The rest of your post would just involve my rehashing prior arguments to reply, so I won't.
So despite the fact that I cited areas the book explicitly said you were incorrect, you will not actually concede things like it was impossible for Lambert to be involved in the assasination? I understand if you haven't read the book recently you might have made an honest mistake, but the fact that evidence outlined from the narrative does not change your opinion does frustrate me.
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.
Then I misunderstood your view. I apologize. My view is also that the Templars were mismanaged, and that is why I see no reason to paint every Templar with the same brush - change the management, allow the rise of the moderate ones, and have a reasonable discussion on reforming the Order and the Circle, and we're good. I never said everyone that fulfilled the role was good or worthy - I said some of them were after your views seemed to propose none of them were.
Let me address some of these atrocities:
1. Tranquility) This is basically supposed to be a more merciful fate than death. Whether it is or isn't depends on your point of view. Mages can choose it in lieu of a Harrowing OR it can be chosen for them if they are seen as too weak or are known to have broken laws and participated in dangerous magic. I do not believe even the crime of attempted escape or any lesser crimes than blood magic generally lead to being made Tranquil (Anders is proof of that, in Awakening; he has already escaped and been caught a couple of times, and many mages in DA2 are proof of that as well). There may have been some trespasses of that nature in DA2, including Karl, but we are unsure and I wouldn't consider the extremes of Kirkwall official policy, as it is stated in lore time and again that Kirkwall represents an extreme. I support the researching of Tranquility to see if it can be made more humane; I support giving mages a choice between tranquility and death if they have committed blood magic or some sin that must be punished with it; but, unfortunately, it seems a necessary evil. I do think the Order and First Enchanter (in normal times, the FE must approve tranquility, as we see in Ferelden in DAO) are considering it a mercy to make a mage who is too weak for a Harrowing tranquil, but I do think the mage deserves to choose for him/herself, though they should TELL the mage, "We don't expect you to pass this and we recommend tranquility to save your life." I think the danger of this and the reason the Harrowing is done suddenly at secret, and the reason they cannot "practice" it per se to see if they would succeed (see the Harrowing section below) is because mages would be more driven to escape, including using means of blood magic like Jowan if they realized their time was coming and they might have to choose between tranquility or death.
2. Annulment is not always wrong. In Ferelden, it was a perfectly reasonable approach. Sometimes you must harm a few to save many - to allow abominations or demons out into the world at large would be a larger crime, and if the PC had not come along and been the special snowflake we are, it likely would have been impossible to cleanse the Tower. And it is worth noting many Templars died inside the tower and more would have died as they cleansed it, likely. The only reason we could manage the situation happily is player agency. Now, the annulment in Kirkwall is certainly unreasonable, and Templars stand against Meredith, asking her to accept mages who surrender peacefully at various points and eventually turning against her. The fact that they don't turn against her immediately in the midst of a terrorist attack and confusion is not an issue for me because I understand that human beings are not machines and they did not have any time to contemplate, many may not even know what had truly happened, and there do seem to be a lot of mages who turn to blood magic during (whether they had never touched it before, I don't know - and if they had been practicing for such a confrontation, the Order likely did push or nudge them towards it; bad stuff on both sides) so they are essentially fighting blood mages. When mages surrender, Cullen says NOT to cut them down. And the other Templars don't. Additionally, Meredith isn't just normal-corrupt, she is actually driven mad by red lyrium - the same stuff that made Varric's brother turn on him. You can't really compare her actions to that of a normal Templar. That said, annulment should have many more failsafes. One commander should not be able to call it; technically, I don't think they are by law, but the Order should have that made clear to them.
3. I will discuss the Harrowings below.
As to "only for actions that are legal," I will point out, since this was a thread about Lambert, that he did not rule out the possibility the murderer of mages was a Templar and he seemed perfectly happy to punish anyone who he suspected. (He had every reason to suspect Rhys.) We have no reason to believe he was okay with routine abuses under his watch. Nor do we believe even Meredith is since many Templars who do so are clearly hiding their actions from her.
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.
It should also be noted that legally Meredith had no clear right to call for Annulment, as a Templar-Commander is not supposed to call for it on their own. This is why at Ferelden, they were waiting on word. And that was during a Blight. But she was Red Lyrium Crazy. As to "a mage not associated with the Kirkwall Circle" - since Anders had clearly been passing information back and forth with the Circle and influencing them and helping mages escape, I wouldn't go that far. He was not in the Circle but he did not lack association there. That no one in the Circle was involved in the Chantry incident only a few people know.
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.
This is the problem, as Esteed says. Though I don't really understand why they cannot undergo a "practice Harrowing" this way before the real one and then have a more informed choice about Harrowing (potential death) vs. Tranquility.
It's been a while since I read Asunder, but I'm curious. I know that Adrian is a spokeswoman for the Libertarians, but her actions in the book...don't they make her more along the lines of a Resolutionist? She seemed, from what I remember, to support Mage freedom at all costs, even going so far as to frame Rhys for murder. Or was she more for simply splitting from the Chantry?
As for Lord Seeker Lambert. I hope he's alive because he'd make a good enemy. Perhaps a spirit similar to the one that Wynn passed to Evangeline saved him after Cole killed him. Since he was a threat to Rhys I doubt Cole would let him live...however, was that the "Cole" we knew throughout the book at the end. I seem to remember him acknowledging that he wasn't Cole.
Anyway, good book, highly recommended.
Resolutionist is not a Fraternity of its own but a select group of Libertarians.
From the Wiki: "
- Libertarians desire the Circle to become an autonomous, self-regulating order without Chantry involvement at any level. While many Libertarians advocate the use of peaceful means to ensure their independence, such as a bill of secession they proposed to the College of Magi in 9:31 Dragon, at least one subgroup, the Resolutionists, are willing to pursue violent means to their ends. Libertarians countUldred, Adrian and Jeannot among their number. By 9:40 Dragon they are represented in the College of Magi by Adrian."
So, she is both a Libertarian and a Resolutionist. But as she is the leader of the Libertarians at this point, it is reasonable to say that Libertarians are trending toward Resolutionist and are complicit in those actions, unless they leave the fraternity as Rhys did (though some may not know of her actions, of course, and be doing so unknowingly).
And, no it wasn't "Cole" per se - it seemed to be the Spirit himself.
Retour en haut
