1363 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

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?

Oh, she wasn't. But Hawke was right in helping her once she has decreed it and there is no turning back.

 

 

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.

The point is that if the Chantry can legally declare a purge, they sure as hell can tell mages what their institutions can and can't discuss.

[Neon Rising Winter]

 

Oh, she wasn't. But Hawke was right in helping her once she has decreed it and there is no turning back.

 

 

The point is that if the Chantry can legally declare a purge, they sure as hell can tell mages what their institutions can and can't discuss.

 

 

Now there is a charming faith in the coherency of ecclesiastical regulations. Developed over nearly a thousand years. By people of a variety of cultures. I'm sure there's no chance they would be a mish mash of things that make you look, blink and go but that makes no sense whatsoever! I see a merchandising opportunity here - World of Thedas: Chantry Law - Volumes 1 though 38. Think it'll sell?

[The Baconer]

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. 

 

Taking red Lyrium is a choice, one that the Templars in Kirkwall were fully aware of. Seeker Lucius, leader of the faction everyone expects to no better, didn't even have that excuse.

 

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.

 

Of course, you will go at length to explain the context of the Templar example but we are perfectly fine leaving this as the over-simplified "died by mage's hands".

[Bad King]

The point is that if the Chantry can legally declare a purge, they sure as hell can tell mages what their institutions can and can't discuss.

 

The issue isn't whether they can but whether they did in this specific instance, and there isn't any evidence that the Divine forbid discussion of any particular issue at this conclave. Your point that the College of enchanters was dissolved the last time independence was discussed does not support this - said dissolution was conducted following - not during - the previous conclave: that is after the vote had been cast and the result announced. The mages were still allowed to discuss this issue and put it to a vote within a conclave without being forcibly arrested and removed from the chamber. It was up to the Divine and the Chantry how they should react to Fiona's call for a vote, but Lambert subverted the Chantry's authority in the matter by taking things into his own hands - an unlawful action that was the first act of rebellion against the Chantry by the Seekers/Templars.

[KaiserShep]

Oh, she wasn't. But Hawke was right in helping her once she has decreed it and there is no turning back.

The point is that if the Chantry can legally declare a purge, they sure as hell can tell mages what their institutions can and can't discuss.

I guess it depends on how one feels about certain laws. People were able to do a whole lot of things legally; I can't say that it would necessarily be right to go along with an action I might consider objectionable because they have the authority. In Meredith's case, f*** the magic police goosestepping all over the place.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

So ppl actually defend death squads killing non-mages , lobotomizing ppl as sex slaves, and potentially killing joyous their own sister?! WTF???

[thesuperdarkone2]

So ppl actually defend death squads killing non-mages , lobotomizing ppl as sex slaves, and potentially killing joyous their own sister?! WTF???

Don't you just love pro-templar bigotry? They think mages deserve everything bad that happens to them simply for existing. Wonder if they aren't just substituting mages for IRL views.

[MisterJB]

So ppl actually defend death squads killing non-mages , lobotomizing ppl as sex slaves, and potentially killing joyous their own sister?! WTF???

Do you defend making telescopes out of Tranquil's skulls or delivering Redcliff to the hands of the Venatori?

Then don't assume just because one believes Meredith is generally correct that means one thinks her actions and failures are all justified.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

Do you defend making telescopes out of Tranquil's skulls or delivering Redcliff to the hands of the Venatori?
Then don't assume just because one believes Meredith is generally correct that means one thinks her actions and failures are all justified.

. Venatori killed tranquil so not relevant and no idea if mages helped Venatori so can't make judgement.

Meredith was just a dictator who deserved to be overthrown. Nothing justifies what she did. I am disgusted anyone even supports someone who does he things she does.

Sad we couldn't support Thrask. He had the right idea

[MisterJB]

The issue isn't whether they can but whether they did in this specific instance, and there isn't any evidence that the Divine forbid discussion of any particular issue at this conclave. Your point that the College of enchanters was dissolved the last time independence was discussed does not support this - said dissolution was conducted following - not during - the previous conclave: that is after the vote had been cast and the result announced. The mages were still allowed to discuss this issue and put it to a vote within a conclave without being forcibly arrested and removed from the chamber. It was up to the Divine and the Chantry how they should react to Fiona's call for a vote, but Lambert subverted the Chantry's authority in the matter by taking things into his own hands - an unlawful action that was the first act of rebellion against the Chantry by the Seekers/Templars.

The fact that the mere vote, alongside Fiona's radical views, led to sanctions against mages clearly indicate that the action of placing the matter to a vote is unlawful. If it is unlawful, then any decision reached by such a vote is void.

Therefore, from a legal viewpoint, it is irrelevant whether the vote is actually conducted or not and thus, there are no issues with Lambert impeding it.

[thesuperdarkone2]

The fact that the mere vote, alongside Fiona's radical views, led to sanctions against mages clearly indicate that the action of placing the matter to a vote is unlawful. If it is unlawful, then any decision reached by such a vote is void.

Therefore, from a legal viewpoint, it is irrelevant whether the vote is actually conducted or not and thus, there are no issues with Lambert impeding it.

Even when mages get killed simply for a discussion and vote? Man, you templar supporters aren't even trying to hide your bigotry. Might as well put a sign that says "Anything mages do is bad. It's okay to abuse, imprison, beat, and rape people if they are mages"

[KaiserShep]

. Venatori killed tranquil so not relevant and no idea if mages helped Venatori so can't make judgement.
Meredith was just a dictator who deserved to be overthrown. Nothing justifies what she did. I am disgusted anyone even supports someone who does he things she does.
Sad we couldn't support Thrask. He had the right idea

Thrask was a fool though. Degardless of his reasoning, I would probably have killed him for orchestrating the kidnapping.

I wish that he just approached the Champion. I would have gladly wiped out Meredith with the help of dissenting Templars.

[MisterJB]

. Venatori killed tranquil so not relevant and no idea if mages helped Venatori so can't make judgement.

Meredith was just a dictator who deserved to be overthrown. Nothing justifies what she did. I am disgusted anyone even supports someone who does he things she does.

Sad we couldn't support Thrask. He had the right idea

And Alrik raped Tranquils but you still wanted to place the blame for that on Meredith's shoulders.

If her failure to notice Alrik was committing those crimes should serve as evidence against her, then Fiona's failure to notice Venatori were decapitating Tranquil should be held against her.

 

I'm sure I'll survive your disgust.

[MisterJB]

Even when mages get killed simply for a discussion and vote? Man, you templar supporters aren't even trying to hide your bigotry. Might as well put a sign that says "Anything mages do is bad. It's okay to abuse, imprison, beat, and rape people if they are mages"

This a legal discussion, not a moral one. The distinction too subtle for you?

[Bad King]

The fact that the mere vote, alongside Fiona's radical views, led to sanctions against mages clearly indicate that the action of placing the matter to a vote is unlawful. If it is unlawful, then any decision reached by such a vote is void.

Therefore, from a legal viewpoint, it is irrelevant whether the vote is actually conducted or not and thus, there are no issues with Lambert impeding it.

 

It's not stated that placing the matter to a vote was unlawful, it is only stated that the College was dissolved after the vote had been made. The Chantry likely feared the repercussions of such a vote but did not attempt to interrupt the meeting itself in which the vote was made - they only came to a decision on what to do after the vote had been made. If it was written in law that such votes cannot even be made, then why wasn't the last conclave meeting interrupted when the topic was brought up?

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

And Alrik raped Tranquils but you still wanted to place the blame for that on Meredith's shoulders.
If her failure to notice Alrik was committing those crimes should serve as evidence against her, then Fiona's failure to notice Venatori were decapitating Tranquil should be held against her.

I'm sure I'll survive your disgust.

. And her death squads? What justification is that?

Meredith did way worse things and fully knew it. Wouldn't shock me if she knew about Alrik

[KaiserShep]

If scum like Alrik can operate for so long with impunity, then maybe that system needs to be torn down.

[thesuperdarkone2]

It's not stated that placing the matter to a vote was unlawful, it is only stated that the College was dissolved after the vote had been made. The Chantry likely feared the repercussions of such a vote but did not attempt to interrupt the meeting itself in which the vote was made - they only came to a decision on what to do after the vote had been made. If it was written in law that such votes cannot even be made, then why wasn't the last conclave meeting interrupted when the topic was brought up?

I think people forget that Wynne actually convinced people to not vote for independence in the Cumberland vote. The Chantry didn't dissolve the assemblies until AFTER Anders, not before. People need to check their facts.

[thesuperdarkone2]

If Meredith wasn't aware of Alrik's deeds, then she's incompetent. He is totally her responsibility.

Considering she's willing to lobotomize mages simply for passing love letters, I wouldn't be surprised if she knew and was totally OK with it.

[MisterJB]

. And her death squads? What justification is that?

Meredith did way worse things and fully knew it. Wouldn't shock me if she knew about Alrik

Red Lyrium messing with her mind ergo not her fault.

 

And there's a letter where Alrik tells one of his cohorts to not reveal to Meredith what they were doing.

 

http://dragonage.wik..._Templar_Letter

[KaiserShep]

Meredith didn't support his "solution", but I can only assume it's because it's a wholly impractical plan that couldn't possibly work.

[Neon Rising Winter]

This a legal discussion, not a moral one. The distinction too subtle for you?

How do you propose to hold this legal discussion without access to the laws involved? Other than making it up as we go along based on our own interpretations of lines in a book? Hint - if we follow that route we are not having a legal discussion, we are having an exercise in extrapolating a few hundred words in a book into 38 different legal systems and then throwing them at each other. It's silly to call that a legal discussion.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Red Lyrium messing with her mind ergo not her fault.

 

And there's a letter where Alrik tells one of his cohorts to not reveal to Meredith what they were doing.

 

http://dragonage.wik..._Templar_Letter

The letter kind of implies it's less "don't tell Meredith" and more "Don't bother Meredith just because you feel bad about it."

 

Also, you're totally ok with lobotomizing people for passing love notes?

[The Baconer]

And Alrik raped Tranquils but you still wanted to place the blame for that on Meredith's shoulders.

If her failure to notice Alrik was committing those crimes should serve as evidence against her, then Fiona's failure to notice Venatori were decapitating Tranquil should be held against her.

 

Yes, all of the above.

[Lumix19]

The fact that the mere vote, alongside Fiona's radical views, led to sanctions against mages clearly indicate that the action of placing the matter to a vote is unlawful. If it is unlawful, then any decision reached by such a vote is void.
Therefore, from a legal viewpoint, it is irrelevant whether the vote is actually conducted or not and thus, there are no issues with Lambert impeding it.

Then the Chantry was also acting unlawfully when they placed sanctions. The Chantry doesn't just get to make up the rules of what mages can and can't do. The Nevarran Accords is the foundation of the Circle and the Templars. It is where any power the Chantry has over the Circle stems from. Since the Conclave has always existed to allow the mages the freedom to dictate their future, and the Nevarran Accords are capable of being dissolved, both the Chantry was wrong when they penalized the mages, and the Templars were unlawful when they ended the Conclave. But what Justinia did, allowing the Circle to have the Conclave, was lawful. Lambert's refusal to allow it was not.