993 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

I only used Ft. Sumter as an example of a blatant attack carried out afterwards, not the events around it.

As for the mages being willing to listen to a Chantry mediated process "F*** the Divine" -Grand Enchanter Fiona.

[MisterJB]

And do you think the templars would just magically be nice and do absolutely nothing to the mages assuming they return?

No, altough there is no reason to believe their reaction would be as drastic as you claim, I never said there wouldn't be consequences.

I was not even passing judgement, merely stating the facts. The mages had a choice between peace and war. They chose war.

[MisterJB]

It certainly won't happen if nobody tries. Leliana does..

Leliana would do no good, Leliana could do no good and Leliana would risk placing every non-magical child in Southern Thedas in chains.

 

 

I disagree. You're declaring war when you launch attacks or just say that you're going to. Political secession isn't the same thing.

An illegitimate vote that went against the will of the people of Thedas, will affect their lives and whose realization will require large field engagements is not a declaration of war?

 

Ok, let's make this really simple.

Do you deny that the mages, had they returned to the Circles, would have prevented this war?
 

[Xilizhra]

Leliana would do no good, Leliana could do no good and Leliana would risk placing every non-magical child in Southern Thedas in chains.

Lulz. We'll see how that turns out.

 

 

An illegitimate vote that went against the will of the people of Thedas, will affect their lives and whose realization will require large field engagements is not a declaration of war?

There are no legitimate governments in Thedas to begin with, and I'm fairly sure that no "large field engagements" were ever used by anyone other than the templars, whom, I should remind you, were not lawful.

 

 

Ok, let's make this really simple.

Do you deny that the mages, had they returned to the Circles, would have prevented this war?

It depends on what Lambert would have done, but frankly, he was already making acts of war before the secession vote, so I would say not.

[MisterJB]

Lulz. We'll see how that turns out.

Does the prospect of the enslavement of non-mages bring you joy?

 

Oh wait, no, I know what's coming:

"Bioware wouldn't do it." So, we're back to "it's a videogame" argument.

 

There are no legitimate governments in Thedas to begin with,

Other than every single government in Thedas, of course. Because you are not the one who determines if a government is legitimate or not.

 

On the other hand, it is very telling that the only instituations you seem to consider legitimate are the College and the Inquisition (if led by you, of course)

Shows your disdain for anyone who is not a mage.

 

 and I'm fairly sure that no "large field engagements" were ever used by anyone other than the templars, whom, I should remind you, were not lawful.

And you are basing this on absolutely nothing at all.

 

It depends on what Lambert would have done, but frankly, he was already making acts of war before the secession vote, so I would say not.

No, no he wasn't. Like, not even in the sligthest. How you could even claim something he did amounted to an act of war is beyond me. The mages aren't even a separate group against which acts of war could be made. They were his charges. At the very most, you could claim abuse but that was it.

 

Also, you are now basically claiming that if the mages had surrendered from the onset, there would still be a war. This goes against logic, narrative and the very meaning of the words "surrender" and "war".

[In Exile]

An illegitimate vote that went against the will of the people of Thedas, will affect their lives and whose realization will require large field engagements is not a declaration of war?

 

The Conclave as originally convened was legitimate - or as legitimate as any meeting of a body politic can be in Thedas - when it was convened by the Divine. Lambert quite unlawfully tried to suspend it at that point, since he very clearly doesn't have the power to, for example, disband or convene meetings of the College of Enchanters as Lord Seeker. In fact, he can't even command the Templars, but his insurrection was already well underway by that point. 

 

The "will of the People of Thedas" is a gibberish concept. There's no such body politic. 

 

Do you deny that the mages, had they returned to the Circles, would have prevented this war?

 

No. Because as we see, Lambert is already actively subverting the Chantry as represented by the Divine, and rebels against it. If Lambert doesn't rebel against the Chantry, there's no war, necessarily, since Justinia might well negotiate with the mages. And even if the Circles voted against declaring independence and return to the Circles, the Divine may still have taken steps Justinia was unwilling to follow through.

And let's not forget why the mages were fleeing to Andoral's Reach: massacres by the templars. 

[In Exile]

Does the prospect of the enslavement of non-mages bring you joy?

 

The fact that this is the probable - or arguably inevitable, at least vis-a-vis the mageocracy - outcome of any kind of meaningful self-determination for mages doesn't somehow make the Circles moral, or the templars right. It just means that for the mundanes not to be enslaved, they have to perpetually perpetrate a slow-burning genocide against mages.

 

All of the arguments in favour of the Circle, mages could apply to a benevolent dictatorship where they threat mundanes as chattel. 

[Xilizhra]

Does the prospect of the enslavement of non-mages bring you joy?

 

Oh wait, no, I know what's coming:

"Bioware wouldn't do it." So, we're back to "it's a videogame" argument.

That fact must sting. But the concept is ludicrous to begin with, so meh.

 

 

Other than every single government in Thedas, of course. Because you are not the one who determines if a government is legitimate or not.

 

On the other hand, it is very telling that the only instituations you seem to consider legitimate are the College and the Inquisition (if led by you, of course)

Shows your disdain for anyone who is not a mage.

The Inquisition isn't a government, and the College appears to be at least kind of democratic.

 

 

And you are basing this on absolutely nothing at all.

Well, aside from war against the mages being fielded by anyone other than templars also never being mentioned.

 

 

No, no he wasn't. Like, not even in the sligthest. How you could even claim something he did amounted to an act of war is beyond me. The mages aren't even a separate group against which acts of war could be made. They were his charges. At the very most, you could claim abuse but that was it.

 

Also, you are now basically claiming that if the mages had surrendered from the onset, there would still be a war. This goes against logic, narrative and the very meaning of the words "surrender" and "war".

Well, atrocities absolutely justifying secession.

[MisterJB]

The fact that this is the probable - or arguably inevitable, at least vis-a-vis the mageocracy - outcome of any kind of meaningful self-determination for mages doesn't somehow make the Circles moral, or the templars right. It just means that for the mundanes not to be enslaved, they have to perpetually perpetrate a slow-burning genocide against mages.

 

All of the arguments in favour of the Circle, mages could apply to a benevolent dictatorship where they threat mundanes as chattel. 

 

Thus we agree that ultimately the coexistance of normal people and mages is impossible and one side must dominate the other.

Also, a perpetual genocide is a contradiction in terms.
 

[Master Warder Z_]

And let's not forget why the mages were fleeing to Andoral's Reach: massacres by the templars. 

 

Because Fiona kicked off a fight...in the largest Templar garrison...in the world.

[MisterJB]

That fact must sting. But the concept is ludicrous to begin with, so meh.

Not particularly, no. What about the fact your "victory" relies entirely upon metagame restrictions and flies in the face of all logic?

 

 

Well, aside from war against the mages being fielded by anyone other than templars also never being mentioned.

Wow, "the war against the mages" because they are just innocent of any wrongdoing.

 

 

Well, atrocities absolutely justifying secession.

Well, at least no more nonsense.

"I am ok with the mages declaring war because I agree with them."

[Xilizhra]

Not particularly, no. What about the fact your "victory" relies entirely upon metagame restrictions and flies in the face of all logic?

It makes me grateful that I don't make piles of unfounded assumptions based on blinkered misconceptions of how the world of Thedas works and am instead content to work with actual canon.

 

 

Wow, "the war against the mages" because they are just innocent of any wrongdoing.

Not all mages are innocent, but the Templar Order is the aggressor.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I just love all the straw manning the Templar supporters are doing. I'll just use facts if you don't mind

[In Exile]

Thus we agree that ultimately the coexistance of normal people and mages is impossible and one side must dominate the other.

Also, a perpetual genocide is a contradiction in terms.
 

 

1) Sure, but that doesn't mean the actual domination by one side or the other is moral or tolerable. Just because the mages happen to be the rebels now and may be the oppressors later doesn't somehow justify their oppression from our neutral standpoint as the audience. 

 

2) It does, for two reasons. One, genocide, as actually defined, doesn't just include systematic killing. Second, mages pop into existence - they have mundane parents. 

[In Exile]

Because Fiona kicked off a fight...in the largest Templar garrison...in the world.

I haven't read Asunder, so I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but as I understand the timeline, Dairsmuid happened before the independence vote. Or do you mean that Fiona started a fight with Lambert when he came to shut down the Conclave using the murder of Pharamond as an excuse? In any case, as I understand it, Dairsmuid was an uprising that the templars put down my massacring children. That has very little to do with Fiona. 

[Iakus]

 

10. Lord Seeker Lambert, with an army at his behest, disrupts the lawfully convened Conclave, and declares their actions as treason. He seeks to arrest Rhys, the mages refuse, and there is violence. 

 

The Conclave was lawful, but Lambert trying to disrupt it was not what caused the violence.

 

It was when he tried to arrest Rhys.   And why did he do that?

 

Because Adrien framed him for the murder she committed, and tried to implicated him in being the Ghost of the Spire.  She tried to make him out to be a serial killer.  She knew Wynne would not stand for her son being arrested for these murders, and getting the most outspoken moderate at the White Spire to fight on her side was worth the bloodshed that followed.

[Master Warder Z_]

I haven't read Asunder, so I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly, but as I understand the timeline, Dairsmuid happened before the independence vote. Or do you mean that Fiona started a fight with Lambert when he came to shut down the Conclave using the murder of Pharamond as an excuse?

 

Indeed, which had been hijacked away from the topic given to the the conclave by the Divine and thus its only legal prerequisite was to speak of it and decide on a course of action. But yeah, Fiona refuses to hand over Rhy's, which leads to a battle breaking out, which leads to the imprisonment of the mages attending the conclave who survived, which prompts a prison break by the Divine which results in the deaths of several Templars which results in them breaking away under the Lord Seeker.

 

Its a string of events going back to Fiona.

 

Well and technically Adrian but who cares about her.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Master Warder Z:  Yes, but someone hurt a mage's feelings before that... so it clearly wasn't Fiona's fault.

[In Exile]

The Conclave was lawful, but Lambert trying to disrupt it was not what caused the violence.

 

It was when he tried to arrest Rhys.   And why did he do that?

 

Because Adrien framed him for the murder she committed, and tried to implicated him in being the Ghost of the Spire.  She tried to make him out to be a serial killer.  She knew Wynne would not stand for her son being arrested for these murders, and getting the most outspoken moderate at the White Spire to fight on her side was worth the bloodshed that followed.

 

None of that makes the Conclave illegitimate, or give Lambert a right to disrupt it. Fiona refusing doesn't mean anything if no one goes along with it, and Rhys does surrender himself, but no one does that because there's no longer any perceived legitimacy as to the authority of the Seekers or Lambert personally, because he proves by that point that he has a hard on for mage persecution. 

 

Indeed, which had been hijacked away from the topic given to the the conclave by the Divine and thus its only legal prerequisite was to speak of it and decide on a course of action. But yeah, Fiona refuses to hand over Rhy's, which leads to a battle breaking out, which leads to the imprisonment of the mages attending the conclave who survived, which prompts a prison break by the Divine which results in the deaths of several Templars which results in them breaking away under the Lord Seeker.

 

Its a string of events going back to Fiona.

 

Well and technically Adrian but who cares about her.

 

Okay, Fiona tabled an illegal motion. So on a point of order, Lambert properly removed it from the floor, and then we had a four hour debate on the procedure of the Conclave, until the whole issue was sent off to the Rules Committee.

 

Oh, wait, no, that didn't happen. Instead, we had armed troops break into the room, we had Lambert declare the whole thing illegal on the basis of a murder. 

 

Lambert shuttering the Conclave, and the legitimacy of the Conclave, has nothing to do with Fiona. 

 

And the massacre at Darsmuid has even less to do it with, because all of that is tied to the templars there massacring the mages. Again, as I understand it, what happened there was an uprising, and the templars decided to solve it with some good ol' fashion killing of children. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

And the massacre at Darsmuid has even less to do it with, because all of that is tied to the templars there massacring the mages. Again, as I understand it, what happened there was an uprising, and the templars decided to solve it with some good ol' fashion killing of children. 

There are two different reasons given for the Dairsmuid annulment:

 

1. The seekers found out that the seers (aka rivaini mages that let themselves be possessed by spirits) existed and they decided to annul the circle

 

2. They found out that the mages from the Dairsmuid circle could freely leave to interact with their families. The seekers and templars said that this warranted their deaths.

[In Exile]

There are two different reasons given for the Dairsmuid annulment:

 

1. The seekers found out that the seers (aka rivaini mages that let themselves be possessed by spirits) existed and they decided to annul the circle

 

2. They found out that the mages from the Dairsmuid circle could freely leave to interact with their families. The seekers and templars said that this warranted their deaths.

 

Okay, I don't understand the first one. The Dairsmuid Circle presumably had templars. Are they saying there were seers in the Circle? Because then we've got a whole lot of templars who are either so incompetent it stretches the imagination, or their heads should be hanging on pikes next to the mages. In fact, this just shows the hypocrisy of the templars - the second scenario is impossible without the templars condoning it. Yet we don't hear of any retribution for the templars. 

 

If not, then this is just Kirkwall all over again: exterminating the Circle mages for crimes they obviously couldn't commit. 

[MisterJB]

Both provide by the First Enchanter of Dairsmuid.

Bias, what is that?

[thesuperdarkone2]

Okay, I don't understand the first one. The Dairsmuid Circle presumably had templars. Are they saying there were seers in the Circle? Because then we've got a whole lot of templars who are either so incompetent it stretches the imagination, or their heads should be hanging on pikes next to the mages. In fact, this just shows the hypocrisy of the templars - the second scenario is impossible without the templars condoning it. Yet we don't hear of any retribution for the templars. 

 

If not, then this is just Kirkwall all over again: exterminating the Circle mages for crimes they obviously couldn't commit. 

This wouldn't be the first time. Take the Magebane shield description. It pretty much says an entire circle was annulled because the knight-commander would rather kill an entire circle full of innocent mages than rightly punish the knight-captain who killed a HUNDRED mages. Thus, an entire circle was killed just to protect a murderous knight-captain.

 

Sorry, but if things like that can happen, do people really wonder why I oppose the circle system as a whole?

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  We have to remember that in Rivain - the Chantry has a tenuous hold at best.  Even the idea of the Circle would probably only be a loose idea for a people who have resisted both the Chantry and the Qunari. 

 

Whatever Templars were there... were 1)  corrupt  2) uncaring or 3) the ones who informed about the collapse of the situation to begin with.

 

The seers existed before the Chantry came... and the Circle was a form of appeasement to shut the Chantry up and avoid Exalted Marches.

 

Didn't work.

[MisterJB]

No, because no one really cares.