993 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Both provide by the First Enchanter of Dairsmuid.

Bias, what is that?

 

I don't follow. I don't think either of those scenarios warrant mass extermination. I don't think the templars would be wrong in condoning either or both. I'm just pointing out that it can't happen in practice without the templars condoning either or both, yet we hear nothing of their punishment. 

 

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?

 

I can't find the shield on the wiki. Do you have a link to the description, for my reference?

[Iakus]

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. 

 

Didn't say the Conclave was illegitimate.  And Lambert was wrong about that.  Though he was right that they were not discussing what they were there for and FIona was attempt ting to hijack teh Conclave

 

He also had every reason to arrest Rhys (even if it was a frame-up) But Wynne and the others wouldn't allow it.  And that is what triggered the violence.  Without Rhys being framed, Lambert would have had zero reason to be there to cause trouble. 

 

 

 

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.

 

Fiona proposed an illegal motion.  "Tabling" means putting it aside for another time.  Which did not happen.  She wanted a vote here and now.

 

 

 

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.
 

Again he had every right to arrest Rhys.  Too bad Fiona's ally set him up to disrupt the Conclave.

 

 

 

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

FIona hijacked the Conclave.  That has everything to do with her

[MisterJB]

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. 

The nation of Rivain is divided by Andrastianism, the Old Ways and the invading Qun with a very weak monarchy that can scarcely imposes their will outside of the capital. In more rural areas, Seers rule quite openly without fear of Templars.

 

The letter tells us how the Circle at Dairsmuid was a façade to appease the Chantry and little girl were being trained in the ways of the Seers which involved being possessed by spirits. Naturally, in these circusntances, the Annulment was righteous and just and it should be followed by a thorough investigation of the Templar hierarchy in Rivain.

I imagine it will come to light the Knight Commander knew. The why he failed to act should determine whether he keeps his head on his shoulders.

[In Exile]

@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.

 

Darsmuid is a place. It is ostensibly under Chantry authority. It apparently existed for - what - a century? More? The templars didn't kill seers. They exterminated a Circle. The justification makes no sense. If there were no templars there - then we basically just had an armed invasion by the Chantry to kill some mages, and yet no Exalted March. 

[Hellion Rex]

I don't follow. I don't think either of those scenarios warrant mass extermination. I don't think the templars would be wrong in condoning either or both. I'm just pointing out that it can't happen in practice without the templars condoning either or both, yet we hear nothing of their punishment. 

Dairsmuid was the whole Rivaini Seers deal. The Seekers (?) figured it out right around the time of the Conclave and pretty much gave them the justification they needed to call for an Annulment, which I'm pretty sure they did NOT get permission from the Grand Cleric beforehand.

 

Also, it's the Magehunter shield.

http://dragonage.wik...wiki/Magehunter

[In Exile]

The nation of Rivain is divided by Andrastianism, the Old Ways and the invading Qun with a very weak monarchy that can scarcely imposes their will outside of the capital. In more rural areas, Seers rule quite openly without fear of Templars.

 

The letter tells us how the Circle at Dairsmuid was a façade to appease the Chantry and little girl were being trained in the ways of the Seers which involved being possessed by spirits. Naturally, in these circusntances, the Annulment was righteous and just and it should be followed by a thorough investigation of the Templar hierarchy in Rivain.

I imagine it will come to light the Knight Commander knew. The why he failed to act should determine whether he keeps his head on his shoulders.

 

Okay, so there's no actual Circle, then. The Templars basically decide it was time to conduct some mass killings because a place that was barely under their authority in the first place - and certainly didn't share their religion - offended their values. Well, that brings me back to my original point, that the Templars,

 

started this whole war over the idea that they might not get to be the absolute determinants of life or death over the mages...

[Hellion Rex]

The nation of Rivain is divided by Andrastianism, the Old Ways and the invading Qun with a very weak monarchy that can scarcely imposes their will outside of the capital. In more rural areas, Seers rule quite openly without fear of Templars.

 

The letter tells us how the Circle at Dairsmuid was a façade to appease the Chantry and little girl were being trained in the ways of the Seers which involved being possessed by spirits. Naturally, in these circusntances, the Annulment was righteous and just and it should be followed by a thorough investigation of the Templar hierarchy in Rivain.

I imagine it will come to light the Knight Commander knew. The why he failed to act should determine whether he keeps his head on his shoulders.

You may want to start up higher than that. My question is why it took so long for the Seekers to figure it out. 

[Hellion Rex]

Okay, so there's no actual Circle, then. The Templars basically decide it was time to conduct some mass killings because a place that was barely under their authority in the first place - and certainly didn't share their religion - offended their values. Well, that brings me back to my original point, that the Templars,

 

started this whole war over the idea that they might not get to be the absolute determinants of life or death over the mages...

Well, there is a Circle still in Rivain. It was a full Circle. It was just that they were doing the Seer thing on the side, and under the table, so to speak.

[Iakus]

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.

That warranted those involved to be labeled apostates.  The Rite of Annulment was invoked when the mages fought back.

[In Exile]

Dairsmuid was the whole Rivaini Seers deal. The Seekers (?) figured it out right around the time of the Conclave and pretty much gave them the justification they needed to call for an Annulment, which I'm pretty sure they did NOT get permission from the Grand Cleric beforehand.

 

Also, it's the Magehunter shield.

http://dragonage.wik...wiki/Magehunter

 

Thanks. For reference: 

 

Knight-Commander Gervasio of Antiva killed all of the city's mages for demonic possession. However, a massacre may have already occurred at the hands of Knight-Captain Nicolas, with the Right invoked as cover-up. The Seekers of Truth later apprehended Ser Nicholas, who had left the order to kill mages and admitted to having murdered over a hundred.

 

Well, there is a Circle still in Rivain. It was a full Circle. It was just that they were doing the Seer thing on the side, and under the table, so to speak.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. To pull it off, you'd need an impressive amount of coordination. And being a Seer is more than just being an abomination (or possessed) - you're actually a leader (of sorts) in the Rivaini mageocracy. You'd basically have to be running a shadow government out of the Circle. 

[Medhia_Nox]

Okay, so there's no actual Circle, then. The Templars basically decide it was time to conduct some mass killings because a place that was barely under their authority in the first place - and certainly didn't share their religion - offended their values. Well, that brings me back to my original point, that the Templars,

 

started this whole war over the idea that they might not get to be the absolute determinants of life or death over the mages...

Which is different from anyone else that starts a war... how exactly? 

 

Are you looking for reasonable people who commit violence?  They don't exist.

[Hellion Rex]

 

That doesn't make sense to me. To pull it off, you'd need an impressive amount of coordination. And being a Seer is more than just being an abomination (or possessed) - you're actually a leader (of sorts) in the Rivaini mageocracy. You'd basically have to be running a shadow government out of the Circle. 

Oh, definitely so. I don't see how both the Grand Cleric and Templars of Rivain didn't know about it already. My guess is that their hold was tenuous enough on the country, and allowed concessions to Dairsmuid in return for at least keeping most of the mages in known, centralized locations (the Rivaini circles).

[Iakus]

Thanks. For reference: 

 

Knight-Commander Gervasio of Antiva killed all of the city's mages for demonic possession. However, a massacre may have already occurred at the hands of Knight-Captain Nicolas, with the Right invoked as cover-up. The Seekers of Truth later apprehended Ser Nicholas, who had left the order to kill mages and admitted to having murdered over a hundred.

 

MAY HAVE

 

 

That doesn't make sense to me. To pull it off, you'd need an impressive amount of coordination. And being a Seer is more than just being an abomination (or possessed) - you're actually a leader (of sorts) in the Rivaini mageocracy. You'd basically have to be running a shadow government out of the Circle.

Like the Mages' Collective

or the Resolutionists?

Or any other blood magic sect that has ever existed in the Circle?

[thesuperdarkone2]

MAY HAVE

 

Considering it later mentions the mage-killing knight-captain, it's highly likely that the annulement was meant to cover up the murders.

[In Exile]

MAY HAVE

 

Pretty sure: "The Seekers of Truth later apprehended Ser Nicholas, who had left the order to kill mages and admitted to having murdered over a hundred." Makes it pretty clear that the event happened. What's up in the air is whether the Annulment was meant as a cover up, though frankly I don't understand how killing a hundred mages ISN'T Annulment anyway.   

 

Like the Mages' Collective

or the Resolutionists?

Or any other blood magic sect that has ever existed in the Circle?

 

The Mages' Collective is stupid, but since DA:O says it exists. Still, that's an underground of apostates specifically outside of Templar control. Totally different from Darsmuid, where again, you need mundanes to be governed to be an actual Seer. 

 

And blood magic isn't like becoming a Seer. We're talking about possession here. You'd need to be running pretty involved rituals under the noses of the templars. 

[MisterJB]

Besides, one Templar murdered hundreds of mages at once? It's far more likely he murdered apostates over the years.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Besides, one Templar murdered hundreds of mages at once? It's far more likely he murdered apostates over the years.

Considering the seekers arrested him, it was definitely circle mages.

[Reznore57]

Well, that brings me back to my original point, that the Templars,

 

started this whole war over the idea that they might not get to be the absolute determinants of life or death over the mages...

 

Which is not surprising.

For a thousand years templars were told they were doing the Maker work by being harsh on mages.

Although I would point out it's untrue to say the templars were the one with all the power.

They had to work with first Enchanter (mages) elected by other mages to carry out some punishment.

The Right of Annulement , they also had to ask permission to carry it out.

 

But suddenly Divine Justinia goes "We've been all wrong , we twisted the word of the Maker and hurt our brothers mages by doing so."

You think the templars who were the ones with blood on their hands , are going to say "Well alright then our moral justifications just went out the windows , our God didn't want us to do that! We killed all those apostates for nothing because we were wrong ,It's fine mages should be free!"

[In Exile]

Besides, one Templar murdered hundreds of mages at once? It's far more likely he murdered apostates over the years.

 

Don't think he'd call it murder if they were apostates - he'd be lawfully entitled to kill them under the current order. Hell, it'd be his job, distasteful as it is IMO. 

[MisterJB]

Considering the seekers arrested him, it was definitely circle mages.

 

What, he left the Templars and then wandered from Circle to Circle, killing hundreds of mages?

Or he just killed hundreds of mages at once?

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

BTW, Templar accountability proved.
 

[Hellion Rex]

 

BTW, Templar accountability proved.
 

One instance, dear. 

[MisterJB]

Don't think he'd call it murder if they were apostates - he'd be lawfully entitled to kill them under the current order. Hell, it'd be his job, distasteful as it is IMO. 

Altought Templars are entitled to kill apostates if they feel it imperative, we do have plenty of examples of adult apostates, even blood mages, being brought to the Circles alive.

A kill count in the hundreds, even if in lawful hunts, would raise eyebrows.

[MisterJB]

BTW, I would have liked to meet the Templar who can kill hundreds of mages by himself.

Dude must have been one stone cold badass.

[Hellion Rex]

BTW, I would have liked to meet the Templar who can kill hundreds of mages by himself.

Dude must have been one stone cold badass.

True, I'm curious as to how he pulled that off as well as the time frame in which it was done. Was it steadily, over the course of a decade or two? Or what?

[Master Warder Z_]

BTW, I would have liked to meet the Templar who can kill hundreds of mages by himself.
Dude must have been one stone cold badass.

Indeed.