have always appreciated Gregoire's humanity that he takes Irving's word as enough to assure him the abominations are all dealt with.
Me saying this, I have yet to play a game where I ROA'd the circle in Ferelden. I just can't do it. The lunacy in Kirkwall is another matter.
Imagine how different Kirkwall would be if Greagoir was in charge, instead of Meredith.
That's not a consolation. Parents who lose a child might be able to make another one, but that doesn't make the loss any less keenly felt.
Even without those things, the Circle would never be "safe". Not for mages. They'll never be safe in a system where they can be slaughtered at the whim of a few.
Which doesn't happen unless as a last resort
Which doesn't happen unless as a last resort
We cannot claim there were no unjust annulments and this is not something than we can overlook because even one mistake is still genocide.
We cannot claim there were no unjust annulments and this is not something than we can overlook because even one mistake is still genocide.
I never made that claim
Technically, Merrill was able to detect whether or not there were any demons in Kerran's blood, so it's not impossible.
Imagine how different Kirkwall would be if Greagoir was in charge, instead of Meredith.
You mean Anders? I thought that was only because of his connection with Justice. Not exactly a common enough thing to be a reliable mode of detection.
A moderate is a character who can look at the situation without biased or extreme viewpoints and come out with a viewpoint that can be on one side for completely valid reasons.
Take Greagoir for instance, he is an experienced and long serving Knight-Commander who runs his branch with a firm, yet fair hand. He doesn't have an personal malice against mages and views their magic as both a gift and curse. He understands and accepts the full danger that unchecked magic can have on the general populace and serves the order to protect said populace. Yet, he won't pursue mages without just cause, will call off the Right of Annullment once Uldred's rebellion is put down, and has a grudging respect for some mages such as Irving, Wynne and any other mage who controls and uses their power responsibly.
But moderation in a conflict like the Mage-Templar Conflict is probably very difficult considering how that war is a symptom of many layers of inherent problems with the Circle System and the Chantry itself. There may not even be room for a moderate who hasn't been persuaded to throw all in for one side or another. Even Vivienne, a mage who opposes the mage rebelliion, appears to be a pro-chantry mage which makes her very likely to sympathize with templars.
You mean Anders? I thought that was only because of his connection with Justice. Not exactly a common enough thing to be a reliable mode of detection.
Merrill tests Kerran's blood for "demons", while Anders attacks Kerran to see if he's possessed.
Technically, Merrill was able to detect whether or not there were any demons in Kerran's blood, so it's not impossible.
Imagine how different Kirkwall would be if Greagoir was in charge, instead of Meredith.
Gaider said there is no way to detect possession. Xil has sited it often to prove her point about the mages in Kirkwall that were spared had to be tranquiled and so weren't really spared. Between Gaider and Merril, I will just have to go with merril being wrong, that is the only conclusion I can come to. It isn't a retcon on Gaiders part as it was after DA2 came out.
Kirkwall would be different, Gregoire was much better Templar then Meredith, but by the same token, imagine if Orsino had been more cooperative and not hidden bloodmage playing into Merediths phobias.
A moderate is a character who can look at the situation without biased or extreme viewpoints and come out with a viewpoint that can be on one side for completely valid reasons.
Take Greagoir for instance, he is an experienced and long serving Knight-Commander who runs his branch with a firm, yet fair hand. He doesn't have an personal malice against mages and views their magic as both a gift and curse. He understands and accepts the full danger that unchecked magic can have on the general populace and serves the order to protect said populace. Yet, he won't pursue mages without just cause, will call off the Right of Annullment once Uldred's rebellion is put down, and has a grudging respect for some mages such as Irving, Wynne and any other mage who controls and uses their power responsibly.
But moderation in a conflict like the Mage-Templar Conflict is probably very difficult considering how that war is a symptom of many layers of inherent problems with the Circle System and the Chantry itself. There may not even be room for a moderate who hasn't been persuaded to throw all in for one side or another. Even Vivienne, a mage who opposes the mage rebelliion, appears to be a pro-chantry mage which makes her very likely to sympathize with templars.
Vivienne is more Pro-Circle than pro-chantry
Gaider said there is no way to detect possession. Xil has sited it often to prove her point about the mages in Kirkwall that were spared had to be tranquiled and so weren't really spared. Between Gaider and Merril, I will just have to go with merril being wrong, that is the only conclusion I can come to. It isn't a retcon on Gaiders part as it was after DA2 came out.
I'm sure that the Chantry controlled Circles have no method of detection, but the scene was clearly intended to show that Merrill is discerning whether or not there were any "demons" in Kerran's blood.
And it wouldn't be the first time that someone pointed out an aspect of Dragon Age II that Gaider wasn't personally familiar with (since he isn't the only writer), since he wasn't even aware of the scene with Hawke talking about his mother being with the Maker.
Retour en haut