204 réponses à ce sujet

[PlumPaul93]

Wulphe wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Wulphe wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Wulphe wrote...

I just wanted to throw this out here for discussion and see what other people thought. Not sure if there's a post about this, and if there is I'm sorry.

I'm on Act II of my second playthrough and I realized that last game I never talked directly to Elthina after the Dissent quest. So, I go bug her. One question I can ask her is something like "When are you gonna do something about the Qunari and mages?" Her response is that "The Chantry is like a gentle mother. Sometimes for her children to learn best they must learn themselves." (not exact quote but 90% accurate)

I'm just like... wtf, seriously?! People are killing each other. *Innocent* people are dying, and she has the power to end it simply by raising her voice... I may not be a parent, but if my children were out mudering people and deceptively ochestrating racial riots, I would not take the soft approach with them and hope they figure it out on their own.

Honestly, after that line I feel a lot less upset over her death. She may not have physically killed anyone, but there is certainly blood on her hands.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Did you romance anders? If you did that is the reason why.

Yes, I did romance Anders both playthroughs. The first time I couldn't bring myself to forgive him but I took Merrill's advise and brought him along to help clean up his mess, but sent him away in the end. (I believed killing him would only make him a martyr to the mage cause; leaving him alive ensured he could survive to further blacken his name and eventually someone would bring justice to him). The more I consider the whole situation though, the more I side with him, especially after that talk with Elthina.

My decisions have nothing to do with actually romancing him though. I'm more swayed by either my sister being in the Circle in my first run, or myself being a mage now. To assume that romancing a terrorist automatically cancles out your higher thinking processes and makes you blindly agree with him is a little ridiculous.

Ooh wow I asked that a while ago , well anyway the reason I ask is it seems people are trying to justify what anders did by hating on the grand cleric because they romanced anders, I know not everyone is doing it because of that but thats what it seems like to me JMO.

I know, I would've replied sooner but I had life get in the way, lol.  I don't think I'm trying to justify his actions, and though I don't feel bad for Elthina, I still don't think he did the right thing. If I were him I'd go more for an assassination attempt on Meredith and a b****-slap for Elthina and Orsino. Then again.. that probably would have been something too easy to keep quiet and wouldn't have lead to a world-wide revolution.

The only defense I can really give Anders is that he was obsessed with a (I believe) noble cause that the majority of common folk could simply ignore, and did. After years of peaceful pushing, subversively aiding those he could,  and writting a menifesto attempting to inspite something more than apethy (which didn't even seem to affect his closest friends), he finally snapped, thinking there was no other way to move the people to action than to do something drastic. He made it so the problem could no longer be ignored. I sympathize with him for that, I just wish there was a better way.

*sigh* I guess I'm not even sure if Elthina really deserved death; more like a severe finger-wagging and a demotion to a lower position in the Chantry where her ideals could do some good. I would consider her criminally neglegent, but she is a good person. I'm kinda cold though in that I don't believe being a good person makes you innocent. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". When you have a responsibility to protect the people you lead, you can not sit there and do nothing while they die. Even making a bad choice is better than making no choice. I don't think she could have made everyone happy, but I do think she could have prevented war. (/end Justice rant)

Then again.. (going off on so many tangents) I think the Chantry's power in Thedas, alone, is an evil system. I never think religion should hold power outside of *just* religion. The Chantry has it's dirty fingers dipped into way too many military and political powers. So, I guess I'm also not *as* upset with Anders being his actions undermined Chantry authority as well as the Templars... but this is starting to sound like an argument for another time. Sorry, I'm babbling. I'm going to shut up now. (/Merrill)

, yeah I have no problem with anyones opinion being different from mine (although It's hard not to be biased about anders if you romanced him). I just don't see anything that the grand cleric could've done to make sure there were no problems and everyone got along. Sure she could've tried to stop meredith but really would that have stopped her? I doubt it.

[Varus Praetor]

Personally I was glad to see the Chantry burn. But then again the Chantry, Mages, and Templars all pissed me off in this game. The only faction that I could even remotely respect was the Qunari, but even then I found their odd brand of Communism disturbing enough that I was happy to see them destroyed. I think Thedas is in need of a good cleansing.

[AlexXIV]

Well I told her that she is useless. Sadly Hawke didn't say it in the way I meant it. And she didn't care anyway, good riddance. She was Grand Cleric of Kirkwall for 30 years. Just think about that for a minute. What are the chances that she is not to blame for everything that happened there?

[Wulphe]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Wulphe wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Wulphe wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Wulphe wrote...

I just wanted to throw this out here for discussion and see what other people thought. Not sure if there's a post about this, and if there is I'm sorry.

I'm on Act II of my second playthrough and I realized that last game I never talked directly to Elthina after the Dissent quest. So, I go bug her. One question I can ask her is something like "When are you gonna do something about the Qunari and mages?" Her response is that "The Chantry is like a gentle mother. Sometimes for her children to learn best they must learn themselves." (not exact quote but 90% accurate)

I'm just like... wtf, seriously?! People are killing each other. *Innocent* people are dying, and she has the power to end it simply by raising her voice... I may not be a parent, but if my children were out mudering people and deceptively ochestrating racial riots, I would not take the soft approach with them and hope they figure it out on their own.

Honestly, after that line I feel a lot less upset over her death. She may not have physically killed anyone, but there is certainly blood on her hands.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Did you romance anders? If you did that is the reason why.

Yes, I did romance Anders both playthroughs. The first time I couldn't bring myself to forgive him but I took Merrill's advise and brought him along to help clean up his mess, but sent him away in the end. (I believed killing him would only make him a martyr to the mage cause; leaving him alive ensured he could survive to further blacken his name and eventually someone would bring justice to him). The more I consider the whole situation though, the more I side with him, especially after that talk with Elthina.

My decisions have nothing to do with actually romancing him though. I'm more swayed by either my sister being in the Circle in my first run, or myself being a mage now. To assume that romancing a terrorist automatically cancles out your higher thinking processes and makes you blindly agree with him is a little ridiculous.

Ooh wow I asked that a while ago , well anyway the reason I ask is it seems people are trying to justify what anders did by hating on the grand cleric because they romanced anders, I know not everyone is doing it because of that but thats what it seems like to me JMO.

I know, I would've replied sooner but I had life get in the way, lol.  I don't think I'm trying to justify his actions, and though I don't feel bad for Elthina, I still don't think he did the right thing. If I were him I'd go more for an assassination attempt on Meredith and a b****-slap for Elthina and Orsino. Then again.. that probably would have been something too easy to keep quiet and wouldn't have lead to a world-wide revolution.

The only defense I can really give Anders is that he was obsessed with a (I believe) noble cause that the majority of common folk could simply ignore, and did. After years of peaceful pushing, subversively aiding those he could,  and writting a menifesto attempting to inspite something more than apethy (which didn't even seem to affect his closest friends), he finally snapped, thinking there was no other way to move the people to action than to do something drastic. He made it so the problem could no longer be ignored. I sympathize with him for that, I just wish there was a better way.

*sigh* I guess I'm not even sure if Elthina really deserved death; more like a severe finger-wagging and a demotion to a lower position in the Chantry where her ideals could do some good. I would consider her criminally neglegent, but she is a good person. I'm kinda cold though in that I don't believe being a good person makes you innocent. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". When you have a responsibility to protect the people you lead, you can not sit there and do nothing while they die. Even making a bad choice is better than making no choice. I don't think she could have made everyone happy, but I do think she could have prevented war. (/end Justice rant)

Then again.. (going off on so many tangents) I think the Chantry's power in Thedas, alone, is an evil system. I never think religion should hold power outside of *just* religion. The Chantry has it's dirty fingers dipped into way too many military and political powers. So, I guess I'm also not *as* upset with Anders being his actions undermined Chantry authority as well as the Templars... but this is starting to sound like an argument for another time. Sorry, I'm babbling. I'm going to shut up now. (/Merrill)

, yeah I have no problem with anyones opinion being different from mine (although It's hard not to be biased about anders if you romanced him). I just don't see anything that the grand cleric could've done to make sure there were no problems and everyone got along. Sure she could've tried to stop meredith but really would that have stopped her? I doubt it.

Like I said, I don't think she could have made everyone happy, but she had pleanty of options to avert a complete war and spare innocent lives. Here's where I get biased about the best choice, but I acknowledge there are multiple solutions.

I think she could have had Meredith discharged and replaced with Cullen. If Meredith refused, I think most templars would follow Cullen over her, and Elthina could have contacted the Divine. I think more people would agree that Meredith is crazy, than that Elthina is corrupt/possessed. I also think that the injustices in the Circle needed to stop. That would likely stop more mages from turning to blood magic while the remaining ones who did could be hunted down. Giving the mages more freedom *within* Kirkwalls walls, like the ability to visit their families and go for strolls in the market, would be a plus, but that's probably more of my bias speaking. Also, though it's not a reason to make this choice (it's not right to act simply to please a violent party), but a pleasent side effect, this probably would have prevented Anders from taking drastic measures. I'm sure he'd still be fighting for mage freedom, but with Elthina finally acting reasonalbe, he probably would have continued peaceful pushes to sway her/public opinion. In my little ideal fantasy world, I'd like to see Circles more like required education for mages. Once you're harrowed you "graduate" and go live your life. Templars would still exist as a policing system, but not as stalkers constantly baring down on mages. Tranquility can also only be used on mages that have resorted to blood magic, or mudered someone. But.. that's my bias talking again there.

*Alternatively* I guess Elthina could have kicked Meredith to the curb (again... that woman's just crazy), replacing her with Cullen. Then *listened* to the Champion when she warns her Anders is up to no good and sent out templars to neutralize him. Then ordered an Annulment of the Circle, saving as many innocent mages as possible, as Cullen suggests when Meredith does. OR Just open negotiations with Orsino, ensuring that Meredith's corruption will be undone and encouraging him to help weed out bad apples in the Circle to restore order. (I don't think Orsino was unreasonable or anti-Circle. He just wanted the persecution to stop).

So, she had options. It would have made for a lame story had she dtaken these actions, but I think it's important to feel the impact of *knowing* all this could have been resolved while the apathy of many people leads to injustice and muder.

[Wulphe]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

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.

I agree. Except that I think only Divines can call for Exalted Marches.

I like the Viscount/Grand Cleric. I'm pretty neutral/libertarian myself.

Libertarians aren't usually neutral. They support individual freedoms and the minimization of government control.

Anders and Isabela could both be considered libertarians. Anders is an extreme libertatian activist who's making sacrifices to fight for his beliefs, for good or ill. Isabela also claims she believes everyone should be free. She's more selfish in that she doesn't want to get involved despite having her opinion of what is right. Though she is passive, I wouldn't call her neutral.

[nijnij]

I question the Grand Cleric's neutrality, especially after Seamus' death when mother Petrice gets killed by a Qunari's arrows.

Maybe it's just her voice acting or her character (the Grand Cleric is, after all, a pretty "apathetic" person), but the lack of alarm in her tone and the fact that she hardly turns back to witness Petrice's death, to me, strongly suggests that she had this somewhat planned, although it's just my interpretation.

Petrice's scheme ( = to have the viscount's son, a "repented Qunari convert", murdered in the Chantry, as a way to say "Qunari are brutal and unforgiving") seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for war, considering she wanted to blame the murder on Hawke, whose involvement with the Qunari is at best vague.

However, Grand Cleric Elthina might have expected the Qunari would be watching Hawke closely after Seamus' disappearance (the Arishok even warns Hawke of that), so perhaps what she had in mind was that after Petrice had Seamus killed (which she lets happen by faking to ignore), the Qunari would most likely avenge the death of one of their converts by killing Seamus' killer right in the Chantry, giving the people a much better excuse for war.

I can't guarantee that but nothing I've seen in the game invalidates this possibility. And if that's the case, which I kind of believe to some extent, Elthina is much more manipulative than Petrice herself, in which case, I don't feel bad for her either. I'm not saying she planned the whole thing (after all, Hawke should have been killed by Petrice's righteous mob and considered to be Seamus' killer, as an excuse to attack the Qunari), but perhaps since Hawke survives and exposes Petrice, Elthina, knowing the Qunari may be watching, figures that Petrice's explicit murder by the Qunari might represent a more solid proof of offense to the Viscount and the Templars. I don't see her as a big meanie planning everything but definitely as that twisted "let's see how we can use that" kind of meanie.


Maybe I'm reading too far into it but I got that impression in both playthroughs.

Modifié par nijnij, 30 mars 2011 - 03:23 .

[Casuist]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

..."just so" story. There's no more reason to expect it to instigate a war than there is that a war would be prevented. In fact: less, since unstable people in positions of power are a likely cause. Indeed, in hindsight, we know a war begins regardless- what is morally "right" is for Elthina to take some measure of responsibility for those who are her subordinates.

[Dean_the_Young]

Casuist wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

..."just so" story. There's no more reason to expect it to instigate a war than there is that a war would be prevented. In fact: less, since unstable people in positions of power are a likely cause. Indeed, in hindsight, we know a war begins regardless- what is morally "right" is for Elthina to take some measure of responsibility for those who are her subordinates.

That's an entirely personal evaluation. I come to the opposing conclusion. Strongly.

You can not justify forward-looking decisions in hindsight. That is neither possible or even a claim to morality of the decision making process. Appealing solely to the post-facto results, and not the basis for making a decision going forward, is the antithesis of logic and reason.

[Dean_the_Young]

Asdara wrote...

The Grand Cleric should .

And here's the crux, and failing, of every argument along this line. Should. Not is, not could be, not even realistic. The premise of 'should.'


The Grand Cleric should have power over the Templars.

The Viscount of Kirkwall should have the most power in his own city.

The Templars should be non-political.

The Magi should not be infested with blood mages.

The Champion should not be in Kirkwall as a refugee.

How things should be, and how things actually are, are quite different. Problems happen in the world constantly because people can't stop them before they become real.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Asdara wrote...

The Grand Cleric should .

And here's the crux, and failing, of every argument along this line. Should. Not is, not could be, not even realistic. The premise of 'should.'

The Grand Cleric should have power over the Templars.

The Grand Cleric does have authority over the templars, that's how Elthina is able to command templars to escort Orsino back to his cell. That's why Orsino went to Elthina to put a stop to what the Knight-Commander was doing, and why Meredith tried to stop him. It isn't until the end of the story that the Order of Templars stops taking orders from the Chantry of Andraste.

[Ealos]

Does she, though? Is there anywhere in the lore which says who a Knight-Commander answers to? She says that you think she has more power than she has when you ask her to make them stop. As far as I can see, the priesthood doesn't have control over the Templars, thought Elthina is clearly respected, which I would say is why she is able to diffuse the situation at the opening of Act III. Is there a Templar Grandmaster figure? The Seekers are somewhere in Templar hierarchy, but I'm not sure what role a Grand Cleric would get.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The templars serve the Chantry, Dean, not the other way around.

At the end of the game, it's rather clear they don't. The break started somewhere beforehand: attitudes, views, de facto practices.

You cling to what should be, not what is said to actually be.

Your notion that Meredith doesn't have to answer to Elthina is speculation that doesn't seem to be supported by Anders attack against the Kirkwall Chantry or Orsino's attempt to see Elthina to put a stop to what Meredith was doing. Grand Cleric Elthina's inaction doesn't prove your theory that Meredith doesn't answer to her.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith has as much power as she does because Elthina seldom challenges her authority. The fact she can order Templars to escort the First Enchanter to his cell illustrates she does have command over templars, as the codex explicitly refences. You seem to think the templars are independent of the Chantry in Kirkwall, and there's nothing to support that theory. Simply because Elthina doesn't stop Meredith doesn't mean she doesn't have jurisdiction over the Order of Templars.

Jurisdiction is like any other authority: it only matters so long as someone is willing to obey. Elthina gives an order that is not in opposition to Meredith: if Meredith were to counter-order, however, the question of who truly wields power would be far more obvious. So long as neither contrasts the other, neither stands to lose.

You seem to be conflating the issue of Elthina's pacifism with some supposed lack of authority.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I never said Meredith was physically or mentally incapable of arresting the Champion, but she does lack the political clout to imprison him without repercussions that could cost her the control she wields over Kirkwall since Elthina doesn't challenge her role.

We don't know what sort of repercussions she faced, so we can not assert that doing so would have made her lose control.

Which is why I addressed that it 'could' cost her control, not that it would. .

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

She's only willing to try to kill him when he sided with the mages or did all her dirty work, when the Chantry is already destroyed and Elthina dead. The templars hold on the city isn't absolute, after all.

Something that sounds nice, but in effect means nothing. No autocrat, no matter how much power they hold, can avoid political cost-benefits. The standard you hold negates the entire concept of 'absolute control' as it usually stands.

The Meredith wouldn't move against the Champion before doesn't prove that she couldn't,

I never said Meredith couldn't try or even that she couldn't, I addressed that the reprecussions of such an act could cost her the position of power that she held over Kirkwall in light of Elthina's neutrality. Had it not been an issue, an apostate Hawke would have been imprisoned in the Kirkwall Circle. Since he saved the nobility of Kirkwall from the Arishok by Hawke specifically, it demonstrates that Hawke isn't being forcibly imprisoned (along with the apostates Anders and Merrill) for a reason.

[MadMoskus]

She's my favorite (new) character from DA2, but I didn't actually feel sorry for her. Only hatred towards Anders

[LobselVith8]

Ealos wrote...

Does she, though?

Yes, she does. The Order of Templars is the military arm of the Chantry, and the Grand Cleric is one of the highest ranking members of the Chantry, second only to the Divine.

"Beneath the rank of Divine is the grand cleric. Each grand cleric presides over numerous chantries and represents the highest religious authority for their region."

We also had templars in DA:O taking orders from the Revered Mother (who is beneath the rank of Grand Cleric).

Ealos wrote...

Is there anywhere in the lore which says who a Knight-Commander answers to?

David Gaider addressed that the Circles of Magi are under Chantry control, and since the templars govern the mages, why do you assume the Chantry doesn't command the templars as well? Even Alistair makes this point explicit when you discuss the templars addiction to lyrium with him. He personally believes that the Chantry is making templars addicted to lyrium as a means of control over them.

You know who regulates the templars lyrium usage? The Chantry. You know who the Knight-Commander needs permission from to get the Rite of Annulment? The Grand Cleric. If the templars didn't answer to the Chantry, then the Chantry wouldn't regulate the lyrium usage? If the head of the local templars - the Knight-Commander - didn't answer to the Grand Cleric, then he or she wouldn't need permission from the Grand Cleric to carry out the Rite of Annulment.

[Asdara]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Asdara wrote...

The Grand Cleric should .

And here's the crux, and failing, of every argument along this line. Should. Not is, not could be, not even realistic. The premise of 'should.'


The Grand Cleric should have power over the Templars.

The Viscount of Kirkwall should have the most power in his own city.

The Templars should be non-political.

The Magi should not be infested with blood mages.

The Champion should not be in Kirkwall as a refugee.

How things should be, and how things actually are, are quite different. Problems happen in the world constantly because people can't stop them before they become real.

All of which I addressed in the rest of my post I think.  Also, being able to do something (even if only in theory in a perfect world) doesn't automatically make it a "good" option.  She has no good options - she's the last support in a house of cards and if she moves a little it is all coming down no matter what she does after that.  She's as stuck as we are and it's comforting to heap blame on her, but realistically her options were bad and worse.

[Asdara]

Ealos wrote...

Does she, though? Is there anywhere in the lore which says who a Knight-Commander answers to? She says that you think she has more power than she has when you ask her to make them stop. As far as I can see, the priesthood doesn't have control over the Templars, thought Elthina is clearly respected, which I would say is why she is able to diffuse the situation at the opening of Act III. Is there a Templar Grandmaster figure? The Seekers are somewhere in Templar hierarchy, but I'm not sure what role a Grand Cleric would get.

She may not be able to micromanage the Order, but she holds the power to validate a Rite of Annulment, which is what Meredith is ultimately looking for by the 3rd Act. I reference DAO for this where Knight Commander Gregoir was waiting for the Rite from the Grand Cleric of Denerim (who had not responded, which is why he lets the Warden wade into the situation)

[tanerb123]

do priests in dragon age have arcane power like mages ? i have never seen any divine caster

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Asdara wrote...

The Grand Cleric should .

And here's the crux, and failing, of every argument along this line. Should. Not is, not could be, not even realistic. The premise of 'should.'

The Grand Cleric should have power over the Templars.

The Grand Cleric does have authority over the templars, that's how Elthina is able to command templars to escort Orsino back to his cell. That's why Orsino went to Elthina to put a stop to what the Knight-Commander was doing, and why Meredith tried to stop him. It isn't until the end of the story that the Order of Templars stops taking orders from the Chantry of Andraste.

The Grand Cleric has authority over the Templars for as long as Meredith allows her to.

This is the nature of power balances, especially when a nominal subordinate holds the real power.

[LobselVith8]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Grand Cleric does have authority over the templars, that's how Elthina is able to command templars to escort Orsino back to his cell. That's why Orsino went to Elthina to put a stop to what the Knight-Commander was doing, and why Meredith tried to stop him. It isn't until the end of the story that the Order of Templars stops taking orders from the Chantry of Andraste.

The Grand Cleric has authority over the Templars for as long as Meredith allows her to.

Yet we have the in-game scene of Orsino going to Elthina to put a stop to Meredith, and Meredith trying to stop him. I don't see why we should adhere to your theory on the matter if we don't have anything conclusive to support it.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Your notion that Meredith doesn't have to answer to Elthina

Strawman argument.

You seem to be conflating the issue of Elthina's pacifism with some supposed lack of authority.

That is not what is conflating.

I never said Meredith couldn't try or even that she couldn't, I addressed that the reprecussions of such an act could cost her the position of power that she held over Kirkwall in light of Elthina's neutrality. Had it not been an issue, an apostate Hawke would have been imprisoned in the Kirkwall Circle. Since he saved the nobility of Kirkwall from the Arishok by Hawke specifically, it demonstrates that Hawke isn't being forcibly imprisoned (along with the apostates Anders and Merrill) for a reason.

In regards to your differentiation between couldn't versus wouldn't, you are correct and I was mistaken as to your position. This I freely concede.

However, even 'could' is not implied or necessitated. There are a whole host of other reasons that remain to explain why, so asserting one in particular is unsupported. Hawke doesn't need to be a risk of overthrowing Meredith, Hawke only needs to be too much trouble. The nature of trouble is not restricted to Meredith losing her position.

[RazorrX]

Actually, I thought the Divine wanted to replace her because she was becoming more and more ineffectual. The problem with her removal lay in the fact she was so beloved by the people of Krikwall, her removal would have caused turmoil.

I think that is one reason Lei was sent to get her to 'flee' to safety. So that the Divine could put someone in temporary charge that WOULD be more stern. The Knight Commander MUST do what the Grand Cleric says.

It also shows WHY Merideth stopped Orsino from going to the High Cleric right before the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator in act 3. IF Orsino made it to her, and IF she agreed - she could have ORDERED Merideth to stop what she was doing, and Merideth did NOT want that to happen.

All of the problems with the mages and templars can be placed firmly at the Grand Cleric's feet.

[Dean_the_Young]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Grand Cleric does have authority over the templars, that's how Elthina is able to command templars to escort Orsino back to his cell. That's why Orsino went to Elthina to put a stop to what the Knight-Commander was doing, and why Meredith tried to stop him. It isn't until the end of the story that the Order of Templars stops taking orders from the Chantry of Andraste.

The Grand Cleric has authority over the Templars for as long as Meredith allows her to.

Yet we have the in-game scene of Orsino going to Elthina to put a stop to Meredith, and Meredith trying to stop him. I don't see why we should adhere to your theory on the matter if we don't have anything conclusive to support it.

Orsino going to Elthina does not prove that Elthina has more power than Meredith.

All Meredith's objection to Orsino proves is that she doesn't want him to go to Orsino. It doesn't necessitate that this is because Meredith will lose a conflict with Elthina, only that she doesn't want a conflict with Elthina.

When, however, we have multiple characters, including our narrotor Varric, identifying Meredith as the top power, and nothing disproves that...

[Camenae]

Whether the Grand Cleric was right or wrong in what she did about the situation, I can't say without using hindsight. However it's clear she didn't do her job: The knight-commander was SUPPOSED to obey the grand cleric, so if you as grand cleric let it get to the point where the knight-commander for sure doesn't listen to you, then somebody did their job wrong.

Taking the whole mage/templar thing out of the picture, she still didn't do her job: If your underling has been going nuts for years and everyone and their family pets knew about this descent into madness, and you do nothing about it...that's either ratification or gross negligence.

[Dean_the_Young]

Asdara wrote...

All of which I addressed in the rest of my post I think. 

I don't, but we could argue in circles forever about this. You see her getting a position of weakness as proof of failure. I do not.

Also, being able to do something (even if only in theory in a perfect world) doesn't automatically make it a "good" option.  She has no good options - she's the last support in a house of cards and if she moves a little it is all coming down no matter what she does after that.  She's as stuck as we are and it's comforting to heap blame on her, but realistically her options were bad and worse.

This we agree on. (I think.)