348 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

It really was stupid for the mages to rebel the way they did in the first place.

 

What with all these children they had in their ranks, along with mages who could barely light a candle let alone fight. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Then what did the templars do to mages during the war? You never hear of the templars ever taking any prisoners? That pretty much means that the templars killed any mages they fought.

 

Sadly, my hastily witted friend, it does not. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and a lack of support for one thing does not 'pretty much mean' the opposite. I've never heard you say you like puppies, but I've never considered that reason to believe you sodomize them.

 

We haven't heard of Templars ever taking prisoners- we also haven't heard of Templars never taking prisoners, which is what the argument requires us to believe. You also have a rather significant qualifier in your statement: 'mages they fought.' Children, by and large, do not fight- and I challenge you to show where Templars fought mage-children in the course of the rebellion without cause.
 

 

 

Take a look at this official artwork. Does it look like the Templars would be merciful:

 

http://1.bp.blogspot...I_Apostates.jpg

 

 

It's impossible to say- because it doesn't say. It shows that the Mages fear the Templars- but it in no way posits that they only fear them because they're baby-murdering genocidal maniacs who take no prisoners.

 

For all we know, the Templar with the sword in the image is shouting 'surrender.' The image would make just as much sense- the mage who flees with the babe, the mage who fights  back with fire, and the desperate one who'd rather resort to blood magic than surrender. None of these require that 'surrender' be followed by 'surrender and die and/or be made tranquil.'

 

 

 

Because by that point they have already been brainwashed into the Venatori, thus they are no longer rebel mages but Venatori spellbinders.

 

Find that codex yet?

[thesuperdarkone2]

Mages did, however, choose to be rebels, and to force rebellion on other mages and drag them along with it. The rebel mages aren't simply hated for being  born- they're hated for being rebellious.

 

Nor does sympathy have much to do with 'innocence', unless we're tossing aside any pretense at justice.

 

 

 

Why no- I don't approve of Fiona's selling her charges to Tevinter. In fact, I often condemn her for it, just as I condemn her for dragging the entire Circles (including the children) into a Rebellion most didn't want and she wasn't prepared to protect them in.

 

If, bringing us back to the topic of guilt and innocence, we want to consider the children, the moral guilt rests more on the ones who dragged them along and into the threat of slavery, blood sacrifice, or worse.

Then that rests solely on the templars who followed Lambert. The book made it abundantly clear Lambert was a mage hater who was just looking for an excuse to kill mages. Considering how he didn't do anything to Meredith supports this.

 

Also, the reason the mages chose rebellion was that by leaving the Spire, Lambert already considered them rebels. The fact that the templars KILLED the mages in circles where they learned about the Spire before the mages did kind of proves they weren't going to be shown mercy. Heck, Rhys outright says that if they surrendered, any rights they had would be gone at best and at worst the majority would be made tranquil or killed.

 

 

 

Find that codex yet?

The fact that people never shut up about it clearly shows you literally have no other proof about the mages not being brainwashed other than that. I am still looking but finding a letter in a large area just to prove a point to some biased stranger who likely won't be convinced anyway isn't my top priority. Winning internet arguments isn't exactly a top priority.

 

You actually going to show actual proof the mages aren't brainwashed?

[Dean_the_Young]

^Being honest here, if that was the Mages' intentions, in some sense we could argue that they were using child hostages: "They would never attack children!".

 

There's a limited number of reasons to take them otherwise: the children are a drain on already scarce resources, a military liability, and the outcome of the war between adults is what will determine the fates of future generations regardless.

 

If the mages succeed in their rebellion, and create a state/context in which all mage children come to them, then mage children safely left behind would also come to them.

 

If the mages succeed in their rebellion, but can not create a state/context in which mage children come to them automatically, then all future mage-born children will go to the new circles anyway and the adults free mages are still going to have to breed their own population. The children are only a potential breeding population for the viability of that new mage state.

 

if the mages fail in the rebellion, then the mage children are going back into the Circles anyway. The only question is how many survive.

[Dean_the_Young]

Then that rests solely on the templars who followed Lambert. The book made it abundantly clear Lambert was a mage hater who was just looking for an excuse to kill mages. Considering how he didn't do anything to Meredith supports this.

 

 

If we ignore all other actors who had their own say in the course of events, then sure.

 

If we don't, then no.

 

 

Also, the reason the mages chose rebellion was that by leaving the Spire, Lambert already considered them rebels. The fact that the templars KILLED the mages in circles where they learned about the Spire before the mages did kind of proves they weren't going to be shown mercy. Heck, Rhys outright says that if they surrendered, any rights they had would be gone at best and at worst the majority would be made tranquil or killed.

 

 

A crackdown began after one side learned a wider rebellion, long primed, had begun? Color me shocked- shocked I tell you. It's not like the Circles where mages learned first ever broke into fighting or something.

 

 

And Ryhs's political acuemen is, ahem, hardly infallible. An impartial an unbiased observer his is not- even without his other limitations of knowledge and viewpoint.

 

 

 

The fact that people never shut up about it clearly shows you literally have no other proof about the mages not being brainwashed other than that. I am still looking but finding a letter in a large area just to prove a point to some biased stranger who likely won't be convinced anyway isn't my top priority. Winning internet arguments isn't exactly a top priority.

 

You actually going to show actual proof the mages aren't brainwashed?

 

 

Why would I need to disprove something that didn't happen?

 

And considering you've been making this claim for the better part of a year now, you must put a pretty high priority on it to keep bringing it up all this time while still looking for it.

[Lulupab]

@ Dean

 

You said "most mages" didn't want a rebellion, its simply not true. After mages found out they can be mass murdered for a crime they did not commit, and everything surrounding tranquility was a lie, I don't blame them. Its made clear that Libertarians numbers was on vast increase while loyalist numbers was on utter decline.

 

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Plus, in their war table missions they go out and do the things the Inquisition stands for- restoring order, fighting demons, managing the fearful masses in the pursuit of truth. 

 

Doing COTJ is the closest the Dragon Age series managed to make me feel like I was creating an order of paladins.

 

Speaking of paladins...

Are these two related? 

 

Personally, I find it much more appropriate and fitting to go with In Hushed Whispers. For one thing, while the red templar plot is a bit lame in that path, it's completely nonexistent if you play Champions of the Just;

 

I don't see how you can say the red templar plot is nonexistent on the templar path, there is slightly less content yes. But I feel that making first contact with the red templars at Therinfal is far more impactful than them just showing up at Haven, in COTJ the fight with the red templars feels far more intimate and tragic as we first hand experience the betrayel of the order. We experience the initial confusion and panic as the massacre begins, we see templars pleading with former comrades for them to return to their senses and we see just how far gone the reds are by their willingness to turn on their fellow knights.

 

Then after COTJ the red templars are scattered, but continues to serve Corypheus to the best of their abilities, they set up shop in Enterprise De Lion which the inquistion eventually finds and destroys, but not before the reds have already build up new forces which then sets up their final stand at the temple of Mythal.

 

The last part require some headcanon but I find it an acceptable way to connect the three story points.

 

 

I do.  And in fact, Champions of the Just is the perfect opportunity.  The entire leadership of the Templars is wiped out.  Dead or turned into monsters.  They are reliant on the Inqusition for leadership and focus, a perfect opportunity to wipe the slate clean, to install someone truly worthy of the responsibility to lead them, and someone who understands that it is the responsibility of Templars to protect everyone, mage and muggle alike.  To, truly become Champions of the Just.

 

That's why I like the name of the mission, when the mission begins the name seems to be used ironically to mock the templars, but by the end of it when Envy has been vanquished "Champions Of The Just" is once again meant in earnest.

[sandalisthemaker]

Narrow majority.

 

Which probably means 51%. 

 

It was still stupid of them to actually try and wage war on Templars, though. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

If we ignore all other actors who had their own say in the course of events, then sure.

 

If we don't, then no.

 

 

A crackdown began after one side learned a wider rebellion, long primed, had begun? Color me shocked- shocked I tell you. It's not like the Circles where mages learned first ever broke into fighting or something.

 

 

And Ryhs's political acuemen is, ahem, hardly infallible. An impartial an unbiased observer his is not- even without his other limitations of knowledge and viewpoint.

 

 

Why would I need to disprove something that didn't happen?

 

And considering you've been making this claim for the better part of a year now, you must put a pretty high priority on it to keep bringing it up all this time while still looking for it.

There is more evidence to support the brainwashing than the belief that they weren't. Most people ignore it either "they aren't brainwashed cuz I hate mages and thus mages are stupid!" or "The guide got some things wrong so this thing that obviously disproves my point must be wrong"

 

Also, considering several people always bring up the "mages aren't brainwashed" point, why shouldn't I bring up that point considering they only bring up that point just to hate on the mages. 

 

Also, in case you forgot, there is this thing called having a life. Video games aren't the only thing I have to do.

 

Where was that argument against Warder's support of internment camps you promised?

[Dean_the_Young]

@ Dean

 

You said "most mages" didn't want a rebellion, its simply not true. After mages found out they can be mass murdered for a crime they did not commit, and everything surrounding tranquility was a lie, I don't blame them. Its made clear that Libertarians numbers was on vast increase while loyalist numbers was on utter decline.

 

 

? That image doesn't counter what you think it's countering.

 

If you haven't read the book Asunder, which goes over the vote for rebellion, here's the short version: Fiona fails to get a majority, and keeps trying until tensions from both Templars and radical mages (and other actors) heighten tensions and fears enough to nudge the needle because the mages believe they're doomed even if they don't fight back.

 

No one denies there was a majority vote. I assume most of us would question the will of a majority coerced through fear.

[thesuperdarkone2]

? That image doesn't counter what you think it's countering.

 

If you haven't read the book Asunder, which goes over the vote for rebellion, here's the short version: Fiona fails to get a majority, and keeps trying until tensions from both Templars and radical mages (and other actors) heighten tensions and fears enough to nudge the needle because the mages believe they're doomed even if they don't fight back.

 

No one denies there was a majority vote. I assume most of us would question the will of a majority coerced through fear.

It was less fear and more the pro-rebellion mages finally had enough. Why do you think the aequetarians who sided with the loyalists before now support the liberatarians.

[Dean_the_Young]

There is more evidence to support the brainwashing than the belief that they weren't. Most people ignore it either "they aren't brainwashed cuz I hate mages and thus mages are stupid!" or "The guide got some things wrong so this thing that obviously disproves my point must be wrong"

 

Or most people ignore it because it doesn't exist in canon materials.

 

But no, they must hate mages- even the pro-mage people who don't believe it.

 

 

Also, considering several people always bring up the "mages aren't brainwashed" point, why shouldn't I bring up that point considering they only bring up that point just to hate on the mages. 

 

 

Because people who bring up that the mages aren't brainwashed have the grounding of the truth: that generally helps, especially when the truth is unflattering.

 

You use an imaginary head-canon codex that no one but yourself can attest to, radical interpretations of otherwise straightforward accounts (including a witness account), and demand others argue a negative.

 

 

Also, in case you forgot, there is this thing called having a life. Video games aren't the only thing I have to do.

 

 

Certainly. However, a year is plenty of time to have conducted this effort- one that you still maintain you are striving on.
 

 

Where was that argument against Warder's support of internment camps you promised?

 

 

Why don't you try re-reading?

[Dean_the_Young]

It was less fear and more the pro-rebellion mages finally had enough. Why do you think the aequetarians who sided with the loyalists before now support the liberatarians.

 

Because they were afraid.

 

Or, as I mentioned in the very post you quoted-
 

 

If you haven't read the book Asunder, which goes over the vote for rebellion, here's the short version: Fiona fails to get a majority, and keeps trying until tensions from both Templars and radical mages (and other actors) heighten tensions and fears enough to nudge the needle because the mages believe they're doomed even if they don't fight back.

 

 

[/asking the question I just answered]

[Lulupab]

The fear and anger mages felt was justified. We now know, as canon, that the circle system was rotten and corrupt to the core due to what seekers did.

 

Plus I just realized regardless of who was made Divine, the Inquisition's mages eventually pushed for independence from the Circle and formed the College of Enchanters (If it was not already created under Leliana, which happens in all outcomes or Cassandra which happens if sided with mages).

[Illegitimus]

? That image doesn't counter what you think it's countering.

 

If you haven't read the book Asunder, which goes over the vote for rebellion, here's the short version: Fiona fails to get a majority, and keeps trying until tensions from both Templars and radical mages (and other actors) heighten tensions and fears enough to nudge the needle because the mages believe they're doomed even if they don't fight back.

 

No one denies there was a majority vote. I assume most of us would question the will of a majority coerced through fear.

 

I don't think there are many votes to start a war that aren't in some way motivated by fear.  

[Barquiel]

We don't get a lot in DAI about the fighting, and even less about how prisoners were handled, but what we also don't get is reports of 'no prisoners taken', the slaughter of children, or anything approaching a systemic genocide. Is the lack of information worrying? Sure- ominous, even. Does it somehow implicate all Templars everywhere with doing the worst possible interpretation? Not really- especially since systemic ethnic cleansing doesn't actually solve the Templars war goals. If

You make an argument that Templars chose war, and so can be held accountable for the conduct and consequences of war. The same goes for mages who chose rebellion.
You make an argument that mages who didn't engage in atrocities in the course of rebellion shouldn't be considered collectively guilty. The same can be applied to Templars who didn't engage in atrocities.
You make an argument that the consequences of Lucius's leadership damns his followers. The same certainly should apply to the mages- all the more so because they democratically choose their leaders.
 
If you used the same standards on the Templars as you do the Mages, you'd use a far less selective argument.

I think we get a pretty good idea how "prisoners" we handled by Lucius' templars; we hear the same story again and again from mages who didn't even support the rebellion (Minaeve, Talwyn, Connor, Ellendra): "We had nowhere to go, the templars would have killed us". As far as we know Fiona's mages have never done anything similar like that. They rebelled (for good reasons), but I don't remember hearing any examples of rebel mages committing some hideous crimes against mundanes.

And I don't blame all templars. The templars who stayed loyal to the chantry, joined the inquisition or rebelled but didn't follow Lucius (like those in Hasmal) didn't take red lyrium, and they survived. But I won't shed any tears for the templars in Therinfal. I think it's rather obvious that they all actively participated or turned a blind eye to Lucius's atrocities.

[Hazegurl]

k. Seems like you are just like every other templar supporter on this site who refuses to accept logic and facts. Your attitude during the Hawke codex debacle pretty much proves you are too biased to accept anything that disputes your bias. At least I don't blatantly ignore basic facts like codexes.

Alrighty, I uncovered this post just to see if it contained that proof.  Since I see that you have none and have no intent on providing any, I'll just keep you on my ignore list.

 

And btw I'm a Mage and Templar supporter.  Shocker, I know.  Morrigan was my canon DAO LI, Mage Hawke is my canon, and Mage IQ with Dorian romanced is my DAI canon.  I just don't support every dumba** thing mages do and I don't think Templars are evil incarnate.

[Dean_the_Young]

The fear and anger mages felt was justified.

 

Feelings can be justified without being accurate.

 

We now know, as canon, that the circle system was rotten and corrupt to the core due to what seekers did.

 

 

I get why Cassandra might feel that... but I really don't get why anyone else should, since what the Seekers did doesn't really challenge the core of the system.

 

The secret of the seekers was that Tranquility could be reversed. That's nice... but Tranquility isn't the core of the Circle system. It isn't even primarily imposed by the system: it's a tool mostly used by mages on other mages they don't trust. The use of it by Templars as a punishment was already illegal and unsanctioned by the Seekers and the Chantry.

 

We can have a really good argument about whether the Seekers should have hidden it or not- but as far as 'rotten to the core,' the question is 'the core of what?' Reversing tranquility might be good for mages who were unjustly tranquilized- assuming they survive it. But it may be far less so in regards to mages who were 'justly' tranquilized by the processes that their fellow mages sanction.
 

 

Plus I just realized regardless of who was made Divine, the Inquisition's mages eventually pushed for independence from the Circle and formed the College of Enchanters (If it was not already created under Leliana, which happens in all outcomes or Cassandra which happens if sided with mages).

 

Congratulations- welcome to the post-Tresspasser status quo. I'm not sure of your point.

 

I don't think there are many votes to start a war that aren't in some way motivated by fear.  

 

And I think we can agree that people who deliberatly flan fears lose democratic legitimacy.

 

I think we get a pretty good idea how "prisoners" we handled by Lucius' templars; we hear the same story again and again from mages who didn't even support the rebellion (Minaeve, Talwyn, Connor, Ellendra): "We had nowhere to go, the templars would have killed us".

 

These mages, it should be pointed out, are objectively wrong on the first half of their argument- the were loyalist mages, there was a standing Circle (which may have been different from Vivienne's group), there were Templars who weren't interested in killing all the mages (including those at the Circle, those that remained with the Chantry, those that joined the Inquisition regardless), there were nobles who offered support and sanctuary, and that's not touching the underground mage movement and refuges.

 

The question is the validity of the second half- for which mage fears alone aren't actual proof, since perception isn't reality (as the first half demonstrates).

 

 

As far as we know Fiona's mages have never done anything similar like that.

 

 

And this comes back to being selective about grouping- you equate the Therinfall Templars with all Templars, while selectively separating Fiona's mages from all other mages.

 

They rebelled (for good reasons), but I don't remember hearing any examples of rebel mages committing some hideous crimes against mundanes.

 

 

Really? We have the Hinterlands, and Redcliffe, and that's not touching on what their chosen allies did to the Tranquil.

 

We also have, even if not against mundanes, the atrocities in the towers when rebel mages turned on mages who wouldn't rebel.
 

And I don't blame all templars. The templars who stayed loyal to the chantry, joined the inquisition or rebelled but didn't follow Lucius (like those in Hasmal) didn't take red lyrium, and they survived. But I won't shed any tears for the templars in Therinfal. I think it's rather obvious that they all actively participated or turned a blind eye to Lucius's atrocities.

 

 

Like, say, the mages in Redcliffe actively participated or turned a blind eye to mage crimes in the course of the rebellion? Including the mages right outside the gates?

[Bleachrude]

One of the more interesting potential consequences about tranquility being able to be reversed now is that it becomes less viable as a means of punishment in certain people's eyes.

 

If Tranquility is imposed, you *NOW* have to actually make sure that the Tranquil's allies don't reverse the process. For example, if say a person gets caught stealing from the crown, according to Awakening, even a noble as low as an ARL is fully withing his rights to sentence the person to death. Previously, if said person was a mage, you could argue that making said mage tranquil was an appropriate punishment, but this no longer holds true. The noble in question would be more likely to argue for death.

[Lumix19]

 
I get why Cassandra might feel that... but I really don't get why anyone else should, since what the Seekers did doesn't really challenge the core of the system.
 
The secret of the seekers was that Tranquility could be reversed. That's nice... but Tranquility isn't the core of the Circle system. It isn't even primarily imposed by the system: it's a tool mostly used by mages on other mages they don't trust. The use of it by Templars as a punishment was already illegal and unsanctioned by the Seekers and the Chantry.
 
We can have a really good argument about whether the Seekers should have hidden it or not- but as far as 'rotten to the core,' the question is 'the core of what?' Reversing tranquility might be good for mages who were unjustly tranquilized- assuming they survive it. But it may be far less so in regards to mages who were 'justly' tranquilized by the processes that their fellow mages sanction.
 

Reversing tranquility is more than nice, it provides a potential solution to the age old problem of Mage possession. Cassandra outright tells us that those who reverse their tranquility are immune to mind control and demonic possession. And the very reason why Tranquility was used in the first place, along with the Harrowing (with its shaky legitimacy), is to prevent "weak" mages from becoming possessed. But the Seekers didn't care about the mages so they never bothered to investigate whether reversing the rite could actually secure mages against possession, instead they introduced it as a tool for "securing" mages, at the cost of their minds. It's only Cassandra who gives that possibility a thought and tries to investigate it centuries after the Seekers were formed.

[Lumix19]

Seems like everything said here makes me think the Red Templars are more lame than I thought. 
 
"We feel betrayed by the Chantry so we're going to take this mind controlling lyrium to make us enslaved to an ancient mage, that'll teach them for making us feel enslaved through addiction!"
 
IMO, I just see them as mind controlled corpses more than anything.  I think even Cole says they're dead. Of course not literally but essentially they are gone once they start taking the Red Lyrium.  As a matter of fact it's pointed out that Samson is the only one who has an intact mind because of his armor.  So whatever ideals they had, are gone once they take the lyrium. So you're never fighting a force who truly believes in Cory or supports him, but mindless minions which makes for a lame headcanon experience.
 
And considering the fact that most of the Red Templars were deceived into taking the Red Lyrium, I find it difficult to believe the tale of a bunch of knights who feel betrayed by the Chantry.  Most of them don't think that, which is why they were tricked and some killed at Therinfall. The entire point was to keep everyone from questioning what was going on.  And heck, most of the higher ranks took the Red Lyrium to test it out, to show the lower ranks that it was harmless because it wasn't uncommon for the Chantry to give them new types of Lyrium. 
 
If anything, it seems like Samson and a very small number of Templars felt betrayed by the Chantry; most likely a bunch of outcasts who were kicked from the order anyway and were pretty much irrelevant. Considering the fact that it takes an Envy demon to take over Lord Seeker Lucius just to get to the Templars pretty much narrows down that no one of importance felt that taking Red Lyrium was a brilliant idea regardless of how they felt about the Chantry. 
 
So it still goes back to the fact that the Venatori are the only group who supports Cory willingly or by being consciously enslaved (ie Fiona) while the Red Templars are just a bunch of mind controlled minions. So at least with the Venatori, Cory seems like a guy who can actually get a group fighting by his side and Calpernia actually has a group of her own people involved who believe in her, former slaves she freed.  It offers far more depth to Cory as a villain and in some cases it makes you wonder what Cory can do for the Imperium, cause it's not like that place doesn't need something drastic to happen to save it.
 
@Lulupab, Nothing beats killing Fiona.  Absolutely nothing.
 
And I'm not fond of fighting mindless enemies. Give me enemies with a purpose, not enemies who run into my fireballs cause their master didn't turn on a self preservation switch. Although, that's pretty much all the enemy npcs in DA. smh

That's strictly untrue. There's examples in the codex entries, and even one in Suledin Keep, where the red Templars are shown to retain their minds, personalities and beliefs. Whatever influence Corypheus was exerting over them it didn't make them mindless. I suspect only those in their very advanced stages of corruption, like Behemoths, were completely mindless.

Red Templars are examples of why you can't put men and women in a suit of armour, give them an addicting substance and then treat them like their not even people. And then after they're done serving just discard them to suffer with their lyrium addiction. As Samson points out they might as well have animated suits of armour to serve as Templars instead based how Templars were treated.

Calling Samson and his ilk irrelevant delegitimises the sufferings of the Templars in my opinion. They are an example of the worst of the Chantry and the Templar order, the fact that they were willing to cast out their brothers to beg on the street as lyrium addiction stole their minds.

[MisterJB]

The fact that people never shut up about it clearly shows you literally have no other proof about the mages not being brainwashed other than that.

I don't believe you understand what you just said.

 

We have no other proof that mages were not brainwashed other than the fact there is no proof mages weren't brainwashed?

 

[Steelcan]

 

I do love this whole "all the mages are brainwashed/innocent but the templars are worse than the Einsatzgruppen"

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I don't believe you understand what you just said.

 

We have no other proof that mages were not brainwashed other than the fact there is no proof mages weren't brainwashed?

 

 

 

 

I do love this whole "all the mages are brainwashed/innocent but the templars are worse than the Einsatzgruppen"

 

You're templar fanboys, your opinions are worthless.

[MisterJB]

I think we get a pretty good idea how "prisoners" we handled by Lucius' templars; we hear the same story again and again from mages who didn't even support the rebellion (Minaeve, Talwyn, Connor, Ellendra): "We had nowhere to go, the templars would have killed us". As far as we know Fiona's mages have never done anything similar like that. They rebelled (for good reasons), but I don't remember hearing any examples of rebel mages committing some hideous crimes against mundanes.

And I don't blame all templars. The templars who stayed loyal to the chantry, joined the inquisition or rebelled but didn't follow Lucius (like those in Hasmal) didn't take red lyrium, and they survived. But I won't shed any tears for the templars in Therinfal. I think it's rather obvious that they all actively participated or turned a blind eye to Lucius's atrocities.

Attempts to condemn either group for what their members did during a war will always be arbritrary and determined by our own biases.

 

I mean, let's analyze this.

 

You say "turned a blind eye to Lucius' attrocities (most of which were commited against the Templars) therefore, in your eyes, Templars who didn't act against Lucius are guilty of crimes.

 

Ok, what about Fiona and the rebel mages in the Hinterlands? There were mages there burning people without magic for fun and because they believed themselves to be superior. We are explicitly told that Fiona has washed her hands of this.

Now, please don't just say "well those weren't rebel mages". Sure, they were no longer part of the main group following Fiona but Fiona most certainly turned a blind eye to their crimes. Therefore is she also guilty? And if she is guilty, are the mages who follow, who themselves are turning a blind eye to the guilt of Fiona, guilty themselves?

 

 

Another analysis.

Let's assume for a moment that there were groups of Templars really killing any and all mages (doubtful considering how Vivienne's group was left alone but let's assume). If these Templars joined the main group of Templars, are all Templars guilty of their crimes?

And what if they became the deserter Templars in the Hinterlands that are fighting the supremacist mages. Are the remaining Templars still guilty?

 

And if they are, what about the mages who killed other mages who refused to join the rebellion? If they joined Fiona's group, is every mage there guilty of their crimes? And if they became the supremacists in the Hinterlands, are those mages still guilty?

 

If the answer to one group is "yes" but to the other "no, then that is just double standards.

 

Bottom line, it was a war and members of both groups have done horrible things and turned blind eyes when others did horrible things. Many times said horrible things were sanctioned by the faction leaders, other times they weren't.