1363 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

It is not.

 

I don't think you actually believe that.

 

 

It is a valid argument. I would phrase it as "If Hawke trusted the Templars to remain at current strength despite the fact it was how they were disproportionally strong when compared to other factions within Kirkwall that lead to Meredith assuming control, then he is a dolt."

 

They started taking Red Lyrium. As, you know, the direct witnesses of what happened to Meredith, you'd hope we could trust them to not do exactly that. Templars are also the last kind of people you'd think would cut deals with demons, but they go on to do it on two separate occasions.

 

So, I guess if we wanted to be consistent we can go on and say that anyone who sympathizes with or acts in defense of Templars shouldn't be surprised when they get cacked... by Templars. QED etc.

[MisterJB]

Whether or not she made the right choice is another discussion entirely. We were discussing whether she betrayed the Templars and nothing that you have posted so far leads me to consider this to be the case. She acted against Templars who were accomplice to a rogue Seeker - she didn't attack the order itself only those within it who had disobeyed her. Lambert later removed any Templar leaders who disagreed with him (replacing them with yes men) and made the Templar Order go rogue. Lambert and the Val Royeaux Templars betrayed the Divine, not vice versa.

But all Lambert was doing was upholding the laws of the Chantry.

The Divine granted the mages leave to gather but only to discuss what was to be done with the Rite of Tranquility. A vote for rebellion was treason since not only does it go against every law regulating magic but Justinia herself had made it quite clear her opinion on the matter when she disbanded the College in response to such a vote.

Therefore, it was Lambert's duty to imprison the rebels. He may not have been faithful to the spirit of Justinia's intentions but all he did was, technically, his duty.

The mages acted even further against the law when they refused to deliver Rhys for trial despite the fact Lambert presented extremely compelling evidence.

 

Justinia responded by murdering Templars and enabling the mages to begin the rebellion that cost thousands of lives, including her own.

[Bad King]

But all Lambert was doing was upholding the laws of the Chantry.

The Divine granted the mages leave to gather but only to discuss what was to be done with the Rite of Tranquility. A vote for rebellion was treason since not only does it go against every law regulating magic but Justinia herself had made it quite clear her opinion on the matter when she disbanded the College in response to such a vote.

Therefore, it was Lambert's duty to imprison the rebels. He may not have been faithful to the spirit of Justinia's intentions but all he did was, technically, his duty.

The mages acted even further against the law when they refused to deliver Rhys for trial despite the fact Lambert presented extremely compelling evidence.

 

Justinia responded by murdering Templars and enabling the mages to begin the rebellion that cost thousands of lives, including her own.

 

She did not forbid the mages from discussing any particular topic, and holding a vote is not the same as launching a mage rebellion. If it had been a yes vote, the Chantry would still have the authority to prevent a schism, as they did in Ferelden (if the mage Warden asks for the Circle's independence). Interrupting a meeting sanctioned by the Divine simply because he didn't like some of the words coming out of Fiona's mouth was treasonous as it was done without the Chantry's permission.

[Boost32]

I believe that technically the meeting was actually about the implications of the reverse of the Rite of Tranquility (though I'm not sure) but the mages are free to talk about anything they want during the meeting. If Lambert really had a problem he should have gone and told the Divine rather than trying to kill everyone.

They didn't had authority to have a vote for leaving the Chantry, but it doesn't excuse what Lambert did, he overracted and he had his share of blame in provocating the war.

[Lumix19]

But all Lambert was doing was upholding the laws of the Chantry.
The Divine granted the mages leave to gather but only to discuss what was to be done with the Rite of Tranquility. A vote for rebellion was treason since not only does it go against every law regulating magic but Justinia herself had made it quite clear her opinion on the matter when she disbanded the College in response to such a vote.
Therefore, it was Lambert's duty to imprison the rebels. He may not have been faithful to the spirit of Justinia's intentions but all he did was, technically, his duty.
The mages acted even further against the law when they refused to deliver Rhys for trial despite the fact Lambert presented extremely compelling evidence.

Justinia responded by murdering Templars and enabling the mages to begin the rebellion that cost thousands of lives, including her own.

Technically incorrect. Evangeline says it quite plainly when she states that the Conclave has always existed to allow the mages to decide their own path. Neither the Divine nor Lambert has the authority to dictate what the mages discuss at the Conclave as Fiona points out. I also think you're misunderstanding the original relationship between Circle, Chantry and Templars. The Nevarran Accords were set up so that the Circle was meant to be the one place where magic is regulated but it need not stay that way. When the Circle pushed for independence it was essentially stating that the accords were null and void which renders any Circle laws regulating magic obsolete. The Circle was not meant to be a prison for mages, it was set up as an equal to the Templars where mages could practice their craft safely and be protected (except of course for the fact that it wasn't voluntary). It was only in recent times that the Circle became a prison because of people like Lambert. It was in the spirit of that original equality that the Conclave was allowed and that the vote for separation was taken.

[Boost32]

And what about the actions of Anders, Fiona and Adrian? Why people excuse them? They had their share of blames too.

[Bad King]

For those claiming that Lambert's interruption of the conclave was lawful, I will accept your point only if you can provide quotes from Asunder that suggest that the Divine was banning certain topics from being discussed. I'm certain that there are no such quotes.

[Lumix19]

And what about the actions of Anders, Fiona and Adrian? Why people excuse them? They had their share of blames too.

What Anders and Adrian did is wrong. I understand why they did what they did but it doesn't make it any more justifiable. I don't see anything wrong with what Fiona did though.

[Boost32]

What Anders and Adrian did is wrong. I understand why they did what they did but it doesn't make it any more justifiable. I don't see anything wrong with what Fiona did though.

Pushing the vote even when she knew it would meant war, a war they could not win, she forced it into the mages who didn't want to leave, and her actions in DA:I.

[MisterJB]

She did not forbid the mages from discussing any particular topic, and holding a vote is not the same as launching a mage rebellion. If it had been a yes vote, the Chantry would still have the authority to prevent a schism, as they did in Ferelden (if the mage Warden asks for the Circle's independence). Interrupting a meeting sanctioned by the Divine simply because he didn't like some of the words coming out of Fiona's mouth was treasonous as it was done without the Chantry's permission.

The Chantry had already disbanded the college precisely because of such vote despite the fact it didn't pass. Therefore, anyone would have reached the conclusion that the Chantry will not even hear the suggestion mages should be independent.

That Fiona takes advantage of the meeting to propose just that is treason and thus, if the mere proposal can lead to the College being disbanded then, then, by precedent, Fiona's mere proposal gives Lambert the right to act.

[Bad King]

The Chantry had already disbanded the college precisely because of such vote despite the fact it didn't pass. Therefore, anyone would have reached the conclusion that the Chantry will not even hear the suggestion mages should be independent.

That Fiona takes advantage of the meeting to propose just that is treason and thus, if the mere proposal can lead to the College being disbanded then, then, by precedent, Fiona's mere proposal gives Lambert the right to act.

 

Where is it written that an individual mage asking for a vote on a particular topic is unlawful and justifies the use of force by the Templars? Do you have a source for this? Also, the vote didn't just 'not pass', it was never actually made as the Templar interruption happened before the result was called.

 

Pushing the vote even when she knew it would meant war, a war they could not win, she forced it into the mages who didn't want to leave, and her actions in DA:I.

 

What Fiona did in Asunder was provocative, I'll give you that, but there is no evidence that anything she did was unlawful whereas Lambert was directly interrupting a meeting sanctioned by the Divine.

[Lumix19]

Pushing the vote even when she knew it would meant war, a war they could not win, she forced it into the mages who didn't want to leave, and her actions in DA:I.

The mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, as Fiona quite rightly says, only their own. If the Templars really didn't want a war they shouldn't have started one. Those who didn't want to leave stayed with the Circle like Vivienne. Besides that's the tricky part with democracy, some are always left unhappy.

[Steelcan]

The mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, as Fiona quite rightly says, only their own. If the Templars really didn't want a war they shouldn't have started one. Those who didn't want to leave stayed with the Circle like Vivienne. Besides that's the tricky part with democracy, some are always left unhappy.

and the mages shouldn't have taken an action they knew would result in a Templar crackdown

[MisterJB]

I don't think you actually believe that.

I assure you, I do.

 

 

They started taking Red Lyrium. As, you know, the direct witnesses of what happened to Meredith, you'd hope we could trust them to not do exactly that. Templars are also the last kind of people you'd think would cut deals with demons, but they go on to do it on two separate occasions.

 

So, I guess if we wanted to be consistent we can go on and say that anyone who sympathizes with or acts in defense of Templars shouldn't be surprised when they get cacked... by Templars. QED etc.

In such instances, the problem originates not in the person of the Templar but in the Red Lyrium. It is the possession of it that will enable them to cause damage. 
The same applies to magic and mages. Of course, no one ever defends legalizing red lyrium. Freeing mages, on the other hand, is an hotly debated topic.

Divine Justinia stood on the side that believed magic should be restricted and she died by mage's hands. Thus, one wonders if she regretted her convictions as she died.

[Lumix19]

The Chantry had already disbanded the college precisely because of such vote despite the fact it didn't pass. Therefore, anyone would have reached the conclusion that the Chantry will not even hear the suggestion mages should be independent.
That Fiona takes advantage of the meeting to propose just that is treason and thus, if the mere proposal can lead to the College being disbanded then, then, by precedent, Fiona's mere proposal gives Lambert the right to act.

I haven't read Asunder in a while so you'll have to remind me. Where was it stated that the college was closed down due to a vote for independence? As far as I'm aware the mages were no longer allowed to convene for Conclave because of what happened at Kirkwall and the subsequent cracked down of the Templars, nothing to do with the Chantry.

[Bad King]

Divine Justinia stood on the side that believed magic should be restricted and she died by mage's hands. Thus, one wonders if she regretted her convictions as she died.

 

Probably not as it was Grey Wardens and Tevinters that killed her, both of whom were outside of her jurisdiction.

[MisterJB]

Where is it written that an individual mage asking for a vote on a particular topic is unlawful and justifies the use of force by the Templars? Do you have a source for this? Also, the vote didn't just 'not pass', it was never actually made as the Templar interruption happened before the result was called.

Do you recall Wynne telling us in Awakening how the College intended to vote for independence? This vote was then proposed by newly elected Grand Enchanter Fiona.

That vote did not pass but, regardless, the Divine disbanded the College as a response.

Therefore, logically, the Chantry won't even accept the mere suggestion mages should be free. That creates a precedent which justifies Lambert's actions because, once again, proposed it and, as we have seen, the mere proposal will result in mage institutions being dissolved by the Chantry.

[Boost32]

The mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, as Fiona quite rightly says, only their own. If the Templars really didn't want a war they shouldn't have started one. Those who didn't want to leave stayed with the Circle like Vivienne. Besides that's the tricky part with democracy, some are always left unhappy.

And the templars voted that they wanted the mages back into the Circles, if the mages didn't wanted war they could have gone back.
You excusing Fiona, dont make her less responsible.

[MisterJB]

Technically incorrect. Evangeline says it quite plainly when she states that the Conclave has always existed to allow the mages to decide their own path. Neither the Divine nor Lambert has the authority to dictate what the mages discuss at the Conclave as Fiona points out. I also think you're misunderstanding the original relationship between Circle, Chantry and Templars. The Nevarran Accords were set up so that the Circle was meant to be the one place where magic is regulated but it need not stay that way. When the Circle pushed for independence it was essentially stating that the accords were null and void which renders any Circle laws regulating magic obsolete. The Circle was not meant to be a prison for mages, it was set up as an equal to the Templars where mages could practice their craft safely and be protected (except of course for the fact that it wasn't voluntary). It was only in recent times that the Circle became a prison because of people like Lambert. It was in the spirit of that original equality that the Conclave was allowed and that the vote for separation was taken.

Equal to the Templars, yes. But the Chantry has had, for centuries, the power to just say "everyone within that particular Circle dies" and that is 100% lawful.

Grand Clerics and the Divine hold the power of life and death over every single Circle mage in Thedas and thus, they can very well dictate what they can and can't discuss.

 

[Bad King]

Do you recall Wynne telling us in Awakening how the College intended to vote for independence? This vote was then proposed by newly elected Grand Enchanter Fiona.

That vote did not pass but, regardless, the Divine disbanded the College as a response.

Therefore, logically, the Chantry won't even accept the mere suggestion mages should be free. That creates a precedent which justifies Lambert's actions because, once again, proposed it and, as we have seen, the mere proposal will result in mage institutions being dissolved by the Chantry.

 

I vaguely recall it, but a direct quote would be great to remind those who don't recall it very well! Regardless, there are three key differences between this vote and the previous one:

 

1). A vote was actually made - in the vote at the end of Asunder, Fiona had only proposed the vote and it had not actually been cast when Lambert intervened.

2). It was the Chantry, not the Seekers or the Templars who decided the course of action to be taken after the vote had been cast.

3). Said course of action did not consist of the interruption of a sanctioned conclave before it had concluded - the action was taken after the conclave had been concluded and was done following an agreement by the Chantry.

 

So for these three reasons, Lambert taking things into his own hands was unlawful and a direct challenge against the Chantry's authority.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

WTF ppl are actually defending Lambert? What's next, Meredith was right threads?

[MisterJB]

I haven't read Asunder in a while so you'll have to remind me. Where was it stated that the college was closed down due to a vote for independence? As far as I'm aware the mages were no longer allowed to convene for Conclave because of what happened at Kirkwall and the subsequent cracked down of the Templars, nothing to do with the Chantry.

Page 322, Wynne states Fiona's views plus her proposal to hold a vote on independence lead to the Chantry disbanding the College.

 

[MisterJB]

WTF ppl are actually defending Lambert? What's next, Meredith was right threads?

People, myself included, have defended Lambert and Meredith from day one. They were right.

 

I once wrote an argument where I used math to prove siding with the Templars lead to fewer loss of life.

[Neon Rising Winter]

I think the problem with Lambert's actions is he's a senior manager who has found himself with a new boss he doesn't like, and appears to have spent the time since they were appointed whinging to his colleagues that it's all going horribly wrong and only he sees the real problem. Suddenly he is presented with a lovely opportunity to explode the whole situation into chaos. In a play straight out of the manager with a grudge handbook he takes the troublesome situation, finds the appropriate regulation to dial it up to 11, lobs it in and then runs around screaming, "Look! I told you so! I was right!".

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

People, myself included, have defended Lambert and Meredith from day one. They were right.

 

I once wrote an argument where I used math to prove siding with the Templars lead to fewer loss of life.

Lambert had some insight the Divine lacked, true. As for Meredith, she wasn't wrong about most of what she did but how was she right to do the Annulment?

 

 

Equal to the Templars, yes. But the Chantry has had, for centuries, the power to just say "everyone within that particular Circle dies" and that is 100% lawful.

Grand Clerics and the Divine hold the power of life and death over every single Circle mage in Thedas and thus, they can very well dictate what they can and can't discuss.

I was pretty sure the Annulment was for Circles where the situation had gone completely to hell and there were demons running loose, not for political purposes.