The Tranquil should have been considered part of 'us' by the Mage Rebellion.
Or considered the charges of the Templars and in their care, much like the Mage Loyalists who remained behind in the Circles?
Either way, it does suck that they aren't considered anything but collateral damage by either side?
The Tranquil should have been considered part of 'us' by the Mage Rebellion.
This. They even rebelled because of a cure for tranquillity. Funniest part is now the mage-sympathisers insist the tranquil should have been entrusted to templars "because", while the rebellion they're all defending started with templar "abuse" and how they couldn't be "trusted" to oversee people who could actually defend themselves.
Anything to avoid responsibility it seems.
This. They even rebelled over a cure for tranquillity. Funniest part is now the mage-sympathisers insist the tranquil should have been entrusted to templars "because", while the rebellion they're all defending was about how templars couldn't be "trusted" to oversee people who could actually defend themselves.
Anything to avoid responsibility it seems.
But was the cure for tranquility ever really about the Tranquil, or was it about that the threat that the Templars had held over their head for years suddenly vanishing because it could be undone? Sure, some mages like Wynne did want the cure for moral reasons, but it was mostly about the Mages realising that if the cure was real, now the Templars could only ever issue empty threats against them?
While it seems harsh that they overlooked the Tranquil despite being one of the reasons they went to war, they could hardly deal with them with the Templars constantly attacking them? First they had to secure their freedom, then they could address the Tranquil situation and force the Chantry to hand over the cure.
In a war, if a town is destroyed, do people rebuild the town during the battle or after it? They wait until after, because otherwise it's pointless?
Curing the Tranquil when the Templars were still very much breathing down their necks, would only mean they'd have a lot of potentially emotional distraught people running around in desperate need of therapy, that none of the mages could ever hope to provide them?
How does that translate to allowing them to be killed in mass?
We don't know that they allowed anything or even knew?
Clemence says that Alexius wanted the Tranquil out of Redcliffe and that he's still around implies that the Tranquil didn't disappear all at once, but were probably picked off one by one to avoid raising any eyebrows? Everyone assumed they simply left or wandered off?
We don't know that they allowed anything or even knew?
Where exactly did they think dozens of tranquil were going to go during the war?
Probably wandered into the fracas outside the gate, where they were killed? With the amount of Apostates and Rogue Templars fighting across the Hinterlands, it's not like there's not a lot of people dying there at the moment and they'd get overlooked in the fighting?
While Tranquil aren't stupid by any means, they lack the ability to care about anything important, including their own survival?
You never see Mage supporters in his thread make trollish comments like he ones above
Quit your whining. Users on the pro-mage side troll as well (like, every other post by thesuperdrone).
You are only sensitive to criticism against your precious mages so those ones do not register anyway.
Probably wandered into the fracas outside the gate, where they were killed? With the amount of Apostates and Rogue Templars fighting across the Hinterlands, it's not like there's not a lot of people dying there at the moment and they'd get overlooked in the fighting?
While Tranquil aren't stupid by any means, they lack the ability to care about anything important, including their own survival?
Have you met Owain? He very much likes to live.
They prefer to live Mr. Everything is a question.
That's been established repeatedly.
Have you met Owain? He very much likes to live.
Owain says that he'd prefer not to die, not he makes no effort to actually get out of danger or even try to alert Wynne to drop the barrier. Same with the two Tranquil later on in the tower who make no effort to fight back as the abominations transform them, simply allowing it to take place with passive interest... nor make any attempt to leave once the Warden deals with the demons?
They might want to live, but they don't have much in the way of survival instinct.
Their survival instinct is to walk away from trouble, not fight it. The way you described them earlier is that they're too stupid and would blindly try to cross a fast lane with speeding traffic.
You just can't accept the fact mages screwed up if you're starting to blame the tranquils even.
Or considered the charges of the Templars and in their care, much like the Mage Loyalists who remained behind in the Circles?
Either way, it does suck that they aren't considered anything but collateral damage by either side?
So after telling us that 'most' of the Tranquil are the victims of a horrible act by the Templars, your solution is to put the abuse victim in the care of the alleged abusers? Wow.
The Mages now have a cure for Tranquility. However, instead of protecting the segment of their fellow mages who are least able to protect themselves and taking the respite given to them first by the Divine, then by the monarchy of Ferelden and the Arl of Redcliffe, to cure as many as possible, or at least get them out of harms way, the Rebellion abandoned them. And you would put these 'victims' back under the authority of the people you claim have the least reason to want them helped.
That is seriously messed up, unless you don't actually believe the Templars are the abusive monsters you want us to think they are.
Their survival instinct is to walk away from trouble, not fight it. The way you described them earlier is that they're too stupid and would blindly try to cross a fast lane with speeding traffic.
You just can't accept the fact mages screwed up if you're starting to blame the tranquils even.
Err, no, that's not what I said at all?
I didn't say they were stupid, I said that they lacked much in the way of a survival instinct, meaning that while they might walk into a dangerous area and recognise it as such, they'd not consider keeping their head down or perhaps running through it quickly to try and avoid danger?
A Tranquil would not run across a highway with heavy traffic, they'd stand and wait all day if they had to, long after a normal person would have given up or decided to find another way around. Hunger would be the only thing that'd probably get them to move and decide that they needed a new course of action, but the Tranquil have a degree of patience that most lack, so they could wait forever if they had to?
Have I ever said the mages didn't screw up they operated the rebellion or that they aren't partially to blame for the death of the Tranquil? I've repeatedly said that they had a difficult job and that the Rebellion was simply too large and too disorganised to run properly, as well as point out that the Mages share the blame with the Seekers and Templars for the Tranquil being overlooked and forgotten?
What my actual beef with this entire thread is that I find it frankly baffling how anyone can ascribe the blame for every single thing that happened to go wrong on Fiona's head, as well as accuse the mages of being complicit in genocide, with complete sincerity on their part?
So after telling us that 'most' of the Tranquil are the victims of a horrible act by the Templars, your solution is to put the abuse victim in the care of the alleged abusers? Wow.
The Mages now have a cure for Tranquility. However, instead of protecting the segment of their fellow mages who are least able to protect themselves and taking the respite given to them first by the Divine, then by the monarchy of Ferelden and the Arl of Redcliffe, to cure as many as possible, or at least get them out of harms way, the Rebellion abandoned them. And you would put these 'victims' back under the authority of the people you claim have the least reason to want them helped.
That is seriously messed up, unless you don't actually believe the Templars are the abusive monsters you want us to think they are.
While some of the Templars abused the Tranquil and I don't agree with the Rite of Tranquility at all, my point was simply that the Templars could have at least accepted the responsibility since they were the ones who forced them into that state in the first place?
Or the Circle Mages who were part of the Loyalist faction could have refused to let the Tranquil go with the rebels and offered to take care of them? After all, the Loyalists were staying behind in the Circles with the Templars anyway and what exactly do the Tranquil do for the Rebellion anyway? Most Tranquil have commented that they enjoy working, so staying in the Circle seems like it'd have been preferable for them?
As for the Templars, I don't think that they are monsters. There are a lot of good people in the order that we see and from what it seems, most of the abusive Templars who commited crimes against the Mages and Tranquil are likely the same as those who went totally rogue and began roaming the hills preparing to stab anyone for carrying a stick?
But I ask again, what's the sense in blaming the Rebellion for everyone passing the buck around? Everyone screwed up here?
I don't think she had much choice in the end.
That's pretty much what I believe, she was forced (or at least she believed) into her position given the mage/templar war. By the time the Inquisition comes along, the mages are trapped unless Alexius is defeated and the mages become part of the inquisition.
Ferelden already wasn't safe, the Templars were apparently threatening to attack, Alexius ousting Teagan would hack off the crown against them, coupled with the Mages being one of the prime suspects for the Conclave bombing in many people's eyes... they needed to get out of dodge quickly?
The Templar threat was imaginary. She gets no consideration for handling the imaginary Templar attack from me. Especially since 'the Templars are going to attack us" was an obvious outcome from the very beginning when she made the choice to rebel. How did she put it in Asunder? "Some of us will die but surely not all." Something about it being worth the cost in lives as long as some survived?
Even if we assume that Teagan was ousted prior to her accepting the deal with Alexius and without her prior knowledge (neither of which is proven.) She still had options other than allying herself with the enemy of her benefactors. The simplest one being... not doing it.
Maybe, just maybe offering to help throw out the usurpers when the time came instead of joining them.
I suppose it never occured to Fiona that the ruler(s) who have already proven --by inviting the mages and their war into their country, risking the ire of the Chantry and the Templar Order, not to mention the discontent of their own people for absolutely no gain-- that they do not hold all mages responsible for the bad acts of some... might not blame her people?
Do you have any idea how many rebellions and uprising, even with good leadership and infrastructure backing them, ultimately fail because of the simplest things going wrong to ruin everything? We hear about a lot of the First Enchanters and Senior Enchanters being killed when various Circles fell, doubtless a lot of the people that Fiona probably hoped would pick up some of the slack?
That doesn't make her a bad leader, that just makes her a leader with some extremely bad luck.
So.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
It's not Fiona's fault. There were no other leaders and no infrastructure.
It's not Fiona's fault there were no other leaders and no infrastructure.
It's not Fiona's fault even if there were other leaders and a solid working infrastructure it could have still failed.
Is that an accurate summary of your position so far?
Wow the insanity here is just like last time
It's a Mage vs Templar thread. Are you really surprised?
It's a Mage vs Templar thread. Are you really surprised?
Kill the Templars before they brutalize anyone else! 
not in the slightest but I like being a smartarseIt's a Mage vs Templar thread. Are you really surprised?
It's a Mage vs Templar thread. Are you really surprised?
Actually it isn't, it's just the usual suspects that turned it into a Mage vs Templar thread 
And she was right about Fiona.
Well they had a choice, either follow Corypheus or they would die, the majority choose to follow him. In my opinion the majority of the mages were coerced through death threaths (no torture was mentioned), but they still knew what they were doing when they attacked Haven.
In the end they deserved their fate, they could have done something before Corypheus arrived, but their inertia led them to their fate (except the children, they didn't deserved to se suffer because of Fiona's horrible decisions).
Why would they need death threats? The Inquisition has just allied themselves with or absorbed the Templars and they just closed the greatest threat to life after the Blight. Destroying it; now that their numbers are bolstered by Tevinters; before they can use this feat to legitimize themselves and, by extension, the Templars in the eyes of governments and populations is a good plan.
The Templar threat was imaginary. She gets no consideration for handling the imaginary Templar attack from me. Especially since 'the Templars are going to attack us" was an obvious outcome from the very beginning when she made the choice to rebel. How did she put it in Asunder? "Some of us will die but surely not all." Something about it being worth the cost in lives as long as some survived?
Even if we assume that Teagan was ousted prior to her accapting the deal with Alexius and without her prior knowledge (neither of which is proven.) She still had options other than allying herself with the enemy of her benefactors. The simplest one being... not doing it.
Maybe, just maybe offering to help throw out the usurpers when the time came instead of joining them.
I suppose it never occured to Fiona that the ruler(s) who have already proven --by inviting the mages and their war into their country, risking the ire of the Chantry and the Templar Order, not to mention the discontent of their own people for absolutely no gain-- that they do not hold all mages responsible for the bad acts of some... might not blame her people?
How was the Templar threat imaginary, since you bring up Asunder, weren't the Templars the ones who formally broke the Nevarran Accord, but rather than collaberate with the Chantry on how to proceed with the matter, decided to instead flip the Divine off and go wage war on the Mages on their own? Hardly seems like they weren't being the open aggressors in the conflict, or at least, the people at the top weren't?
The real issue is the matter of the time travel tomfoolery, because clearly when Fiona (if that was her) meets us in Val Royeaux, she was open to an alliance with the Inquisition and believed that it was the best option?
Then when we get to Redcliffe, we find out that Fiona met Alexius two days after the Conclave blew up, about a day before the Inquisition was called... talk about good timing, huh? It's almost like Alexius was somehow able to go back in time to before the Inquisition even existed and to a point where Fiona was desperate and had no other options but to agree to his demands?
And how would it look to the crown exactly when the Divine is killed, the Conclave held at the most holiest place in Thedas blew up and the Sky ripped open? Do you really think that after Kirkwall was plunged into chaos in a similarly attack by a rogue mage, everyone wouldn't point to the crown letting mages set up shop in Redcliffe as "proof" that clearly they were responsible and call for their immediate eviction?
Yeah, the mages are innocent, but no-one else knows that? No wonder Alistair/Anora are so freaking hacked off when they get there, they've probably had every member for the bannorn from the highest teyrn to the lowest stableboy pointing and saying "Told you so!" for the last couple weeks?
So.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
It's not Fiona's fault. There were no other leaders and no infrastructure.
It's not Fiona's fault there were no other leaders and no infrastructure.
It's not Fiona's fault even if there were other leaders and a solid working infrastructure it could have still failed.
Is that an accurate summary of your position so far?
My position is that blaming one woman for the failure of the entire Rebellion is ridiculous?
The responsibility and the blame for how screwed up the rebellion went, even before Redcliffe, lies on everyone involved, not just the woman who happened to put forth the vote on the entire thing? Heck, if you want to blame someone unduly, blame Rhys, didn't he swing the vote?
Retour en haut