262 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumix19]

The meeting was for them do discuss the reforms of the Circles, it wasnt to vote for independence. Fiona broke the law again when she proposed it, Lambert overreacted and fell for Adrian's trap. Justinia made nothing to prevent Adrian and Fiona screwing up.
 
A compromise means "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.", what are the concessions of the mages? You want one side to give concession and the other to give nothing, and you still dont see why the templars didnt want it?
 
Justinia was weak because she couldnt control her own people, everything she did only made things worse, she alienated the templars and let Fiona and Adrian do as they please and she killed her own people.
 
Vivienne is a Circle mage, if she didnt live in the Circle she couldnt be the First Enchanter, they are the leader of their Cicle. How she would administrate her Circle?

The concession is that the mages still have to be part of the Circle, they still have to be under Chantry control and the the Templar Order will still be given the power to guard and watch over them. All the reforms will change is the nature of that control and perhaps loosen the restrictions.
You keep saying Justinia is weak but she couldn't control Lambert and the Templars, when faced with the Mage imprisonment what was she supposed to do?
She was set to be First Enchanter but she hadn't actually taken the position. She probably spent most time at Imperial Court. And even if she did live in the Circle, like Illana, Duke Bastien no doubt ensured she had all the luxuries she required.

[Personette]

True, mages don't turn into abominations or go power hungry everyday. But it only takes something going wrong just once for people's hatred against them to escalate.

The College of Mages is a good option, but the point is that they need to be isolated whether it's under the Chantry's rules or their own.

The good thing about Circles or a similar concept is that if the worst happens, it will be away from the common citizen's sight.
 

 

Translation: Knee-jerk panic reactions are the real problem, but the solution is to imprison every innocent mage. Why? To placate the people who are causing the problem.

 

Translation: Even though the problem is ignorance and panic, somehow, the best way to deal with that problem is by isolating the mages from the rest of the population. That way, no one in the general population will ever learn the error of their ways! 

 

Translation: The good thing about Circles is that they make life easier for the people who aren't in them, and those are the people who count. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 ^ I think your translator is bugged. It's producing strawmen instead of translations. 

[Chuvvy]

For all her flaws, she still is very useful for debate.

 

Arguable because you never have a proper debate with her. She says one thing, you say another, she speaks down to you for a few minutes, and the dialog ends. You never engage in an actual debate.

[MisterJB]

People should see the error of their ways and stop being afraid of mages.

 

 

 

Realistically speaking, what is the worst that could happen?

 

[Lumix19]

People should see the error of their ways and stop being afraid of mages.




Realistically speaking, what is the worst that could happen?

Because ordinary men and women are incapable of tearing the world apart?

[MisterJB]

With the same ease and extent that mages can? No.

 Gaspard is the Emperor of the most powerful Empire in the world and that makes him extremely dangerous.

But he could never create the darkspawn or open the Breach.

 

And a skilled Chevalier would, eventually, have been overwhelmed by Redcliff whereas Connor, a child, destroys it by himself.

[Boost32]

The concession is that the mages still have to be part of the Circle, they still have to be under Chantry control and the the Templar Order will still be given the power to guard and watch over them. All the reforms will change is the nature of that control and perhaps loosen the restrictions.
You keep saying Justinia is weak but she couldn't control Lambert and the Templars, when faced with the Mage imprisonment what was she supposed to do?
She was set to be First Enchanter but she hadn't actually taken the position. She probably spent most time at Imperial Court. And even if she did live in the Circle, like Illana, Duke Bastien no doubt ensured she had all the luxuries she required.

This is not a concession. A concession would be dispose Fiona from her title, help the templars to put down the libertarians.
The restrictions would fade away, you forget why they were imposing them. Anders and 2 assassinate attempts against the Divine made people fear mages even more, before that the restrictions werent so hard (with the exception of Kirkwall).

Justinia shouldnt have betrayed the templars , she should have talked with Lambert to free the First Enchanters but should have executed Fiona for what she did (and sometime later send a Assassin to kill Lambert, when things have calmed down).

She did take the position of the First Enchanter, she was voted at young age even.

Spoiler

Introduction at the Winter Palace: https://youtu.be/tGklOdwK7iY?t=2m11s

[thE-Ro]

I like Vivviene.

[SwobyJ]

No, Vivienne started as Imperial enchanter, but then rose on the ranks and gained the title of Arcane advisor. Her position was taken by Morrigan. Why would Celene need two mages that fulfill nearly identical roles?

 

But they're not identical..

 

Vivienne is the political Circle magic mage. Peak of approved magic. Imperial Enchanter. Prospective long term position (except she left for the Inquisition) and she turned the more token role into a respected position.

EDIT: She does become the adviser of arcane matters, but it isn't a very official position.

 

Morrigan is the apolitical apostate hedge mage. Peak of unapproved magic. Arcane Advisor. Shorter term controversial position for Celine's more personal interests (though she also leaves for the Inquisition, sorta).

EDIT: She does take over 'Arcane Adviser' position in a more official way, but that can be considered to only be because Vivienne set things up for that sort of allowance. Before Vivienne, there was only a toke Imperial Enchanter position for lulz and zero-to-little political influence.

 

EDIT: So both were personal advisers, but Vivienne did that more through a gaming of the system instead of Celine's care about it, while Morrigan did it as a clear replacement for a Celine who can now (even if courting controversy for it) more openly take a mage as official adviser.

So you're both right? I'd say Vivienne and Morrigan just fulfilled separate but similar roles in the Court. Like I said, approved magic vs unapproved magic.

[SwobyJ]

This is not a concession. A concession would be dispose Fiona from her title, help the templars to put down the libertarians.
The restrictions would fade away, you forget why they were imposing them. Anders and 2 assassinate attempts against the Divine made people fear mages even more, before that the restrictions werent so hard (with the exception of Kirkwall).

Justinia shouldnt have betrayed the templars , she should have talked with Lambert to free the First Enchanters but should have executed Fiona for what she did (and sometime later send a Assassin to kill Lambert, when things have calmed down).

She did take the position of the First Enchanter, she was voted at young age even.

Spoiler

Introduction at the Winter Palace: https://youtu.be/tGklOdwK7iY?t=2m11s

 

To be clear, she's only 'sorta' First Enchanter. She was set to be the First Enchanter and has general support for that position, but the Mage-Templar conflict left any Circle authority in flux. She has the Loyalists on her side, but during the game, there isn't anything established to be Loyal to, but her.

[DKJaigen]

People should see the error of their ways and stop being afraid of mages.

 

 

 

Realistically speaking, what is the worst that could happen?

 

 

This IS the consequence of fear. The only way to prevent jackasses like cory from accomplishing his plans is that you need people equally powerful.Good thing Fen'harel was their to safe the day.To prevent this means mastery and understanding of magic. And you can only do so by not fearing it. You can respect it and know the dangers. But fear is ultimately a massive deterrent to any enterprise.

[Boost32]

To be clear, she's only 'sorta' First Enchanter. She was set to be the First Enchanter and has general support for that position, but the Mage-Templar conflict left any Circle authority in flux. She has the Loyalists on her side, but during the game, there isn't anything established to be Loyal to, but her.

Her writer says she is the First Enchanter Montsimmard, she says she is and others people recognize her as the First Enchanter, her codex says she was voted at young age, so she wasnt only set, she became the First Enchanter.

[Lumix19]

With the same ease and extent that mages can? No.

 Gaspard is the Emperor of the most powerful Empire in the world and that makes him extremely dangerous.

But he could never create the darkspawn or open the Breach.

 

And a skilled Chevalier would, eventually, have been overwhelmed by Redcliff whereas Connor, a child, destroys it by himself.

The Breach which was opened thanks to the power of a god and the darkspawn which took 3/4s of the resources of a world-spanning empire? I doubt most mages could accomplish the same. But give me the power of a god or a world-spanning empire and I could crush the world. And it's true about a chevalier, but there are a lot more people in the world than mages, if a small proportion of each population went mad and killed people you really think the body count wouldn't be the same?

 

 

This is not a concession. A concession would be dispose Fiona from her title, help the templars to put down the libertarians.
The restrictions would fade away, you forget why they were imposing them. Anders and 2 assassinate attempts against the Divine made people fear mages even more, before that the restrictions werent so hard (with the exception of Kirkwall).

Justinia shouldnt have betrayed the templars , she should have talked with Lambert to free the First Enchanters but should have executed Fiona for what she did (and sometime later send a Assassin to kill Lambert, when things have calmed down).

She did take the position of the First Enchanter, she was voted at young age even.

Spoiler

Introduction at the Winter Palace: https://youtu.be/tGklOdwK7iY?t=2m11s

She doesn't have the authority to depose Fiona, that's the Circle's job. I'm sure that once the vote was concluded in Wynne's favor and the reforms put into place Fiona would have been deposed properly by the Circle. Heck Wynne might have been the next Grand Enchanter. Reaching outside her authority and ordering Fiona deposed would have exacerbated the conflict by convincing the mages that the Divine wasn't interested in their welfare or respectful of their rights. And the Divine was trying to prevent violence, how does putting the libertarians down do that? It only makes the Aequitarians think that the Divine wasn't interested in peaceful reforms and, like the Templars, is more interested in crushing dissent.

The restrictions are irrelevant, they were not the reason Wynne or the other Aequitarians were looking for reform.

I imagine her talking with Lambert would have been the final straw that Lambert would have used to rally the templars and try to get the Divine deposed, and he likely would have said no anyway. And as I said above executing Fiona would have just prompted even more discontent because Fiona didn't actually do anything worth execution, she proposed a vote and she did so during the conclave where mages are technically allowed to discuss anything. Execution would just have been another sign of the Chantry's tyrannical rule and desire to stamp out sedition.

And who says an assassin would have actually been able to kill Lambert? He's the Lord Seeker and lives in a military establishment filled with Templars. Far more likely the assassin would be caught and tortured and when he/she gave up Justinia the Templars would rebel. Assassins are not a fix-all, in these situations they're often more dangerous to the sender than the target.

Technically since the Circle is meant to be dissolved she can't be First Enchanter but obviously she is since the other loyalists still maintain the Circle.

 

Besides this conversation is pointless, we can't possibly know all the factors that led to Justinia and Leliana's decision. I must simply trust that they both made the best decision they possibly could because they're both supposed to be extremely good at their jobs and at the Game.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

To prevent this means mastery and understanding of magic.

 

Actually I think mastery and understanding of fighting against magic does more to prevent it. Obviously having mage allies is helpful but they are a rarity to begin with and not everyone has it in them to be a soldier. Enter the Templars.

[Boost32]

She doesn't have the authority to depose Fiona, that's the Circle's job. I'm sure that once the vote was concluded in Wynne's favor and the reforms put into place Fiona would have been deposed properly by the Circle. Heck Wynne might have been the next Grand Enchanter. Reaching outside her authority and ordering Fiona deposed would have exacerbated the conflict by convincing the mages that the Divine wasn't interested in their welfare or respectful of their rights. And the Divine was trying to prevent violence, how does putting the libertarians down do that? It only makes the Aequitarians think that the Divine wasn't interested in peaceful reforms and, like the Templars, is more interested in crushing dissent.
The restrictions are irrelevant, they were not the reason Wynne or the other Aequitarians were looking for reform.
I imagine her talking with Lambert would have been the final straw that Lambert would have used to rally the templars and try to get the Divine deposed, and he likely would have said no anyway. And as I said above executing Fiona would have just prompted even more discontent because Fiona didn't actually do anything worth execution, she proposed a vote and she did so during the conclave where mages are technically allowed to discuss anything. Execution would just have been another sign of the Chantry's tyrannical rule and desire to stamp out sedition.
And who says an assassin would have actually been able to kill Lambert? He's the Lord Seeker and lives in a military establishment filled with Templars. Far more likely the assassin would be caught and tortured and when he/she gave up Justinia the Templars would rebel. Assassins are not a fix-all, in these situations they're often more dangerous to the sender than the target.
Technically since the Circle is meant to be dissolved she can't be First Enchanter but obviously she is since the other loyalists still maintain the Circle.
 
Besides this conversation is pointless, we can't possibly know all the factors that led to Justinia and Leliana's decision. I must simply trust that they both made the best decision they possibly could because they're both supposed to be extremely good at their jobs and at the Game.

The Circles belong to the Chantry, she could have demanded Fiona to step down and puting down the Libertarians would have ceased their schemes.

Was she trying to prevent violence? Tell it to the templars she killed, if she was willingly to use violence against one side why she shouldnt use it against the other? Withouth Fiona and Adrian the mages wouldnt had rebel.
Killing Lambert would be easy, she could knew about his movements and orchestrate his demise (isnt she a good player of the Game?).
Every action she made only made things worse, what a great player of the Game. And please tell me the great achievement of Leliana at the game, because I only remember her being betrayed by Majorlaine.

Vivienne was the First Enchanter before the war, just read her codex, she was voted after becoming the Imperial Enchanter.

[Lumix19]

The Circles belong to the Chantry, she could have demanded Fiona to step down and puting down the Libertarians would have ceased their schemes.

Was she trying to prevent violence? Tell it to the templars she killed, if she was willingly to use violence against one side why she shouldnt use it against the other? Withouth Fiona and Adrian the mages wouldnt had rebel.
Killing Lambert would be easy, she could knew about his movements and orchestrate his demise (isnt she a good player of the Game?).
Every action she made only made things worse, what a great player of the Game. And please tell me the great achievement of Leliana at the game, because I only remember her being betrayed by Majorlaine.

Vivienne was the First Enchanter before the war, just read her codex, she was voted after becoming the Imperial Enchanter.

The Circles are under the Chantry's authority it's true. But that doesn't mean that she can dictate everything they do, perhaps in practice but not in principle. And it doesn't change what I said above, that exercising that sort of authority wasn't going to make the mages think that she was genuine about reform, it simply would have made more mages agree with the libertarians. In trying to tame the fires of rebellion she would stoke it into an inferno. You have to make it seem like your listening. Mages were already skeptical about the Divine's willingness to enact reforms, how would it look if she crushed dissent in so open and tyrannical a manner? She was trying to prevent a war. Perhaps she could have secretly had Adrian and Fiona killed but they are not the first or the last libertarians, killing them just causes new libertarians to rise up to replace the old. The rebellion doesn't live and die with Fiona and Adrian. Similarly killing Lambert might not have changed anything, the Seekers seemed to agree with him and the Templars have their fair share of high-ranking individuals who agree too. That's assuming he could even be killed by assassins. She is a good player of the Game but sometimes as a good player you have to know when the risk is too high or when things won't work. You don't just magically find ways to kill people. I trust that she knew what she was doing enough to come to the realisation that killing Lambert would have either been pointless or impossible.

It is claimed, by a number of individuals, that Leliana and Justinia are excellent players of the Game, with the former even being a bard. If you want to debate that that's your choice but I don't feel qualified to. I know what I am told which is that they are skilled players, I don't have their autobiographies to look through to make that judgment for myself.

[Boost32]

The Circles are under the Chantry's authority it's true. But that doesn't mean that she can dictate everything they do, perhaps in practice but not in principle. And it doesn't change what I said above, that exercising that sort of authority wasn't going to make the mages think that she was genuine about reform, it simply would have made more mages agree with the libertarians. In trying to tame the fires of rebellion she would stoke it into an inferno. You have to make it seem like your listening. Mages were already skeptical about the Divine's willingness to enact reforms, how would it look if she crushed dissent in so open and tyrannical a manner? She was trying to prevent a war. Perhaps she could have secretly had Adrian and Fiona killed but they are not the first or the last libertarians, killing them just causes new libertarians to rise up to replace the old. The rebellion doesn't live and die with Fiona and Adrian. Similarly killing Lambert might not have changed anything, the Seekers seemed to agree with him and the Templars have their fair share of high-ranking individuals who agree too. That's assuming he could even be killed by assassins. She is a good player of the Game but sometimes as a good player you have to know when the risk is too high or when things won't work. You don't just magically find ways to kill people. I trust that she knew what she was doing enough to come to the realisation that killing Lambert would have either been pointless or impossible.
It is claimed, by a number of individuals, that Leliana and Justinia are excellent players of the Game, with the former even being a bard. If you want to debate that that's your choice but I don't feel qualified to. I know what I am told which is that they are skilled players, I don't have their autobiographies to look through to make that judgment for myself.

Without its head the rebellion couldn't happened, killing the leaders put fear on the followers, its very effective ( Leliana suggest it when the mages rebel against the Inquisitor if he use tranquility).
You keep saying her actions were the right choices, but how it was right if it didn't prevented the war? In fact it made the situation worse.

The game can tell me anything, if it doesn't show me how I can believe it? People tell me Leliana is a good spymaster, but her actions show me the opposite. I will believe what I see, not what others people tell me.

[SwobyJ]

Her writer says she is the First Enchanter Montsimmard, she says she is and others people recognize her as the First Enchanter, her codex says she was voted at young age, so she wasnt only set, she became the First Enchanter.

 

EDIT: You are completely correct about the first bit, and I was wrong. While Vivienne isn't the First Enchanter of the White Spire or anything, she indeed reached the position of First Enchanter of Montsimmard from a young age.

 

 

She can be considered First Enchanter but when there's no Circle system active, that's up in the air. Its why she's even free to do her stuff - what 'Circle' is she dealing with? I agree she is First Enchanter, but as the only accepted First Enchanter, there is a whole other definition of what that means.

 

Please keep in mind that I'm taking several perspectives at once here - the rebels, the templars, the various other mages and templars, Orlais, Chantry, Seekers, etc. Inquisition is set in a time where there's many who disregard the previous systems and many who uphold the previous systems. You're taking the latter position, okay, but there's many in Thedas who don't regard Vivienne First Enchanter of anything, regardless of her or her supporters' opinions. Personally, I consider her First Enchanter.

 

Due to the nature of the Mage-Templar conflict and the disbanding of the College of Enchanters, she can be considered First Enchanter in ineffective title at most (like 'President' for former USA Presidents, or whatever), not role. However, she is indeed the leader of the Loyalists, fully intending to bring back the Circle system and keeping herself as First Enchanter of Monsimmard, or more.

[SwobyJ]

Without its head the rebellion couldn't happened, killing the leaders put fear on the followers, its very effective ( Leliana suggest it when the mages rebel against the Inquisitor if he use tranquility).
You keep saying her actions were the right choices, but how it was right if it didn't prevented the war? In fact it made the situation worse.

The game can tell me anything, if it doesn't show me how I can believe it? People tell me Leliana is a good spymaster, but her actions show me the opposite. I will believe what I see, not what others people tell me.

 

Erm what? The vast majority of Leliana's attempts at being a spymaster are successful. Her only major failures are against things utterly beyond herself or most others anyway. She's not perfect, but I've seen nothing to indicate she's terrible.

[Boost32]

EDIT: You are completely correct about the first bit, and I was wrong. While Vivienne isn't the First Enchanter of the White Spire or anything, she indeed reached the position of First Enchanter of Montsimmard from a young age.


She can be considered First Enchanter but when there's no Circle system active, that's up in the air. Its why she's even free to do her stuff - what 'Circle' is she dealing with? I agree she is First Enchanter, but as the only accepted First Enchanter, there is a whole other definition of what that means.

Please keep in mind that I'm taking several perspectives at once here - the rebels, the templars, the various other mages and templars, Orlais, Chantry, Seekers, etc. Inquisition is set in a time where there's many who disregard the previous systems and many who uphold the previous systems. You're taking the latter position, okay, but there's many in Thedas who don't regard Vivienne First Enchanter of anything, regardless of her or her supporters' opinions. Personally, I consider her First Enchanter.

Due to the nature of the Mage-Templar conflict and the disbanding of the College of Enchanters, she can be considered First Enchanter in ineffective title at most (like 'President' for former USA Presidents, or whatever), not role. However, she is indeed the leader of the Loyalists, fully intending to bring back the Circle system and keeping herself as First Enchanter of Monsimmard, or more.

I just pointed she was the First Enchanter because people insist she didn't live in the Circle, it would be impossible to do her work, but she could leave any time she wanted.

Erm what? The vast majority of Leliana's attempts at being a spymaster are successful. Her only major failures are against things utterly beyond herself or most others anyway. She's not perfect, but I've seen nothing to indicate she's terrible.

I could tell you why she is not a good spymaster, but it would derail the topic, if you want I can send you a PM.

[SwobyJ]

1) Ah okay. Fair point! Yes, she most definitely was involved with Circle matters and work. One could still argue that she was distracted by Orlesian politics and the relative luxury of her positions and specific Circle, but I don't believe she had no exposure to the Circles, how they operated, how people lived in them. She may have had a distance from the bad personal realities though - living the best of it while Kirkwall circle lived the worst of it.

I would have liked a main DAI quest that would have taken place in Monsimmard in order to clearly illustrate to the player how good a Circle CAN be, and we can then internally debate whether that's okay to aspire towards, or instead hang onto Kirkwall grudges and focus on flaws and a perceived need for upheaval of everything.

 

2) Nah, I probably can't even keep track of PMs right now. Thanks though.

[Personette]

I wonder that the Qunari don't come up more in these "mages are so dangerous" conversations. The Qunari muzzle mages & they've focused on the kind of warfare that we pursue on earth: mundane and scientific. And they've been slowly expanding their territory for years. Winning a war (as far as I can tell) against the Tevinter Imperium, where mages rule... or, if not winning, holding their own.

 

This is a world in which there is at least one faction that makes it explicitly clear that mages are not the ultimate weapon. They can be matched and beaten. The Qunari do it every day. 

 

 

 ^ I think your translator is bugged. It's producing strawmen instead of translations. 

 

This is funny and maybe a little true.

 

But arguments that say, "Let's punish innocent person X because bystander Y will cause trouble if we don't" really bother me.

 

All of the arguments I took issue with fell along those lines. "The common man will panic!" And because panic is bad, all kinds of inhumane treatment are apparently justified? 

 

I suppose a fairer or less strawman-y argument would say, "Let's pre-emptively punish everyone because SOME of them would inevitably be guilty, and we'll save more lives than we'll ruin." Which may even be true. It doesn't make the argument any more persuasive to me (& is not at all how it was phrased in the post I replied to--the post I replied to focused only on keeping the "common man" content and untroubled.)

[SwobyJ]

Finally finished my first playthrough.

 

Got Vivienne.

 

Supported Cassandra though. Partially because of true support, partially because I thought I missed my chance to support Leliana (but turns out I just had to do Arbor Wilds first? Is that how it works?).

 

But still, got Vivienne (the nicer version).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

But arguments that say, "Let's punish innocent person X because bystander Y will cause trouble if we don't" really bother me.

 

All of the arguments I took issue with fell along those lines. "The common man will panic!" And because panic is bad, all kinds of inhumane treatment are apparently justified?

 

The idea behind the Circle is not to punish person X; it is to remove them.

 

That might sound harsh, but sometimes physical separation truly is the best way to settle conflicts. Domestic violence is an example of this. There are also many historical examples, where new nations were formed to separate warring factions (e.g. -- India and Pakistan).

 

It is understandable why the Chantry may feel like separation is the best solution. Sure, people may fight all the time, but magic makes these potential fights a lot messier. When magic is used, innocent bystanders are at a higher risk of being harmed than fights using conventional weapons. Doubly so if the lack of a Circle results in a lack of proper training for the mage. Suddenly you have more involved parties, and the family or friends of the victims may enter the mix seeking retribution. Also, in a panic situation, mages run high risk of possession. Suddenly the death-toll shoots up exponentially (to the tune of 50+ victims). Now, more panic ensues, and the presence of magic leads to mages getting the blame (even if they were never the aggressors) and becoming the target of more violence. And this is before taking things like Blood Magic and summoning spirits into account.

 

The Circle seeks to avoid this. In theory, it is not punishing the mages; it is actually protecting them. The Circle is defensible, and by rights, Templars are obligated to protect mages from outside threats like mob riots. In practice, that has not always been the case (Kirkwall being a prime offender). However, even at its worst, the concept of the Circle has never been to preemptively punish the mages to pacify the average citizen. It is to provide the mages safe refuge for their training and everyday life, and if something does go wrong, it is at least contained within the walls of a castle away from the general populace (fewer victims, less hard feelings towards the mages). In that time, they learn to control their power and receive quality education, so if/when they do leave the Circle, they are equipped to handle being out there.