772 réponses à ce sujet

[coldflame]

They have plenty of alternatives. Hell, Asunder showed us that the Divine was willing to listen to what the mages had to say. Then, of course, the mages were quick to spit in the face of the Divine and **** all over the hand offered, but we evidently can't expect mages to learn...

Her wellingness to listen could just be a publicity stunt. It happens often enough in real world politics. I'd say acting as if you care but in reality you don't give a f*** is politics 101. Saddly many people are too stupid to see through the charade.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Her wellingness to listen could just be a publicity stunt. It happens often enough in real world politics. I'd say acting as if you care but in reality you don't give a f*** is politics 101. Saddly many people are too stupid to see through the charade.

Keyword being: COULD. But given the rising tention within the Circle chances are that the Divine was indeed very concerned with the situation, and wanted to alleviate some of the tension by listening to the mages. Sadly with imbeciles at the helm of the amge faction, they decided to shatter any form of chance for the people to ever accept them. Well done Fiona!

[coldflame]

Keyword being: COULD. But given the rising tention within the Circle chances are that the Divine was indeed very concerned with the situation, and wanted to alleviate some of the tension by listening to the mages. Sadly with imbeciles at the helm of the amge faction, they decided to shatter any form of chance for the people to ever accept them. Well done Fiona!

Same could be said about the templar faction. To a circle mage everyday all they see was mages being oppressed and abused by the templar. Whatever the divine said or wishes made no difference to a circle mage. Therefore, why should a circle mage or any mage for that matters, care or believe in what the divine said.

[Xilizhra]

Keyword being: COULD. But given the rising tention within the Circle chances are that the Divine was indeed very concerned with the situation, and wanted to alleviate some of the tension by listening to the mages. Sadly with imbeciles at the helm of the amge faction, they decided to shatter any form of chance for the people to ever accept them. Well done Fiona!

Actually, the Chantry did accept the mages' departure. So it couldn't have been that shattering.

[Uccio]

Mages deserve to rule Thedas for all the sh1t they've taken through the last millenia.

Tevinter Imperium ftw!

[Feybrad]

Mages do deserve Freedom, yes.

 

If they should get it is another Thing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually, the Chantry did accept the mages' departure. So it couldn't have been that shattering.

 

The Chantry being unable to stop them is not the same as the Chantry accepting and validating the mage's departure. The mage independence movement was not conceived or carried out with the agreement of the Chantry.

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry being unable to stop them is not the same as the Chantry accepting and validating the mage's departure. The mage independence movement was not conceived or carried out with the agreement of the Chantry.

Unable? The Chantry still had the templars at the time, and could have exercised its casus belli. They deliberately chose not to pursue war when they had the means and opportunity to do so; the Chantry gave at least tacit acceptance to the mages' separation.

[Dean_the_Young]

Unable? The Chantry still had the templars at the time, and could have exercised its casus belli. They deliberately chose not to pursue war when they had the means and opportunity to do so; the Chantry gave at least tacit acceptance to the mages' separation.

Er, no. That's not what tacit acceptance means or implies.

 

The Chantry wanting to avoid a war does not mean it was intending to accept mage separation. The Chantry's intent was to resolve the conflict by negotiation- it had no intention to invoking a casus belli because it did not want to resolve the conflict by war. This was the case before the crisis point, this was the case during the crisis point, and as we know from spoilers this is the case after the crisis point coming into DAI. The Chantry's leadership was committed to trying to resolve the conflict peacefully- declaring a war themselves would directly defeat that objective.

 

Not invoking a casus belli is not, and never has been, synonymous with accepting and sanctioning the other side's policy that provided the casus belli.

[Xilizhra]

Er, no. That's not what tacit acceptance means or implies.

 

The Chantry wanting to avoid a war does not mean it was intending to accept mage separation. The Chantry's intent was to resolve the conflict by negotiation- it had no intention to invoking a casus belli because it did not want to resolve the conflict by war. This was the case before the crisis point, this was the case during the crisis point, and as we know from spoilers this is the case after the crisis point coming into DAI. The Chantry's leadership was committed to trying to resolve the conflict peacefully- declaring a war themselves would directly defeat that objective.

 

Not invoking a casus belli is not, and never has been, synonymous with accepting and sanctioning the other side's policy that provided the casus belli.

It's accepting the continued existence of that side as an independent faction over attempting to deny their existence as an independent faction. It's not even clear if the Chantry was trying to get the Circle to rejoin it diplomatically; the "peace meeting" thing didn't sound that much like "surrender to us."

[Dean_the_Young]

It's accepting the continued existence of that side as an independent faction over attempting to deny their existence as an independent faction.

Congratulations, Xil. You have just argued 'not committing immediate and bloody invasion' means 'I accept your revolt.'

 

That is incredibly stupid.
 

 

It's not even clear if the Chantry was trying to get the Circle to rejoin it diplomatically; the "peace meeting" thing didn't sound that much like "surrender to us."

 

 

...but not as much as this.

 

Coming to a diplomatic solution for the crisis has been the Chantry's entire position in every work of the medium since DA2. If it doesn't sound like 'surrender to us,' it's probably because the Chantry doesn't view, or want it to be viewed, as 'surrender.' 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Same could be said about the templar faction. To a circle mage everyday all they see was mages being oppressed and abused by the templar. Whatever the divine said or wishes made no difference to a circle mage. Therefore, why should a circle mage or any mage for that matters, care or believe in what the divine said.

Blatantly false. Templar abuse is NOT as widespread as the mage supremacists will have you believe.

 

Actually, the Chantry did accept the mages' departure. So it couldn't have been that shattering.

No the Chantry didn't. The Templars left almost immediately after they found out that the Divine had betrayed them, so even if the Divine wanted to stop the mages, she wouldn't have been able to, sicne she would have had no Templars to send to stop them.

[Xilizhra]

Congratulations, Xil. You have just argued 'not committing immediate and bloody invasion' means 'I accept your revolt.'

 

That is incredibly stupid.

Well, I commend you for your opposition to the templar position. However, it was secession, not revolt. See below for the rest.

 

 

...but not as much as this.

 

Coming to a diplomatic solution for the crisis has been the Chantry's entire position in every work of the medium since DA2. If it doesn't sound like 'surrender to us,' it's probably because the Chantry doesn't view, or want it to be viewed, as 'surrender.' 

Ah, right. So whatever the Chantry's preferred solution to this would be, it would not involve the Circles rejoining the Chantry?

 

 

No the Chantry didn't. The Templars left almost immediately after they found out that the Divine had betrayed them, so even if the Divine wanted to stop the mages, she wouldn't have been able to, sicne she would have had no Templars to send to stop them.

I'm reasonably sure there was a sizeable time gap between Rhys' escape and Lambert's decision. Enough time for the mages to go to Andoral's reach and the templars to prepare their siege.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, I commend you for your opposition to the templar position. However, it was secession, not revolt. See below for the rest.

 

I have not give a personal position for or against any side's position in this context. Do not try to give one for me on my behalf.

 

 

Ah, right. So whatever the Chantry's preferred solution to this would be, it would not involve the Circles rejoining the Chantry?

 

The Chantry's preferred solution would be to negotiate a deal in which the Circles peacefully rejoin the Chantry. Before that, the Chantry's preferred solution was to negotiate a teal which would reduce tensions and reform various hardships suffered by the mages.

 

In pursuit of this, the Chantry has demonstrated real and significant willingness to compromise on various areas, including reforming punishments such as Tranquility, though no outlined deal acceptable to both parties has been provided (or negotiated).

[Sir DeLoria]

I don't care if they deserve it.

They're not gonna get it.

[Xilizhra]

The Chantry's preferred solution would be to negotiate a deal in which the Circles peacefully rejoin the Chantry. Before that, the Chantry's preferred solution was to negotiate a teal which would reduce tensions and reform various hardships suffered by the mages.

 

In pursuit of this, the Chantry has demonstrated real and significant willingness to compromise on various areas, including reforming punishments such as Tranquility, though no outlined deal acceptable to both parties has been provided (or negotiated).

Which would necessitate the conditional surrender of the mages to the Chantry and the destruction of the Circle as an independent faction.

[Dean_the_Young]

Which would necessitate the conditional surrender of the mages to the Chantry and the destruction of the Circle as an independent faction.

 

No, it wouldn't.

 

For the Circle to be destroyed as an independent faction, it would have to be recognized as an independent faction. No one has recognized it as such. No one (even the Templars) is advocating the destruction of the Circles as  polity either.

 

Nor is negotiating a settlement implicitly a surrender. Only to zero-sum mindsets and tribal mentalities, which the Chantry is deliberatly trying to avoid.

[TK514]

Which would necessitate the conditional surrender of the mages to the Chantry and the destruction of the Circle as an independent faction.

 

Or a bipartisan agreement on merger based on shared goals and mutual benefit.

[Xilizhra]

No, it wouldn't.

 

For the Circle to be destroyed as an independent faction, it would have to be recognized as an independent faction. No one has recognized it as such. No one (even the Templars) is advocating the destruction of the Circles as  polity either.

 

Nor is negotiating a settlement implicitly a surrender. Only to zero-sum mindsets and tribal mentalities, which the Chantry is deliberatly trying to avoid.

Do we know that no one has recognized it as such? No information on that point seems to have been given except for the templars.

 

As for negotiating a settlement, that would depend entirely on the terms, but it would seem difficult to see the Circle being subordinate, as opposed to allied and equal, to the Chantry as anything but a surrender.

[Dean_the_Young]

Or a bipartisan agreement on merger based on shared goals and mutual benefit.

 

 

How clever of you to hide SURRENDER in there!

 

It took some unscrambling, but I caught you! No trying to deny it!

[Aimi]

As for negotiating a settlement, that would depend entirely on the terms, but it would seem difficult to see the Circle being subordinate, as opposed to allied and equal, to the Chantry as anything but a surrender.

That depends on whether your primary goal is independence for its own sake or improved conditions for mages.

[Xilizhra]

That depends on whether your primary goal is independence for its own sake or improved conditions for mages.

Both, primarily because I see the former as necessary for the ideal of the latter. And if the Chantry is to govern the Circle, I would not agree to such a thing without mages in turn being fairly represented within the Chantry's government.

[Dean_the_Young]

Do we know that no one has recognized it as such? No information on that point seems to have been given except for the templars.

 

 

No one recognized it at the time. No one recognized it in the various materials surrounding and simultaneous to it. No one has been mentioned, established, or even hinted at having recognized mage independence in any released or spoiler material.

 

 

 

 

As for negotiating a settlement, that would depend entirely on the terms, but it would seem difficult to see the Circle being subordinate, as opposed to allied and equal, to the Chantry as anything but a surrender.

 

Your preferences for other people's perspectives are noted, but rather devoid from the reality of the lore. The mage revolt isn't even being cast in terms of against the Chantry in the first place- the entire anti-Chantry pro-mage position is minority position in-universe. It's far more popular on the forums than it is in the setting.

[Dean_the_Young]

Both, primarily because I see the former as necessary for the ideal of the latter. And if the Chantry is to govern the Circle, I would not agree to such a thing without mages in turn being fairly represented within the Chantry's government.

 

Your perspective is irrelevant outside of the context of the player character. The only perspective that matters to the mages is the one they reflect and support.

 

There's a reason the mage-templar issue is cast as a mage-templar issue, and not a mage-chantry conflict. Most non-radicals amongst the mages aren't interested in independence from the Chantry- the driving concern of the mages is the people in skirts with swords, not the people in skirts with chants.

[Xilizhra]

No one recognized it at the time. No one recognized it in the various materials surrounding and simultaneous to it. No one has been mentioned, established, or even hinted at having recognized mage independence in any released or spoiler material.

Has anyone taken a position on it at all?

 

 

There's a reason the mage-templar issue is cast as a mage-templar issue, and not a mage-chantry conflict. Most non-radicals amongst the mages aren't interested in independence from the Chantry- the driving concern of the mages is the people in skirts with swords, not the people in skirts with chants.

And yet they voted on independence from the Chantry. However, I'm not talking about the templars primarily because that war is much simpler than negotiations with the Chantry would be: "These people are trying to kill/imprison us, and we have to fight back while they continue to do so." There's not a whole lot else to say.