59 réponses à ce sujet

[RangerSG]

LyndseyCousland wrote...

I hadn't viewed her as indifferent. I figured she seemed pretty concerned. D: It's interesting to see the different take on her character though; will give me something to think about when I replay.

I have to agree. I never took Elthina as unconcerned. I just thought she was helpless given the power Meredith had consolidated. I don't think anyone could have stopped the confrontation, other than an assassin aimed at the KC.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

No problem, you handsome knight.

RangerSG wrote...

LyndseyCousland wrote...

I
hadn't viewed her as indifferent. I figured she seemed pretty
concerned. D: It's interesting to see the different take on her
character though; will give me something to think about when I replay.

I have to agree. I never took Elthina as unconcerned. I
just thought she was helpless given the power Meredith had consolidated.
I don't think anyone could have stopped the confrontation, other than
an assassin aimed at the KC.

That's what Seekers are for.
But personally, I blame the Divine for incompetence more than Elthina. First, for allowing Elthina to remain Grand Cleric. Secondly, for doing nothing about Meredith's incompetence. And thirdly, for seriously contemplating an Exalted March against an Andrastrian country without even investigating the other obvious options.

[_Aine_]

I saw her a bit differently I guess: to me the Grand Cleric was a woman in power who knew both the symbolic and actual meaning of that role. To a certain degree, she at least at first, felt like a peacekeeper in troubled times, using the security and esteem of her position as the force behind her attempt to keep that peace.
Whether it was a "the maker will save me" or "the makers will, will be done regardless of human intervention" attitude, I don't know. I do believe though that she felt the high esteem of the position in the minds of the people and politically afforded her both little opportunity to be controversial as well as a bit of security from the lunacy of the people if it came to that.

She DID enrage me a bit, the way *anyone* hiding behind their power does being silent and embracing their god or their faith, or their own personal security when speaking up, yes would be difficult, but also would be the right thing to do. That annoys me on a good day though, despite it being what MANY people do when pushed to difficult decisions that undermine their stability. I suppose in a perfect utopia I would want a leader that acts despite difficulty or ease and instead with projections for the greatest good. Regardless, I don't think she was a horrible woman. I think she was a woman who relied on her power being enough to contain a truly horrific ending. Faith can never do that, right action is the only way to do that. Sometimes difficult actions, also.

I do not see her walking away (after the Qunari assassination of Petrice) as proof of her being a bad person. She was not an unintelligent woman. Having a woman she now realized was working to make her look bad conveniently dead in front of her... much easier than the "justice" from a trial or whatever they do there would do for the people despite the fact that she knew the trial by the governing law body was the "right" thing to do, and so dictated it. The death ended that necessity in her mind. Tidier. Instability in an institution people have come to trust for their safety ( remember the knights thinking a simple necklace would keep them safe in battle at Redcliffe) would undermine a lot of stability. (The exact reason the destruction of the chantry would have been felt more intensely than the destruction of the gallows for instance.)

She wasn't, in my mind, either stupid or cold-hearted. But, despite that, I wouldn't call her a brave and independent thinker/leader either. There was MUCH she could have done if she had stepped out of the relative safety and security of her position. But despite my judgement against her ( and I do think she was wrong) I completely understand why a woman in her position would act the way she did, politically.

Even when running a religious institution, there are more politics than faith. Power demands it be so.

[dragonflight288]

I saw her a bit differently I guess: to me the Grand Cleric was a woman in power who knew both the symbolic and actual meaning of that role. To a certain degree, she at least at first, felt like a peacekeeper in troubled times, using the security and esteem of her position as the force behind her attempt to keep that peace.
Whether it was a "the maker will save me" or "the makers will, will be done regardless of human intervention" attitude, I don't know. I do believe though that she felt the high esteem of the position in the minds of the people and politically afforded her both little opportunity to be controversial as well as a bit of security from the lunacy of the people if it came to that.

Sometimes a position is all that is needed to impose order in a situation. With her being the Grand Cleric, many people will respect any decision she makes. So she may have a point with that. Whe whole "Maker's will be done" thing is completely ridiculous in my mind as the Chantry teaches that the Maker abandoned the world...twice. Why would he impose his will on the world if he isn't paying attention?

She DID enrage me a bit, the way *anyone* hiding behind their power does being silent and embracing their god or their faith, or their own personal security when speaking up, yes would be difficult, but also would be the right thing to do. That annoys me on a good day though, despite it being what MANY people do when pushed to difficult decisions that undermine their stability. I suppose in a perfect utopia I would want a leader that acts despite difficulty or ease and instead with projections for the greatest good. Regardless, I don't think she was a horrible woman. I think she was a woman who relied on her power being enough to contain a truly horrific ending. Faith can never do that, right action is the only way to do that. Sometimes difficult actions, also.

But what would be the right action? This thread alone is filled with pro-templar and pro-mages who constantly argue over the morality of the chantries hold over mages. No matter what decision she would have made, she would be making people very upset. I thought she was trying to appease everyone by not taking a side, because her safety as the Grand Cleric relied on her making herself as little a target to either side. Granted, her inaction drives me nuts too. A good leader needs to make decisions that may not be popular.

I also find it hilarious whenever anyone uses the word "utopia" when talking about a perfect world, especially since if you take the word's most literal meaning, it means "No Place". It's usually assigned to novel Utopia which described this perfect place which cannot possibly exist. Just a fun fact for people.

I do not see her walking away (after the Qunari assassination of Petrice) as proof of her being a bad person. She was not an unintelligent woman. Having a woman she now realized was working to make her look bad conveniently dead in front of her... much easier than the "justice" from a trial or whatever they do there would do for the people despite the fact that she knew the trial by the governing law body was the "right" thing to do, and so dictated it. The death ended that necessity in her mind. Tidier. Instability in an institution people have come to trust for their safety ( remember the knights thinking a simple necklace would keep them safe in battle at Redcliffe) would undermine a lot of stability. (The exact reason the destruction of the chantry would have been felt more intensely than the destruction of the gallows for instance.)

Yes, Ser Perth does show how much the Chantry can control even mundane people. He refused anything that may have had to do with "Unholy Magic". Anything that may actually have been beneficial, he refused because he hated magic. But useless trinkets with the Chantry's symbol on it, and he is all "The Maker will protect us!" People have come to rely on what the chantry symbolizes far too much, and I think the higher ranked members of it want it that way. And by higher ups, I refer to the leaders in Val Reayeux (hope I spelled it right)

She wasn't, in my mind, either stupid or cold-hearted. But, despite that, I wouldn't call her a brave and independent thinker/leader either. There was MUCH she could have done if she had stepped out of the relative safety and security of her position. But despite my judgement against her ( and I do think she was wrong) I completely understand why a woman in her position would act the way she did, politically.

Even when running a religious institution, there are more politics than faith. Power demands it be so.

I wouldn't call her a politician. I think she was genuinely misled by her own faith in the Maker and her position as Grand Cleric. I don't think she ever understood that, as Varic says to Carver "When things go wrong, and they always do, it's the person in charge where all the fingers point."

Without Viscount Dumar, the city had three influential leaders. Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina. And Elthina's voice could have reached far more people as she is the Grand Cleric.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 23 mai 2011 - 04:39 .

[_Aine_]

dragonflight288 wrote...

And Elthina's voice could have reached far more people as she is the Grand Cleric.

True. True.  

In my mind Utopia is kind of as useful as Heaven.  Better in theory than it would be in practice.  Part of what endears living to us ( other than the alternative of course) is the contrast of experience.  Perfection is never as perfect when that is all you have   A utopianesque leader would in fact create discord at time, impossible in a true utopia after all. lol It's mere existence may in fact disprove it. 

What would the right decision have been? Again, easier said in hindsight.  But, action beats inaction in general.  If for no other reason than a person would usually rather be hated for what they are or what they DID do, than what people merely suppose about them.  (or loved for what they aren't, as the saying goes.)  

The whole situation is vaguely reminscent of the Catholic Church during World War II to me, where Vatican City decided to maintain a policy of neutrality under Pope Pius the XII.    There is actually a lot of the flavour of historical lessons inherent in the circumstances within DA2, whether intentional or not, I have no clue.   

Modifié par shantisands, 23 mai 2011 - 04:59 .

[BHRamsay]

As Elthina herself says during one of her Sebastian pep talks, everyone involved knows right from wrong. If they willfully do wrong despite that knowledge then the Maker himself coming down on a flaming pie wasn't going to do squat.

[Chuvvy]

To be a martyr, you have to be part of a cause/religion, whatever and die for it. Neutrality isn't a cause or a religion.

[BHRamsay]

Slidell505 wrote...

To be a martyr, you have to be part of a cause/religion, whatever and die for it. Neutrality isn't a cause or a religion.

the wit and Wisdom of one Zapp Brannigan comes to mind ...
"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you
just born with a heart full of neutrality?"