1751 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryriena]

Anders went through his harrowing and thus can't be made tranquil. Those killings refered to some Templars not all of them by the way.


That is more that enough evidence to suggest something is wrong.

[Lulupab]

And?  That's evidence of there being Tranquil in the Gallows.  Not that every mage in the Gallows is being made Tranquil at Meredith's will... Which is what Anders claims is happening.
 
 
 
From the Codex on Apostates:

Anders was, and is, an Apostate.  That he wasn't made Tranquil, at the very least, is evidence of Ferelden's Circle being far too lenient.

There has been a retcon, making mages who passed their harrowing tranquil is against the law of chantry, apostate or no. And most of the times when an apostate surrenders peacefully Templars do not kill them. All of these apply to Anders therefore he was captured alive.

[AshenEndymion]

Anders went through his harrowing and thus can't be made tranquil. That is more that enough evidence to suggest something is wrong.

 
Again, this is the codex entry on Apostates:
 

No matter how a mage has become apostate, the Chantry treats them alike: Templars begin a systematic hunt to bring the apostate to justice. In almost all cases, "justice" is execution. If there is some overriding reason the mage should live, the Rite of Tranquility is employed instead.

 

Other than Anders' statement, there is nothing, anywhere, that says Tranquiliity cannot be used on a mage that completed it's Harrowing...  Because, again, an Apostate is allowed to be made Tranquil.  And if a mage leaves the Circle with no intention to ever return, they are considered an Apostate...

 

Templars don't usually do such a thing if the mages in question aren't considered dangerous, don't fight when they are being pursued and captured, haven't been away from the Circle for too long, and haven't learned forbidden magic...

 

There has been a retcon, making mages who passed their harrowing tranquil is against the law of chantry, apostate or no. And most of the times when an apostate surrenders peacefully Templars do not kill them. All of these apply to Anders therefore he was captured alive.

 

Really?  Where is this supposed retcon?  All we have is Anders' word.  And I'm liable to believe the Desire demon controlling Conner meant no harm to anyone than I would Anders telling the truth about how the Circle System operates.

[Keroko]

Ryriena has the right of it.  Karl was one.  Alrik had him made Tranquil illegally (it is illegal to Tranquil a Harrowed mage) because they wanted to trap Anders.  If you kill the Templar Lieutenent first and loot his corpse during combat (only way you will find it) you find a note on his body where Alrik threatens him (the Lt) if he doesn't do as he's told.  The Wiki details this letter.

 

http://dragonage.wik.../Templar_Letter

 

It's not illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage (I've heard the claim often, but never can I find a codex source) the rite can still be used on rebelious or unhinged mages, because both of those are still at great risk of getting possesed.

[Ryriena]

And, so what if the person escaped to get away from a bad situation or telling their mothers were they're taking her. Karl, whom was illegealy made Tranquil, who wanted to die than stay that way. Arlik was a rapist, torturer, and a all around *******. It is told too you in the magi Origin by Jowan, as too why he picked you, but I have not played that origin in awhile though.

[AshenEndymion]

It's not illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage (I've heard the claim often, but never can I find a source) the rite can still be used on rebelious or unhinged mages.

 
They interpret Anders' word as truth... They refuse to accept that when David Gaider commented on the topic, he dashed that theory:
 

That's incorrect. The Rite of Tranquility is not only performed before the Harrowing. The use of it as a punishment or potentially as a control over unruly mages, however, does venture into territory that borders on abuse... but that was the entire point of the adventure.

 

It's against the rules to perform the Rite of Tranquility without both significant provocation (provocation in this case meaning the mage in question either cannot control their magic or has shown no signs of a willingness to do so) AND the agreement of the First Enchanter (who is present as a sort of ombudsman on behalf of the mages). The system will fall out of balance anywhere where the First Enchanter is either weak or ignored.

Mages don't generally elect to become Tranquil after their Harrowing, but it's not impossible-- and with the agreement of the First Enchanter, as mentioned, could certainly happen.

 
If you believe the Rite of Tranquility is abuse, fine... I don't.  But it's not illegal to use on a harrowed mage, and never has been...

[The Elder King]

I actually didn't read that comment. Fair enough.
Though Regardless on someone's opinion on Tranquility, it doesn't mean it can be used for very crimes (or on innocents). There are other methods to punish mages other then Death or Tranquility.

[Lulupab]

It's not illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage (I've heard the claim often, but never can I find a codex source) the rite can still be used on rebelious or unhinged mages.

Correction: when there is serious provocation or its proven the mage is highly dangerous. "Rebellious" is not really serious provocation or danger. I always got the impression from witch hunt that Anders' escapes were treated like a joke. It was like "Anders has escaped!" and others were like "not again!". He always surrendered peacefully once found and not once he harmed anyone, not even a scratch.
 

Really?  Where is this supposed retcon?  All we have is Anders' word.  And I'm liable to believe the Desire demon controlling Conner meant no harm to anyone than I would Anders telling the truth about how the Circle System operates.

ITS AGAINST THE RULES UNLESS THERE IS AN EXCEPTION

[Keroko]

Correction: when there is serious provocation or its proven the mage is highly dangerous. "Rebellious" is not really serious provocation or danger. I always got the impression from witch hunt that Anders' escapes were treated like a joke. It was like "Anders has escaped!" and others were like "not again!". He always surrendered peacefully once found and not once he harmed anyone, not even a scratch.

 

You... do realize that this proves the rite can be used on people who passed their harrowing, right? Not the other way around?

[AshenEndymion]

The idea that it's an "exception" for mages who pass the Harrowing to be made Tranquil is false.
 
The First Enchanter has to agree to the Rite of Tranquility for those mages who haven't passed the Harrowing, too...

[Keroko]

And that is where Alrik broke the law. Not the rendering of tranquility itself, but bypassing the First Enchanter to do so.

[Lulupab]

You... do realize that this proves the rite can be used on people who passed their harrowing, right? Not the other way around?

 

I am a lawyer and this utterly means its completely illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage. Many such laws have exception and this one is not different. Its illegal but there are exceptions. Quite simple to understand really. I never said it can't be used on them, I simply said its illegal which it is. I think you don't understand how important his phrase "significant provocation" is. 

[Ryriena]

The idea that it's an "exception" for mages who pass the Harrowing to be made Tranquil is false.

The First Enchanter has to agree to the Rite of Tranquility for those mages who haven't passed the Harrowing, too...

And have evidence, too allow the magical lobotomy to happen.

[AshenEndymion]

And that is where Alrik broke the law. Not the rendering of tranquility itself, but bypassing the First Enchanter to do so.

 

Yes.

 

I don't claim Alrik didn't break the law... I claim that we can't prove he broke said law more than once(Karl)...

[AshenEndymion]

I am a lawyer and this utterly means its completely illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage. Many such laws have exception and this one is not different. Its illegal but there are exceptions. Quite simple to understand really. I never said it can't be used on them, I simply said its illegal which it is. I think you don't understand how important his phrase "significant provocation" is. 

 

So... Where in Thedas did you get your law degree?

[Lulupab]

So... Where in Thedas did you get your law degree?

 

Ha! I was expecting such a response. That's how law works, it doesn't need a degree.

 

What do you think its "against the law" means? It means its illegal.

 

What is an exception? When a rare condition is met in which case breaking the law is legal.

 

So is making mages who passed their harrowing illegal? Yes.

 

Its as simple as it gets.

[Ryriena]

Yes.

I don't claim Alrik didn't break the law... I claim that we can't prove he broke said law more than once(Karl)...

We can prove he broke this law more than once, for exmaple Ella though we killed him before he laid a figure on her. He even said he was going to make her a illegeal tranquiled mage. And the fact they were made tranquil for looking at a Templar wrong and were being locked in their rooms is enough to say something is wrong.

[Ryriena]

Yes.

I don't claim Alrik didn't break the law... I claim that we can't prove he broke said law more than once(Karl)...

[Keroko]

I am a lawyer and this utterly means its completely illegal to tranquil a harrowed mage. Many such laws have exception and this one is not different. Its illegal but there are exceptions. Quite simple to understand really. I never said it can't be used on them, I simply said its illegal which it is. I think you don't understand how important his phrase "significant provocation" is. 

 

So... you're using modern day western law system to decide that not only the wording used by someone who hasn't studied law school means that it can't be done, but also that the Thedasian law system must inherently apply the same rules as ours does?

 

Damn, you're a lawyer allright.

 

But two can play the exact wording game: David didn't say it was against the law to tranquil a mage who passed his harrowing, he said it's against the law to do so unless a mage proved incapable of handling his powers (a mage suffering from dementia or insanity come to mind) or unwilling to do so (ohai, Ulric and amost every other blood mage we've killed over the course of the last two games).

 

That means it's allowed.

 

The part refering to mages who passed their harrowing was the odds of mages who passed their harrowing choosing to become tranquil.

[AshenEndymion]

Ha! I was expecting such a response. That's how law works, it doesn't need a degree.

 

What do you think its "against the law" means? It means its illegal.

 

What is an exception? When a rare condition is met in which case breaking the law is legal.

 

So is making mages who passed their harrowing illegal? Yes.

 

Its as simple as it gets.

 

You are right about only one thing in that whole post... It is simple.

 

The problem is, what you call an exception is not an exception.  It's the actual law.  The First Enchanter must agree and there must be "significant provocation".  You can dispute what "significant provocation" is, but it's existence doesn't make the use of Tranquility an exception, unless you're saying all uses of the Rite of Tranquility are exceptions.

 

Therefore, making mages who pass their harrowing tranquil is not illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't have both of those requirements.

 

 

We can prove he broke this law more than once, for exmaple Ella though we killed him before he laid a figure on her. He even said he was going to make her a illegeal tranquiled mage. And the fact they were made tranquil for looking at a Templar wrong and were being locked in their rooms is enough to say something is wrong.

 

No.  You can prove Alrik broke the law with Karl.  You can make a claim that Alrik intended to break the law again, but you can't prove he actually did break it a second time...

Modifié par AshenEndymion, 28 octobre 2014 - 12:32 .

[Keroko]

It occurs to me that we've strayed rather far away from the topic. Should we perhaps try to return to the original topic of Vivienne's opinion on  the rebels?

[Lulupab]

It is the judgment of the Knight-Commander whether a mage needs to be made Tranquil. 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 is not willing to do so and this condition is rare in mages who are not blood mages. Because a mage who has passed the Harrowing is deemed to be strong enough to resist demonic possession, forcibly making them Tranquil is theoretically against Chantry law. Practically however, the situation varies from tower to tower.

 

So this depends on what you imagine significant provocation means. From the usage of the word significant I wager it doesn't happen often.

[Heimdall]

It is the judgment of the Knight-Commander whether a mage needs to be made Tranquil. 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 is not willing to do so and this condition is rare in mages who are not blood mages. Because a mage who has passed the Harrowing is deemed to be strong enough to resist demonic possession, forcibly making them Tranquil is theoretically against Chantry law. Practically however, the situation varies from tower to tower.
 
So this depends on what you imagine significant provocation means. From the usage of the word significant I wager it doesn't happen often.

I think practicing blood magic and raising the dead probably qualifies.

[Lulupab]

You are right about only one thing in that whole post... It is simple.

 

The problem is, what you call an exception is not an exception.  It's the actual law.  The First Enchanter must agree and there must be "significant provocation".  You can dispute what "significant provocation" is, but it's existence doesn't make the use of Tranquility an exception, unless you're saying all uses of the Rite of Tranquility are exceptions.

 

Therefore, making mages who pass their harrowing tranquil is not illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't have both of those requirements.

 

 

 

No.  You can prove Alrik broke the law with Karl.  You can make a claim that Alrik intended to break the law again, but you can't prove he actually did break it a second time...

 

If a punishment requires approval from higher ranking people then by very definition its against the law. Safety of people overrides almost all rules and this is one of those situations. If the safety of people is not in danger the chantry law forbids the practice of making harrowed mages tranquil.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Keroko:  There's so little to say about it at this point.  

 

The very next questions you can ask get into the meat of her real opinion on whether or not the mages were just in their actions - her thoughts about Templars - etc. 

 

I think she's a proud woman who has fought to get where she is and - unlike those that deride her for her success - her perspective is different because she took advantage of opportunities provided, worked hard, proved her loyalty and achieved success the long way round.

 

It's funny - in that Tevinter Support thread - they celebrate the "land of opportunity" that Tevinter is knowing full well to move up the ranks you have to be a despicable person.

 

But if Vivienne moves up in the ranks - she's hated for it - and while I'm sure she's got her faults (she's an ambitious Orlesian) - I bet she's not a tenth as rotten as any Magister.