891 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

So, in the middle of all this, no one has yet mentioned that the reason Siona's sister was killed in the first place was because a human had been kidnapped.
Or are we assuming the elves were innocent of that?

It's not really important to me. Shrouded in more uncertainty, covered in he said she said. I'm not really interested in playing that game, looking for every little thing to put on the elves or otherwise. The only thing that matters to me is they beated the drums of war first, for whatever reason.

 

There's no point in focusing on anymore than that, as nobody knows who screwed who more prior for sure. And arguing over that to me just shows obvious bias, of which I personally have little, since I hate the Orlesians anyway, while the Dalish simply annoy me.

[Dean_the_Young]

They voted for a first time after what happened in Kirkwall. They voted no, and then the College of Enchanters was disbanded.

They tried to vote a second time a year later, after increased restrictions and learning that the Rite of Tranquility was reversible. They were interrupted by Lord Seeker Lambert who had the templars & seekers attack them.

They voted for a third time a couple of months later. They voted yes.

 

I don't see how it paints Fiona in a bad light that they voted several times. Months/years passed between votes, the mages changed their mind over time because the templars were imposing more and more restrictions. 

 

You see nothing wrong with three votes for in three years for a topic of irreversibility (with a failed attempt to organize a fourth one in Awakening)? This isn't something as trivial as an elected leader or statutory policy. Especially when that last vote comes at the end of a series of engineered crisis in which inflaming tensions against the previous consensus ranged from convenient side-effect to deliberate goal.

 

There's democratic legitimacy, and then there's 'keep posing the question until they give the answer you want, and then claim that one as unquestionably legitimate and permanently binding.'

[Sports72Xtrm]

You see nothing wrong with three votes for in three years for a topic of irreversibility (with a failed attempt to organize a fourth one in Awakening)? This isn't something as trivial as an elected leader or statutory policy. Especially when that last vote comes at the end of a series of engineered crisis in which inflaming tensions against the previous consensus ranged from convenient side-effect to deliberate goal.

 

There democratic legitimacy, and then there's 'keep posing the question until they give the answer you want, and then claim that one as unquestionably legitimate and permanently binding.'

Fiona was very forthright what rebelling against the Chantry meant- war with no turning back and even offered the alternative of subjugation and surrender which was also equally permanently binding. It was an informed decision, they were not manipulated in any way, and the College voted to rebel. Mages must take responsibility for deciding their own fate and convictions and they chose, for better or worse. All mages were aware that last vote was permanently binding whether they decided to rebel or surrender to the templars because it would change the fate of southern mages everywhere and it was a decision that needed to be made then because Lambert was hunting them. They needed to make a decision then because Lambert wouldn't give them a chance to decide otherwise any other time.

 

It's wrong to cast all blame on Fiona when this was a collective decision of the College which means everyone holds accountability. Democracies being a proactive government to decide your own fate and being accountable by it is what a democracy is all about. If people don't understand that, then they foolishly squander their own freedom.

[Evamitchelle]

You see nothing wrong with three votes for in three years for a topic of irreversibility (with a failed attempt to organize a fourth one in Awakening)? This isn't something as trivial as an elected leader or statutory policy. Especially when that last vote comes at the end of a series of engineered crisis in which inflaming tensions against the previous consensus ranged from convenient side-effect to deliberate goal.

 

There democratic legitimacy, and then there's 'keep posing the question until they give the answer you want, and then claim that one as unquestionably legitimate and permanently binding.'

 

I remember there was talk about breaking away from the Chantry back in Awakening, but no vote IIRC, and that was a full 10 years before the events of Asunder. And since one was interrupted when Lord Seeker Lambert attacked at the White Spire that's technically 2 votes in 1-3 years (Asunder's timeline is kind of a mess so it's hard to tell). 

 

In the span of those years they also learned that the Rite of Tranquility was reversible, something that the Seekers had known all along, but had deliberately kept hidden from the mages. Learning something like that would definitely influence people's opinions on the subject, and that's what actually prompted Fiona to ask for a second vote, which I don't think is a case of "keep posing the question until they give the answer you want". It's a case of being able to make a more informed decision. 

[Colonelkillabee]

Informed decision, she already made that same decision prior. More like, take political advantage to succeed where you failed previously.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fiona was very forthright what rebelling against the Chantry meant- war with no turning back and even offered the alternative of subjugation and surrender which was also equally permanently binding. It was an informed decision, they were not manipulated in any way, and the College voted to rebel. Mages must take responsibility for deciding their own fate and convictions and they chose, for better or worse. All mages were aware that last vote was permanently binding whether they decided to rebel or surrender to the templars because it would change the fate of southern mages everywhere and it was a decision that needed to be made then because Lambert was hunting them. They needed to make a decision then because Lambert wouldn't give them a chance to decide otherwise any other time.

 

Which is why the vote can't be said to have been done in a free or fair environment. The context they were in was totally manipulated- including by re-posing the question time and time again in a way that made the circumstances increasingly tense and desperate. It was a circumstance manipulated by radical pro-independence mages who opposed loyalists and framed the innocent. It was manipulated by outside actors who wanted to inflame tensions or who didn't realize their actions were inflaming tensions. It was influenced by radical Templars who believed the proper response to a mage rebellion was a ruthless crushing without compromise.

 

Fiona being forthright that they were in desperate circumstances is irrelevant when she herself had no small role in it becoming desperate circumstances. She, with many other actors in play, helped put the mage collective into a corner so that the only way they would move was the one she wanted them to... after they had repeatedly rejected her wants.

 

If you pretend to democratic legitimacy, you don't get to credibly claim an irreversible and legitimate mandate when people only go along with you because they are even more afraid for their lives if they don't.

 

 

It's wrong to cast all blame on Fiona when this was a collective decision of the College.

 

Where did I cast all blame on Fiona? Fiona can be in the wrong, even entirely in the wrong, without being the entirety of the wrong.

 

 

Democracies being a proactive government to decide your own fate and being accountable by it is what a democracy is all about. If people don't understand that, then they foolishly squander their own freedom.

 

 

One of the other parts of democracy is to accept majority votes you do not like, especially on topics of irreversibility. Democratic legitimacy works both ways- you don't get to deem other votes irrelevant on the basis of 'new developments' while claiming your votes are irreversible and unquestioningly legitimate once they pass due to surrounding circumstances. Trying to re-pose the same question every few years until you get the 'right' answer, and then declaring the matter settled forever, is farce.

 

This doesn't even touch on the fact that even democracies have no clear principle or rules of secession... were the Circles even actual democracies that could appeal to democratic ideology in the first place.

[Dean_the_Young]

I remember there was talk about breaking away from the Chantry back in Awakening, but no vote IIRC, and that was a full 10 years before the events of Asunder. And since one was interrupted when Lord Seeker Lambert attacked at the White Spire that's technically 2 votes in 1-3 years (Asunder's timeline is kind of a mess so it's hard to tell). 

 

'Technically' the mages never voted, since they aren't a direct democracy and the mage collective was never completely there in the first place. We could go down that irrelevant path of semantics, or we could point out that the independence movement repeatedly got a popular rejection in the years immediately leading up to the final vote.

 

 

In the span of those years they also learned that the Rite of Tranquility was reversible, something that the Seekers had known all along, but had deliberately kept hidden from the mages. Learning something like that would definitely influence people's opinions on the subject, and that's what actually prompted Fiona to ask for a second vote, which I don't think is a case of "keep posing the question until they give the answer you want". It's a case of being able to make a more informed decision. 

 

 

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive- nor do they invalidate each other. Aside from the fact curing tranquility doesn't challenge the underlying justification or rationals for the Circle system, on either side, the only sort of debate or voting logically justified by the revelations on the grounds of 'a more informed opinion' would be on the topic of tranquility.

 

Moreover, Fiona didn't know that the Seekers had known all along. That was a revelation in DAI- in Asunder, the only revelation was an independe

 

All that ignoring, of course, that Fiona's independence movement involved hijacking a forum meant for an entirely different agenda to push her vote.

[Evamitchelle]

'Technically' the mages never voted, since they aren't a direct democracy and the mage collective was never completely there in the first place. We could go down that irrelevant path of semantics, or we could point out that the independence movement repeatedly got a popular rejection in the years immediately leading up to the final vote.

You keep saying repeatedly. There was only 1 negative vote, in 9:37 Dragon, after which the College of Enchanters was disbanded.
 

The two aren't mutually exclusive- nor do they invalidate each other. Aside from the fact curing tranquility doesn't challenge the underlying justification or rationals for the Circle system, on either side, the only sort of debate or voting logically justified by the revelations on the grounds of 'a more informed opinion' would be on the topic of tranquility.
 
Moreover, Fiona didn't know that the Seekers had known all along. That was a revelation in DAI- in Asunder, the only revelation was an independe
 
All that ignoring, of course, that Fiona's independence movement involved hijacking a forum meant for an entirely different agenda to push her vote.

True, they didn't know that the Seekers had known all along, but they did know that the Seekers immediately try to suppress the news from spreading across the Circles. And since the Rite of Tranquility is used as a tool to permanently silence mages with differing opinions, knowing that it could be reversed definitely would have an impact beyond the question of Tranquility itself.

Now Fiona did hijack the talks on Tranquility. Since the College of Enchanters was disbanded this is the only time the First Enchanters have been allowed assembly, and since templars are the ones who control whether mages can leave their Circles or not, this would likely be the only opportunity in a long time to talk to the other First Enchanters.

 

Anyway I fail to see how the mages could ever have achieved "true democratic process" when the templars literally have the right to murder them all if they suspect widespread corruption. 

[Sports72Xtrm]

Which is why the vote can't be said to have been done in a free or fair environment. The context they were in was totally manipulated- including by re-posing the question time and time again in a way that made the circumstances increasingly tense and desperate. It was a circumstance manipulated by radical pro-independence mages who opposed loyalists and framed the innocent. It was manipulated by outside actors who wanted to inflame tensions or who didn't realize their actions were inflaming tensions. It was influenced by radical Templars who believed the proper response to a mage rebellion was a ruthless crushing without compromise.

 

Fiona being forthright that they were in desperate circumstances is irrelevant when she herself had no small role in it becoming desperate circumstances. She, with many other actors in play, helped put the mage collective into a corner so that the only way they would move was the one she wanted them to... after they had repeatedly rejected her wants.

 

If you pretend to democratic legitimacy, you don't get to credibly claim an irreversible and legitimate mandate when people only go along with you because they are even more afraid for their lives if they don't.

 

Where did I cast all blame on Fiona? Fiona can be in the wrong, even entirely in the wrong, without being the entirety of the wrong.

 

 

One of the other parts of democracy is to accept majority votes you do not like, especially on topics of irreversibility. Democratic legitimacy works both ways- you don't get to deem other votes irrelevant on the basis of 'new developments' while claiming your votes are irreversible and unquestioningly legitimate once they pass due to surrounding circumstances. Trying to re-pose the same question every few years until you get the 'right' answer, and then declaring the matter settled forever, is farce.

 

This doesn't even touch on the fact that even democracies have no clear principle or rules of secession... were the Circles even actual democracies that could appeal to democratic ideology in the first place.

Fiona did not have a hand in Lambert trying to censor the mage conclave which is tyranny or any of the actions of the radical pro-independence mages. She just provided a choice to them about their options and informed them of the the current volatile political climate they are embroiled in and have no way of controlling. They chose to rebel. And I don't know why it's such an outlandish thing to even discuss rebellion, should they just be censored and not even discuss the discord and discontent? Remain in ignorance and helplessness, even voicing your concerns a sin that will be suppressed with intimidation and violence? Sorry, mages did not sign up for that oppression. Mages are given an informed choice, that's the only thing you can expect from Fiona. Trying to censor them wasn't going to make the discord go away. Furthermore, isn't that what the Circle is suppose to be, mages banding together in a world that treats them with contempt? If not then it's a tyrannical prison and the pro-rardical mages would have rebelled anyways.

[LobselVith8]

I remember there was talk about breaking away from the Chantry back in Awakening, but no vote IIRC, and that was a full 10 years before the events of Asunder. And since one was interrupted when Lord Seeker Lambert attacked at the White Spire that's technically 2 votes in 1-3 years (Asunder's timeline is kind of a mess so it's hard to tell). 

 

In the City of Amaranthine, Wynne said there would be a vote in Cumberland, and she expressed worry because she thought the mages would vote for independence; it seemed like enough people wanted autonomy that Wynne thought it would happen unless she intervened. This is why Wynne wanted to get Ines on her side to try to tip the balance in her favor.

 

If the Warden-Commander inquired as to why she opposed this, Wynne said she was against the Circles breaking free because the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free.

[Dean_the_Young]

You keep saying repeatedly. There was only 1 negative vote, in 9:37 Dragon, after which the College of Enchanters was disbanded.

 

We also no which way the second would-be vote was going, as well as the results of the first effort at a vote.

 

If I say that the independence effort repeatedly failed to muster support beforehand, it's because it's true.
 

 

True, they didn't know that the Seekers had known all along, but they did know that the Seekers immediately try to suppress the news from spreading across the Circles. And since the Rite of Tranquility is used as a tool to permanently silence mages with differing opinions, knowing that it could be reversed definitely would have an impact beyond the question of Tranquility itself.

 

 

It's not. Used to silence dissidents as a matter of policy, that is.

 

The overwhelming use of Tranquility is at the determination of the magi themselves. Templar usage of Tranquility against dissent has repeatedly been shown to be the work of renegade Templars (whoever Tranquil solution guy was) or Meredith (who was crazed under an outside influence).

Now Fiona did hijack the talks on Tranquility. Since the College of Enchanters was disbanded this is the only time the First Enchanters have been allowed assembly, and since templars are the ones who control whether mages can leave their Circles or not, this would likely be the only opportunity in a long time to talk to the other First Enchanters.

 

 

 

If by 'long time' you mean 'a few years at most.'

 

Fiona really liking her agenda doesn't give her a mandate or justification to push it at every opportunity at the cost of other issues, especially when it has already been defeated in less than a modern electoral cycle.
 

 

Anyway I fail to see how the mages could ever have achieved "true democratic process" when the templars literally have the right to murder them all if they suspect widespread corruption. 

 

By how that right is weighed and used. The same way you have a democratic process in any state that reserves the right to capital punishment over you.

 

The Circles were not a police state in which dissent was ruthlessly crushed at every opportunity and Circles purged for political disagreement. There's an entire public fraternity dedicated to the independence movement that has been active for somewhere between decades to possibly centuries.

 

Any argument that the mages were being tranquilized or murdered in-mass for political disagreement steadfastly ignores the entire history and tolerance for a major groups with identifiable public actors who were not... killed or made tranquil for dissent or even actively agitating for a revolt.

 

If the Circles were half as ruthless and totalitarian as some people proclaim, Fiona would have the first to go long ago.

[LobselVith8]

I didn't comb through each and every codex found in the Graves, so do we have more proof of this? Or is this just from that one codex entry variant the Dalish get in DAO?

 

Not that I doubt it, all things considerd, I just want to know if new evidence has surfaced.

 

In case you were curious, I found the codex entry. It reads: "Ser Mhemet, a Rivaini templar, fought in the Exalted March of the Dales for one reason: his love of killing elves, which pushed him to so many victories, the Chantry elevated him to Anointed after his death. To this day, Halamshiral elves consider his name a curse."

[Dean_the_Young]

Fiona did not have a hand in Lambert trying to censor the mage conclave which is tyranny or any of the actions of the radical pro-independence mages.

 

I didn't say she did.

 

 

She just provided a choice to them about their options and informed them of the the current volatile political climate they are embroiled in and have no way of controlling. They chose to rebel.

 

 

You basically just described a mugging threat, you realize. If I inform that I have led you to a dark alley where a number of my associates can implicate you in a violent crime, an environment that could be aleviated if you just handed over your wallet... no one would confuse that as being a free and fair choice. They would call it what it was- entrapment and extortion.

 

Fiona posed a false delima after informing them of the current climate that she and like-minded associates helped create that put them in a state of insecurity in which not rebelling appeared tantemount to suicide.

 

 

And I don't know why it's such an outlandish thing to even discuss rebellion,

 

Well, for one thing it went well passed merely 'discussing' rebellion.

 

But for reals, I'm guessing you don't work for an enduring government, then.

 

(Also, who called that outlandish?)

 

 

should they just be censored and not even discuss the discord and discontent? Remain in ignorance and helplessness, even voicing your concerns a sin that will be suppressed with intimidation and violence?

 

 

Aside from the false delimma you pose, I'll also point out that the Templar response to multiple attempts at sedition and to organize a revolt were not remarkably violent, even if they were intimidating. (Which any compliance-enforcing agency is.)

 

 

Sorry, mages did not sign up for that oppression. Mages are given an informed choice, that's the only thing you can expect from Fiona. Trying to censor them wasn't going to make the discord go away.

What happened to the previous informed choices, then? Or, if there wasn't sufficent information, where was Fiona's information about the role of radical mage agitators?

 

The only choice Fiona cared about was the one that agreed with her.

 

Furthermore, isn't that what the Circle is suppose to be, mages banding together in a world that treats them with contempt?

 

Nope. The Circle was an exercise in enforcing population segregation from both directions.
 

 

If not then it's a tyrannical prison and the pro-rardical mages would have rebelled anyways.

 

 

Not necessarily, and they should have done it themselves regardless rather than working to hijack those who didn't agree with them (and, following the vote, fight and kill dissident mages who wouldn't revolt).

[EmissaryofLies]

A deconstruction of a myth is hardly a caricature. The caricature would be the myth itself.

 

The Dalish have never, at any point in the series, been presented as particularly well grounded or vindicated in their knowledge of history. From the start they were acknowledged (and self-admitted) to be building a society off of ignorance of the past- a natural consequence of which is that when you recreate history that no one knows anything substantial about, you tend to create the history you want rather than the history that was. This was pointed out years ago amongst the fan base.

 

The sins of Dalish culture and weakness of their history have been obvious from the start, and weren't exactly pardoned by the historical narrative they kept. Blood Mages, xenophobes, pridefully idiotic Keepers, outright bigots... none of these were ever presented as good. Ever. They were always moral flaws on Dalish society, regardless of history. The issue is that people (fans, the Dalish themselves) were content to gloss over or downplay the bigotry of the present because History excused it.

 

Well, when you have a Cultural history which admits to being founded on ignorance more than truth, that turns out to not be true... the History excuse to nastiness turns out to be just that. An excuse.

 

The question facing the Dalish going forward is what else they will be, in the present and in the future, when the excuse of History is taken away from them. And that is a topic in which the Dalish can believe in something other than a caricature of the past.

 

(Why History of the long-distant past was used to justify the sins of the present is itself a peculiar thing, but enough on that.)

 

 

Starting over again is all that they have left. Lets hope that they aren't written to squander that as well.

 

 

They've survived under incredibly harsh circumstances, and have refused to submit to a humiliating, oppressive assimilation regime where, among other things, pogroms are routinely used as a solution to political problems. That counts for a lot in my book.

And as usual, people are exaggerating wildly. They haven't had everything in their culture and religion invalidated. That's just ridiculous.

 

Circumstances they created for themselves, they refused to submit after starting the fight in the first place, consequences borne of their bigotry and stupidity.

 

Not exaggerating a thing; Inquisition has firmly placed the black hat on the head of the Dalish. Their culture was founded on misunderstandings, arrogance, and ignorance.

 

It's hardly appropriate to call them "Dalish" because what does that even mean anymore? Is a man worthy of the title "Mathematician" if he constantly produces inaccuracies on even the most basic level?

 

This could ultimately be a good thing for them but I highly doubt it, given their current treatment in the narrative.

[Dean_the_Young]

Starting over again is all that they have left. Lets hope that they aren't written to squander that as well.

 

Technically the same could have been said at any point in the last few hundred years.

 

It might surprise people to find that I'm optimistic on the potential for a Dalish cultural reformation, though.

 

 

Circumstances they created for themselves, they refused to submit after starting the fight in the first place, consequences borne of their bigotry and stupidity.

 

Not exaggerating a thing; Inquisition has firmly placed the black hat on the head of the Dalish. Their culture was founded on misunderstandings, arrogance, and ignorance.

 

It's hardly appropriate to call them "Dalish" because what does that even mean anymore? Is a man worthy of the title "Mathematician" if he constantly produces inaccuracies on even the most basic level?

 

This could ultimately be a good thing for them but I highly doubt it, given their current treatment in the narrative.

 

 

Mathematicians are expected to know what they're talking about. I don't think anything has suggested that the Dales really knew what they were doing any more than the Dalish. They had more fragments of the past, but they were likewise basing it on a lot of myth passed down by Tevinter slaves over uncounted generations.

 

It's quite possible that the Dales' xenophobia and closed borders were themselves a result of the myth that humans caused the quickening and the idea that the key to regaining elven immortality was to avoid contact with humans. If that was wrong (and there are some suggestions that it was the creation of the Veil that ruined their magical immortality), then the Dalish could be rightfully taking after the Dales they claim descendance from.

[Sports72Xtrm]

I didn't say she did.

Yet you implicate she should be held responsible for not passively accepting his tyranny.
 
 

You basically just described a mugging threat, you realize. If I inform that I have led you to a dark alley where a number of my associates can implicate you in a violent crime, an environment that could be aleviated if you just handed over your wallet... no one would confuse that as being a free and fair choice. They would call it what it was- entrapment and extortion.

That's a false comparison, and the mages at the time were already implicated in rebelling by refusing to allow Rhys to be handed over for the murder of Pharamond despite fiona's call to discussion. To the templars, they were already set to be slaughtered for refusing the Templars "justice" thus that was not extortion. There was no way to prove rhys' innocence as adrian wouldn't confess and they were already embroiled in it under the guise of assault on templars. Rhys knew this and voted for independence anyways. He made a conscious choice as the Aquetarian's representative. He knows they were entrapped but made the informed choice to rebel. The Circles had decided out of their own free will.
 

Fiona posed a false delima after informing them of the current climate that she and like-minded associates helped create that put them in a state of insecurity in which not rebelling appeared tantemount to suicide.

Fiona offered them options and an informed statement. She allowed each fraternity a representative to voice their concerns and decided to vote on their course of action. A fair way of deciding their fates.
 

Well, for one thing it went well passed merely 'discussing' rebellion.

The slaughter of the College of Magi at Lambert's orders is to blame for that.
 

But for reals, I'm guessing you don't work for an enduring government, then.
 
(Also, who called that outlandish?)

And you do? If you did, I'd still oppose everything you stand for. Hopefully you don't speak on behalf of my country because you don't have my people's interests at heart but that is not the discussion at hand.
 
 

Aside from the false delimma you pose, I'll also point out that the Templar response to multiple attempts at sedition and to organize a revolt were not remarkably violent, even if they were intimidating. (Which any compliance-enforcing agency is.)

That seems to contradict the annulmet of Rivain and the lockdown of the Whit tower and increased restrictions on the mages after Kirkwall, Tranquility being used as a punishment. The corruption of the Circle is so many that it's astounding you can even deny it with a straight face.
 

What happened to the previous informed choices, then? Or, if there wasn't sufficent information, where was Fiona's information about the role of radical mage agitators?

The attempted assassination of Divine Justinia, knowledge of resolutionists, what happened at Kirkwall. The presence of mage agitators was well known.
 

Nope. The Circle was an exercise in enforcing population segregation from both directions.

It's a prison to keep the mages docile. If that's all there is to the circle then it does not have the mages' best interests at heart and I'm surprised they didn't rebel sooner.

[herkles]

I thought this thread was about elves not the mage templar war

[LobselVith8]

I thought this thread was about elves not the mage templar war

 

I thought it was about people ignoring certain facts (like the quest saying humans and elves were responsible for the inception of the war), distorting others (the claims that the elves destroyed the entire town, despite no historical source making this claim), and vilifying an entire ethnic group of men, women, and children because it turns out some humans and elves were both responsible for the calamity that took place in Red Crossing.

[EmissaryofLies]

Technically the same could have been said at any point in the last few hundred years.

 

It might surprise people to find that I'm optimistic on the potential for a Dalish cultural reformation, though.

 

Mathematicians are expected to know what they're talking about. I don't think anything has suggested that the Dales really knew what they were doing any more than the Dalish. They had more fragments of the past, but they were likewise basing it on a lot of myth passed down by Tevinter slaves over uncounted generations.

 

It's quite possible that the Dales' xenophobia and closed borders were themselves a result of the myth that humans caused the quickening and the idea that the key to regaining elven immortality was to avoid contact with humans. If that was wrong (and there are some suggestions that it was the creation of the Veil that ruined their magical immortality), then the Dalish could be rightfully taking after the Dales they claim descendance from.

 

Agreed that they did not know it all, but to get even the most basic fundamentals wrong is very disappointing. And to then take a stance of superiority and pride in this ignorance is quite comical, akin to watching a dog chasing its tail.

 

Interesting possibility of the myth that should be a more focal point of the culture for sure. DA Origins touched on it very briefly in the Dalish introduction. Afterwards, it just seemed to be relegated into a slur against the humans and used as yet another justification for their hostility and inability to move forward.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yet you implicate she should be held responsible for not passively accepting his tyranny. 

 

*Citation needed.

 

There are numerous of ways pragmatically, ethically, or both, that are superior to oppose perceived tyranny than what Fiona did.

 

 

That's a false comparison, and the mages at the time were already implicated in rebelling by refusing to allow Rhys to be handed over for the murder of Pharamond despite fiona's call to discussion. To the templars, they were already set to be slaughtered for refusing the Templars "justice" thus that was not extortion. There was no way to prove rhys' innocence as adrian wouldn't confess and they were already embroiled in it under the guide of assault on templars. Rhys knew this and voted for independence anyways. He made a conscious choice as the Aquetarians representative. He knows they were entrapped but made the informed choice to rebel. The Circles had decided out of their own free will.

 

 

I think you misunderstand the difference between an 'informed' choice and a 'fair' choice. There's a term for when people entrapped into going along with something, particularly because of the deliberate actions of the advocates of that position, and that term is 'extortion.'

 

Free will when expressed under the threats of death and blackmail is neither free nor an accurate representation of will.
 

Fiona offered them options and an informed statement. She allowed each fraternity a representative to voice their concerns and decided to vote on their course of action. A fair way of deciding their fates.

 

 

How generous of Fiona to set rules and context that would favor her desired outcome.

 

By the way, I understand those elections in former Eastern Ukraine were quite fair as well.

 

The slaughter of the College of Magi at Lambert's orders is to blame for that.

 

 

Quite a few things are to blame for that, because the entire mage rebellion was a series of actions and reactions to previous people's reactions.
 

 

And you do? If you did, I'd still oppose everything you stand for. Hopefully you don't speak on behalf of my country because you don't have my people's interests at heart but that is not the discussion at hand.

 

Ah, but now you just made it personal by assigning a moral position to me.

 

How, pray tell, don't I have your people's interests at heart? As opposed to, say, disagreeing with you about what interests should be prioritized over what? After all, I'm not the one defending the legitimacy of people who would threaten and endanger you to get what they want.
 
 

That seems to contradict the annulmet of Rivain and the lockdown of the Whit tower and increased restrictions on the mages after Kirkwall, Tranquility being used as a punishment. The corruption of the Circle is so many that it's astounding you can even deny it with a straight face.

 

The Rivain annullment was hardly a reaction to verbal dissent. The restrictions and lockdowns were not accompanied by violence. The known instances of Tranquility being used as a sanctioned punishment come from one Knight Commander under the influence of a Blight-tainted artifact.
 

The way you collectivize and assign the blame of 'corruption' is equally cringe worry. Fortunately I'm not denying verifiables.

The attempted assassination of Divine Justinia, knowledge of resolutionists, what happened at Kirkwall. The presence of mage agitators was well known.

 

You say a list of things that don't address or directly answer the questions posed.
 

It's a prison to keep the mages docile. If that's all there is to the circle then it does not have the mages' best interests at heart and I'm surprised they didn't rebel sooner.

 

The Circles are a detainment centers, not prisons (the distinction being relevant to the reasonings why a person is detained).

 

As for what it does, the Circles do a number of different things... including things the indisputably favor the mages and their interests.

[Sports72Xtrm]

*Citation needed.
 
There are numerous of ways pragmatically, ethically, or both, that are superior to oppose perceived tyranny than what Fiona did.
 
 
 
I think you misunderstand the difference between an 'informed' choice and a 'fair' choice. There's a term for when people entrapped into going along with something, particularly because of the deliberate actions of the advocates of that position, and that term is 'extortion.'
 
Free will when expressed under the threats of death and blackmail is neither free nor an accurate representation of will.
 
 
How generous of Fiona to set rules and context that would favor her desired outcome.
 
By the way, I understand those elections in former Eastern Ukraine were quite fair as well.
 
 
Quite a few things are to blame for that, because the entire mage rebellion was a series of actions and reactions to previous people's reactions.
 
 
Ah, but now you just made it personal by assigning a moral position to me.
 
How, pray tell, don't I have your people's interests at heart? As opposed to, say, disagreeing with you about what interests should be prioritized over what? After all, I'm not the one defending the legitimacy of people who would threaten and endanger you to get what they want.
 
 
The Rivain annullment was hardly a reaction to verbal dissent. The restrictions and lockdowns were not accompanied by violence. The known instances of Tranquility being used as a sanctioned punishment come from one Knight Commander under the influence of a Blight-tainted artifact.
 
The way you collectivize and assign the blame of 'corruption' is equally cringe worry. Fortunately I'm not denying verifiables.
You say a list of things that don't address or directly answer the questions posed.
 
The Circles are a detainment centers, not prisons (the distinction being relevant to the reasonings why a person is detained).
 
As for what it does, the Circles do a number of different things... including things the indisputably favor the mages and their interests.

Well I suppose both our arguments are nothing new under the sun so we will just chalk it up to ideological differences. I will say nobody put a gun to the mages' heads to rebel. Those that did so did so willingly and those that didn't were cut loose and were free to join Vivienne. No death threats were made in the making of this rebellion but the rebellion refused to be coerced to join the Circle again. The Qun, the Circles, they may have their advantages and some enjoy that but to impose it on everybody is not in everybody's best interests. All the rebellions to it are evident of that.

People naturally should aspire for "fairness". Otherwise they just dehumanize themselves.

[Colonelkillabee]

@Black hat going to Dalish, I don't think Inquisition gave anyone a "Black hat", I think Inquisition simply took the black hat off of the human's head officially. There is no "Black hat", and that is the entire point.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well I suppose both our arguments are nothing new in the sun so we will just chalk it up to ideological differences. I will say nobody put a gun to the mages' heads to rebel.

 

Putting the threat of the Templars swords to their neck was a major strategy of the pro-independence crowd. That hardly excuses the Templars, but to say there was no threat presented to the delegates if they disagreed is ridiculous.

 

 

Those that did so did so willingly and those that didn't were cut loose and were free to join Vivienne.

 

If by 'cut loose' you mean 'mage fought mage.'

 

Seriously- talk with Vivienne about the immediate nature of the rebellion. The mage independence movement wanted to destroy and remove all the mages out of the Circle, and was willing to kill insufficiently rebellious mages who would rebel against that rebellion.

 

Vivienne's mages aren't 'the mages who didn't want to and were allowed to leave.' Vivienne's mages are the ones who successfully fought back and out of the Rebellion.
 

 

No death threats were made in the making of this rebellion but the rebellion refused to be coerced to join the Circle again. The Qun, the Circles, they may have their advantages and some enjoy that but to impose it on everybody is not in everybody's best interests. All the rebellions to it are evident of that.

 

This would be a more convincing argument had Fiona not sold the (surviving) magi into slavery.

 

Of course, this is also the point at which the mages collectively can be held to more accountable for going along with her, because at that time they were in a position of relative safety and did have more opportunities to bug out or refuse to go along with it.
 

People naturally should aspire for "fairness". Otherwise they just dehumanize themselves.

 

Fairness is a wonderfully mutable concept with no common definition and no agreed upon allocation of responsibility on who for what.

[EmissaryofLies]

@Black hat going to Dalish, I don't think Inquisition gave anyone a "Black hat", I think Inquisition simply took the black hat off of the human's head officially. There is no "Black hat", and that is the entire point.

 

I disagree. Inquisition paints the Dalish as ignorant, bigoted fools, and their ancestors as wild savages, not completely without reason for sure. But they were at fault; they were the 'bad guys'. Now they have to restart knowing the role that their ancestors played and knowing that they were mislead.

 

And it's not just Inquisition; Bioware has consistently presented the Dalish and their ideals as diabolically villainous at worst and foolishly idealistic at best.

 

The Chantry and its Andrastians shine like a beacon of light in comparison. I use the "Chantry and its Andrastians" to signify the need to separate the humans into groups; "human" is too broad a term in Inquisition.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Putting the threat of the Templars swords to their neck was a major strategy of the pro-independence crowd. That hardly excuses the Templars, but to say there was no threat presented to the delegates if they disagreed is ridiculous.
 
If by 'cut loose' you mean 'mage fought mage.'
 
Seriously- talk with Vivienne about the immediate nature of the rebellion. The mage independence movement wanted to destroy and remove all the mages out of the Circle, and was willing to kill insufficiently rebellious mages who would rebel against that rebellion.
 
Vivienne's mages aren't 'the mages who didn't want to and were allowed to leave.' Vivienne's mages are the ones who successfully fought back and out of the Rebellion.

And I'm sure Viv's people never banded with the templars or manipulated the inquisitor to impose her Pro-circle agenda on the rebels right? That's what masters of the Grand Game are known for after all. Lying or twisting stories to make their agenda appear better?
 

This would be a more convincing argument had Fiona not sold the (surviving) magi into slavery.

Must be nice to be so high and mighty for a person not being actively hunted and lynched.
 

Of course, this is also the point at which the mages collectively can be held to more accountable for going along with her, because at that time they were in a position of relative safety and did have more opportunities to bug out or refuse to go along with it.

Well there you go, everyone makes choices and should accept the consequences with dignity.
 

Fairness is a wonderfully mutable concept with no common definition and no agreed upon allocation of responsibility on who for what.

Yes and such discord often leads to war and total annihilation. How sad that solas can appease savage spiders so that they don't attack him while he dreams yet mortals are so neurotic they cannot find common ground or live and let live among one another.