204 réponses à ce sujet

[Dasha Dreyson]

Gadarr wrote...

Faced with this choice, she chooses instead the one alternative she's always been following: Peace. If others want to butcher themselves despite her intervention and negotiation, so be it. But she isn't going to have any part in it, she isn't going to be responsible for the deaths of innocents. This is her choice, not being a martyr. She upholds her beliefs, and I'd say, this is probably the most noble thing she could do in this situation. Even if it makes her appear 'weak' in the eyes of those who actually DO pick a side.

While I understand where you are coming from and respect that (and at one time felt that way myself), I personally disagree. Sister Nightengale warned us that if things continued as they did, there wouldn't be peace. She warned that innocents would die. Elthina had this knowledge and continued as before knowing innocents would die. That doesn't sound like peace.

I don't know, maybe I'm giving Elthina too much credit in assuming she knew how to use her resources before it came to what it did. Maybe I'm assuming too much and the Chantry might be ineffectual in dealing with the Templars or other groups that are suppose to be within its order.

[Dean_the_Young]

Herr Uhl wrote...

What I don't get about these threads (Viscount and Cleric) is what they were supposed to do. They are both allowed to rule due to the illusion of power, while having very little to back it up.

This is further seen by the fact that templars rebel against the chantry, as do the mages. If she pushed either side too far the result would have been the same. Her only other option was calling an exalted march, which I guess few would have liked.

The Cleric, and the Chantry in general, aren't civil leaders. Their influence is by and large cultural, not legalistic or institutional. The Grand Cleric is to Kirkwall what the Pope is to Italy: someone much of the population respects, but doesn't necessarily obey in politics.

The Viscount is the head administrator in the city. He handles the day-to-day happenings, but his hold on the office isn't secure enough to do whatever he wants. Beforehand, Meredith was content enough to leave the Viscount to handle the mundane things so long as she got her way in what she wanted. And had he not, she would have removed him and placed a more compliant Viscount in his place (or, alternatively, not emplaced one at all). While the Viscount has power, he has far less power in the points that matter (like, say, the matter of keeping his job and his neck) than Meredith.

[Addai]

Camenae wrote...

She doesn't have to take sides. I don't think she could have waved a wand and magicked away the whole situation. My gripe with her is that there are other things she could have done. Going only by what one can see in the game, SHE DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

She just gave up and accepted that she had no power to solve the problem. Well...you don't HAVE to solve it. Just help. Do you think we shouldn't donate to help Japan just because we can't stop tsunamis from forming?

Help how?  It's fine to say "she should have done something" when it's not clear what that something is or whether it would have made the situation better or worse.  She might have restrained Meredith or even replaced her, but then what would happen to Kirkwall with a weak guard and an empty viscount chair?  If the templars were weakened, it might hasten the Divine's initiative to send an Exalted March on the city, and then where would the innocent be?

[kyles3]

Elthina was a nice old lady, and nice old ladies should never be blown up in terrorist attacks, but she did sorta bring it on herself. It's like a great Canadian philosopher once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

[Dean_the_Young]

Camenae wrote...

Again, taking sides is not the only way she can be doing something. We can assume any number of things, but if we only go by what we see in the game, she has done nothing to try to help anyone when, whether you agree with her religion or not, her kind of religion would dictate that she does charity.

If you move actively, it's almost always going to be seen against someone. For the person who it was against, that's picking a side even if you don't believe you are. Speaking against Meredith would be interpreted as siding with the Mages, by Meredith and many in the Templar Order. Speaking out against Orisino would be interpreted as siding with the Templars and Meredith. Speaking out against both would be siding against both, and with no one significant to support you.

[Heather Cline]

I personally think Elthina was a well intentioned moron. She could have stopped Petrice in Act 1 or in Act 2. Could have averted the whole Qunari war problem. Staying utterly neutral and spouting her religious beliefs just acerbated the problem. She allowed Petrice and her templar to get away with literal murder. Yeah Petrice got hers in the end, but the fact remains Elthina had the power to stop Petrice but didn't.

As for what Anders did to her, I'm not a fan of what he did but I can also see it from his point of view. Elthina wouldn't take sides, she wouldn't try to find a better solution to the problems arising in Kirkwall between Templar and Mages. Instead she decided to let the two sides fight it out and let the pieces fall where they may.

Elthina isn't entirely innocent in the debacle that came about because of her inaction. But she isn't entirely at fault either.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 29 mars 2011 - 04:36 .

[Mnemnosyne]

Estelindis wrote...

flakmeister_mcg wrote...

Well, we have no indicators of her true intentions aside from words. The consequences are clear, however: the military arm of the Chantry seizing complete power in Kirkwall, even trying to disband the city guard.

She didn't order (or seem to want) any of that.  She wasn't responsible for the power vacuum in Kirkwall, and it's not as though she could have appointed a new viscount (or, rather, it's not as if the chantry becoming so political wouldn't have had negative consequences all by itself).  As for Meredith, taking severe action against the Templars might have resulted in an Exalted March against Kirkwall, which she felt would lead to many deaths.  As previously stated, she was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The concern of the Divine sending an exalted march to Kirkwall was because of the mage unrest, which would have been prevented if the Grand Cleric had relieved the Knight-Commander from duty.  A simple letter to the Divine explaining that she is relieving Knight-Commander Meredith and appointing Knight-Captain Cullen in her place would have resolved the situation.  The Divine would then have sent a new Knight-Commander to take over or allowed Cullen's promotion or whatever the appropriate response is - the only situation that would call for her involvement would be major unrest with the mages.

The majority of the Templars seemed likely to follow the rules and obey the Grand Cleric.  Meredith's closest cronies may have resisted, but it seems as though they would have been vastly outnumbered by those who were not fanatically loyal to Meredith.  We see several Templars, Cullen included, question Meredith, while still being loyal to the Templar idea and goals.

[Casuist]

Estelindis wrote...

She didn't order (or seem to want) any of that.  She wasn't responsible for the power vacuum in Kirkwall, and it's not as though she could have appointed a new viscount (or, rather, it's not as if the chantry becoming so political wouldn't have had negative consequences all by itself).  As for Meredith, taking severe action against the Templars might have resulted in an Exalted March against Kirkwall, which she felt would lead to many deaths.  As previously stated, she was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Meredith having already appointed Marlowe (and therefore the grand cleric by proxy): she certainly COULD have done so. If she cannot rein in her subordinates when they take action beyond their standing then she needs to find someone within her organization who can.

[Camenae]

Representing a religious organization, one with a military branch, already means one is NOT neutral.

Help how? For example, offer sanctuary to mages whose lives are in danger and to Templars and anybody else whose lives are in danger from blood mages alike. Churches have historically offered asylum. Heck, how about help just by posting more guards in her church at night because lots of crap obviously goes down in there? As a religious person myself I felt extremely uncomfortable doing all that killing in a church, any church, sorry for going off-topic.

[Dean_the_Young]

Heather Cline wrote...

I personally think Elthina was a well intentioned moron. She could have stopped Petrice in Act 1 or in Act 2. Could have averted the whole Qunari war problem. Staying utterly neutral and spouting her religious beliefs just acerbated the problem. She allowed Petrice and her templar to get away with literal murder. Yeah Petrice got hers in the end, but the fact remains Elthina had the power to stop Petrice but didn't.

Did Elthina know about Petrice's actions?

It's one thing to have the power to do something. It's another point to know when and where to use it. The point of conspiracies, after all, is to not be found.

As for what Anders did to her, I'm not a fan of what he did but I can also see it from his point of view. Elthina wouldn't take sides, she wouldn't try to find a better solution to the problems arising in Kirkwall between Templar and Mages. Instead she decided to let the two sides fight it out and let the pieces fall where they may.

How do you know she didn't try?

Moreover, why is the status quo of Kirkwall, an unpleasant peace, worse than a war in which the magi may be eradicated?

'Hurry up and do something' always presumes that doing something can only make something better. When action is most likely to cause greater harm, it is not better to act decisively.

Elthina isn't entirely innocent in the debacle that came about because of her inaction. But she isn't entirely at fault either.

I, too, love how enemies of the revolution can be shot if they aren't patriotic enough.

[Dean_the_Young]

Camenae wrote...

Representing a religious organization, one with a military branch, already means one is NOT neutral.

Neutrality is always a matter of context. The same argument can be made about existing, and how there are no neutral powers ever.

Help how? For example, offer sanctuary to mages whose lives are in danger and to Templars and anybody else whose lives are in danger from blood mages alike. Churches have historically offered asylum. Heck, how about help just by posting more guards in her church at night because lots of crap obviously goes down in there? As a religious person myself I felt extremely uncomfortable doing all that killing in a church, any church, sorry for going off-topic.

So, you aren't so much about trying for neutrality, but rather that she side with the Mages outright.

And what if/when Meredith overrules her, and doesn't back down? Moreover, what if the Divine, who's concerned about the mages, is inclined to side with Meredith over her?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Casuist wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

She didn't order (or seem to want) any of that.  She wasn't responsible for the power vacuum in Kirkwall, and it's not as though she could have appointed a new viscount (or, rather, it's not as if the chantry becoming so political wouldn't have had negative consequences all by itself).  As for Meredith, taking severe action against the Templars might have resulted in an Exalted March against Kirkwall, which she felt would lead to many deaths.  As previously stated, she was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Meredith having already appointed Marlowe (and therefore the grand cleric by proxy): she certainly COULD have done so. If she cannot rein in her subordinates when they take action beyond their standing then she needs to find someone within her organization who can.

And if reigning Meredith in starts a war regardless of who tries to do so, the cure is worse than the disease. At which point it isn't a beneficial thing at all.

[dgcatanisiri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So, you aren't so much about trying for neutrality, but rather that she side with the Mages outright.

And what if/when Meredith overrules her, and doesn't back down?

Meredith was violating Chantry law - no mage who has passed a Harrowing can be forced to become Tranquil. That's the law. Despite that, there are numerous mages being made Tranquil for no other reason than that they disagree with her policies.

Besides, the suggestion was offering asylum. That is not taking sides. That is something that the real world Church does, even to those who disagree or those who are considered enemies. Both mages and templars could ask for asylum. The biggest problem I see would be that the Chantry would become more packed than a sardine can if that were an option. But then, that would also force Elthina to admit that neutrality is blowing up in her face. (...No pun intended.)

[Camenae]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Camenae wrote...

Representing a religious organization, one with a military branch, already means one is NOT neutral.

Neutrality is always a matter of context. The same argument can be made about existing, and how there are no neutral powers ever.

Okay I can see that.

Help how? For example, offer sanctuary to mages whose lives are in danger and to Templars and anybody else whose lives are in danger from blood mages alike. Churches have historically offered asylum. Heck, how about help just by posting more guards in her church at night because lots of crap obviously goes down in there? As a religious person myself I felt extremely uncomfortable doing all that killing in a church, any church, sorry for going off-topic.

So, you aren't so much about trying for neutrality, but rather that she side with the Mages outright.

And what if/when Meredith overrules her, and doesn't back down? Moreover, what if the Divine, who's concerned about the mages, is inclined to side with Meredith over her?

I said offer sanctuary to everybody who's in danger of being killed.  And I don't know why posting guards in her church to prevent more killing is siding with the mages outright.

If Meredith overrules her, that's one thing.  If the Divine overrules her, same thing.  I would just have liked to see her at least try, rather than just say oh they're going to say no anyway.  Again I don't think she should say "Mages should be freeeeee!" rather "You should tone it down a bit."

[LobselVith8]

If Meredith was superior to the Grand Cleric in authority, Dean, why did she try to stop Orsino from going to the Grand Cleric? Clearly, he didn't see things that way when he sought to have a person in a higher command position deal with Meredith's actions, which makes sense since the codex about the Chantry Hierarchy does illustrate that the Grand Cleric holds considerable power in the Chantry, second only to the (White) Divine.

[Gadarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Meredith was superior to the Grand Cleric in authority, Dean, why did she try to stop Orsino from going to the Grand Cleric? Clearly, he didn't see things that way when he sought to have a person in a higher command position deal with Meredith's actions, which makes sense since the codex about the Chantry Hierarchy does illustrate that the Grand Cleric holds considerable power in the Chantry, second only to the (White) Divine.

Because Meredith feared that the Grand Cleric might indeed side with Orsino, which would in turn cause her to either back down or challenge Elthina, thus splitting the Chantry. It seems pretty logical to me that Meredith wishes to avoid this situation. Especially since backing down isn't really an option for her, I'd assume. Meredith has issues with mages, not with the Chantry. She's also not stupid (well, she is, but not in a political sense). She doesn't *want* to overrule the Grand Cleric, even if there's no question that she *would* if need be.

Anway, concerning asylum and such...

The medieval church did indeed offer asylum to those who fled from worldly prosecution. Note the word 'wordly'. I very much doubt that the church of the time offered the same to heathens and heretics. And definitely not when a crusader force full of zeal and blessed by the Pope was hanging around. So... offering asylum to apostates (which mages seeking refuge in the chantry would be by definition) is akin to offering asylum to heretics. Quite unconceivable.

Also, Meredith would never accept this. Offering asylum to templars as well wouldn't help either, as it's their *job* to hunt down apostates and blood magic. Giving them shelter because they deserted is hardly proof of neutrality.

Modifié par Gadarr, 29 mars 2011 - 05:26 .

[Parrk]

The problem with elthina's approach is that her passivity is so total that she completely ignores that others have grown accustomed to simply circumventing her. We see that she was no huge fan of Meredith's. She seems to understand that Meredith is out of hand.

Meredith doesn't want Orsino going to her because those are the only terms under which she will take action. She is effectively only in charge if you bring your issues to her, otherwise she is rather easily ignored with impunity.

Clearly, much of her mannerisms and her refusal to address anything that is not in front of her screaming is drawn from some warped sense of piety. She sees her role as being one of focusing on staying close to the maker. I think this is illustrated by her insistence on constantly commenting on the theme of degradation.

You could assume that she was overly-concerend with the chantry's image, but I think it is rather an indication of some level of felt closeness to the will of the maker.

just typing this I begin to appreciate her more. I think she and her role are more complex than some would like to admit.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Meredith was superior to the Grand Cleric in authority, Dean, why did she try to stop Orsino from going to the Grand Cleric? Clearly, he didn't see things that way when he sought to have a person in a higher command position deal with Meredith's actions, which makes sense since the codex about the Chantry Hierarchy does illustrate that the Grand Cleric holds considerable power in the Chantry, second only to the (White) Divine.

The short and simple is that while Meridith can win a conflict, it's a battle she'd rather not fight. She might triumphin the short term, but her long term prospects would diminish.

Nearly every battle,and every war, can have an obvious winner. The even-matches are actually rather rare, even if it takes time (and context) to reveal. The reasons wars generally remain rare even so is that deterence is based not on making the other person lose, but making their victory too costly to be desireable.

This applies to politics as well. Meredith can win a battle with anyone. That doesn't mean she wants a battle with anyone.

[Dean_the_Young]

Camenae wrote...

I said offer sanctuary to everybody who's in danger of being killed.  And I don't know why posting guards in her church to prevent more killing is siding with the mages outright.

As for the guards, I think it should be rather plain that it's far more gameplay/oversight than a deliberate implication of failure on anyone else's part.

If Meredith overrules her, that's one thing.  If the Divine overrules her, same thing.  I would just have liked to see her at least try, rather than just say oh they're going to say no anyway.  Again I don't think she should say "Mages should be freeeeee!" rather "You should tone it down a bit."

Again, this is based on the presumption of all action is better. Power potential is greater the less clear its limits, and nothing ruins deterence and moderation abilities (like the Cleric was credited with) than proof that, when push comes to shove, that one can't.

[LobselVith8]

Since the templars lyrium use is regulated by the Chantry, what good would come of Meredith trying to countermand the order of her superior, besides halting the flow of lyrium to Kirkwall and possibly igniting an Exalted March by the Divine? There's a hierarchy to the Chantry, and I doubt Meredith could challenge the Grand Cleric Elthina's authority without severe repercussions.

[Camenae]

I get that any power Elthina can wield would largely through bluffing. But in the face of so much death, I don't think a self-proclaimed religious person would affirmatively choose to do nothing.

Keeping order within her organization is part of her job description. Whether she agrees with it or not, if she agreed to take the job then she needs to do it. Otherwise she can always step down. If she were just a sister, or a mother in the chantry then there's little to do other than pray. But the Grand Cleric is a position of responsibility and fulfilling that position takes a different set of requirements.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Since the templars lyrium use is regulated by the Chantry, what good would come of Meredith trying to countermand the order of her superior, besides halting the flow of lyrium to Kirkwall and possibly igniting an Exalted March by the Divine?

From Meredith's point of view, and the views of many others? Halting a blood mage infestation of the city.

An infestation, it sadly now appears, which has addled the mind of the Grand Cleric herself. Or so the story may go.

The thing about the Templars thata makes their break from the Chantry possible is that many are devoted first and foremost to their cause, not the  Chantry. They don't watch over the mages because they are fanatics to the Chantry: they've since shifted focus because of the threat and dangers of mages. Some hate mages. Some fear for the people. The Templars aren't lockstep religious fanatics who happen to be used as policemen, they are a police state that believes in itself, independent of the Chantry. The Chantry could disappear tomorrow, and the Templars would still exist and see themselves as needed.

Why does anyone ever disobey the orders of a superior? Because they have ethics they feel they must uphold.

There's a hierarchy to the Chantry, and I doubt Meredith could challenge the Grand Cleric Elthina's authority without severe repercussions.

Sure. So what? 

People do things that get them reprecussions all the time, often because they think it's worth it to do so. No one's arguing that repercussions won't follow.

In fact, the repercussions, and the fallout about them, are rather the point.

[Nyaore]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Did Elthina know about Petrice's actions?

It's one thing to have the power to do something. It's another point to know when and where to use it. The point of conspiracies, after all, is to not be found.

You actually have the chance to inform her of what Petrice was doing at least once during the course of the story. In which case she really has no excuse for not taking at least some disciplinarian action, even if only a light scolding, against the wayward mother.

[Dean_the_Young]

Camenae wrote...

I get that any power Elthina can wield would largely through bluffing. But in the face of so much death, I don't think a self-proclaimed religious person would affirmatively choose to do nothing.

So much death? Kirkwall's troubles pale in the face of the plausible, even likely costs of an actual outbreak of open conflict.

Simply because someone judges the alternative as worse doesn't mean they like the bad. Nor does religion necessitate a lack of temperance.

Keeping order within her organization is part of her job description.

And in what since are the Templars 'her' organization? The point of a schism is that boundaries have blurred.

Moreover, preventing an active schism is working to keep order. It might fail, but then anything might fail. There is no inherent logic in that assertive action is always superior.

Whether she agrees with it or not, if she agreed to take the job then she needs to do it. Otherwise she can always step down. If she were just a sister, or a mother in the chantry then there's little to do other than pray. But the Grand Cleric is a position of responsibility and fulfilling that position takes a different set of requirements.

And her view of what those requirements are differs from yours. Why should anyone take your view of the proper role of a religious, not civil, figure over hers? Do you have thirty years of experience to work with? Do you even have three monthes of experience in Chantry politics and the circumstances of Kirkwall?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 29 mars 2011 - 05:55 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nyaore wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Did Elthina know about Petrice's actions?

It's one thing to have the power to do something. It's another point to know when and where to use it. The point of conspiracies, after all, is to not be found.

You actually have the chance to inform her of what Petrice was doing at least once during the course of the story. In which case she really has no excuse for not taking at least some disciplinarian action, even if only a light scolding, against the wayward mother.

The only time I can recall Hawke telling her about Petrice specifically, the Grand Cleric allowed Petrice to be taken in and be held responsible.

Much to Petrice's surprise. And then death by Qunari.