116 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

So you think that if Vaughn tried forcing himself on say a nobody like Goldana that he would be puished/stripped of his titles? REALLY?

 

Let's take awakening for example. In the "A Day in court", you actually have way more power over the life of regular citizen than even what we see in the Circle. Anders for example escaped multiple times and other than being captured and dragged back, Anders not once mentions anything about physical abuse (and you know Anders would have stalked about that). Yet as the arl, you are fully within your rights to execture a famer for stealing for his family and/ore execute a soldeir for desertion.

 

The rite of tranqulity actually has to be agreed by both Knight commander and first enchanter so at the least you have some redress as a lowly apprentice in the circle. As a lowly citizen of Thedas? Your best bet is to hope to have a nice noble.

You say that as if I should somehow approve of any of this, or even that I'd necessarily have mages enter mundane society. The point of all of this is to be free of the templars and free of the nonrepresentative government of the Chantry. Believe me, I have no intention of simply adopting other horrible systems just after getting rid of the templars.

 

Of course, the mages have other issues in the Circle, mostly crushing psychological pressure, utter lack of privacy, propaganda about being cursed, etc.

[HairyMadDog1010]

Another issue I have with Vivienne is the fact that her experience of the circle was highly skewed. Compared to the gilded cage of the Ferelden circle and the outright prison of the Gallows the Montsimmard circle seems to be one of the most liberal we have seen. Vivienne was able to become one of the most influential nobles in Orlais, have a public even adulterous relationship with another noble, and live with him in his estate. These are opportunities the mages of the circles we have experienced in the games so far could never even hope to have. Imagine if the Ferelden circle was like Montsimmard Isolde knowing she wouldn't be forced to disown Connor Isolde would likely never have even needed to hire Jowan, and the attack on Redcliff may never even have happened.

 

To me this is why she is so dismissive to the mage rebels. Now if she came out right and said that her reestablished circle would have a uniform level of freedom based on Montsimmard's i wouldn't have a problem with her, but she out right states the circles gave mages too much freedom, and treats her rebel peers like selfish idiots.

[His Name was HYR!!]

 HAHAHAHAHA ... that's right Xil. I was eagerly awaiting your reaction.

 

 

Suck on it!!!

[TheLastArchivist]

Since the debate evolved to the Circles's leniency or lack thereof, I feel compelled to voice my opinion here.

 

 

There was a serious need to reform some of the Circle's policies, like the permanent prohibition for a mage to visit his family, constitute one of his own (marry, have kids) and travel around the world in missions where he can be useful to society.

 

The tower is a prison. To be destined to live incarcerated forever is not normal. It is a penitence imputed on innocent people just because of the conditions in which they were born. Mages are denied their most basic rights: privacy (they have to share their dorms with other apprentices until they're WAY grown up), procreation (forbidden to have children, to mate), freeedom to come and go (locked in a tower), the right to choose their fate (everyone becomes an instructor).

 

Honestly, I don't see how can those people have it worse. The reason why these people are kept caged is simply because no one understands magic well enough to trust a mage not to become a menace. Ignorance lead mankind to support tyrants out of fear. Should other human beings be denied fundamental rights because of that?

 

I usually go for a walk in the park when I'm stressed out. A mage doesn't have that choice. I stay in my boyfriends's place when I need company. A mage can never know love and bonding. If I feel unhappy about my job, I can cope with it and try to talk to my boss to see if I can't be more useful in another position. A mage doesn't choose not to be an apprentice, an instructor or an enchanter. If I am being abused by a teacher, a superior or a member of the family, I can call the police. A mage who complains about suffering abuse from a templar becomes targeted and may be persecuted by his agressor for the rest of his days.

 

 

The thing is, some people are being treated very poorly so that others may sleep well at night. The reason? Because the system is still too primitive to deal with their lot and the authorities, too ignorant to understand magic and therefore, to handle a mage.

 

For centuries, women and children were denied rights because of ignorance. Countless acts of violence committed against them were accepted as normal because hey, they are not really people, right?  They're different.

 

Well, guess what. They were not. And yet, they were discriminated by the very society in which they lived. Imagine how it would be for any of us to live in the Medieval Ages, when women died of internal hemorragy after being raped by their husbands. Or Ancient Greece, when women were worth as much as a nice vase and had the same social status as that of a slave. 

 

Basic rights are basic rights anywhere, at anytime. The Circles were less than lenient. There was a tyranny being maintained in the name of safety, but not because of it. Because the system simply didn't know how to watch over mages in any way at all. Not without risking the lives of ordinary people.

 

One fear was replaced by another. The fear of the common folk for mages disappeared and gave way to the fear of mages for being possessed, falsely accused, abused, all because of a power their class and everyone else barely understands. 

 

Like Anders once stated, if I had been born a mage in a world like that, I'd most likely choose to die by my own hand.

[Xilizhra]

 HAHAHAHAHA ... that's right Xil. I was eagerly awaiting your reaction.

 

 

Suck on it!!!

Suck on what? She won't stop me from siding with the mages, and she's hardly the first, or the worst, companion I've disagreed with on this subject. I found her logic to be rather terribly founded, but she's no threat to me.

[ladyoflate]

Link to "First Conversation" video.
 
I find it... refreshing that she's nowhere near as haughty and arrogant as I believed she would be. She's opinionated, yes, but I totally see where she's coming from and she comes across as level-headed and more... classy than stuffy.

 
 

Spoiler

Is it wrong of me to hope that Ghislain has an unavoidable death? 'Cause otherwise there's no hope for a future game's Vivmance.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Suck on what? She won't stop me from siding with the mages, and she's hardly the first, or the worst, companion I've disagreed with on this subject. I found her logic to be rather terribly founded, but she's no threat to me.

 

On not having all mages' support for "freeing" them, not even having the support from the majority of them, and in supporting the rebels supporting the side that created this schism -- resulting in the deaths of many of those whom you think to be fighting for.

 

Boy, that's a winning cause.

[berrieh]

Another issue I have with Vivienne is the fact that her experience of the circle was highly skewed. Compared to the gilded cage of the Ferelden circle and the outright prison of the Gallows the Montsimmard circle seems to be one of the most liberal we have seen. Vivienne was able to become one of the most influential nobles in Orlais, have a public even adulterous relationship with another noble, and live with him in his estate. These are opportunities the mages of the circles we have experienced in the games so far could never even hope to have. Imagine if the Ferelden circle was like Montsimmard Isolde knowing she wouldn't be forced to disown Connor Isolde would likely never have even needed to hire Jowan, and the attack on Redcliff may never even have happened.

 

To me this is why she is so dismissive to the mage rebels. Now if she came out right and said that her reestablished circle would have a uniform level of freedom based on Montsimmard's i wouldn't have a problem with her, but she out right states the circles gave mages too much freedom, and treats her rebel peers like selfish idiots.

 

OK, here's how I see her view so far (I could be wrong; we've barely seen her): She had those freedoms at Montsimmard because of the position she rose to; she doesn't believe every mage should have the same level of freedoms. (Wynne also had greater freedoms than some mages; Enchanters clearly have greater freedoms than Apprentices, etc.) She believes some should, based on their levels of loyalty, self-discipline, power, experience, etc. I disagree that we have never experienced mages having those freedoms (maybe not that particular reality, but Wynne has very similar freedoms in DA:O, DA:A, and Asunder- she simply doesn't use them to have affairs and politico).

 

Personally, I do think mages who have passed their Harrowing and become Enchanters should begin to have more freedom than Apprentices (and they did previously, when the College was active, etc). This makes sense, as those mages have mastered a level of their magic and proven they have the ability to resist demonic possession. I do think mages who have acted honorably, served well, and proven to be powerful and use their powers only in positive ways should sometimes be granted greater freedoms. All of that makes sense to me, since the big problem is demons and blood magic. 

 

Perhaps she simply thinks the Circles gave the mages too much unearned freedom in some ways (it's unclear exactly what reforms she wants). Personally, I don't necessarily agree that Kirkwall gave anyone too much freedom, but maybe Montissard did. 

 

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I don't think it's so simple as treating every mage the same. I do think there is a big difference between a proven, experienced mage who has been of service and an apprentice mage or a rebellious mage who kept running away like Anders. (This is not to say any of them deserve abuse, which should not be tolerated - and technically are not tolerated, but like all people in Thedas, sometimes **** happens. Of course, I do not find things like the Harrowing to be problematic or abusive - rather a necessary training.) 

 

Personally, I find the rebellion wasteful. I don't see how it actually helps mages - the average mage at least. It certainly doesn't help the average person in Thedas, and it doesn't help their reputation (not that the Templars have a great one anymore either, but the mages did start it in this case, based on Asunder, pushed by their own extremists - which Viv likely realizes). I hope someone (I imagine Cassandra) is frustrated with how stupidly Seeker Lambert and the Templars handled the situation, but I'm glad someone is frustrated by how foolishly the rebel mages acted. Really, all that has been accomplished is a lot of needless deaths, most of them mages, and the worst thing is the extremists knew this would happen and counted on this happening to further their cause. They couldn't get an honest vote and act rationally, so we got the situation we're in now. (Not that the Templars were rational either.) 

 

Ironically, Vivienne and her loyalist mages are doing more for the mage cause (in my eyes) than Fiona and her rebels. 

[Bleachrude]

Another issue I have with Vivienne is the fact that her experience of the circle was highly skewed. Compared to the gilded cage of the Ferelden circle and the outright prison of the Gallows the Montsimmard circle seems to be one of the most liberal we have seen. Vivienne was able to become one of the most influential nobles in Orlais, have a public even adulterous relationship with another noble, and live with him in his estate. These are opportunities the mages of the circles we have experienced in the games so far could never even hope to have. Imagine if the Ferelden circle was like Montsimmard Isolde knowing she wouldn't be forced to disown Connor Isolde would likely never have even needed to hire Jowan, and the attack on Redcliff may never even have happened.

 

To me this is why she is so dismissive to the mage rebels. Now if she came out right and said that her reestablished circle would have a uniform level of freedom based on Montsimmard's i wouldn't have a problem with her, but she out right states the circles gave mages too much freedom, and treats her rebel peers like selfish idiots.

 

Um, what? 

 

Finn regularly left the circle as did Wynne and the funny plant lady. Connor was regularly visited by Eamon and Isolde's grandfather apparently lived with the family  It's somewhat funny that people insist on using Kirkwall as an example when a) the game makes explicitly clear that it was the worst circle in all of thedas and the circles in orlais (you know, the home oft he chantry ITSELF) has many mages apparently living outside of the circle.  

 

APPRENTICES can't leave the tower and are cut-off from their family but as soon as you pass your Harrowing, you can connect with the outside world as mucha s you want (see Finn). World of thedas mentions that many nobles have house mages and those mages live in the home of the noble  and we know in Origins of a mage that left the circle and started his own family.

 

Again, why are people NOT noticing that the very game themselves mention all of these ways mages can live outside of the circle. Hell, remember Wynne's conversation with alistair? Even she doesn't say marriage is forbidden just that most people won't marry a mage.

[Kimarous]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of what Vivienne was expressing. I didn't get the vibe that she thinks everything in the Circles was hunky-dory... just that "Of all the times you want to completely split off from the Chantry, you choose 'after the major terrorist attack that has people on edge'?" Had they pulled this after, say, shortly after the Fifth Blight had ended, maybe she'd be more receptive because tensions weren't so high and Fereldan was already trying to accommodate this ideal at this time - people would be more grateful for the mages' aid in the Blight and there was some degree of precedence. As it stands, though, I think she's absolutely right that the independence vote was ill-timed and worsened an already bad situation.

[HairyMadDog1010]

If Montsimmard was only liberal for the most skilled individuals then to me it shows just how far of a wedge Vivienne has between herself and your average mage. As the first enchanter of Orlais backed by the reformer Justinia 5 she could set the model for mage treatment, a beacon for reform so i would hope she would give her less skilled counterparts in Montsimmard those boons. The average mage can cast little more then a fire ball or two, they would never have a chance to reach Vivienne's level of prestige that doesn't mean their life should be crappy because of it. If they can pass their harrowing and then perhaps swear off magic I see no reason they could not have the chance to at least live somewhat a normal life.

 

On the Wynne point, my memory is a little hazy but I think she has to ask Irving to come with us in DA:O (we could have just conscripted her anyway tho). But helping kill the Archdemon likely greatly increased her freedoms (once again something your average mage could never hope to do) but even your old loyal experienced enchanters had to get permission.

[Xilizhra]

On not having all mages' support for "freeing" them, not even having the support from the majority of them, and in supporting the rebels supporting the side that created this schism -- resulting in the deaths of many of those whom you think to be fighting for.

 

Boy, that's a winning cause.

Well, firstly, it is a majority, and secondly, it's already been explained that it will be a winning cause if you choose to make it so, so I'm not worried.

 

 

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I don't think it's so simple as treating every mage the same. I do think there is a big difference between a proven, experienced mage who has been of service and an apprentice mage or a rebellious mage who kept running away like Anders. (This is not to say any of them deserve abuse, which should not be tolerated - and technically are not tolerated, but like all people in Thedas, sometimes **** happens. Of course, I do not find things like the Harrowing to be problematic or abusive - rather a necessary training.)

Anders' solitary confinement, among other things, was certainly abusive, along with things like being regularly kicked in the head to wake up each morning, none of which came across as somehow illegal.

 

 

Personally, I find the rebellion wasteful. I don't see how it actually helps mages - the average mage at least. It certainly doesn't help the average person in Thedas, and it doesn't help their reputation (not that the Templars have a great one anymore either, but the mages did start it in this case, based on Asunder, pushed by their own extremists - which Viv likely realizes). I hope someone (I imagine Cassandra) is frustrated with how stupidly Seeker Lambert and the Templars handled the situation, but I'm glad someone is frustrated by how foolishly the rebel mages acted. Really, all that has been accomplished is a lot of needless deaths, most of them mages, and the worst thing is the extremists knew this would happen and counted on this happening to further their cause. They couldn't get an honest vote and act rationally, so we got the situation we're in now. (Not that the Templars were rational either.)

It hasn't done so yet. It will when it succeeds.

 

 

I think a lot of people are missing the point of what Vivienne was expressing. I didn't get the vibe that she thinks everything in the Circles was hunky-dory... just that "Of all the times you want to completely split off from the Chantry, you choose 'after the major terrorist attack that has people on edge'?" Had they pulled this after, say, shortly after the Fifth Blight had ended, maybe she'd be more receptive because tensions weren't so high and Fereldan was already trying to accommodate this ideal at this time - people would be more grateful for the mages' aid in the Blight and there was some degree of precedence. As it stands, though, I think she's absolutely right that the independence vote was ill-timed and worsened an already bad situation.

The timing was because of the templars' horribly unjust and unnecessary crackdown after the actions of a Grey Warden deserter. It wasn't chosen at random or because the mages felt like trolling. There is no moral obligation to put up with abuse.

[mikeymoonshine]

If Montsimmard was only liberal for the most skilled individuals then to me it shows just how far of a wedge Vivienne has between herself and your average mage.

 

That was just  someone's opinion, Vivienne never said that and as far as we know that is not the case, it doesn't seem to be based on Skill. She says herself all you need is permission from the First Enchanter. 

 

Like people often do, you are using privilege as a way of disregarding an opinion you do not like. The problem is this argument can be used against any view. Vivienne is probably not the most privileged mage in the entire circle what of the rebel leaders forcing other mages into a war when may not have even wanted freedom? Do they know what it's like for those mages? Do they care? 

 

Vivienne is aware of the problems there were with some circles, she admits that and she wants reform. It seems odd to completely dismiss her view in favor of a one that has already gotten a lot of mages killed and will only lead to more deaths. 

[Bleachrude]

ARGH

 

WHY do people keep insisting that mages could not leave when the game EXPLICITLY shows us that simply asking the First Enchanter will allow you to leave the circle. Yes, you have to return  but that's no prison.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

By the way, what is this rumor I keep hearing about...

 

Spoiler

Vivienne being Flemeth in disguise who is in Orlais to watch on Morrigan ? 

[herkles]

ARGH

 

WHY do people keep insisting that mages could not leave when the game EXPLICITLY shows us that simply asking the First Enchanter will allow you to leave the circle. Yes, you have to return  but that's no prison.

it gets in the way of peoples Mages are all oppressed and innocent thing?

[Br3admax]

Pretty much. 

[berrieh]

If Montsimmard was only liberal for the most skilled individuals then to me it shows just how far of a wedge Vivienne has between herself and your average mage. As the first enchanter of Orlais backed by the reformer Justinia 5 she could set the model for mage treatment, a beacon for reform so i would hope she would give her less skilled counterparts in Montsimmard those boons. The average mage can cast little more then a fire ball or two, they would never have a chance to reach Vivienne's level of prestige that doesn't mean their life should be crappy because of it. If they can pass their harrowing and then perhaps swear off magic I see no reason they could not have the chance to at least live somewhat a normal life.

 

On the Wynne point, my memory is a little hazy but I think she has to ask Irving to come with us in DA:O (we could have just conscripted her anyway tho). But helping kill the Archdemon likely greatly increased her freedoms (once again something your average mage could never hope to do) but even your old loyal experienced enchanters had to get permission.

 

I don't mean it was only "liberal for the most skilled individuals" - just that letting a random Apprentice live outside the Circle is very different from letting a respected and trusted Enchanter who's been trained in the Circle live outside it. Yes, Wynne has to ask permission of the First Enchanter, a mage. The average mage could still reach Vivienne's level of freedom, if not prestige, by showing their loyalty, trustworthiness, and ability to control their magic. Giant destructive power is likely not required for freedoms, like living outside the Circle, but time and practice as an Enchanter may be. Also, please note that as I said, this is all my speculation (except the Wynne thing - that happened).

 

That was just  someone's opinion, Vivienne never said that and as far as we know that is not the case, it doesn't seem to be based on Skill. She says herself all you need is permission from the First Enchanter. 

 

Like people often do, you are using privilege as a way of disregarding an opinion you do not like. The problem is this argument can be used against any view. Vivienne is probably not the most privileged mage in the entire circle what of the rebel leaders forcing other mages into a war when may not have even wanted freedom? Do they know what it's like for those mages? Do they care? 

 

Vivienne is aware of the problems there were with some circles, she admits that and she wants reform. It seems odd to completely dismiss her view in favor of a one that has already gotten a lot of mages killed and will only lead to more deaths. 

 

Yes, and it's not precisely what I meant. By based on skill, I meant skill of controlling your magic. Enchanters have to have this skill to become enchanters to some degree, and obviously they continue to demonstrate it over time. I agree that Viv's view makes way more sense than the view of the minority, who only got a "majority" (most mages had no say in the decision, and the general rules of representation weren't followed before the rebellion/escape, so that's a tenuous claim at best) at swordpoint that they caused, based on one man's (Rhys) changing view. 

 

The timing was because of the templars' horribly unjust and unnecessary crackdown after the actions of a Grey Warden deserter. It wasn't chosen at random or because the mages felt like trolling. There is no moral obligation to put up with abuse.

 

No, it wasn't. The timing was because an extremist mage murdered a man and, likely working with others including Fiona, framed her friend and had the Templars interrupt a conclave where she knew they'd see rebellion forming (though it wasn't) because she and other extremist mages were pushing rebellion and not shutting up about it when the majority told them to stop. The Templars, or rather Lord Seeker (one dude), were stupid enough to fall for this trick and do exactly what she wanted. Maybe not everyone knows that (many haven't read Asunder), but I know you have read the book because we've discussed it before. And the book is clear that independence is NOT favored even at the very moment when Seeker Lambert breaks up the conclave. 

 

Also, your Grey Warden deserter had ties to the Kirkwall Circle, especially mages acting against the Templars (which was as big a problem as the Templars being way too overbearing in Kirkwall) and had been a former Circle mage - and his actions were celebrated by the same kind of Resolutionists who pushed for independence. Even despite the "crackdown" (which was stupid), most mages were not pro-independence. But the Resolutionists, acting with the same attitude Anders espoused (that there could be no compromise, that people must be pushed), kept pushing the situation, even going so far as sending someone to use blood magic to attempt to murder the Divine. It was not only one incident. We are led to believe in the books there are multiple incidents.

 

Vivienne expresses that perhaps some patience and common sense (not her words, but how I take her message and tone) would have led to a better path. Frankly, I agree. I don't think either side came off well. I think extremism on both sides must be stamped out, and I think it's possible Vivienne's view represents a path to do that. 

[Xilizhra]

No, it wasn't. The timing was because an extremist mage murdered a man and, likely working with others including Fiona, framed her friend and had the Templars interrupt a conclave where she knew they'd see rebellion forming (though it wasn't) because she and other extremist mages were pushing rebellion and not shutting up about it when the majority told them to stop. The Templars, or rather Lord Seeker (one dude), were stupid enough to fall for this trick and do exactly what she wanted. 

 

Also, your Grey Warden deserter had ties to the Kirkwall Circle and had been a former Circle mage - and his actions were celebrated by the same kind of Resolutionists who pushed for independence. Even despite the "crackdown" (which was stupid), most mages were not pro-independence. 

Your suspicions of Fiona are utterly baseless, the "murder" was actually requested multiple times, and I have no idea why you used sarcastic quotes for the crackdown. Nor does your claim that the majority of mages were opposed to independence hold any water whatsoever. I rather suspect that more will come around once they truly see that it's possible in any case.

 

Also, the Resolutionists, so far as I know, disbanded after Anders blew up the Chantry, as they never showed up in Asunder. And it had been almost a decade since he was in the Circle, and no one in the Circle helped him with his bomb or with planting it.

[berrieh]

Your suspicions of Fiona are utterly baseless, the "murder" was actually requested multiple times, and I have no idea why you used sarcastic quotes for the crackdown. Nor does your claim that the majority of mages were opposed to independence hold any water whatsoever. I rather suspect that more will come around once they truly see that it's possible in any case.

 

Also, the Resolutionists, so far as I know, disbanded after Anders blew up the Chantry, as they never showed up in Asunder. And it had been almost a decade since he was in the Circle, and no one in the Circle helped him with his bomb or with planting it.

 

My suspicions of Fiona aren't baseless. The mage who did those things was so far up her butt while doing them, it seems unlikely she knew nothing about the plan. I couldn't believe Adriane wouldn't tell her just to show off. The murder may have been requested, but the Templars had no way of knowing that, and by law, it is still murder. And framing Rhys is the real problem, obviously, not murdering Pharamond. Pretty sure Rhys didn't request that and Adriane admits she did it to force the issue of independence. 

 

My claim the mages were opposed to independence comes from the mages at the conclave being opposed to independence - most didn't even want to discuss it, but the Libertarians (including the Resolutionists among them) kept pressing. It also comes from the fact that Adriane went to Rhys on behalf of the Libertarians and said their only hope of a yes vote for independence was to get him to convince Wynne to speak for it and that she knew they would lose otherwise. The majority of mages also weren't there, but most we meet in other books did not benefit from, nor have any voice in, this vote of independence. When the mages college was open, votes of independence frequently lost. 

 

I have never seen evidence the Resolutionists actually disbanded. Actually, the wiki suggests they were never an organized group at all (which is what I thought) so I don't know what you mean there. 

 

This is all I'll say on this, but I'm only speaking to what I read. Nowhere in Asunder did it tell me the majority of mages supported independence before they were forced to by the actions of extremists. And the people voting didn't all support it, despite knowing they would be put back in a dungeon for it. But taking only people who were currently being held as criminals and saying, "Do you want to go back?" isn't exactly a fair vote of the majority interests of all mages. 

 

People like Vivienne certainly didn't get their voices heard. The only mages who voted on independence were the ones who had already turned apsotate. At the conclave, previously, the vote failed, and it was failing again when interrupted by Lambert. 

[Xilizhra]

My suspicions of Fiona aren't baseless. The mage who did those things was so far up her butt while doing them, it seems unlikely she knew nothing about the plan. I couldn't believe Adriane wouldn't tell her just to show off. The murder may have been requested, but the Templars had no way of knowing that, and by law, it is still murder. And framing Rhys is the real problem, obviously, not murdering Pharamond. Pretty sure Rhys didn't request that and Adriane admits she did it to force the issue of independence. 

 

My claim the mages were opposed to independence comes from the mages at the conclave being opposed to independence - most didn't even want to discuss it, but the Libertarians (including the Resolutionists among them) kept pressing. It also comes from the fact that Adriane went to Rhys on behalf of the Libertarians and said their only hope of a yes vote for independence was to get him to convince Wynne to speak for it and that she knew they would lose otherwise. The majority of mages also weren't there, but most we meet in other books did not benefit from, nor have any voice in, this vote of independence. When the mages college was open, votes of independence frequently lost. 

 

I have never seen evidence the Resolutionists actually disbanded. Actually, the wiki suggests they were never an organized group at all (which is what I thought) so I don't know what you mean there. 

 

This is all I'll say on this, but I'm only speaking to what I read. Nowhere in Asunder did it tell me the majority of mages supported independence before they were forced to by the actions of extremists. And the people voting didn't all support it, despite knowing they would be put back in a dungeon for it. But taking only people who were currently being held as criminals and saying, "Do you want to go back?" isn't exactly a fair vote of the majority interests of all mages. 

 

People like Vivienne certainly didn't get their voices heard. The only mages who voted on independence were the ones who had already turned apsotate. At the conclave, previously, the vote failed, and it was failing again when interrupted by Lambert. 

There were no Resolutionists in the Circle; they were all apostates. As for the rest, it's true that many mages feared that the templars would kill them all if they tried to leave, which is a reasonable enough fear... but by this point, I no longer see how it matters, as we can lead their cause to victory (without the blame of having started it).

 

I also still believe that no one has a moral obligation to put up with abuse.

[OctagonalSquare]

Okay, this has been bothering me for a while...

 

Why doesn't Vivienne have an Orlesian accent?

[herkles]

Okay, this has been bothering me for a while...

 

Why doesn't Vivienne have an Orlesian accent?

because she isn't from orlais but the free marches. 

[LD Little Dragon]

Indeed, it should be noted that Alrik had to HIDE his depravities by forcing tranquility on his victims...the implication and confirmed by others is that rape by templar _IS_ punishable.

 

 

What hiding?  The Tranquil are right there.  They don't lose their memories, they don't forget how to speak.  Didn't any of the other templars ever think to speak to the tranquil?

 

It's possible most of the Kirkwall templars were decent but if so they were also sodding morons.

[andy6915]

Well, guess what. They were not. And yet, they were discriminated by the very society in which they lived. Imagine how it would be for any of us to live in the Medieval Ages, when women died of internal hemorragy after being raped by their husbands. Or Ancient Greece, when women were worth as much as a nice vase and had the same social status as that of a slave.

 

Not going to get into a long argument about this, but you are absolutely dead wrong. Women were not treated like that and it was not legal. Stop buying into feminist versions of human history.