1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

oh this thread has gotten so much better

[MisterJB]

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.

The accuracy of the info in question is irrelevant to the distinction to be made between "Lambert's actions may have been lawful" and "Pro-Templars think Lambert's actions were right and just" which is what sdk2 was accusing us of.

[MisterJB]

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.

I don't suppose you have the accords in hand where it is written that the Chantry can never introduce or alter legislation?

[Lumix19]

I don't suppose you have the accords in hand where it is written that the Chantry can never introduce or alter legislation?

Well I'm sorry to say I don't. I'm arguing the legalities based on my interpretation of information about the Nevarran Accords.

[MisterJB]

Well I'm sorry to say I don't. I'm arguing the legalities based on my interpretation of information about the Nevarran Accords.

Ok, so the fact remains that the Chantry crated the Right of Annulment nearly seven centuries ago and that, in all that time, we have indication that their power to do so was ever questioned.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Ok, so the fact remains that the Chantry crated the Right of Annulment nearly seven centuries ago and that, in all that time, we have indication that their power to do so was ever questioned.

So you agree that the Circles are prisons since you think the Chantry should kill everyone if they even think about getting freedom?

[KaiserShep]

Ok, so the fact remains that the Chantry crated the Right of Annulment nearly seven centuries ago and that, in all that time, we have indication that their power to do so was ever questioned.

That only really says to me that they were very proficient at holding power and silencing dissenters. In any case, it doesn't matter now, because all of that crap finally caught up with them.

[Steelcan]

So you agree that the Circles are prisons since you think the Chantry should kill everyone if they even think about getting freedom?

well that's not what Annulments are designed to counter, their intended use vs real life application is of course not perfect, but having a weapon to use when you get a Ferelden Circle during the Blight situation isn't an inherently bad idea

[Lumix19]

Ok, so the fact remains that the Chantry crated the Right of Annulment nearly seven centuries ago and that, in all that time, we have indication that their power to do so was ever questioned.

Yes this is true. My mistake, I had forgotten the Right was introduced after the Accord.

[Lumix19]

well that's not what Annulments are designed to counter, their intended use vs real life application is of course not perfect, but having a weapon to use when you get a Ferelden Circle during the Blight situation isn't an inherently bad idea

In that particular context (the Circle) and if the correct protocols are carried out (it is not used as a political bludgeon) then I would ordinarily have no problem (except perhaps for the whole killing of children which is kinda disturbing). The issue becomes how often are these tools misused? Just like the Exalted Marches and the Rite of Tranquility, the Right of Annulment has been misused. Both to enforce the will of the Chantry on the mages and to cover up the murders of mages by Templars.

[Ryriena]

The thing with that suggestion mister Bj is we're talking about countries that are ran by monarchs and the chantry ie not the people. What the church and the Monarchs say goes

[Ryriena]

Tranquility has been used wrongly in the past looking at the fact Meredith useded against Mages that spoke out against her abuses, or for that matter Arlik using it to rape woman.

It's been said the rite of annulment has already been misused by someone in the tower age, and was covered up.

[Silcron]

In that particular context (the Circle) and if the correct protocols are carried out (it is not used as a political bludgeon) then I would ordinarily have no problem (except perhaps for the whole killing of children which is kinda disturbing). The issue becomes how often are these tools misused? Just like the Exalted Marches and the Rite of Tranquility, the Right of Annulment has been misused. Both to enforce the will of the Chantry on the mages and to cover up the murders of mages by Templars.

But it seems those concerns have already been addressed. If not, why in Origins did the Templar in charge had to send for approval even if the situation was so bad already? He had templar dying, abominations everywhere and yet instead of trying to deal with it as soon as possible it seemed he was forced to barricade and ask for permission.

To me it seemed that since the Annulment sentences a lot of people to be executed even if the situation is so dire they still had to ask a comitee or a higher up to approve it, to make sure it's not misused. An example of it being misused would clearly be Meredith. She doesn't stop to think about it, she doesn't ask her superiors for approval, just on the spot sentences them all to execution. It was as if the police entered a home without a...legal order? (sorry, I don't know the technical name.) It doens't matter if the people in the house were indeed criminal and they found proof or arrested them, it's still illegal.

Now, we can argue and explain how even with those precautions it's still misused. Again, we have the DA2 example, but at least it seems like the chantry did try to adress these concerns when they were creating the rules.

[Boost32]

But it seems those concerns have already been addressed. If not, why in Origins did the Templar in charge had to send for approval even if the situation was so bad already? He had templar dying, abominations everywhere and yet instead of trying to deal with it as soon as possible it seemed he was forced to barricade and ask for permission.
To me it seemed that since the Annulment sentences a lot of people to be executed even if the situation is so dire they still had to ask a comitee or a higher up to approve it, to make sure it's not misused. An example of it being misused would clearly be Meredith. She doesn't stop to think about it, she doesn't ask her superiors for approval, just on the spot sentences them all to execution. It was as if the police entered a home without a...legal order? (sorry, I don't know the technical name.) It doens't matter if the people in the house were indeed criminal and they found proof or arrested them, it's still illegal.
Now, we can argue and explain how even with those precautions it's still misused. Again, we have the DA2 example, but at least it seems like the chantry did try to adress these concerns when they were creating the rules.

Gaider said she had legal right to invoke it, since Anders killed Elthinia, she didn't need to ask anyone beyond herself.
If the RoA was justified, is another matter.

[Raiil]

But it seems those concerns have already been addressed. If not, why in Origins did the Templar in charge had to send for approval even if the situation was so bad already? He had templar dying, abominations everywhere and yet instead of trying to deal with it as soon as possible it seemed he was forced to barricade and ask for permission.

To me it seemed that since the Annulment sentences a lot of people to be executed even if the situation is so dire they still had to ask a comitee or a higher up to approve it, to make sure it's not misused. An example of it being misused would clearly be Meredith. She doesn't stop to think about it, she doesn't ask her superiors for approval, just on the spot sentences them all to execution. It was as if the police entered a home without a...legal order? (sorry, I don't know the technical name.) It doens't matter if the people in the house were indeed criminal and they found proof or arrested them, it's still illegal.

Now, we can argue and explain how even with those precautions it's still misused. Again, we have the DA2 example, but at least it seems like the chantry did try to adress these concerns when they were creating the rules.

 

 

I think part of the issue is that's a punishment in a system that judges you guilty until proven innocent. And you can only be 100% sure they're innocent if they're constantly monitored, then die.

 

When the balance of life or death is held in the hands of people who a) have already pronounced you guilty of being a potential abomination and are subject to their own foibles, there's a problem. Remember there was a Divine that tried to call an Exalted March on her own cathedral and it was people being mad, not even close to a Ferelden or Kirkwall situation. Remember that we're all very aware of how inherently stupid the Chantry can be (who the fudge thought it was a good idea to keep mages locked up in a freaking former Tevinter prison when everyone knows that previous violence can cause rips in the Veil?!). If enough templars and their leadership are anti-mage, or just plain jerkfaces, you've got such a serious implication of abuse that it's very hard to argue that the ends justify the means.

[fchopin]

Guys I am not interested on what is in books but what is in the game.
I know nothing about Fiona or the things you say about the mages and Templers so it means nothing to me.
I only know what is in the game and Bioware does a very bad job in explaining all the new characters like Fiona.

[Don Lionheart]

First, as the author of this thread, let me say how pleased I am to see it be revived on its own without me having to bump it!  I am also fascinated in the direction the thread has taken, using Fiona as a springboard for the greater debate between Mages and Templars and who was in the right or the wrong in the situation leading up to the Mage Rebellion, and Fiona's key role in it.  That said, I've got quote a few quotes to reply to, as there were 3 1/2 pages added in the last 12 hours while I was asleep, haha.

 

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.

 

Cassandra clearly states in DA:I that the Seekers are supposed to answer only to the Divine, but, in reality, they ended up answering only to themselves.  So if we're being technical about the laws of the Chantry, Lambert was NOT upholding the laws because he was violating the will of his one superior.  The Rite of Tranquility discussion was the preface for the College being reinstated, but there were no limits placed on what may be discussed, and I believe it was pretty obvious that the College meeting again was going to end up in a second vote being held.  If it was not stated outright, it was heavily implied in Asunder.  As for that Rhys point...I really don't have anything to say in response.  And I can't justify anything more than this sentence as a response to the last sentence you wrote.

 

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

 

No one excuses any of those characters for their actions.  This thread was, if you'll read the title, created around Fiona and all of the blame and hatred that players place on her.  As for Anders and Adrian, neither of them feature in DA:I beyond mentions in the Codex (I'm not sure if Adrian is mentioned in the Codex, even, come to think of it), so not as many people are going to have opinions on them.  Anders is clearly the spark for the entire Mage Rebellion, prior Templar abuse and other Mage blood magic/bad behavior aside, serving as the final straw; it is well understood that Anders blowing up the Kirkwall Chantry led to the fighting in Kirkwall which sparked the uprising in the rest of Thedas.  As for Adrian, she served in a similar capacity to Anders by her murdering Pharamond, but that more led directly to the Mage/Templar War and fighting at the College.  If Anders was phase 1, Adrian was phase 2.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

There was a vote made previously, as I believe at least one or two other people referenced in posts after yours, that led to the disbanding of the College of Enchanters, which is why them meeting this time was such a big deal.  It had been a year or more since the last time the College had met, and the last time they met, the vote for independence was lost because the Aequitarians, led by Wynne at the time, voted against it.

 

 

I assure you, I do.

 

 

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.

 

 

You can't seriously be comparing Corypheus, an ancient Tevinter Magister, to a modern day Circle Mage, are you?  There is no way that you're making the leap from Circle Mages (or, honestly, even Dalish Mages) to a Tevinter Magister when placing blame for the Divine's death.  Technically he's a Mage because he has magic abilities, but you need to be WAY more specific because it comes across as blaming any old Mage for her death, which is just crazy.

 

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.

 

Wynne speaking to Rhys:

 

"'Fiona was once a Grey Warden.  Considering one does not normally leave the Wardens, this makes her something of a...an anomaly.' She considered, frowning.  'Of course, so am I, so I suppose it makes little difference.  Still, it was her election to the position that caused the convlave to be disbanded in the first place.'

'You make it sound like her fault.'

'Who else's?  Mine?' She shrugged.  'Fiona campaigned diligently for independence from the Circle.  Grand Enchanter Briaus had never allowed such a vote, correctly believing it would only antagonize the Chantry.  With her election, everything changed.'"

 

There is also another quote in the novel that talks about how Wynne previously talked the College out of voting for independence, Adrian and Rhys speaking:

 

"'Fine,' she said.  Her voice was so quiet and laced with guilt he knew the answer even before she said it: 'I killed Pharamond, and I placed the knife under your bed.'

'Tell me why.'

'Why do you think?'  Adrian said angrily.  'It was the only way Wynne was going to change her mind.  She went to that conference to talk everyone out of voting for independence again, and she would have succeeded.'  She looked up at him, her eyes challenging.  'She wouldn't ever have stood up to the templars, not unless she had a reason to.  Not unless someone she loved was threatened by them.'"

 

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?

 

Haha, I would actually buy that!  I really am fascinated by the lore of the Dragon Age universe, which is why I've read everything released for it.  I think it would be incredibly interesting to see what Chantry law actually states, even if it wouldn't make any sense.

 

oh this thread has gotten so much better

 

Lol, it has certainly changed directions and is quite interesting and fun to read.

 

In that particular context (the Circle) and if the correct protocols are carried out (it is not used as a political bludgeon) then I would ordinarily have no problem (except perhaps for the whole killing of children which is kinda disturbing). The issue becomes how often are these tools misused? Just like the Exalted Marches and the Rite of Tranquility, the Right of Annulment has been misused. Both to enforce the will of the Chantry on the mages and to cover up the murders of mages by Templars.

 

This is a fair point, though I think that one must accept all three to accept one.  I, personally, don't accept any of them.  I don't like the idea of Exalted Marches being launched, ever.  I think that Andraste's original Exalted March against Tevinter is unique because it wasn't being done in her name, or really even in the Maker's name, so much as it was being done to free those oppressed by Tevinter.  Andraste just happened to say that the Maker ordained her war against Tevinter, but her ultimate goal does not appear to have been to spread the Maker all over, which is evident by her allying with the Elves and Shartan, but rather to free everyone from Tevinter.  After that, Exalted Marches were used against "heretics" and the like.  The Rite of Tranquility and the Right of Annulment are both tools to be used against Mages, but there is no recourse for Mages to use against Templars when Templars are abusing their power, which is not right.

[CosmicGnosis]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but there are two things that bother me about the widespread hatred of Fiona.

 

1. She is an important character for the lore. I'm rather shocked that she dies such an anti-climactic death on the Templar path. This alone almost invalidates the entire Templar storyline for me. She is cast aside far too easily. It's such a waste. Maybe you didn't really kill her...

 

2. She technically proposed an Alliance with the Inquisition first, which was a wise move. Very forward-thinking. But Alexius' time-travelling shenanigans and weird Venatori machinations put the mages in a very strange spot.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but there are two things that bother me about the widespread hatred of Fiona.

 

1. She is an important character for the lore. I'm rather shocked that she dies such an anti-climactic death on the Templar path. This alone almost invalidates the entire Templar storyline for me. She is cast aside far too easily. It's such a waste. Maybe you didn't really kill her...

 

2. She technically proposed an Alliance with the Inquisition first, which was a wise move. Very forward-thinking. But Alexius' time-travelling shenanigans and weird Venatori machinations put the mages in a very strange spot.

1. It's not realistic for everyone who was important in life to get a death that adequately reflects that.

 

2. All of that is true, but I still haven't managed to get why the mere absence of the Inquisition in her calculations made her believe the Tevinters were a good idea.

[CosmicGnosis]

1. It's not realistic for everyone who was important in life to get a death that adequately reflects that.

I mean she is too important for the lore itself. She is Alistair's mother and the only known Warden to be cured of the Taint. She seems too special to be killed and forgotten in future games. So much more can be done with her. So much more to learn.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I mean she is too important for the lore itself. She is Alistair's mother and the only known Warden to be cured of the Taint. She seems too special to be killed and forgotten in future games. So much more can be done with her. So much more to learn.

I don't see how this invalidates my basic point that it's not realistic for every character with potential importance to have plot armor.

[Lumix19]

I don't see how this invalidates my basic point that it's not realistic for every character with potential importance to have plot armor.

Your point is valid but Fiona wasn't one of potential importance, she was important as the mother of Alistair and the only Warden to ever be cured of the taint. I think that qualifies her for plot armor.

[TK514]

Your point is valid but Fiona wasn't one of potential importance, she was important as the mother of Alistair and the only Warden to ever be cured of the taint. I think that qualifies her for plot armor.

The writers disagree.

[Dark Helmet]

The writers disagree.

 

For which I am eternally grateful.

[DarthLaxian]

So, I've been perusing the forums for DA:I for a while, and noticed something that I just don't quite understand: why does so much of the player base (maybe even the majority of it) hate Grand Enchanter Fiona?  I posed this question on a different thread that was discussion mages (I'm not sure what the thread or exact topic was), but I didn't see any replies to it, so I'm asking it here.  Now, I've read all the Dragon Age books, and I read the comics, so I like to believe that I'm fairly well versed in the lore of the world and I have a pretty good understanding of all the characters, but what I don't understand is why people hate Fiona so much.

 

Assuming everyone here has played DA:I, everyone should know that Fiona is the one who declared the mage rebellion in the first place.  The more complicated backstory in that decisions involves her initial call for a vote with the College of Enchanters that resulted in the College being disbanded prior to the events of Dragon Age: Asunder, and then due to the events that take place in the novel, the College is reformed, everything goes crazy, and it meets again in Andoral's Reach, where Rhys (who's mentioned but not seen in DA:I and is the main character of Asunder) has taken up leadership of the Aequitarians faction in the stead of his late mother Wynne, who had previously voted against independence, and decides to vote for independence, which officially begins the Mage Rebellion.

 

Now, what people may or may not know (though I'm willing to bet a lot of people who read this are going to know by virtue of the fact they're reading forums at all) is Fiona's history as a Grey Warden (which has a single dialogue choice explaining it in DA:I) who was accompanied by King Maric and went along with other Grey Wardens to search for the previously Warden-Commander of Orlais, who'd been captured by The Architect when he went on his Calling, during the events of Dragon Age: The Calling.  Without going into too much detail for the sake of saving space and time, Fiona ends up losing the taint within her and is no longer a Grey Warden at the end of the novel, and also gave birth to Maric's illegitimate son (and king in my canon playthrough), Alistair.

 

So, with that incredibly brief backstory of Fiona established, my question remains: why do players hate Fiona so much?  Sure, she gave in to Tevinter Magisters, but that has more to do, in my opinion, with the fact that they had used time travel to get to Redcliffe before Fiona had approached the then-Herald of Andraste in Val Royeaux.  If they had not used time travel, the mages would not have aligned with Tevinter because they knew that the Inquisition was on its way.  However, with Tevinter using time travel, Fiona had no way of knowing the Inquisition was coming because she had never gone to them for aid, not with the altered timeline.  So, aside from her siding with Tevinter, which is admittedly foolish on her part, what's everyone's beef with her?

 

Well, while I do question her sanity from time to time (throwing in with Tevinter is stupid - unless you are a citizen of the empire and a mage, too (if you aren't one or the other, you should not work with them, if you can't protect yourself from them and might become dependent!)), I give her points for having the will to fight in the first place (after all that's happened to her...her being abused when she was young, her being thrown out of the wardens etc. - that's the reason why I dislike Rhys who does not want to fight at the start of the book "Asunder") and I don't hate her (she made a decision in a crisis situation and she didn't try to run from it - she should probably have helped us out in fighting (I would have loved her as a party-member and love interest because she's a very interesting character for me) for her people, but that's the only real gripe I have with her!)...I really like her!

 

greetings LAX

ps: She's got as much baggage as Leliana does (!) and she's dealing with it more or less alone (at least she doesn't seem to have someone that really helps her, like Leliana does - well at least if you play your cards right as Inquisitor!)