1041 réponses à ce sujet

[Boost32]

Fiona hijacked it to push a vote, yes, but she did so legally.

No, she didnt. Years before the Colleges were disbanded because she tried that, she didnt have any authority to push for the vote (the Divine only gave them permission to discuss the reforms for the Circle, not the dissolution of the Circle).

[sniper_arrow]

Believing that peaceful reform and compromise were possible is rather naive. The Templars demonstrated no willingness to go along with it, and every willingness to defy the Divine's orders.

 

And ultimately, the Mage rebellion worked.  It created a political momentum for mage freedom that even Divine Vivienne had to bow to.

 

I think it's because Vivienne does not see them as a threat at the moment. At the same time, Divine Vivienne may need them (as possible tools in her POV) in the future in case of dangerous magical disasters (i.e. Solas's upcoming removing of the Veil aftermath event).

[Barquiel]

Justinia had nice ideas for change but that's all they were, ideas. The reality was that the templars imposed more and more restrictions under her reign...and in some ways, Lambert was even worse than Meredith (mages are no longer allowed to leave the circles etc.), something Vivienne also forgets to mention. But I suspect she wouldn't be as supportive if she hadn't slept her way out of the circle/into nobility. Anyway, it isn't exactly surprising that Fiona and many other mages had apparently lost faith in Justinia. She did absolutely nothing to stop Lambert. If the mages hadn't rebelled it would be like Kirkwall, except, all over southern Thedas.

[MisterJB]

Xil, one day I really do hope you mature enough to come to accept that 'right thing' doesn't mean 'agree with and support Xilizhra's preferences.'

Vivienne vocally opposed a course of action she thought was ill-thought, self-destructive to the mages, and harmful to others- and she was right on all three grounds. Instead of wandering through the Hinterlands and setting people on fire, or watching passively as her organization's off-shoots set people on fire, or even supporting Templars who going about setting other people on fire between killing mages, Vivienne organized dissenters that the Rebellion tried to have killed, and used her position and influence to help them safely sit out the war. Without selling them into slavery, no less. These are all things even you should be able to concede are good, even if they do not support your rebellion- identifying and raising problems, protecting mages from Templars and malevolent mages, and not inflaming the situation at the cost of innocents.

And if you really wish to keep any kind of score based on your track record... Vivienne, to my knowledge, has never advocated genocide of all the humans of Thedas in pursuit of immortality for a racial minority oligarchy, the defense of mind-controlling police states... or relentlessly pushed for ruinously ill-planned and ill-staged rebellions that were pointed out as such at the time. She did not support or defend framing innocents with charges of murder to push them into her movement, did not approve of forcing the Circle to fight for a cause the majority did not want, didn't dismiss all suffering that resulted as solely the responsibility of her opponents, and did not routinely defend revolutionary leadership so remarkable that it's own leaders sold the survivors into slavery by the end.

Vivienne didn't do all those things. You have. Do step down from your moral posturing, Xil. Vivienne has more grounds to stand on than you do.

Boom.

[Boost32]

Believing that peaceful reform and compromise were possible is rather naive. The Templars demonstrated no willingness to go along with it, and every willingness to defy the Divine's orders.
 
And ultimately, the Mage rebellion worked.  It created a political momentum for mage freedom that even Divine Vivienne had to bow to.

The rebellion failed, the rebels can achieve what they wanted because of dumb luck, they won nothing.

And she didn't had to bow. What a few mages from the Inquisition can do to her? She allowed them, she didn't have to do it.

[Bleachrude]

From what I remember reading, didn't Adrian manipulate the situation to cause Lambert to cause the crackdown knowing that this would push more mages into her camp? Lambert didn't just RANOMDLY decide to push for more restrictions but was responding to the manipulations of both the Divine AND Adrian.

 

I'm not sure Lambert should be held accountable alone for the situation when said situation was directly engineered by two other parties working against the existing status quo.

[Xilizhra]

Vivienne vocally opposed a course of action she thought was ill-thought, self-destructive to the mages, and harmful to others- and she was right on all three grounds. Instead of wandering through the Hinterlands and setting people on fire, or watching passively as her organization's off-shoots set people on fire, or even supporting Templars who going about setting other people on fire between killing mages, Vivienne organized dissenters that the Rebellion tried to have killed, and used her position and influence to help them safely sit out the war. Without selling them into slavery, no less. These are all things even you should be able to concede are good, even if they do not support your rebellion- identifying and raising problems, protecting mages from Templars and malevolent mages, and not inflaming the situation at the cost of innocents.

Citation needed on the rebellion as a whole killing any of the alleged dissenters that Vivienne was commanding, especially since there are several such dissenters in Redcliffe itself. Also, since a sizable chunk of mages in the rebellion are themselves innocents, actions taken against them are actions taken at the cost of innocents.

 

And if you really wish to keep any kind of score based on your track record... Vivienne, to my knowledge, has never advocated genocide of all the humans of Thedas in pursuit of immortality for a racial minority oligarchy, the defense of mind-controlling police states... or relentlessly pushed for ruinously ill-planned and ill-staged rebellions that were pointed out as such at the time. She did not support or defend framing innocents with charges of murder to push them into her movement, did not approve of forcing the Circle to fight for a cause the majority did not want, didn't dismiss all suffering that resulted as solely the responsibility of her opponents, and did not routinely defend revolutionary leadership so remarkable that it's own leaders sold the survivors into slavery by the end.

Given that none of my past or present positions have actually affected the lives of the people of Thedas, I find this position odd.

[Lumix19]

No, she didnt. Years before the Colleges were disbanded because she tried that, she didnt have any authority to push for the vote (the Divine only gave them permission to discuss the reforms for the Circle, not the dissolution of the Circle).

We've had this discussion. She had the authority, the Conclave is supposed to be for the mages to decide their own future and set their own agenda, Evangeline says so - "the conclave has always existed to allow the mages to decide their own path", Fiona says so - "the Divine gave us leave to hold conclave, and you've no right to tell us what we may or may not do with it", Wynne protests Lambert's actions and even Lambert basically admits it when he claims that he's done listening to the Divine.

 

From what I remember reading, didn't Adrian manipulate the situation to cause Lambert to cause the crackdown knowing that this would push more mages into her camp? Lambert didn't just RANOMDLY decide to push for more restrictions but was responding to the manipulations of both the Divine AND Adrian.

 

I'm not sure Lambert should be held accountable alone for the situation when said situation was directly engineered by two other parties working against the existing status quo.

Adrian is certainly to blame for framing Rhys. But Lambert is meant to be a servant of the Divine, he didn't have a right to intervene in the Conclave, that's something he took when he essentially declared that he knew better "She will lead this land into chaos it can ill afford" - he wanted to overthrow her.

 

Cole: Pathetic mages. Crush them at Andoral's Reach or starve them out. Doesn't matter which.

Cole: I need an example, Seekers succeeding, seizing power. Overthrow the Divine, triumphant in the eyes of the Maker.

[Hazegurl]

You're still wrong, the conclave was design for Mages to govern themselves WITHIN the circles. Nothing more and nothing less. Fiona had no authority to dissolve the Circle. Not without the consent of the Divine.  And certainly not while being out voted.

 

Vivienne's issue was the Morrigan didn't have to work for her position whereas Vivienne had to put in "years of work, favors fought, deals dealt". Of course Morrigan has a huge advantage being taught by Flemeth and stuff. But with the power and knowledge you can make it in Orlais without the Game.

 

Morrigan certainly did play the game and had been playing it since she arrived, which is why she was so secretive at the Winter Palace when speaking to the IQ, she just didn't have to play it as long or as hard as Vivienne due to the massive amount of power and knowledge she possesses. 

[dragonflight288]

 

Dean the Young wrote....

 

 

If you intent to appeal to legalism, the Grand Enchanter doesn't have the authority to push for independence in the first place. There's no 'Mages get to leave the Circles if they want' clause for her to stand on.

 

The Nevarran Accord. It is the agreement between the mages of the Grand Cathedral and the Chantry that allowed mages to create their own pseudo-society where they could rule their own lives as they saw fit, study magic as they wished, as prior to that moment they were only allowed to use magic to dust hard to reach places and keep the candles lit, and willingly entered the Circle's. They had the College of Cumberland, the closest thing to a Democracy in a feudal-society and, this is the main bit, the support of the Divine's. 

 

They only had to have Templars standing by in the event of things going fubar. 

 

According to the Accord, the templars were supposed to, as Gregoire so eloquently puts it, guard and advise, but all the decision making would be done by the mages themselvs in regards to the actions the mages themselves would make. 

 

Fiona had the support of Justinia, and the Divine outright told the templars and Seekers to let the mages be and honor their vote for freedom (which was a very narrow one, and was done by representation, and that wasn't even true representation as some of the voters pretty much just fell in because the people chosen to represent the individual circle's had been mostly killed, so they voted by fraternity. 

 

Lambert had every right to declare the Nevarran Accord void when the mages declared Independence, don't get me wrong, because it was that accord that gave the mages the Circle's to begin with, but Lambert and a vast majority of the templars that we see only did so because they wanted to kill the mages. 

 

As a result of the Circle system, many mages did not know how to handle freedom, some went on a power trip and tried to declare themselves rulers (the mages running rampant in the Hinterlands) while most mages washed their hands of them, and no matter if they are allied with or conscripted, that one mage has to be told off by Cassandra because he is complaining about the conditions they are in, which are the exact same everyone else is in. Just like humanity today, even if we get what we want we still find a way to complain about it because "the grass is always greener on the other side" does not actually mean the grass is truly greener. 

 

That same Circle system also gave the templars a sense of entitlement in their authority and power over mages and their divine right to mete out justice as they saw fit, which Cassandra has to tell off the templars if you ally or disband them, and deal with it as well. Some even were so indoctrinated that they felt entirely justified committing mass murder of even non-mages because "they were holy warriors with a divine mandate," or some such rubbish, like the deserters in the Hinterlands or the, pretty much, vast majority of its leaders who purged their own ranks of those who ask questions or doubt their orders. 

 

Which is why allying with the Templars for me is such a tempting thing because it roots out all the corrupt elements of the templars I have problems with and puts the most awesome templar in the series to date as the Knight-Commander. 

 

Essentially, if Fiona did not have the legality to hijack the meeting, Lambert did not have the legality to declare the Nevarran Accord void or to act outside the Divine's directive, as he frequently did. 

[dragonflight288]

Justinia had nice ideas for change but that's all they were, ideas. The reality was that the templars imposed more and more restrictions under her reign...and in some ways, Lambert was even worse than Meredith (mages are no longer allowed to leave the circles etc.), something Vivienne also forgets to mention. But I suspect she wouldn't be as supportive if she hadn't slept her way out of the circle/into nobility. Anyway, it isn't exactly surprising that Fiona and many other mages had apparently lost faith in Justinia. She did absolutely nothing to stop Lambert. If the mages hadn't rebelled it would be like Kirkwall, except, all over southern Thedas.

 

I don't see how Justinia could've stopped Lambert. He may answer to her, but he controls all the swords of both the Seekers and the Templars, and was actively acting against her wishes and was trying to get her replaced with someone more favorable to his interests. 

 

He had all the sword-arms, thus he had all the real power. 

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Citation needed on the rebellion as a whole killing any of the alleged dissenters that Vivienne was commanding, especially since there are several such dissenters in Redcliffe itself. Also, since a sizable chunk of mages in the rebellion are themselves innocents, actions taken against them are actions taken at the cost of innocents.

You'll likely just deny the source, but Vivienne mentions the rebellion turning mage against mage. Also, I think we get the impression from Enchanter Ellindra in the Crossroads, but I don't recall her exact words.

[Lumix19]

Absolutely.

 

Fiona sabotaged a good-faith effort for reform and compromise, which the majority of everyone wanted, and pushed a personal agenda, that only a minority of people wanted, in a way that deliberately stoked tensions.

 

It was not necessarily. It was not even a good idea for her constitutency. Fiona took an outreach, in which the Divine willingly set herself up in conflict with her own Templars and Seekers, and substituted it with a three-part plan of "**** the Divine," "???", "FREEDOM."

 

That plan, it bears remembering, ended with Fiona throwing the mage rebellion's survival to the mercies of the Ferelden monarchy... and then selling the survivors, and children, into slavery when she decided that wasn't good enough.

 

So yes. Fiona can absolutely be blamed for hijacking a meeting she didn't have to, and for screwing things up worse than they had to.

 

 

 

If you intent to appeal to legalism, the Grand Enchanter doesn't have the authority to push for independence in the first place. There's no 'Mages get to leave the Circles if they want' clause for her to stand on.

Sabotaged a good-faith effort? Barring her being suddenly psychic she would have absolutely no idea what the Divine's plan was apart from vague and undefined reforms, promises that Wynne had used the last time but hadn't actually materialized - in fact the situation had gotten worse. Add that to the precedent of Grand Cleric Elthina, who Fiona rightly points out as trying to keep everybody happy and resolving absolutely nothing, with the only actual change resulting from her death, and can you blame Fiona for pushing an new agenda? Fiona identifies (I think rightly) that the Chantry had essentially lost control of the templars to Lambert, who's aim was to imprison the mages and shift the balance of power to the Seekers, and by extension templars.

[Dean_the_Young]

Believing that peaceful reform and compromise were possible is rather naive. The Templars demonstrated no willingness to go along with it, and every willingness to defy the Divine's orders.

 

Except, of course, when even the militant extremists did obey the Divine's orders and tolerated the Conclave for the purpose she called.

 

If believing peaceful reform and compromise were possible is naive, then ignoring what was already happening is willful ignorance.
 

 

And ultimately, the Mage rebellion worked.  It created a political momentum for mage freedom that even Divine Vivienne had to bow to.

 

 

Incorrect. The Mage rebellion failed to achieve any of to stated aims of freedom from the Chantry, the abolition of the Circles, and the independence of the Magi. At the end of the Inquisition, the magi are still not free to integrate freely with mundanes, the Circles still stand, and the new permisiveness still depends within the scope and on the whims of the Chantry.

 

The Inquisition worked- and enabled reforms that even Divine Vivienne wanted- but the Rebellion itself doesn't get to claim results that it itself could not and did not achieve through the rebellion, or as a consequence of it.

 

If you intend to suggest that the Mage Rebellion worked because they were forced to settle for conditions they weren't willing to settle for before, you might as well credit Corypheus's for the reforms as well. His destruction of the Chantry leadership had far more to do with the Chantry's change of policies than the Mage Rebellion itself.

[TevinterSupremacist]

In hindsight, Vivienne needed the Solas treatment, aka the ability to punch her face. Figuratively too, but also literally.

Wanting to create a companion who can be powerful and prestigious is one thing, having the pc turn into a mumbling baboon who can't call her out on her sh*t or have her put in her place is another. If a companion requires the pc to be "limited" in order for said companion not to lose his/her "feel" , it's a poorly written companion.

[Lumix19]

Except, of course, when even the militant extremists did obey the Divine's orders and tolerated the Conclave for the purpose she called.

 

If believing peaceful reform and compromise were possible is naive, then ignoring what was already happening is willful ignorance.
 

 

Incorrect. The Mage rebellion failed to achieve any of to stated aims of freedom from the Chantry, the abolition of the Circles, and the independence of the Magi. At the end of the Inquisition, the magi are still not free to integrate freely with mundanes, the Circles still stand, and the new permisiveness still depends within the scope and on the whims of the Chantry.

 

The Inquisition worked- and enabled reforms that even Divine Vivienne wanted- but the Rebellion itself doesn't get to claim results that it itself could not and did not achieve through the rebellion, or as a consequence of it.

 

If you intend to suggest that the Mage Rebellion worked because they were forced to settle for conditions they weren't willing to settle for before, you might as well credit Corypheus's for the reforms as well. His destruction of the Chantry leadership had far more to do with the Chantry's change of policies than the Mage Rebellion itself.

I disagree, it was an expression of mage dissatisfaction and one that got the Divine to call the Conclave so the Templars and Mages could resolve their issues. What would have actually occurred had the Conclave not exploded we can't know.

But this expression is enough that every ending requires the College be formed because it shows that the "pendulum has swung", as Giselle points out, and mages are no longer willing to trade in their freedoms for their security.

 

 

You'll likely just deny the source, but Vivienne mentions the rebellion turning mage against mage. Also, I think we get the impression from Enchanter Ellindra in the Crossroads, but I don't recall her exact words.

The source is a single incident in a single tower where a mage was killed by rebels. There's no indication that this was the case for most dissenters.

 

[thesuperdarkone2]

From what I remember reading, didn't Adrian manipulate the situation to cause Lambert to cause the crackdown knowing that this would push more mages into her camp? Lambert didn't just RANOMDLY decide to push for more restrictions but was responding to the manipulations of both the Divine AND Adrian.

 

I'm not sure Lambert should be held accountable alone for the situation when said situation was directly engineered by two other parties working against the existing status quo.

Except Lambert took control after the assassination attempt which Wynne pretty much heavily implies the templars let occur given how she says the assassin would have never been able to get close to Justinia unless the templars allowed her, meaning that the templars intentionally allowed an assassin in to kill Justinia or sway her to be anti-mage and when that failed, they had an excuse to oppress mages.

[Dean_the_Young]

Citation needed on the rebellion as a whole killing any of the alleged dissenters that Vivienne was commanding, especially since there are several such dissenters in Redcliffe itself.

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition, multiple occurances, all available in the first act. Cole's mind-reading of Vivienne, as well as conversations and codex available in the Hinterland, are the first to come to mind.

 

Do not try to conflate two issues. The dissenters with Fiona's actions were still members of the mage rebellion. The dissenters I am referring to are the ones who did not want to rebel, and were murdered for it. The toleration of the first does not disprove the second.

 

 

Also, since a sizable chunk of mages in the rebellion are themselves innocents, actions taken against them are actions taken at the cost of innocents.

 

 

And they are doubly the victims of Fiona- forced into a position of opposition to the Templars by her political provocations before the declaration, and threatened with death by the radicals afterwards.

 

 

 

 

Given that none of my past or present positions have actually affected the lives of the people of Thedas, I find this position odd.

 

 

I don't see why- after all, it's never stopped your moral posturing before.

 

None of Vivienne's past or present positions have actually affected the lives of the people of Thedas either. Mages aren't real, and neither is Thedas, and yet you have invested in a number of moral crusades on the subject.

 

If, however, you intend (as you have many times in the past) to make moral arguments, and moral condemnations, on the basis of actions, intents, and supported causes that have not happened- and we both know you have condemned Vivienne more than once not even on causes she has supported but on causes you feel she would support were she born in Tevinter or a mage-supremacist society, a hypothetical in a fictional setting- then the standard of moral grounding holds to you.

 

You have regularly aligned yourself (and, to the best of your ability, your PCs) with disastrously harmful leaders and causes that you have supported in-setting to the best of your ability via PC, and out of setting with your moral posturing and repeated statements of intentions of what you would do, in and to, the setting if you had the ability. You have supported a number of positions, and wished a number of effects, far more abhorrent than anything Vivienne has supported.

 

These are not positions you are unfairly associated with by proximity- not like your past accusations that Vivienne supported the rogue Templars rampaging in Ferelden because she was a **** who spread her legs for the Templars- you have explicitly condoned and pardoned atrocities and advocated genocide in pursuit of your utopian worldview.

 

If we simply go by what you have already supported in-setting, with your PC to the best of your ability, then you are no better than Vivienne. If we consider your aspirations if you games offered the opportunity to you, you are far, far worse.

[thesuperdarkone2]

The Nevarran Accord. It is the agreement between the mages of the Grand Cathedral and the Chantry that allowed mages to create their own pseudo-society where they could rule their own lives as they saw fit, study magic as they wished, as prior to that moment they were only allowed to use magic to dust hard to reach places and keep the candles lit, and willingly entered the Circle's. They had the College of Cumberland, the closest thing to a Democracy in a feudal-society and, this is the main bit, the support of the Divine's. 

 

They only had to have Templars standing by in the event of things going fubar. 

 

According to the Accord, the templars were supposed to, as Gregoire so eloquently puts it, guard and advise, but all the decision making would be done by the mages themselvs in regards to the actions the mages themselves would make. 

 

Fiona had the support of Justinia, and the Divine outright told the templars and Seekers to let the mages be and honor their vote for freedom (which was a very narrow one, and was done by representation, and that wasn't even true representation as some of the voters pretty much just fell in because the people chosen to represent the individual circle's had been mostly killed, so they voted by fraternity. 

 

Lambert had every right to declare the Nevarran Accord void when the mages declared Independence, don't get me wrong, because it was that accord that gave the mages the Circle's to begin with, but Lambert and a vast majority of the templars that we see only did so because they wanted to kill the mages. 

 

As a result of the Circle system, many mages did not know how to handle freedom, some went on a power trip and tried to declare themselves rulers (the mages running rampant in the Hinterlands) while most mages washed their hands of them, and no matter if they are allied with or conscripted, that one mage has to be told off by Cassandra because he is complaining about the conditions they are in, which are the exact same everyone else is in. Just like humanity today, even if we get what we want we still find a way to complain about it because "the grass is always greener on the other side" does not actually mean the grass is truly greener. 

 

That same Circle system also gave the templars a sense of entitlement in their authority and power over mages and their divine right to mete out justice as they saw fit, which Cassandra has to tell off the templars if you ally or disband them, and deal with it as well. Some even were so indoctrinated that they felt entirely justified committing mass murder of even non-mages because "they were holy warriors with a divine mandate," or some such rubbish, like the deserters in the Hinterlands or the, pretty much, vast majority of its leaders who purged their own ranks of those who ask questions or doubt their orders. 

 

Which is why allying with the Templars for me is such a tempting thing because it roots out all the corrupt elements of the templars I have problems with and puts the most awesome templar in the series to date as the Knight-Commander. 

 

Essentially, if Fiona did not have the legality to hijack the meeting, Lambert did not have the legality to declare the Nevarran Accord void or to act outside the Divine's directive, as he frequently did. 

How exactly does allying with the templars remove every corrupt element? As shown by what happens if you side with the templars in a Divine Vivienne playthrough, they are outright rebelling against her because she's a mage, pretty much showing that they are still the same mage-hating a-holes they've always been.

[Boost32]

The source is a single incident in a single tower where a mage was killed by rebels. There's no indication that this was the case for most dissenters.

The Enchanter of Ostwick was killed by rebels.
Vivienne had an apprentice who was killed by rebels (Cole brought it up).
The entire Rumor of Meleficarum chain war table (http://dragonage.wik..._of_Maleficarum)

[Boost32]

We've had this discussion. She had the authority, the Conclave is supposed to be for the mages to decide their own future and set their own agenda, Evangeline says so - "the conclave has always existed to allow the mages to decide their own path", Fiona says so - "the Divine gave us leave to hold conclave, and you've no right to tell us what we may or may not do with it", Wynne protests Lambert's actions and even Lambert basically admits it when he claims that he's done listening to the Divine.

She had no authority to do that, she tried it 2 years before and the College was dissolved because of that.
The Divine gave her no authority to vote it.

[Hazegurl]

In hindsight, Vivienne needed the Solas treatment, aka the ability to punch her face. Figuratively too, but also literally.

Wanting to create a companion who can be powerful and prestigious is one thing, having the pc turn into a mumbling baboon who can't call her out on her sh*t or have her put in her place is another. If a companion requires the pc to be "limited" in order for said companion not to lose his/her "feel" , it's a poorly written companion.

I agree with this. Having the IQ stand there derping so Viv can look powerful was a bad move.  Although she wasn't the only companion the IQ was limited just to make work.

 

You can't call Blackwall out even when you know he's lying. You have to wait to get "duped" to make his story work.

You can't kick worthless Varric to the curb.

You can't change your mind about letting IB in and kick him out.

You have to punch Dorian in the face just to get him to leave.

[Wulfram]

Except, of course, when even the militant extremists did obey the Divine's orders and tolerated the Conclave for the purpose she called.
 
If believing peaceful reform and compromise were possible is naive, then ignoring what was already happening is willful ignorance.

What was happening was a steady erosion of the mages position. Even the most basic right for their leaders to consult with one another was only allowed on a special, limited basis, and resulted in the Templars attacking and slaughtering the mage leadership.

Incorrect. The Mage rebellion failed to achieve any of to stated aims of freedom from the Chantry, the abolition of the Circles, and the independence of the Magi. At the end of the Inquisition, the magi are still not free to integrate freely with mundanes, the Circles still stand, and the new permisiveness still depends within the scope and on the whims of the Chantry.
 
The Inquisition worked- and enabled reforms that even Divine Vivienne wanted- but the Rebellion itself doesn't get to claim results that it itself could not and did not achieve through the rebellion, or as a consequence of it.
 
If you intend to suggest that the Mage Rebellion worked because they were forced to settle for conditions they weren't willing to settle for before, you might as well credit Corypheus's for the reforms as well. His destruction of the Chantry leadership had far more to do with the Chantry's change of policies than the Mage Rebellion itself.

The mages secured the freedom of the College and thus the end of the Circle monopoly over mages. Given the Templar's documented readiness for the mass slaughter of mages, and their repeated contempt for the orders of the Divine, you can't pretend that this was even vaguely possible if the Mages had not stood up for themselves and fought back against the Templars.

[Xilizhra]

Dragon Age: Inquisition, multiple occurances, all available in the first act. Cole's mind-reading of Vivienne, as well as conversations and codex available in the Hinterland, are the first to come to mind.

Cole's mind reading of Vivienne picked up a single incident without any regard for how systematic it was. And the rest wasn't actually a citation.

 

Do not try to conflate two issues. The dissenters with Fiona's actions were still members of the mage rebellion. The dissenters I am referring to are the ones who did not want to rebel, and were murdered for it. The toleration of the first does not disprove the second.

This despite the fact that they didn't want to rebel either, and one actually asks the Inquisition to reinstate the Circles?

 

And they are doubly the victims of Fiona- forced into a position of opposition to the Templars by her political provocations before the declaration, and threatened with death by the radicals afterwards.

Admittedly, the situation is unfortunate all around, but it is salvageable.

 

You have regularly aligned yourself (and, to the best of your ability, your PCs) with disastrously harmful leaders and causes that you have supported in-setting to the best of your ability via PC, and out of setting with your moral posturing and repeated statements of intentions of what you would do, in and to, the setting if you had the ability. You have supported a number of positions, and wished a number of effects, far more abhorrent than anything Vivienne has supported.

 

These are not positions you are unfairly associated with by proximity- not like your past accusations that Vivienne supported the rogue Templars rampaging in Ferelden because she was a **** who spread her legs for the Templars- you have explicitly condoned and pardoned atrocities and advocated genocide in pursuit of your utopian worldview.

 

If we simply go by what you have already supported in-setting, with your PC to the best of your ability, then you are no better than Vivienne. If we consider your aspirations if you games offered the opportunity to you, you are far, far worse.

So the upshot is that you have a vendetta against the concept of allying with the mages in Inquisition? Because it isn't like you can do anything else.

[Lumix19]

Dragon Age: Inquisition, multiple occurances, all available in the first act. Cole's mind-reading of Vivienne, as well as conversations and codex available in the Hinterland, are the first to come to mind.

 

Do not try to conflate two issues. The dissenters with Fiona's actions were still members of the mage rebellion. The dissenters I am referring to are the ones who did not want to rebel, and were murdered for it. The toleration of the first does not disprove the second.

 

 

And they are doubly the victims of Fiona- forced into a position of opposition to the Templars by her political provocations before the declaration, and threatened with death by the radicals afterwards.

 

 

 

 

I don't see why- after all, it's never stopped your moral posturing before.

 

None of Vivienne's past or present positions have actually affected the lives of the people of Thedas either. Mages aren't real, and neither is Thedas, and yet you have invested in a number of moral crusades on the subject.

 

If, however, you intend (as you have many times in the past) to make moral arguments, and moral condemnations, on the basis of actions, intents, and supported causes that have not happened- and we both know you have condemned Vivienne more than once not even on causes she has supported but on causes you feel she would support were she born in Tevinter or a mage-supremacist society, a hypothetical in a fictional setting- then the standard of moral grounding holds to you.

 

You have regularly aligned yourself (and, to the best of your ability, your PCs) with disastrously harmful leaders and causes that you have supported in-setting to the best of your ability via PC, and out of setting with your moral posturing and repeated statements of intentions of what you would do, in and to, the setting if you had the ability. You have supported a number of positions, and wished a number of effects, far more abhorrent than anything Vivienne has supported.

 

These are not positions you are unfairly associated with by proximity- not like your past accusations that Vivienne supported the rogue Templars rampaging in Ferelden because she was a **** who spread her legs for the Templars- you have explicitly condoned and pardoned atrocities and advocated genocide in pursuit of your utopian worldview.

 

If we simply go by what you have already supported in-setting, with your PC to the best of your ability, then you are no better than Vivienne. If we consider your aspirations if you games offered the opportunity to you, you are far, far worse.

If you're going to make claims like this you should actually link sources. I have literally no idea what you are referring to except the Vivienne-Cole conversation which could have been an isolated incident.

Abhorrent in your opinion, maybe you should take a look in the mirror before accusing Xil of not being "mature enough".

Everything that you have criticized Xil for supporting I find a lot more grey than you are portraying - certainly you do a disservice to the causes of Solas and the Qunari by portraying the first as a genocide to support a racial minority oligarchy and the second as "mind-controlling police states".

 

The Enchanter of Ostwick was killed by rebels.
Vivienne had an apprentice who was killed by rebels (Cole brought it up).
The entire Rumor of Meleficarum chain war table (http://dragonage.wik..._of_Maleficarum)

Clearly indicative of the systematic killing of dissenters.

 

She had no authority to do that, she tried it 2 years before and the College was dissolved because of that.
The Divine gave her no authority to vote it.

So you're going to ignore what Evangeline and Fiona said?

You'll also note that the previous vote was actually allowed to continue to the end? The vote was put down by Wynne but there was no intervention by the templars, even if the conclave was dissolved afterwards.