305 réponses à ce sujet

[Adanu]

It is now that both sides forced a war.  Beforehand, they could have, and should have been proposing alternatives that took those things into consideration.

There is no alternative to slavery with people like Lambert in charge.

[Esteed789]

There is no alternative to slavery with people like Lambert in charge.

 

What I'm positing is an honest conversation between both sides where they could have given a real, honest attempt at peaceful cooperation and reform where needed.  That issue would certainly have been brought up during any such conversation.

[Hellion Rex]

BRING IT!!!!

 

[Milan92]

BRING IT!!!!

 

Voldemort pls, you already got shot once in Skyfall.

[AresKeith]

BRING IT!!!!

 

 

[berrieh]

My problem with this was that it was one bad experience.  Just one.  And while you absolutely can use past experiences to determine present behavior, using one bad experience to justify extremism is a bit like someone saying, "Well, I was cheated on once, so there's no point in me dating anyone because everyone will cheat on me."  It's flawed logic that people will often use to hide that they're really just afraid to stick their neck out again, and that's what it was with Lambert.  Is it human?  Absolutely.  It's also, as humans are often, wrong.

 

To be fair, in Tevinter, I doubt Lambert had one bad experience with mages. This was just the story he told Evangeline; it's not like he told her everything he saw, and this story was meaningful because it was a man he trusted and believed in and even he turned to something as evil as blood magic and corruption to consolidate power. Of course, I found that particular conversation quite orchestrated to convince Evangeline, but likely full of facts still (Lambert doesn't really seem to lie, but he does reveal things "in his own way" plenty of times). But I don't doubt the Lord Seeker has seen some **** and doesn't have any more creative ideas than pulling the reigns in. He isn't wrong about power corrupting, and he isn't wrong about the idea that mages are far more dangerous corrupted than anyone else.

 

 

No. The mere fact that something is opposed by moderates and conservatives not make it extremist--either that, or it reduces "extremist" to "ahead of its time," thus robbing it of any sort of negative impact you hoped to produce. Any sort of equality in civil rights, for instance, you would have to consider extremist by this logic.

 

Also, Anders was an apostate, the assassin seemed to have been one as well (if he wasn't let out by Lambert), no blood mages were involved in the vote to leave the Circle, and the Libertarians never forced a single ****** thing. The templars should never have been in this war; there should never have been a war at all. Leaving the Chantry's grip was always a sane option. But with there being one now, I believe that the only moral course of action is to destroy as much of the Templar Order as is inquisitorially possible.

 

My point about the extreme factions being extreme is that moderate mages had expressed very real frustration with them and fear of what they were pushing. (This seems to be a big part of Vivienne's view, from what we know so far, not that everyone on the outside of an issue is an extremist. 

 

First, let's deal with Anders. He was originally a Circle mage (in Ferelden) who escaped *at least twice* before he was made a Warden (yet he was never made tranquil or sentenced to death or anything unseemly) and was, yes, an apostate. As all mages are now, if there are no Circles. He was only free of the Circle because of the Warden and later Hawke. Certainly, if he'd been in the Circle, things would have gone better, but he obviously had communication and influence in the Kirkwall Circle and he admits he blew up the Chantry to deny the moderates any chance for compromise. The Rite of Annulment absolutely falls on Meredith, but what he'd done absolutely meant something bad for Circle mages, period. He knew it and he counted on it; he was pushing them to act.

 

Second, let's talk about the assassin. He was definitely in the White Spire. This is confirmed in Asunder. He was in the Libertarian fraternity with Rhys and Adrian, and it's why they were originally called for questioning. Blood mages were likely involved in the vote to leave the Circle because there were likely still people in the White Spire who practiced blood magic (this plot existed) who were involved, perhaps in the Libertarians, and they *may* have all died, but it is unlikely. They certainly contributed to the events leading up to the end of Asunder. Adrian the most since she framed Rhys to push it even further. The extremist mages weren't interested in the *majority* of mages who did not want to leave the Circle and did not want the tensions pushed this far. The templars are not blameless, but neither are the mages who pushed it. 

 

 

What exactly constitutes "working with them" for you?

 

The Circle came to be because the mages wished to practice magic. Therefore, a compromise was reached. Mages would be allowed to practice magic but away from population centers.

Within the Circle, both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter's permissions are needed for a mage to be made Tranquil; neither a mage nor a Templars can enter the phylactery room without the other; the FE can decide to send mages to fulfill a duty while the KC decided how many he is confortable with allowing to leave.

It seems to me most rules within the Circle are written in a way that will force Templars and mages to cooperate. If this is not the Templars Order as an organization trying to work with mages, what is?

 

It is more accurate to say that, within certain Circles, tensions between mages and Templars can reach  a crescendo where they will, activelly, work against one another. Kirkwall's is a good example

 

The balance shown in the Circle Mage origin is actually very interesting. Good point. 

 

This is a workable premise, so long as we accept that the Templar Order has proven itself utterly untrustworthy and needs to be eradicated. Any necessary templars would have to be of completely new, and secular, stock, and work for the Circles, not the Chantry.

 

The majority of the Templars are the "following orders" type. Likely your beef is with a few guys at the top (not even all of them) and a few brave bigots mixed in. The idea that you would throw an entire Order out is wildly extreme to me. Reform is absolutely necessary but assuming all current templars are untrustworthy and need to be eradicated is foolhardy. 

 

This was EXACTLY what she proposed without war in her mind then Lambert disbanded college of enchanters, which meant that the peaceful solution was now impossible.

Separation from chantry and autonomy in circles which practically meant mages decided everything for themselves unless it interfered with safety of none mages outside of circles. The Templars would still be around for matters of security.

 

I fail to believe Fiona was so naive that she did not see it was an act that would provoke war. Rhys fails to believe so too, as far as I can tell. Everyone at the conclave knew the severity of the situation. 

 

The templars would never have been willing to listen; it'd mean giving up their power.

 

Most of the Templars are the following orders type. This is the military. Most of them aren't acquiring huge masses of personal power and could be re-trained for any number of purposes. Hell, the *former* Lord Commander of the White Spire was considered extremely sympathetic to mages and seemed quite well trusted by the mages. 

 

Some templars would listen, but those tend to leave the Order. See Evangeline. And I was more referring to the institution in that regard; you'd need to launch an actual mutiny to get rid of Lambert, which would be required for any decent negotiation.

 

Evangeline only left the order mid-battle, and it was more a personal fight than one of right/wrong at that point. She had no desire to leave the order through most of the novel. Only when she felt she was asked to break her vows, and in the middle of an extreme situation, did it even occur to her. 

[Xilizhra]

My point about the extreme factions being extreme is that moderate mages had expressed very real frustration with them and fear of what they were pushing. (This seems to be a big part of Vivienne's view, from what we know so far, not that everyone on the outside of an issue is an extremist. 

 

First, let's deal with Anders. He was originally a Circle mage (in Ferelden) who escaped *at least twice* before he was made a Warden (yet he was never made tranquil or sentenced to death or anything unseemly) and was, yes, an apostate. As all mages are now, if there are no Circles. He was only free of the Circle because of the Warden and later Hawke. Certainly, if he'd been in the Circle, things would have gone better, but he obviously had communication and influence in the Kirkwall Circle and he admits he blew up the Chantry to deny the moderates any chance for compromise. The Rite of Annulment absolutely falls on Meredith, but what he'd done absolutely meant something bad for Circle mages, period. He knew it and he counted on it; he was pushing them to act.

 

Second, let's talk about the assassin. He was definitely in the White Spire. This is confirmed in Asunder. He was in the Libertarian fraternity with Rhys and Adrian, and it's why they were originally called for questioning. Blood mages were likely involved in the vote to leave the Circle because there were likely still people in the White Spire who practiced blood magic (this plot existed) who were involved, perhaps in the Libertarians, and they *may* have all died, but it is unlikely. They certainly contributed to the events leading up to the end of Asunder. Adrian the most since she framed Rhys to push it even further. The extremist mages weren't interested in the *majority* of mages who did not want to leave the Circle and did not want the tensions pushed this far. The templars are not blameless, but neither are the mages who pushed it. 

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.

 

 

The majority of the Templars are the "following orders" type. Likely your beef is with a few guys at the top (not even all of them) and a few brave bigots mixed in. The idea that you would throw an entire Order out is wildly extreme to me. Reform is absolutely necessary but assuming all current templars are untrustworthy and need to be eradicated is foolhardy. 

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.

 

 

Most of the Templars are the following orders type. This is the military. Most of them aren't acquiring huge masses of personal power and could be re-trained for any number of purposes. Hell, the *former* Lord Commander of the White Spire was considered extremely sympathetic to mages and seemed quite well trusted by the mages. 

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.

[Esteed789]

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.

 

Just curious here, Xil.  They clearly did ignore the wishes of the majority of mages.  I suspect more agreed with the Libertarians than we were shown, but I doubt it was in any way a majority.  So if you wouldn't call an influential minority that ignores the will of the majority extremists, what would you call them?

[Xilizhra]

Just curious here, Xil.  They clearly did ignore the wishes of the majority of mages.  I suspect more agreed with the Libertarians than we were shown, but I doubt it was in any way a majority.  So if you wouldn't call an influential minority that ignores the will of the majority extremists, what would you call them?

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.

[Esteed789]

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.

 

So you're going to dodge the question?  Noted.

[Xilizhra]

So you're going to dodge the question?  Noted.

I'm not going to answer a question that's both leading and lacks any significant evidence for its premise.

[Esteed789]

I'm not going to answer a question that's both leading and lacks any significant evidence for its premise.

 

Did you...did you read Asunder?

[raging_monkey]

Did you...did you read Asunder?

it was a close margerine the circle had a vote that the propsal for won... who the majority is a grey area

[Xilizhra]

Did you...did you read Asunder?

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.

[Esteed789]

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.

 

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...

[raging_monkey]

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...

wynn swyed for temperence ill admit but things change

[Xilizhra]

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...

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.

[Esteed789]

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.

 

Xil, at this point, we're trying to establish a majority, not calling specific characters extremists.  So can you tell me how the last vote that really counts for establishing a majority went, please?

[Xilizhra]

Xil, at this point, we're trying to establish a majority, not calling specific characters extremists.  So can you tell me how the last vote that really counts for establishing a majority went, please?

The one ten years prior? Not well.

[Esteed789]

The one ten years prior? Not well.

 

So that vote was a hung jury, with no decision reached?  That's not quite how I remember it.

[Xilizhra]

So that vote was a hung jury, with no decision reached?  That's not quite how I remember it.

Well, a decision was reached at that time to do nothing. Then things went differently when it came up again.

[Esteed789]

Well, a decision was reached at that time to do nothing. Then things went differently when it came up again.

 

Right, the time where the vote was broken up before everyone had their say.  Or the one after that, when the choice was largely between independence or killing themselves.  Those work really well to establish majority opinion, you're right!

[Xilizhra]

Right, the time where the vote was broken up before everyone had their say.  Or the one after that, when the choice was largely between independence or killing themselves.  Those work really well to establish majority opinion, you're right!

I give no damns about the majority opinion ten years ago. The fact that the majority opinion now is clearly in favor of independence, without any coercion on Fiona's part (only the part of the templars) is what matters.

[Esteed789]

I give no damns about the majority opinion ten years ago. The fact that the majority opinion now is clearly in favor of independence, without any coercion on Fiona's part (only the part of the templars) is what matters.

 

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.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Xilizhra:  Fiona is guilty by association - Adrian played a massive role in manipulating this war to serve her own violent ends. 

 

That Fiona keeps a crony so close to her that has murdered, framed and instigated conflict - makes her culpable in my eyes (which are the only eyes that matter for my playthrough).