Except it's not clear at all, but if you want to delude yourself into believing that to justify your belief that Fiona and Adrian weren't wrong, that's fine, we can call the discussion over.
Didn't you just explain why the majority opinion is now in favor of independence?
Didn't you just explain why the majority opinion is now in favor of independence?
You'll have to quote where I did that, because that's absolutely not what I was arguing.
EDIT: To make my view absolutely clear, it is this: Neither side gave peaceful reform an honest chance. If both sides had been willing to play ball, honestly and in good faith play ball, I do not believe Thedas would be in the position it's in. Both sides are, therefore, responsible for the unnecessary bloodshed that this war will cause. Maybe not equally, but equal or not they are both responsible. I support peaceful reform, both sides working together to make a greater whole.
You'll have to quote where I did that, because that's absolutely not what I was arguing.
EDIT: To make my view absolutely clear, it is this: Neither side gave peaceful reform an honest chance. If both sides had been willing to play ball, honestly and in good faith play ball, I do not believe Thedas would be in the position it's in. Both sides are, therefore, responsible for the unnecessary bloodshed that this war will cause. Maybe not equally, but equal or not they are both responsible. I support peaceful reform, both sides working together to make a greater whole.
Actually, the mages did, given the vote that you yourself cited, until the templars cracked down on the Circle for the crimes of an apostate.
Actually, the mages did, given the vote that you yourself cited, until the templars cracked down on the Circle for the crimes of an apostate.
As you said, the vote was to do nothing. All that does is let frustrations continue to fester. Change was necessary, and sitting on your hands doesn't really help that.
The Libertarians we've seen, in all honesty, are huge stumbling blocks for any peaceful reform. Their position seems to be "we get everything we want" and that doesn't exactly make them look receptive to anything less. Certainly the Libertarians we've seen aren't the whole of the fraternity, but they are the more influential members, and often are the representatives of the fraternity's viewpoint, so it stands to reason that they're a decent representation of the fraternity as a whole.
My proposal from a few pages back would work quite well, but even that isn't quite what the Libertarians want. The templar order still exists, and still has some authority over mages. The Chantry may or may not be involved, I do agree with you that there are issues with them being involved in raising young mages given their view on magic. The Circle still exists as a mandatory thing, with the only way out being a skilled mage willing to act as a live-in tutor, and if you refuse to attend your only choices are tranquility, death, or running as current apostates do. This is a better system than what we had, but it was not the pure independence espoused by the viewpoint Libertarians, so it isn't likely they would have accepted something like that. It seems unlikely, based on my readings, that they would have accepted anything less than pure independence, which is why I say they didn't make a good faith attempt at peaceful reform.
The templars are certainly just as guilty of being closed off there. Which is why I say both sides are morally responsible for the situation as it stands, and why I hope there is an option for peaceful compromise in DA:I.
I consider it deeply immoral to ask someone to continue to endure crushing oppression, and I refuse to paint any of these with an extremist brush except for the ones who are directly involved in attacking civilians (and I rather suspect Lambert made have had a hand in the assassination). Also, just to clear up some ambiguous grammar, Adrian was not a blood mage.
Which orders you're willing to follow determines a great deal about the kind of person you are. The templars aren't Reaper-indoctrinated mind slaves, they're people with free will who always have a choice. Also, in our world, we've thrown out that idea as an excuse to commit atrocity.
Yes, and those people aren't the ones determining policy. Maybe if the ones who were determining policy weren't all thoroughly horrible people... but if that was the case, then it's possible none of this would have been necessary to begin with.
1. Lambert definitely was not involved in the assassination attempt. From the way he questioned Rhys and the timing of his arrival, this is clear. He is called because of the attempt. The Lord Templar before him likely allowed the mage in question to leave; whether he knew what would or wouldn't happen, it's clear Lambert blames his sympathetic attitude towards the mages for this lack of foresight. You're grasping at straws trying to pin that on him. Why must you pin even mage extremism on the Templars?
2. My grammar was not ambiguous; I never said Adrian was a blood mage or implied it; I said she was clearly an extremist. And I said there were blood mages in her fraternity in the white spire (the assassin colluded with others and Cole saw it). She and Rhys were clearly not informed. Or at least Rhys doesn't believe she was and he wasn't.
3. You view the Templar's whole purpose (to control the mage problem) as unnecessary, it seems. The Templars have a reasonable cause. We know many, many tragic stories involving mages, whether they be mages first getting their powers and hurting people accidentally, mages hurting people on purpose, blood mages, or abominations. This is common in Thedas, even with the Circles (just imagine without). It's not like someone couldn't be drawn to them in a desire to help. Evangeline followed orders for the most part - most Templars never get an unreasonable order, I imagine. Many likely see themselves as not just protecting Thedas from mages but also protecting mages. I have seen very few Templars commit or order atrocities in the books or in games, and I have seen Templars confused to inaction or standing against them when they were truly wrong (Cullen finally deposing Meredith, for example). The general purpose of maintaining order in the Circle is not immoral - most Templars don't seem to hate mages. Some seem to fear them or understand the trauma they can cause Thedas, most see magic as a curse (I agree), but I haven't seen a lot of hatred. I've seen fewer truly bad Templars in lore than I have blood mages.
4. The people at the top of the Order are trying desperately to maintain order. I think they went about it the wrong way, but I see where they come from, with all a Templar high up has likely seen in his/her time. It must get hard. It must feel like a consistently losing battle. So many things go wrong. The extremist mages pushed at just the wrong time. The templars pushed back in the wrong way. It was mutual fuckery, if you ask me.
Well, firstly, I would need actual proof that they did ignore the will of the majority, especially since the largest fraternity, the Aequitarians, appointed Rhys as their leader while knowing full well what his policies were.
Adrian knew the vote could not win at the conclave, so she (probably NOT alone) set up a situation where it was likely to get pushed to a "do or die" situation. You are speaking of a vote AFTER that but the point was the extremists forced that. They also forced the discussion of the vote at the conclave where the majority of mages didn't even want to call a vote because it would be seen as an act of treason. Granted, the templars messed up too - but they didn't have an elaborate plan, they just accidentally struck in the heat of a battle-tense situation. Most of the mages were screwed over by the Libertarian extremists AND the templars.
Yes. Of the mage viewpoint characters, all except Wynne wanted freedom, and she came around in the end. The general masses of the Circle aren't spoken of too heavily, but the two largest fraternities voted for it.
The moderate fraternity only voted for it (the Libertarians aren't particularly large) because it was basically suicide to go back by then. Mostly because the extremist mages had planned it that way. Though the templars - or at least Lambert - did fall into their hands too stupidly for my taste.
If you mean the vote at the end, I don't count that. By that point, choosing anything other than independence is choosing suicide. When the other option is "or death" it becomes a choice in name only.
Lambert broke up the previous vote before anyone but the Libertarians had their say, so we can't count that one. Remind me how the vote before that one went...
Right, the mages had NOT favored independence. This was Adrian's big whiny complaint throughout the whole thing. She even knew the vote would likely fail and expected Rhys to convince Wynne to convince the masses. Lambert fell into Adrian's trap and broke up the vote (just like she wanted) and ironically that led to a vote for independence that never would have come out otherwise.
You can try calling Adrian an extremist, but all Fiona did was ask a question and vote, so I hardly see how she could count.
I don't have to "try" - Adrian is an extremist by any fair measure. More so than Lambert. The most immoral thing Lambert did was order 3 mages be killed IF the information proved too inflammatory as a sacrifice for the greater peace - immoral, absolutely, and I don't believe Evangeline was wrong in refusing, but not nearly as extreme as violently arranging a revolution most of the people involved in weren't FOR a few minutes ago.
Actually, the mages did, given the vote that you yourself cited, until the templars cracked down on the Circle for the crimes of an apostate.
I think it's quite likely the crackdowns outside of Kirkwall were not ALL over Anders's actions but also over Orsino's. It probably wasn't kept secret that he turned to blood magic and became an abomination in the end. I also don't know how everyone left - hearing the story, sorting through it - would even be sure Anders was outside the Circle.
He technically wasn't simply an "apostate." He was an escaped Circle mage of Ferelden, turned apostate, allowed to join the Wardens and then, I guess, turned apostate again. Not sure he still can be. Anyway, it's not like he's completely outside the Circle system. He likely once was a Libertarian based on everything we hear of him when he is an apostate in Awakening.
3. You view the Templar's whole purpose (to control the mage problem) as unnecessary, it seems. The Templars have a reasonable cause. We know many, many tragic stories involving mages, whether they be mages first getting their powers and hurting people accidentally, mages hurting people on purpose, blood mages, or abominations. This is common in Thedas, even with the Circles (just imagine without). It's not like someone couldn't be drawn to them in a desire to help. Evangeline followed orders for the most part - most Templars never get an unreasonable order, I imagine. Many likely see themselves as not just protecting Thedas from mages but also protecting mages. I have seen very few Templars commit or order atrocities in the books or in games, and I have seen Templars confused to inaction or standing against them when they were truly wrong (Cullen finally deposing Meredith, for example). The general purpose of maintaining order in the Circle is not immoral - most Templars don't seem to hate mages. Some seem to fear them or understand the trauma they can cause Thedas, most see magic as a curse (I agree), but I haven't seen a lot of hatred. I've seen fewer truly bad Templars in lore than I have blood mages.
The rest of your post would just involve my rehashing prior arguments to reply, so I won't. For this, however, I must strongly disagree on all counts. I don't see the templars' purpose as unnecessary, I see it as horrendously and frequently willfully mismanaged. Mages need guardians like countries need governments; that doesn't mean that every person or institution that fulfills that role is good or worthy.
As for templars who commit atrocities... everyone involved in involuntary Tranquility, everyone involved in Annulment, everyone who orders unprotected Harrowings. The list is not a small one, and that's only for actions that are legal. You don't have to be a bad person to uphold a bad system, and you don't have to be a bad person for your death to be necessary if you fight for a bad system. You can't be a good person and do either of those, but good people are rather rarer than bad.
As for templars who commit atrocities... everyone involved in involuntary Tranquility, everyone involved in Annulment, everyone who orders unprotected Harrowings. The list is not a small one, and that's only for actions that are legal. You don't have to be a bad person to uphold a bad system, and you don't have to be a bad person for your death to be necessary if you fight for a bad system. You can't be a good person and do either of those, but good people are rather rarer than bad.
Can you define what you mean by "unprotected" Harrowings? Genuinely curious here, because I'm not sure how that would work.
Can you define what you mean by "unprotected" Harrowings? Genuinely curious here, because I'm not sure how that would work.
I'd bring up the Annulment comment too but It's Xil so that would either warrant an evasion or some brand of ISJL.
I'd bring up the Annulment comment too but It's Xil so that would either warrant an evasion or some brand of ISJL.
I actually mostly agree with her about Annulment. Keyword, I suspect, being mostly. Only in the most extreme situations should it ever even be on the table, and even then it should be an absolute last resort.
I actually mostly agree with her about Annulment. Keyword, I suspect, being mostly. Only in the most extreme situations should it ever even be on the table, and even then it should be an absolute last resort.
"Tower overrun by demons and abominations" and "Tower infested with Blood mages INCLUDING the First Enchanter" both seem pretty damn valid.
The Right of Annulment is basically a right to commit indiscriminate murder against mages irrespective of the guilt or innocence of the individual mages in question. That is never acceptable under any circumstances.
Of course it can be acceptable.
Exterminatus... I mean Annulment is a tool like any other, one that must only be used in dire circumstances.
Can you define what you mean by "unprotected" Harrowings? Genuinely curious here, because I'm not sure how that would work.
Have at least two mages, one apprentice and one more powerful mage hidden nearby to kill the demon in question if the apprentice seems seriously endangered.
"Tower overrun by demons and abominations" and "Tower infested with Blood mages INCLUDING the First Enchanter" both seem pretty damn valid.
Meredith had no clue about Orsino. All she had were the actions of a mage not associated with the Kirkwall Circle, and a handful of isolated incidents over the last few years. That wasn't an infestation, and her call for Annulment was absolutely invalid.
The Uldred situation is more tricky, I'll grant you.
The Uldred situation is more tricky, I'll grant you.
"More Tricky" The entire tower was overrun, Demons and abominations everywhere, what are annulments meant for if not that?
Have at least two mages, one apprentice and one more powerful mage hidden nearby to kill the demon in question if the apprentice seems seriously endangered.
The problem here is that if the candidate discovers the presence of these other two mages, it invalidates the entire test. If a way could be found to guarantee no candidate will ever detect the presence of these two hidden mages, I'd be fine with it, but until then it creates too much of an issue there.
"More Tricky" The entire tower was overrun, Demons and abominations everywhere, what are annulments meant for if not that?
The game itself is a little wonky with this. The amount of abominations you tear through suggests it, Greagoir states it, Irving implies it, and the fact that only 12 mages were in your army in Denerim suggest it. But if the entire tower was truly overrun, where the hell did all those mages in the marching-to-Denerim FMV come from? I have a hard time reconciling that. If there were really that many survivors, there's no way you can tell me the tower was overrun. There's more evidence to the former than the latter, but it still introduces enough uncertainty for me that I don't feel comfortable saying Annulment was a clear-cut thing.
The game itself is a little wonky with this. The amount of abominations you tear through suggests it, Greagoir states it, Irving implies it, and the fact that only 12 mages were in your army in Denerim suggest it. But if the entire tower was truly overrun, where the hell did all those mages in the marching-to-Denerim FMV come from? I have a hard time reconciling that. If there were really that many survivors, there's no way you can tell me the tower was overrun. There's more evidence to the former than the latter, but it still introduces enough uncertainty for me that I don't feel comfortable saying Annulment was a clear-cut thing.
It's a cinematic... if literally EVERYTHING else in game supports one side it's generally safe to discount a cinematic.
The game itself is a little wonky with this. The amount of abominations you tear through suggests it, Greagoir states it, Irving implies it, and the fact that only 12 mages were in your army in Denerim suggest it. But if the entire tower was truly overrun, where the hell did all those mages in the marching-to-Denerim FMV come from? I have a hard time reconciling that. If there were really that many survivors, there's no way you can tell me the tower was overrun. There's more evidence to the former than the latter, but it still introduces enough uncertainty for me that I don't feel comfortable saying Annulment was a clear-cut thing.
simple, there is another tower in fereldan, which there is according to the wiki that sent men to assist you. That is one way to look at it anyways.
The Right of Annulment is basically a right to commit indiscriminate murder against mages irrespective of the guilt or innocence of the individual mages in question. That is never acceptable under any circumstances.
The reality is, you can't let a tower full of abominations out into the world. That's unacceptable under any circumstances. As the number of survivors dwindles, you eventually have to start doing some ruthless arithmetic. As ugly as it is, and it is very ugly, you reach a point where you have to decide whether saving a tiny group of survivors is worth risking setting a tower full of abominations loose, which pretty much guarantees a high death toll.
I'd say the same thing if there was a templar barracks full of possessed templars or a Warden outpost full of possessed Wardens. Sometimes you have to make the ugly choices.
It's a cinematic... if literally EVERYTHING else in game supports one side it's generally safe to discount a cinematic.
Annulment, even when totally, unquestionably justified, is an ugly thing. I personally am not comfortable making a definitive statement of approval on it with even that small margin of uncertainty. I understand you might not feel uncertain about it and that's fine, but I do, and until that changes I'm never going to come down definitively on the Origins Annulment.
EDIT: herkles, do you remember which entry you saw that in? I'd never heard anything about that, and that would certainly have a bearing on my feelings on the matter.
The reality is, you can't let a tower full of abominations out into the world. That's unacceptable under any circumstances. As the number of survivors dwindles, you eventually have to start doing some ruthless arithmetic. As ugly as it is, and it is very ugly, you reach a point where you have to decide whether saving a tiny group of survivors is worth risking setting a tower full of abominations loose, which pretty much guarantees a high death toll.
I'd say the same thing if there was a templar barracks full of possessed templars or a Warden outpost full of possessed Wardens. Sometimes you have to make the ugly choices.
Exactly and I'd be pushing for the same solution with either group.
Something tells me at least some of these fine people would be willing to "Make the sacrifice" if the people in question were Templars.
The game itself is a little wonky with this. The amount of abominations you tear through suggests it, Greagoir states it, Irving implies it, and the fact that only 12 mages were in your army in Denerim suggest it. But if the entire tower was truly overrun, where the hell did all those mages in the marching-to-Denerim FMV come from? I have a hard time reconciling that. If there were really that many survivors, there's no way you can tell me the tower was overrun. There's more evidence to the former than the latter, but it still introduces enough uncertainty for me that I don't feel comfortable saying Annulment was a clear-cut thing.
It doesn't really matter how many mages survived in Ferelden's circle, it's still not acceptable. What about those charming children with Wynne when you meet her? They are obviously no abominations. Wynne says she'll fight you if you side with the Templars and propose the Right of Annulment because in addition to the innocent mages in the Tower, even the children would get killed. It would be murder, even in Ferelden's circle.
Except for the bit about being able to annul the circle without killing ANY of the surviving mages.
The kids survive, Wynne survives and joins you, hell supporting the Templars can even leave Irving alive and if anyone would be under suspicion it would be the only survivor from Uldred's little shop of horrors on the top floor.
Retour en haut