Solely to protect the Circle in the first case,
Overlooking serial murder is fine if it means avoiding bad PR, gotcha.
it's impossible to incite a rebellion against someone who has no authority over you, and the templars have no authority over the nonmage populace of
Kirkwall.
A rebellion by any other name is a rebellion. He wanted normal people killing each other for the benefit of mages.
It's fine, provided they kill only demons and not mages. And I refer to Tranquility.
Which he doesn't abuse and only does when necessary unlike that Templar in Kirkwall
Well, the word genocide has finally hit the thread. It's truly a mage/templar debate now.
Tranquility, a sometime voluntary procedure, that is needed to safeguard the lives of both mages and templars...It's fine, provided they kill only demons and not mages. And I refer to Tranquility.
Overlooking serial murder is fine if it means avoiding bad PR, gotcha.
If it means avoiding genocide.
A rebellion by any other name is a rebellion. He wanted normal people killing each other for the benefit of mages.
What he wanted was for either Elthina to do her job or for Meredith to remember the boundaries of hers, and if it took reminding Kirkwall's legitimate government of that to reach it, then that's what it would take. Sadly, both Elthina and Meredith failed to do what was necessary.
Blood magic should be taught in the Circle, man.
First week, mind control.
Second week, how to use humans as living batteries.
Which he doesn't abuse and only does when necessary unlike that Templar in Kirkwall
I don't believe that involuntary Tranquility is ever necessary.
And the tower also had blood mages in it, not just abominations, I suppose we ate supposed to let them live because they aren't actively exploding
Only kill in combat; if they surrender, don't kill them.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Well, the word genocide has finally hit the thread. It's truly a mage/templar debate now.
Well... a part me of wants to destroy the whole game setting/world. Maybe I can commit my own brand of genocide.
Only because I believe life will strive on still. The brightest and strongest people would survive, and they'd solve this mage/templar problem better than I ever could.
If it means avoiding genocide.
Trust in the mages to police themselves. Except if it looks bad on them, then you're **** out of luck.
What he wanted was for either Elthina to do her job or for Meredith to remember the boundaries of hers, and if it took reminding Kirkwall's legitimate government of that to reach it, then that's what it would take. Sadly, both Elthina and Meredith failed to do what was necessary.
What he wanted was for normal people to kill each other so mages could live better lives.
A real humanitarian, Orsino.
The Annulment is no more genocide than a single battle is
No problems will arise as long as you only kill combatants.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
"Without an end, there can be no peace."
. And you'd be wrong, who knows how many potential Uldreds were stopped that way.I don't believe that involuntary Tranquility is ever necessary.
Only kill in combat; if they surrender, don't kill them.
Trust in the mages to police themselves. Except if it looks bad on them, then you're **** out of luck.
There never would have been a problem without the templars being utterly trigger-happy.
What he wanted was for normal people to kill each other so mages could live better lives.A real humanitarian, Orsino.
Even if it did happen, which wasn't his true goal anyway given his clear willingness to work through Elthina had she the spine to do anything, he could never force it; the only way Kirkwall's population would rise up against Meredith is if they wanted to.
. And you'd be wrong, who knows how many potential Uldreds were stopped that way.
Or Wynnes. Impossible to know for sure, which is rather the point.
And if they surrender only to escape justice? Those mages were Uldred accomplices and assisted in killing mages and Templars alike.
Then deal out a form of justice that isn't death.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I think our roles as badass protagonist cheapens the presentation of things like abominations and such. It's supposed to be a major catastrophe. I remember when I first played Dragon Age, and reading the codex on Revenants and Abominations, I dreaded how one would be like. One by themselves was supposed to wipe out entire units. They didn't quite turn out that way.
This is the world Gregoir lives in though. He doesn't have the luxury of being a badass.
I think our roles as badass protagonist cheapens the presentation of things like abominations and such. It's supposed to be a major catastrophe. I remember when I first played Dragon Age, and reading the codex on Revenants and Abominations, I dreaded how one would be like. One by themselves was supposed to wipe out entire units. They didn't quite turn out that way.
This is the world Gregoir lives in though. He doesn't have the luxury of being a badass.
It's not as though an abomination can't be defeated, despite the danger they pose. Merrill points out a clan will kill an elven mage who becomes an abomination, so it isn't unprecedented.
There never would have been a problem without the templars being utterly trigger-happy.
Oh please. Next time is something else; and the time after that will be something else.
There will always be an excuse as to why mages need to hide their worst elements. And naturally, people like you will claim that it's anyone who is not a mage that it's at fault.
Never mind that Quentin proves the Templars are right and that Orsino proves that they are needed because the mages just aren't interested in policing themselves.
No problems will arise as long as you only kill combatants.
Time for me to crawl back into the thread for just an hour to make a few obvious points.
If only the non-combatants are killed or punished, all that does is encourage the more influential mages to be more subversive and secretive in their undermining of the Chantry. Annulment requires the purging of all possible 'Mage Freedom' sympathisers, even if the act of Annulment itself creates more in other Circles.
What Steelcan said. The best option is to make the Templars and the mages equally responsible for the running of the Circle and leave the Chantry with the responsability of stepping in with the Seekers or the Inquisition if one side begins to substantially gain power over the other.
This would only make sense given the proximity of Mages and Templars within the Circles and the relationship they maintain. Making it so both groups only interact with the Chantry regarding Circle affairs will lead to miscommunication and spite.
Of course, it would be up to the Seekers to make sure this system works to the benefit of everyone involved. Given their total incompetence as of late, they are definitely the organization most in need of a drastic overhaul.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
It's not as though an abomination can't be defeated, despite the danger they pose. Merrill points out a clan will kill an elven mage who becomes an abomination, so it isn't unprecedented.
They can be defeated, but in Gregoir's words they were prepared for one or two maybe. The Circle situation was a disaster though.
I think our roles as badass protagonist cheapens the presentation of things like abominations and such. It's supposed to be a major catastrophe. I remember when I first played Dragon Age, and reading the codex on Revenants and Abominations, I dreaded how one would be like. One by themselves was supposed to wipe out entire units. They didn't quite turn out that way.
This is the world Gregoir lives in though. He doesn't have the luxury of being a badass.
If only him and others had the powers of a Demi-God 
. The purpose of an Annulment is not to kill freedom sympathizers, its to be called when an entire Circle has been lost to demons, or is in open rebellion. It's not supposed to be a political weapon, rather one of last resort, now how it is used in practice is another matterTime for me to crawl back into the thread for just an hour to make a few obvious points.
If only the non-combatants are killed or punished, all that does is encourage the more influential mages to be more subversive and secretive in their undermining of the Chantry. Annulment requires the purging of all possible 'Mage Freedom' sympathisers, even if the act of Annulment itself creates more in other Circles.
They can be defeated, but in Gregoir's words they were prepared for one or two maybe. The Circle situation was a disaster though.
To be honest circle situation proves that templars can't control mages even if we skip all those disasters mages caused anyway.I mean all they can handle 1 or 2 abomnations in tower full of mages...
So all it takes is one mage snap out and catch them when they don't look and we have another disaster and tower full of abomnations.
Oh please. Next time is something else; and the time after that will be something else.
There will always be an excuse as to why mages need to hide their worst elements. And naturally, people like you will claim that it's anyone who is not a mage that it's at fault.
Never mind that Quentin proves the Templars are right and that Orsino proves that they are needed because the mages just aren't interested in policing themselves.
You cannot use the consequences of a broken system to proclaim the virtue of it remaining broken. If the mages are to be fairly policed, the police cannot have such iron-fisted control of the entire community, as that encourages a complete breakdown of trust on both sides. And you never answered any of my previous points about how to arrange such a thing, like the two-tiered templar system.
Retour en haut