993 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

 

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.   

 

 

What event?  Could it not have been a hundred different events?  Could athe discovery serial killer Templar not feed conspiracy theories?

 

 

 

he 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.

The Mages' Collective is comprised of both Circle Mages and apostates.  And apparently operating under the nose of the Templars.

 

Or operating in a remote area where the Chantry has little oversight.   Perhaps with the First Enchanter complicit in what's going on

[thesuperdarkone2]

What event?  Could it not have been a hundred different events?  Could athe discovery serial killer Templar not feed conspiracy theories?

 

The Mages' Collective is comprised of both Circle Mages and apostates.  And apparently operating under the nose of the Templars.

 

Or operating in a remote area where the Chantry has little oversight.   Perhaps with the First Enchanter complicit in what's going on

Now this is starting to sound like Dai Grepher levels of denial. Is it really so hard to accept that the knight commander was corrupt and used the annulment to protect a murderer?

 

 

Also, the mage collective still exists at the time of Inquisition as show by Your Trainer being a member.

[Medhia_Nox]

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?

 

- Poison their meals. 

- Set their bedroom on fire while they sleep.

- Poison their robes. 

- Put lyrium in their food (dodgy, they may sense it... but OH the madcap hijinks that would ensue)

- Release a pack of darkspawn in their rooms.

- Poison their drinking water.

- Convince the Tranquil of the tower to all gather around their beds and stab - a lot - all at once. 

- Trick one into becoming an abomination... then allow it to do all your work for you.

- Sew anti-magic runes into their clothing and then just go to work - the little weaklings don't even know which end of a sword to hold.

 

Mainly... lots of poison and some creativity.  DA mages are stupid... killing them would be maddeningly simple. 

[Dean_the_Young]

That's an absurd distinction. If, say, the US Army decides to "separate itself from the chain of command", we'd call it treason and rebellion. 

 

Mutiny, actually. There is a difference, and there are circumstances that can not only condone it, but require it. Illegal orders, of varying sort.

 

It's a really messy and complex thing, but when you have a legal obligation to do something, and a leader attempts to make you negligent in the duty, you're legally obligated to follow the law. Which in this case would be fulfilling the Accord, not the Divine, unless we intend to posit that the Divine is an unlimited tyrant.

[Dean_the_Young]

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

 

A new year's resolution from you?

 

It's already April, but it's nice to see you turning over a new leaf.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

Sure it does. Toleration is, after all, ethically neutral. While the morality of domination- at least in civilizational orders according to precepts of Western Liberalism and personal freedoms- is that the social domination with the least oppression and greatest franchise or self-determination is better than the inverse. Minority-oligarchies that oppress a majority into subjugation are worse than majorities that oppress a minority group.

 

Neither is good, but one is worse.

 

 

 

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.

 

Raised me eyebrow at the genocide claim. Are you referring to anything other than the Annullments? Because if so, claiming genocide- at least on modern understandings- is a severe stretch. And even if you are referring to annulment, it'd still be a stretch- at least unless you're willing to accept that a definition of genocide significantly lower than what's typically used. Community eradication, while a crime, usually isn't the same as genocide.

 

Really, once an annullment is invoked, it's basically a purge of a quarantine group because you feel you've lost control at a fundamental level. It can certainly be a crime- I won't argue against people who feel that- but the distinction between it and a 'typical' genocide campaign is how localized it is.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

[thesuperdarkone2]

Only on BSN will you get Templar supporters thinking a mass murderer is a cool guy

[Xilizhra]

Only on BSN will you get Templar supporters thinking a mass murderer is a cool guy

No, I'm pretty sure that shows up elsewhere as well.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, I said that they started this whole war. That's not the same as declaring war. And they did. The timeline as I understand it (I haven't read Asunder, so all I have is the wiki) is as follows:

 

-snip-

 

 

I recommend you read it. It provides nuance you're missing.

 

 

One of the key points in Asunder is that neither group- Mages or Templars- were monolithic, and that both had hardliners who wanted and were actively angling for conflict.

 

Both Lambert and Fiona were agitating for a conflict. Lambert was a hardliner who thought there needed to be a crackdown on open secessionist intent, and he was looking for the excuse in the course of his duties. Fiona was that open secessionist, and was using the restrictions to back the mages as a whole into a corner to get the votes she needed.

 

Both needed eachother, both could justify themselves off of eachother, and both benefited from eachother as they mutually pursued a goal they both had- the Mage Rebellion. Their goals and intentions for that rebellion were different- Fiona saw rebellion as the means to throw off the Templars and the Chantry, while Lambert would use it to utterly crush- but they both were more than open to that conflict.

 

Sure, either one of them would have 'accepted' if the other didn't fight back so that they got their way- Fiona would have walked away with her mages if the Templars and Chantry didn't stop them, Lambert wouldn't have done specific actions or restrictions (like lock down the conclave) had Fiona not hijacked it and another agitator framed someone there- but they were both willing to do actions they knew would heighten tensions, because those tensions served their personal goals.

 

When two factions both have hardline leaders angling for a conflict, I don't consider it much of a stretch to say that they both share responsibility- and to remember that neither one was some monolithic representation of their entire faction. The Templars, even with a chain of command, are no more monolithic than the Circle.

 

 

(And then meanwhile, in the background, Justinia messed things up while trying to make things better. Le sigh.)

[Dean_the_Young]

No, I'm pretty sure that shows up elsewhere as well.

 

Yeah, remember the Anders fans from DA2?

 

Ah, good times.

[Iakus]

Now this is starting to sound like Dai Grepher levels of denial. Is it really so hard to accept that the knight commander was corrupt and used the annulment to protect a murderer?

 

It's plausible.  But not a certainty.  It's a theory, not a fact.

 

For one thing a Knight-Commander does not normally have the authority to call for an Annulment.  That takes a Grand Cleric (barring extraordinary circumstances)  Even Knight Commander Gregoir, with a tower full of abominations, had to get the okay from the Grand Cleric in Denerim before Annulling the Circle there.

 

For another, Invoking the Rote of Annulment is quite rare.  Prior to DAO it had only been invoked 17 times.  In over 900 years.  Doing so is going to draw attention, both withing the Chantry and without.

[MisterJB]

Only on BSN will you get Templar supporters thinking a mass murderer is a cool guy

 

How many people died in the Mage-Templar War?

Oh, but you know, it was "necessary".

 

 

[thesuperdarkone2]

How many people died in the Mage-Templar War?
Oh, but you know, it was "necessary".

Ah straw manning, the only tactic you seem to have.

[MisterJB]

Do you even know what that means?

[Iakus]

Ah straw manning, the only tactic you seem to have.

Umm, your built the first scarecrow here...

 

 Only on BSN will you get Templar supporters thinking a mass murderer is a cool guy

 

When no one suggested any such thing.

[Master Warder Z_]

Umm, your built the first scarecrow here...

Only on BSN will you get Templar supporters thinking a mass murderer is a cool guy

When no one suggested any such thing.

You can't have a Zaku without a fusion reactor.

[Vit246]

How many people died in the Mage-Templar War?

Oh, but you know, it was "necessary".

 

 

 

You really think people never had to die for the results that were gotten by the end of it?

[Dean_the_Young]

You really think people never had to die for the results that were gotten by the end of it?

 

Which people, specifically, had to die for the results that were gotten by the end of it?

 

There's not much about the College-Circle system that can be credibly claimed as an intent of the mage rebellion. Not only did Fiona fail to set out a vision of what the end-state would be, but what actually ends up occuring- a Chantry-permited institution that still has to act within the tolerance of the Chantry- is likely still too restrictive going by pre-rebellion Fiona's rhetoric. It's not independence, it's not total autonomy, and if basic reforms are what's being claimed then those could have been gotten without the rebellion in the first place by not hijacking forums sanctioned to promote just those sorts of reforms.

 

And to even get the outcome of the Mage Rebellion required a number of significant deaths that the Mage Rebellion in no way intended, expected, or was even capable of. Corypheus and the Breach was far more relevant to actually killing off the political leads (including the mage political leaders) than the actual fighting and dying of the mage rebellion. After setting up the context for the peace talks, the mage rebellion didn't have any real hand in actually establishing the power structure that would provide the ultimate outcomes- outcomes that occur no matter the fate of the mages, or the divine, or any combination of who lives or dies within the player's power.

 

So please, do go on about who had to die for the ultimate outcome. Because aside from generic casualties enough to warrant a Concliave, the mage rebellion didn't exactly do much targetted or effective killing. Unless you mean that those loyalist mages had it coming for not jumping on the rebel bandwagon, that is.

[Medhia_Nox]

A little detour to explore a thought.  Let's say the Templars let them walk away... where are the mages going to go?  

 

 

- Home?  Many parents fear their mage children.  And if they have a loving family... then townspeople will likely NOT be pleased to see future abominations walking into their towns. 

 

- Towns/Cities:  These places aren't built out of modern materials.  One fire from a pissy mage could burn down the entire town.  Sure, so can a lamp.. but you know what?  There's a shield of glass around the fire of a lamp - that glass is enough to contain that lamp.  And that fire inside that lamp cannot autonomously come to life.  

 

- Self-sufficiency:  How are these mages - who's self-sufficiency pertains to whether or not to sneak another pastry from the larder - going to take care of themselves?  They're useless in everyday life. 

 

None of them have learned the "Farm" spell... or the "Weaving" spell... or the "Thatch roof, pull fishing nets, mend fence." spell... 

 

They're liabilities to their families.  Another mouth to feed that does nothing but... what?  Shoot fireballs?  This isn't the modern world... you actually have to work to live not sit on your fat ass and whine all day about the weather outside not being the perfect temperature.  

 

- Then... there's the disparity.  You give these people positions of power... and they're going to use that power to rule over their fellows.  It has nothing to do with magic directly.  Magic is an asset... no different than say... "owning the gold mine in town" - let's forget your born with it, but not the responsibility to use it (so it's like inheriting a gold mine you father worked to create).  

 

This disparity will ALWAYS cause problems... and, eventually - it will be natural for a new Tevinter style government to pop up.  That people think mages are somehow born benevolent and not prone to using their abilities to rule over others... is... ignorant in understand how humans have worked for over 200,000 years on our planet.  

[Xilizhra]

A little detour to explore a thought.  Let's say the Templars let them walk away... where are the mages going to go?  

 

 

- Home?  Many parents fear their mage children.  And if they have a loving family... then townspeople will likely NOT be pleased to see future abominations walking into their towns. 

 

- Towns/Cities:  These places aren't built out of modern materials.  One fire from a pissy mage could burn down the entire town.  Sure, so can a lamp.. but you know what?  There's a shield of glass around the fire of a lamp - that glass is enough to contain that lamp.  And that fire inside that lamp cannot autonomously come to life.  

 

- Self-sufficiency:  How are these mages - who's self-sufficiency pertains to whether or not to sneak another pastry from the larder - going to take care of themselves?  They're useless in everyday life. 

 

None of them have learned the "Farm" spell... or the "Weaving" spell... or the "Thatch roof, pull fishing nets, mend fence." spell... 

 

They're liabilities to their families.  Another mouth to feed that does nothing but... what?  Shoot fireballs?  This isn't the modern world... you actually have to work to live not sit on your fat ass and whine all day about the weather outside not being the perfect temperature.  

 

- Then... there's the disparity.  You give these people positions of power... and they're going to use that power to rule over their fellows.  It has nothing to do with magic directly.  Magic is an asset... no different than say... "owning the gold mine in town" - let's forget your born with it, but not the responsibility to use it (so it's like inheriting a gold mine you father worked to create).  

 

This disparity will ALWAYS cause problems... and, eventually - it will be natural for a new Tevinter style government to pop up.  That people think mages are somehow born benevolent and not prone to using their abilities to rule over others... is... ignorant in understand how humans have worked for over 200,000 years on our planet.  

Presumably they'll do whatever they did to get the College set up in the Inquisition timeline.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Xilizhra:  You mean after Inquisition?  

They have the support of the Divine. 

 

Let's ignore the fact that this supposed "religion of hate" pays for mage to live... they do nothing but ****** and moan and complain about they don't have enough time to read their super amazing magical texts.  Mages should be put to work if they're religiously funded.

 

Fiona's mages had no support outside the ****** and vinegar they were using as fuel. 

[Xilizhra]

@Xilizhra:  You mean after Inquisition?  

They have the support of the Divine. 

 

Let's ignore the fact that this supposed "religion of hate" pays for mage to live... they do nothing but ****** and moan and complain about they don't have enough time to read their super amazing magical texts.  Mages should be put to work if they're religiously funded.

 

Fiona's mages had no support outside the ****** and vinegar they were using as fuel. 

If Vivienne of all people is willing to financially support them, why wouldn't Justinia be?

[Medhia_Nox]

@Xilizhra:  She'll be assassinated promptly (and Cassandra and Leliana with her) if she pushed too hard against the will of the people. 

 

You can't just do whatever you want... you have to take into account the people who gave you that power.  

 

And... where do you think Justinia's money comes from?  It has to be tithing... which is from the people.  

 

So they're basically paying ALL the mages expenses... why would the people want to pay for welfare mages?  Why should they?  

 

Let them farm and make thier own clothes and build their own houses... what?  Doesn't leave time to study magic?  Too damn bad you ungrateful little ******.

 

Divine Vivienne can support them because the will of the people wants them back in the towers... where they can study magic and leave hard working people alone to make mage clothes... and harvest mage food.

 

Do radical pro-mages ever stop to think about how mages get to sit around all day in their "prisons" reading books?  The people that "hate" them so much supply them with everything they need to live. 

 

I would love to see "free mages" miserable having to do backbreaking physical labor... 

[Xilizhra]

@Xilizhra:  She'll be assassinated promptly (and Cassandra and Leliana with her) if she pushed too hard against the will of the people. 

 

You can't just do whatever you want... you have to take into account the people who gave you that power.  

 

And... where do you think Justinia's money comes from?  It has to be tithing... which is from the people.  

 

So they're basically paying ALL the mages expenses... why would the people want to pay for welfare mages?  Why should they?  

 

Let them farm and make thier own clothes and build their own houses... what?  Doesn't leave time to study magic?  Too damn bad you ungrateful little ******.

 

Divine Vivienne can support them because the will of the people wants them back in the towers... where they can study magic and leave hard working people alone to make mage clothes... and harvest mage food.

 

Do radical pro-mages ever stop to think about how mages get to sit around all day in their "prisons" reading books?  The people that "hate" them so much supply them with everything they need to live. 

 

I would love to see "free mages" miserable having to do backbreaking physical labor... 

So, again, I say they would presumably do it the same way that they manage the College in the Inquisition timeline, because the College exists separately from the Circle even with Vivienne as Divine.