262 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Yes! If the people who live under a system are no longer happy it's the obligation of that system to try and work out a suitable compromise. You can't just ignore complaints because you believe you're in the right. This is precisely how real life works. People change and the system changes with it.

1- Only to a certain point. Otherwise, people will just keep claiming that they are not happy and if you keep altering the system to please them, it will mean the system is worthless. At some point, a line can't be crossed, regardless of how unhappy the people are.

 

2-You are applying a double standard here. You consider rebellion as a valid means of protesting against a system to enact change but, on the other hand, condemn loyal mages who were dissatisfied with the rebellion and refuse to participate or aid the Chantry/Templars.

[MisterJB]

I just read there is a dialogue with Sera where you can use the argument that the mages are using their grievances to justify hurting common people.

Anyone knows what are the conditions for that?

[Lumix19]

We'll never know, now, won't we?

Of course, even if Lambert did, the Chantry could have condemned him as a heretic or something. The Circles would have been seen as still loyal to the Chantry, and Lambert as the rebel flinging defiance at the Chantry.

Instead, the mages rebelling first simply lent credence to his claims, and fear to the populace.

And Lambert would have applied pressure until a new Divine was elected who agreed with his views. He makes it clear at the end of Asunder that that's what he intends to do. Lambert was never going to let it go, regardless of what the Chantry did, and there isn't a great deal the Chantry can do to stop him.

1- Only to a certain point. Otherwise, people will just keep claiming that they are not happy and if you keep altering the system to please them, it will mean the system is worthless. At some point, a line can't be crossed, regardless of how unhappy the people are.
 
2-You are applying a double standard here. You consider rebellion as a valid means of protesting against a system to enact change but, on the other hand, condemn loyal mages who were dissatisfied with the rebellion and refuse to participate or aid the Chantry/Templars.

1. True. But the point I'm trying to make is that the codex rightfully points out that there was a rebellion even in Feralden's liberal Circle, and that that rebellion was a sign of dissatisfaction. Clearly the Chantry did pay attention because Justinia was looking into reforming the Circle. What the codex then goes onto state is that the Circles in their present condition cannot function as they were intended to, which was namely to keep the peace and ensure these sorts of incidents don't occur. And clearly this is true since we see uprisings from the most liberal to the most stringent of Circles. To draw the topic back to Vivienne, cutting people's heads off and crushing 'malcontents', as she suggests, doesn't help matters at all. That's just oppression plain and simple, and since when has oppression not lead to revolution? Which is contrary to the point of the Circle in the first place, it's meant to bring stability, not incite chaos.

2. I only condemn loyalists for rendering null a vote that was agreed upon by all parties. Their rebellion is not the issue, the fact that they went and blatantly ignored a vote, is. I would have expected the libertarians to obey the outcome of the vote if the loyalists had won and I expect the same from the loyalists since the libertarians won. Rebellion is meant to be a sign of displeasure which leads to talks of change. The talks were had, the Templars weren't interested in change, a vote was declared, everyone participated, the loyalists lost and they should have done so gracefully. That's not to say the libertarians should just ignore their point of view of course, because that's also tyranny of the majority. But the fact that the Circle still exists, as claimed by Vivienne, is an affront to the vote which clearly dissolved the Circle.

[Iakus]

And Lambert would have applied pressure until a new Divine was elected who agreed with his views. He makes it clear at the end of Asunder that that's what he intends to do. Lambert was never going to let it go, regardless of what the Chantry did, and there isn't a great deal the Chantry can do to stop him

 

 

Pressured with what?  He was able to get away with breaking away from the Nevarran Accords because the mages already had, claiming the Divine had failed.  Without the mage rebellion, he has no ammunition, no justification for his actions.  If he tried to rebel, he wouldn't have a whole lot of Templars leaving with him.  And on the off chance he did, he'd likely have an Exalted March on his hands.

[Iakus]

 

2. I only condemn loyalists for rendering null a vote that was agreed upon by all parties. Their rebellion is not the issue, the fact that they went and blatantly ignored a vote, is. I would have expected the libertarians to obey the outcome of the vote if the loyalists had won and I expect the same from the loyalists since the libertarians won. Rebellion is meant to be a sign of displeasure which leads to talks of change. The talks were had, the Templars weren't interested in change, a vote was declared, everyone participated, the loyalists lost and they should have done so gracefully. That's not to say the libertarians should just ignore their point of view of course, because that's also tyranny of the majority. But the fact that the Circle still exists, as claimed by Vivienne, is an affront to the vote which clearly dissolved the Circle.

It wasn't agreed upon by all parties, though.  It was voted on by fraternity (interesting note:  Vivienne never chose a fraternity and thus was technically not represented)  The heads of each fraternity voted on behalf of every member.  Five mages chose the fate of all the CIrcles.

 

Besides which, if they voted to fight back against the Templars by using blood magic to raise a demon army, should everyone have meekly complied?

[Augustei]

I just read there is a dialogue with Sera where you can use the argument that the mages are using their grievances to justify hurting common people.

Anyone knows what are the conditions for that?

Yeah, you pick the "Tell the truth" dialogue option =P

[Lumix19]

It wasn't agreed upon by all parties, though.  It was voted on by fraternity (interesting note:  Vivienne never chose a fraternity and thus was technically not represented)  The heads of each fraternity voted on behalf of every member.  Five mages chose the fate of all the CIrcles.
 
Besides which, if they voted to fight back against the Templars by using blood magic to raise a demon army, should everyone have meekly complied?

Vivienne herself claims she was not part of the Circle and thus was not compelled to rebel, which is fine, I don't blame her. I blame the people she represents. As to whether the vote was legitimate: each fraternity chose a representative, if they felt they chose wrongly that's their problem. You would have to take it up with each representative as to why they felt they could dictate the future of the Circle. Besides the same criticism could be launched at any representative democracy ever. There's just no better way logistically

And yes, if the Mages had voted to fight the Templars with blood magic and demons, then I would have expected solidarity. It would never have happened and its a rather poor example, but yes I guess I would have expected some unity.

[Lumix19]

Pressured with what?  He was able to get away with breaking away from the Nevarran Accords because the mages already had, claiming the Divine had failed.  Without the mage rebellion, he has no ammunition, no justification for his actions.  If he tried to rebel, he wouldn't have a whole lot of Templars leaving with him.  And on the off chance he did, he'd likely have an Exalted March on his hands.

The Templars obey the Seekers without question. I remember somebody saying that in Inquisition I think. Regardless anyone who disagreed would have been replaced. And the Templars wanted the same thing Lambert did, to be a power in their own right, free of the Chantry's leash. And who would have obeyed the call for an Exalted March on the largest military force in Thedas? Besides an Exalted March on your own Templars? Can you imagine? No I think Inquisition makes it fairly clear that the Chantry has much less power than they like to believe.

[MisterJB]

And Lambert would have applied pressure until a new Divine was elected who agreed with his views. He makes it clear at the end of Asunder that that's what he intends to do. Lambert was never going to let it go, regardless of what the Chantry did, and there isn't a great deal the Chantry can do to stop him.


1. True. But the point I'm trying to make is that the codex rightfully points out that there was a rebellion even in Feralden's liberal Circle, and that that rebellion was a sign of dissatisfaction. Clearly the Chantry did pay attention because Justinia was looking into reforming the Circle. What the codex then goes onto state is that the Circles in their present condition cannot function as they were intended to, which was namely to keep the peace and ensure these sorts of incidents don't occur. And clearly this is true since we see uprisings from the most liberal to the most stringent of Circles. To draw the topic back to Vivienne, cutting people's heads off and crushing 'malcontents', as she suggests, doesn't help matters at all. That's just oppression plain and simple, and since when has oppression not lead to revolution? Which is contrary to the point of the Circle in the first place, it's meant to bring stability, not incite chaos.

I imagine that oppression has lead to revolutions less often than weakness has plus invasions.

Personally, I would place more trust in Vivienne's style of governance than Justinia's and she is a mage. It's nice to think that if we listen to people, we can both be happy but, in my experience, that just leads to them demanding more and more until they have more than you and, even then, they won't be happy.

Life is a struggle for dominance and people will only ever accept having less than everything if they have no other option.

 

Hence, if mages have a complaint, I would be willing to listen. Maybe act on it, maybe ignore it.

But the simple fact they are discontent is not an argument because people are always discontent. Even if they brought back Tevinter, they would still be discontent except now they would be with each other.

 

2. I only condemn loyalists for rendering null a vote that was agreed upon by all parties. Their rebellion is not the issue, the fact that they went and blatantly ignored a vote, is. I would have expected the libertarians to obey the outcome of the vote if the loyalists had won and I expect the same from the loyalists since the libertarians won. Rebellion is meant to be a sign of displeasure which leads to talks of change. The talks were had, the Templars weren't interested in change, a vote was declared, everyone participated, the loyalists lost and they should have done so gracefully. That's not to say the libertarians should just ignore their point of view of course, because that's also tyranny of the majority. But the fact that the Circle still exists, as claimed by Vivienne, is an affront to the vote which clearly dissolved the Circle.

And the Circle was something that once everyone agreed to. But you're ok with the mages just up and leaving.

Hence, you should be ok with the loyal mages just up and leaving the rebellion.

[MisterJB]

Yeah, you pick the "Tell the truth" dialogue option =P

At which point?
After recruiting the mages? The Templars? Conscription, alliance?

[Lumix19]

I imagine that oppression has lead to revolutions less often than weakness has plus invasions.
Personally, I would place more trust in Vivienne's style of governance than Justinia's and she is a mage. It's nice to think that if we listen to people, we can both be happy but, in my experience, that just leads to them demanding more and more until they have more than you and, even then, they won't be happy.
Life is a struggle for dominance and people will only ever accept having less than everything if they have no other option.

Hence, if mages have a complaint, I would be willing to listen. Maybe act on it, maybe ignore it.
But the simple fact they are discontent is not an argument because people are always discontent. Even if they brought back Tevinter, they would still be discontent except now they would be with each other.



And the Circle was something that once everyone agreed to. But you're ok with the mages just up and leaving.
Hence, you should be ok with the loyal mages just up and leaving the rebellion.

Then we disagree fundamentally. But in my view peace and stability has only ever been kept through compromise, not violent oppression. People who have no options are the most dangerous because they think they have nothing to lose. This is not a situation where someone wins or loses, because in the end there is no winner and the people losing are those who get caught up in the struggle. Look at Inquisition, neither mage or templar was winning and all they left in their wake is ashes. Through compromise we may be unhappy but at least we're working together.

And you're missing out a vital point. People are always discontent, I'm discontent right now, but there is a difference between being quietly discontent and being willing to do something about it (i.e. rebelling). I'm sure libertarians have always existed within the Circle, but only now are they large enough and annoyed enough to actually do something about it.

I'm not ok with Mages just up and leaving, I am ok with rebellion, signs of displeasure, pushing for change. Similarly if the loyal Mages are unhappy with the new system, say the College of Enchanters, they're more than welcome to push for change and rebel. But show some solidarity during a war, especially right after a vote is held. When a new system is put in place, then show your displeasure, don't act like a spoiled child and refuse to acknowledge the result of the vote. If every faction was so petulant democracy would have failed a long time ago. And I would note there are loyalist Mages who did join the rebellion, I'm only condemning those who stuck with the Circle and who Vivienne claims to represent.

[Boost32]

The templars were winning, if it wasnt by Corypheus the war would end with their victory.

[Lumix19]

The templars were winning, if it wasnt by Corypheus the war would end with their victory.

They would have won that battle, yes. But Mages wouldn't have submitted because when do rebels ever? Templars would have crushed the resistant ones and in a couple of years there would be more violence, more chaos and more death because new rebels would have taken their place. In the long-term there is no winner, there's just people fighting and those who get caught in the cross-fire.

[Boost32]

They would have won that battle, yes. But Mages wouldn't have submitted because when do rebels ever? Templars would have crushed the resistant ones and in a couple of years there would be more violence, more chaos and more death because new rebels would have taken their place. In the long-term there is no winner, there's just people fighting and those who get caught in the cross-fire.

Vivienne if elected Divine crush the rebellion (if the Inquisitor went to the mages) and you don't hear about another rebellion.

[The Baconer]

The templars were winning, if it wasnt by Corypheus the war would end with their victory.

 

With the Seekers at the wheel? Thank the Maker for Corypheus.

[Lumix19]

Vivienne if elected Divine crush the rebellion (if the Inquisitor went to the mages) and you don't hear about another rebellion.

That's not to say one won't or doesn't happen. Crushing rebellions rarely makes the problem go away. It's like treating the symptom, not the cause.

[MisterJB]

You can't treat the cause because it is the existence of magic.

Magic has set a very clear distinction between those who have it and those who don't. This leads to two groups of people forming. Normals and mages. These two groups will, of course, compete for influence, resources, power, etc. They will seek to defend themselves and their interests from the other groups. They may unite if a greater threat appears such as the Darkspawn but once it is removed, they'll go back to quarrelling.

This leads to conflict. The Circle system is the group of normals exerting their will over the group of mages in order retain influence and to protect itself. The rebellion that resulted was a means for the mages to gain influence and power to protect their own interests.

 

The Circle may disappear but the struggle will never and, so long as there is magic, mages and normals will fight each other.

[Iakus]

The Templars obey the Seekers without question. I remember somebody saying that in Inquisition I think. Regardless anyone who disagreed would have been replaced. And the Templars wanted the same thing Lambert did, to be a power in their own right, free of the Chantry's leash. And who would have obeyed the call for an Exalted March on the largest military force in Thedas? Besides an Exalted March on your own Templars? Can you imagine? No I think Inquisition makes it fairly clear that the Chantry has much less power than they like to believe.

And the Seekers obey the Divine.  Been that way for a thousand years.  If the Templars want to be free of the Chantry's leash, why are they bothering to go after the mages?  That was a duty the Chantry put on them.  They broke away because they felt the CHantry wasn't letting them fuffill their mandate.

 

But if there is no mage rebellion, the Templars aren't needed to fight rebelling mages.  Lambert wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

[Iakus]

The templars were winning, if it wasnt by Corypheus the war would end with their victory.

 

Actually there were peace talks going on that might have led to reconciliation.

 

Before Corypheus blew it up 

[Lumix19]

And the Seekers obey the Divine. Been that way for a thousand years. If the Templars want to be free of the Chantry's leash, why are they bothering to go after the mages? That was a duty the Chantry put on them. They broke away because they felt the CHantry wasn't letting them fuffill their mandate.

But if there is no mage rebellion, the Templars aren't needed to fight rebelling mages. Lambert wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

Cassandra admits herself that the Seekers have never truly been beholden to the Divine. She also says that the Templars and Seekers rebelled because it was felt that the Divine had 'tacitly allowed the Mages to vote on their independence', hence they refused to accept change and the direction the Divine was heading in. They thought they knew better than the Chantry and that they were doing the Maker's work. The outcome would have been the same if the reforms had gone ahead. The Divine would be seen as interfering with the sacred duty of the Templars and they would have pressured her and the Chantry into aligning with their stance. Add a desire to craft a new supreme Templar order and Lambert would have had an army to rival most in Thedas. The dissolution of the Nevarran Accords were mere technicalities, even if they had remained Lambert would have ensured that the power rested with the Seekers, not the Chantry.

[Boost32]

That's not to say one won't or doesn't happen. Crushing rebellions rarely makes the problem go away. It's like treating the symptom, not the cause.

And since when giving in to the rebels led to a better way? It only makes them always wanting more.

[MisterJB]

The point is that without the Divine blatantly favouring the mages and sabotaging efforts to contain the threat, the number of Templars and Seekers who would have taken Lambert's side over hers would have been greatly diminished.

[Lumix19]

You can't treat the cause because it is the existence of magic.
Magic has set a very clear distinction between those who have it and those who don't. This leads to two groups of people forming. Normals and mages. These two groups will, of course, compete for influence, resources, power, etc. They will seek to defend themselves and their interests from the other groups. They may unite if a greater threat appears such as the Darkspawn but once it is removed, they'll go back to quarrelling.
This leads to conflict. The Circle system is the group of normals exerting their will over the group of mages in order retain influence and to protect itself. The rebellion that resulted was a means for the mages to gain influence and power to protect their own interests.
 
The Circle may disappear but the struggle will never and, so long as there is magic, mages and normals will fight each other.

In which case any division would cause constant conflict. Yet there are a myriad of things that divide us, gender, religion, orientation, race but societies can still exist in, relative, harmony. And that's through changing prejudice, through increased contact (the contact hypothesis), recategorization, mutual interdependence etc. And by having systems of government that try to balance the needs of all these groups rather than just favoring one.

[MisterJB]

And since when giving in to the rebels led to a better way? It only makes them always wanting more.

Pretty much.

[The Baconer]

And since when giving in to the rebels led to a better way?

 

The Transfiguration.