It's been a while since I played DA2. But can't the majority of Meredith's good points be attributed to her paranoia? If so, she may have cleaned things up, but making Kirkwall a better place has little meaning if at the end of it all she becomes increasingly unstable and destroys it. I don't believe she was a villain, but she was overstepping her role before Hawke showed up and little good came of it until she went insane.But I do believe she deserves the same amount of empathy as a mage who unwittingly becomes possessed by a demon.
That depends on what you attribute to natural paranoia versus the idol's influence, and what you think the idol's influence even was. Meredith was always unbending- the backstory, and the escalating difficulties of being beyond the Templar's reach point to that. We get our first hint in the prologue of trying to get into the city, in which it's pointed out that Meredith is making it harder to rely on Templar corruption.
But while Meredith was uncompromising, it's hard to point anywhere before parts of Act 3 she was, shall we say, unjustifiably concerned? Being convinced there is a conspiracy within the Circle isn't exactly crazy talk when there is, in fact, a conspiracy. Until the Anullment and her breakdown at Cullen and even a Champion who sides with her, it's hard to say she is unreasoned.
Unreasonable, sure- a number of her restrictions on mages are excessive, and don't really do much to address the problems. But that is the sin of excess, not insanity.
@ Dean.
Thanks for that. I think a few years ago I participated in a debate that discussed that, but reading that gave me a flashback to that discussion. I think its focus was on Aveline and how she claims to be corrupt-free, she routinely side-steps the rules in favor of the Hawkes and company. I think that discussion got started when Etheral Writer was talking about how she and the templars are just plain incompetent, especially when it comes to Quentin and the evidence in Act 1 matching what we see in Act 2 before Quentin is finally caught upon Leandra's death.
A weakness I've always felt undermined in this argument is that it frequently confuses success for competence (and failure for incompetence), while ignoring the role narrative needs have to fulfill the author's intent. What stands out to us as important foreshadowing (white lillies) isn't necessarily major to the characters, and the fact that a questline is for us a simply ten minute walk/talk/slash makes it seem simple to resolve and makes anyone else's failure puzzling. The Templars who got the city guard to search the Dark Foundary in Act 1- when we go in, we catch sight of the perpetrator, are immediately attacked by demons, and find a big old sack of bones.
But writer ability (and resources) have as much to do with it. For the writers, it was important they could set up foreshadowing to lead to fright and concern when it came to Act 2. They have to be obvious for the sake of the player, and make the clues just as obvious: imagine if the game didn't drop big gleaming bags of loot of evidence on the floor, or put it into a loot box that wasn't highlighted and an obvious loot box. Players will be handheld through the narrative, at the expense of persuasive writing.
There's also the writer's ability to match intent and execution for the level of competence at hand. Remember ME2, and Cerberus? For such a large, well funded, supposedly feared agency, ME2 was little more than seeing one Cerberus project blow up after another. It ruined credibility.
In this case, the idea that there are obvious clues and leads when, well, they might not be intended to be so obvious or applicable in-lore. The tip off of white lillies is one- certainly Thedas doesn't have a good concept of criminal profiling (or mental diseases, or commerce, or sanitation, or a dozen other fields we think of as 'competent by default' should be obvious), and since white lillies are rare for us we assume they are for the entire city. Or the lead of gascard depuis- it works out for us, so obviously the Templars not getting the same results is a mark of failure despite any rationals for the contrary. Etc. etc.
And when you think about it, everything you posted is 100% true. I think you just successfully did something that 3 years of debates with Lotion, Kommander, MisterJB and others have failed to do. Made me consider Meredith in a more sympathetic light. I'll likely bow out of this debate and give this matter a lot more thought tonight and come back in tomorrow. Just like with Loghain, when I did a playthrough and spared him, did return to Ostagar, listened to what he had to say, and it provided me with a perspective that actually makes me respect him and see sparing him as a more optimal solution than simply killing him out of hand, I have to seriously consider my stance on Meredith in regards to the fact that before the Idol, she actually isn't really that corrupt EXCEPT in the fact that she's way too involved with politics for my comfort zone, even before Hawke enters the city.
I'll be honest, I doubt it'll change my stance on being pro-mage because I don't believe in punishing people for crimes they didn't commit or treat them as less than people for being what they are, which is something many templars do. Nor do I see any justification for the annulment itself in Act 3 since the Circle is not responsible for Anders actions, but I'll likely have a considerably easier time justifying making pro-templar decisions in future playthroughs.
Oh, no worries- never in the intent. Meredith's anti-corruption effects isn't reason alone to forgive her other sins: it just makes corruption not one of them. Even her involvement and rise in politics is far less abrupt and based on reasonable actions than many people give her credit for. It starts when she overthrew the last Viscount... but that was in response for that Viscount executing her boss and picking a fight with the Templars first. She installs a new Vicount with which she has influence... but she doesn't dictate policy or dominate politics, and mainly seems to use him to allow her freer reign to implement pre-existing laws and policies. She rises in a power vacuum... caused by a Qunari coup attempt she helps put down.
I haven't ever heard anyone make a credible argument that any of these were unjustified or improper involvement. It isn't until Act 3, when she keeps a power vacuum going, that the Templars outright work to dictate policy rather than working to be free to act in their authority. Before that, though? A number of people have argued the Chantry should have cracked down on her for rising so high... but when and on what grounds? Not being nice enough? Good isn't nice, and you'd need something more than 'not being nice' to claim that the good she has done (re-establishing Templar and, by extension, Chantry presence in Kirkwall, reducing complacency and corruption, upholding the laws, defend the city from Qunari). It isn't until she's actually grown too powerful to be practically removed, in Act 3, that removing her is much more credibly warranted... but at the same time her radical steps are also more justified because she has clear threats to use them against.
None of which forgives her other sins. Meredith is still seeking power, she just isn't doing it for personal advantage or profit. She's enforcing the law, but it isn't an ideal law that can't stand to be reformed. All of the above doesn't change her from being an uncompromising, terrifying force who can validly be called out for excessively restricting the mages.
But the fact that a lot of the people most resentful of her are also the ones most engaged with the corruption she's challenging in her uncompromising stance? That isn't the creation of a problem: that's addressing a problem that already existed. Removing her and replacing her with someone else would only reduce tensions with the city if they tolerated and participated in the corruption themselves.
Retour en haut
. Unless of course you're operating under the false assumption that Justinia is alone and completely powerless. In that case, why would the chantry even be in the next game if it was essentially dead? Why would Gaider even mention not having to side with the Chantry if the Chantry was completely powerless as to be irrelevant in the story? Because it's going to remain a player in the political game. It can stand on its own feet. Despite Lambert and his merry band of marauders, there's no reason to believe that the Chantry is down for the count. Deal with it. 
