1551 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

Any post that starts 'notice how much someone doesn't care' in response to a partial rebuttal of 'she bends to the patron's preferences' is not raising it as a good thing.

 

Aside from the inaccuracy of what you're claiming her nature is... it doesn't even apply as a mater of trust. Vivienne was never Celene's emotional support device, nor was there ever any expectation that she should be- they had a professional relationship, and one that was distant by Celene's own decision.

 

Vivienne's reaction to Celene's death- respectful, pragmatic, and above all honest- are exactly what you're accusing her of not expressing. In what strange place does someone being honest and open about their reasons and reasonings- of a respectful but non-emotional relationship now passed- make someone harder to trust and read?

 

The alternative to Vivienne saying she's not moved to tears is to, well, claim she is being moved to tears. Which would be deceitful. Which is what she's being accused for not being enough, apparently.

But it is a matter of trust.Would you trust someones who goal are generally unclear and show little human emotion?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Mage were not elites before unless the came from nobles families with power or had the support of nobles. over a sparse few had that. The mages in general had very little say with what happen to them and the out side world. They could only be an elite class if they had control. the mages of the old circle had no over themselve. With Vivianne they have that, at least what Vive allows them and they can influence other politically.

 

What you are describing are not elites but birds in a glided cage.

Few mages did have noble support, but any could have gotten it. The nobles needed mages to heal injuries and the worst diseases, (among countless other things they could be doing with it if they're smart) and there's only one (legal) place they can go for them.

[Dean_the_Young]

1. Celene was never neutral. Masked empire made it a point that she wanted the chantry to fix the mage/templer problem or else she fix it for her. She only allowed them to fight it out because she did did not have the man power to stop it with the civil war. Here policy with the circle and chantry is keep you're plate clean or else.

 

That's... a demonstration of neutrality. As is her desire that the Chantry fix it, rather than her. Celene takes no position on how the conflict should be resolved, or in whose favor, so long as it is resolved: this is precisely what neutral parties do in conflicts. They don't take sides. This is different from Vivienne, who has very clear anti-Rebellion (if not pro-Templar) sentiment.

 

At the time she's faced with the delimma, it's before the Civil War. Celene's refusal to intervene on any side in the Mage/Templar/Chantry conflict was actually one of the criticisms Gaspard leveled at her.

 

 

 

2. OK she does not bend but she still leans to the ones with the most power and try to convince them how great her view are without go off on them for apposing it. She still lean to the most power she an use.

 

 

Except all the times she doesn't, and goes with an underdog alliance instead, even if that alliance is not the strongest or even stronger party. Her love affair, her acceptance of a ceremonial position, her alliance with the Inquisition...

 

Again- where in the story, any story she's involved, does Vivienne initiate an abandonment of one ally for another simply on the basis of the allie's strength? Who has she unjustly abandoned and betrayed in the pursuit of self-interest?

 

 

And if you're seriously raising 'tries to convince people on her views without acting like a lunatic if they don't' as a bad thing that in any way ...

[Shienis]

I hear this charge from time to time, but I've rarely heard much reason to believe in it. The argument that Vivienne will inevitably jump ship as the tide changes is big on inevitability because, hey, politician and the Game, but very little on background or history.

 

There are a significant number of points in the series in which Vivienne's politics aren't turned by the tides of the moment, and her loyalty/favor not tied to the patron of the hour, and neither a fair-weather ally nor an ideologue of least resistance.

 

Vivienne's views are consistent across the game and our knowledge of her, past and present. She expresses and holds them before the rebellion (Cole's flashback insights), she holds them in the face of the rebellion when her power base of 'representative of the mages' is currently in revolt, she holds them when she is a member of the Inquisition, and she holds them if she gains real political power. She doesn't mollify or change them to gain favor- no matter how much the Inquisitor agrees, or disagrees, or actively opposes, Vivienne's expressed and practiced views are consistent whether she's in power or not, whether they're popular or not.

 

This is not what one would expect from a semi-sycophantic 'curry views to the current powers' suggestion, or the 'she'll change it soon enough.' Unlike, say, bloody mood swing Leliana, who's undergone more than a few ideological conversions over her career. Or ever ever-amiable no-drama companions like Garrus from Mass Effect, who's as likable (and likes the player) no matter what the PC does.

 

 

Nor does Vivienne have any exceptional history of jumping ship for higher tides- if anything, she has a history of jumping for the underdogs and making them into positions of power. Most notably- Court Enchanter, once a magical fool, turned into a position of relevance. Her dalliance with the Duke, while eventually an independent power base, was initially a drag on both of them if WOT 2 is what I've heard. She reaches out to the Inquisition when it is still a minow in Thedasian politics, unlike the still-standing Chantry which is ripe for political feuding and power grabs. When faced with a practically unkillable hyper-magister who, the future tells us, can fight and beat Thedas, she sticks by even though there's no clear way to beat him.

 

Vivienne clearly isn't risk-adverse: she takes a number of gambles, and efforts, that pay off in the long-run but not because they obviously would. She'll take risks, and make the most of them, and appreciates the power from them.

 

But what of the things she doesn't do? Or rather, where are her betrayals for the advantage, present or prospective? In the face of a Mage Revolution that offers the 'chaos is a ladder' sort of careeer advancement, Vivienne doesn't ditch the collapsing Circle system for a chance to play Revolutionary Leader (a role her political acuemen, and common sense, would put her well better than Fiona). Nor does she play Collaborator with the Templars, which one would suspect if she simply trying not to be dragged down. In the face of a 'join us or die' rebel wave, she stands fast- in the face of a pending Templar victory as the war sees the mages driven to Redcliffe and nowhere else, she isn't working with or for the Templars to be on the winning side.

 

Vivienne is as stalwart an ally for the Inquisition as any other we find. There's not even a hint of her being involved or even interested in schemes to break with its greater goals: no one is seeking her out to play a part in the Orlais plotline as her ticket back to the Court Enchanter position, she is not seeking out any Venatori in hopes of betraying the Inquisitor and setting herself up as a Priest-Queen of her own corner of Thedas, she doesn't express any interest in Corypheus despite him being established as having the means, intent, and even future-foreknowledge success of actually conquering Thedas.

 

If there's any 'Lord powerful enough' to make the tides change and encouraging a jumping of ship, it's Corypheus. But she doesn't.

 

And, to my knowledge, never has. So why the exceptional suspicion?

 

You have some valid points here. I'm not good with words and it's quite late now, but I'll try to explain why and under what conditions I think she would change her attitude.

 

She is reasonable and practical and as it appears, she wants stable world. Which is definitely one of the reasons why she doesn't join Corypheus - someone who aspires to godhood and promises seats of power left and right... she would have to be an idiot to believe he'll actually share that power.

So if Corypheus is out of option, the only remaining two are Chantry and Inquisition. And because Vivienne is politically very experienced, she's able to imagine the Chantry will not be able to do anything with so many of their leaders dead. As Cassandra said: "Being more flexible than the Chantry is not a difficult goal," the Inquisition becomes the only group capable of bringing back the stability she likes - starting with closing the rifts which no one else can do.

Which means - if Inquisition fails, the giant hole in the sky and the ancient darkspawn magister will bring chaos and no power gathered before will matter. So it seems as very reasonable to join them.

 

Now let's imagine the Inquisition wins and soft Leliana as the new Divine frees all the mages and dissolves circles. Vivienne most probably won't change the sides too obviously, that would hurt her reputation, but she'll definitely stay active and do something. If she changes her attitude depends on what changes would the freeeeee~ mages enforce and how stable would the result be - if she evaluates the situation as 'yes, the mages will rule in two generations', she'll play it in her favour. Which is a different play from when it would look like 'they'll be back in Circles in ten years and they'll be happy'.

[leaguer of one]

That's... a demonstration of neutrality. As is her desire that the Chantry fix it, rather than her. Celene takes no position on how the conflict should be resolved, or in whose favor, so long as it is resolved: this is precisely what neutral parties do in conflicts. They don't take sides. This is different from Vivienne, who has very clear anti-Rebellion (if not pro-Templar) sentiment.

 

At the time she's faced with the delimma, it's before the Civil War. Celene's refusal to intervene on any side in the Mage/Templar/Chantry conflict was actually one of the criticisms Gaspard leveled at her.

 

 

Except all the times she doesn't, and goes with an underdog alliance instead, even if that alliance is not the strongest or even stronger party. Her love affair, her acceptance of a ceremonial position, her alliance with the Inquisition...

 

Again- where in the story, any story she's involved, does Vivienne initiate an abandonment of one ally for another simply on the basis of the allie's strength? Who has she unjustly abandoned and betrayed in the pursuit of self-interest?

 

 

And if you're seriously raising 'tries to convince people on her views without acting like a lunatic if they don't' as a bad thing that in any way ...

1. Circle conflict does not equal to being in favor of a side. She was only nutral on the case of mages vs templer issues. That's not the same as being nuetral to the conflict. If she were she would not care if they fought.

 

2. What underdog alliance?  The inquistion was not that. She side with the people who were going to fix the issue on hand which Celene and the mage/tampler could not do. And seeing that she saw the the inquistion would get the most gain. Sorry, but with the veil open Celene,Gespard, and the chantry don't have the most power....it's who ever works to and solve the veil crisis. She has the logic and foresight to see that.

So, she still did lean to the side with most power.

 

And of course does abandons one Allie for another based on strength. That's how the game is play. She also picks Allies based on who she can use the most to get to her ends.

[Drasanil]

And if you're seriously raising 'tries to convince people on her views without acting like a lunatic if they don't' as a bad thing that in any way ...

 

When you consider that most pro-magers tend to support, defend or at least excuse the lunatic actions of both Anders and the mage rebellion, is it truly surprising that they would view saner attempts to convince others of your position with dialogue and reason as bad?

 

Pretty sure that's what grates on them the most with regards to Vivienne. She's not a frothing zealot or a snively sympathiser, so she must obviously be some sort of Machiavellian opportunist. The only other alternative is that she's a reasoned woman who is capable of articulating sensable views in a coherent fashion. Undoubtedly one of the most dreaded creatures known to them. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

She's not a frothing zealot or a snively sympathiser, so she must obviously be some sort of Machiavellian opportunist. The only other alternative is that she's a reasoned woman who is capable of articulating sensable views in a coherent fashion. Undoubtedly one of the most dreaded creatures known to them. 

To be fair, Vivienne proves those aren't mutually exclusive.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

That... scares me. I still think she's in a lot of ways less dangerous than an abomination because at least she doesn't pick her victims completely at random and she  knows the meaning of restraint, but... dude.

 

I'd have a bit more insight into characters if I hadn't picked a fighting style for my Inquisitor that makes Cole redundant, wouldn't I?

 

My dear, Vivienne is like Littlefinger, only less evil. However, she is just as manipulative as he is.

 

If I were to describe Vivienne with one word, it would be :- Machiavellian

 

At the end of the day, Vivienne is a politician.

 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

But it is a matter of trust.Would you trust someones who goal are generally unclear and show little human emotion?

 

Trust is as simple as an all-or-nothing value. At least, not to anyone who is wise enough to recognize the truth of it. As Flemeth once said, "Shut one's eyes tight or open one's arms wide, either way, one's a fool." Trust itself is not bad, too much or too little of it is.

 

As it relates to fighting Corypheus, no more trust is needed than recognizing that both parties share mutual interest in defeating him. That is where an Alliance with Vivienne starts and ends, unless the Inquisitor takes it any further (Support Vivienne war-table operation, personal-quest, Truth or Dare war-table operations... all optional).

[Illegitimus]

I don't think she's actively trying to create her own version of Tevinter, though if somehow that situation happened, she wouldn't grieve. And besides, if she's the only mage with power, it makes her exceptional, special, it brings more attention to her. More mages in politics means she'll stop being special. As long as it's beneficial for her, she won't create new Tevinter. She might inspire others who might do that in the next few generations, though. And that's what's really scary.

 

 

It is one of possibilities. That depends on whether there would be a lord powerful enough to have some meaning and how much the tides change. She's smart enough to calculate when it's wiser or more profitable to stay as she is and when to turn.

 

If there was no lord powerful enough she would try to make one sufficiently powerful.  Or become one.  But she'd still want mages administered in a way that would restrict them from doing things that would excite non-mage resentment.  

[thesuperdarkone2]

If there was no lord powerful enough she would try to make one sufficiently powerful. Or become one. But she'd still want mages administered in a way that would restrict them from doing things that would excite non-mage resentment.

Except when it comes to her given she wants to be divine, ignoring what others want

[Dean_the_Young]

1. Circle conflict does not equal to being in favor of a side. She was only nutral on the case of mages vs templer issues. That's not the same as being nuetral to the conflict. If she were she would not care if they fought.

 

 

Incorrect. Neutral parties can have interests in a conflict being resolved. Neutrality comes from relationship to the factions involved, not a lack of relations to the conflict in the first place.

 

But, now that we have agreed on the initial point of

 

 

 

 

 

2. What underdog alliance?  The inquistion was not that. She side with the people who were going to fix the issue on hand which Celene and the mage/tampler could not do. And seeing that she saw the the inquistion would get the most gain. Sorry, but with the veil open Celene,Gespard, and the chantry don't have the most power....it's who ever works to and solve the veil crisis. She has the logic and foresight to see that.

So, she still did lean to the side with most power.

 

 

At the time the Vivienne extends her offer, the Inquisition is most certainly an underdog faction. It has no armies, not major political alliances, no prominent backers, and no militarily capable allies. It is mostly a bunch of die-hards of the Justinia's old guard, declared heretics, claiming they can do things no one else knows or is sure they can do. Not even the Inquisition knows if they can actually seal the breach or not.

 

Moreover, once the Inquisition does seal the breach- at that point, there's no obvious or compelling mandate for why they would remain in effect, and grow increasingly stronger. The Inquistion's one unique feature is to seal Veil tears- which, while useful, is relegated to a minor issue once the Breach itself is no longer threatening the world. Everything else about the Inquisition can, and in some respects is, better handled by the other political actors around Thedas.

 

Other forces may not be able to solve the problems... but they still vastly outweigh and outmatch the Inquisition in almost every relevant category of 'who's the bigger power.' The Inquisition's growth from single-issue group to superpower was neither obvious, or inevitable, and it certainly wasn't a bigger power at the start when Vivienne joined.

 

 

 

And of course does abandons one Allie for another based on strength. That's how the game is play. She also picks Allies based on who she can use the most to get to her ends.

 

 

Do I need to ask a third time for Vivienne's exceptional backstabbery to be revealed, or is this going to be a variation of the mind-controlled mages codex?

 

Though that might be unfair. Picking allies based on who would be the most beneficial is so unremarkable it's practically banal. How many people pick inferior allies that disagree with them more?

[Dean_the_Young]

You have some valid points here. I'm not good with words and it's quite late now, but I'll try to explain why and under what conditions I think she would change her attitude.

 

She is reasonable and practical and as it appears, she wants stable world. Which is definitely one of the reasons why she doesn't join Corypheus - someone who aspires to godhood and promises seats of power left and right... she would have to be an idiot to believe he'll actually share that power.

So if Corypheus is out of option, the only remaining two are Chantry and Inquisition. And because Vivienne is politically very experienced, she's able to imagine the Chantry will not be able to do anything with so many of their leaders dead. As Cassandra said: "Being more flexible than the Chantry is not a difficult goal," the Inquisition becomes the only group capable of bringing back the stability she likes - starting with closing the rifts which no one else can do.

Which means - if Inquisition fails, the giant hole in the sky and the ancient darkspawn magister will bring chaos and no power gathered before will matter. So it seems as very reasonable to join them.

 

Now let's imagine the Inquisition wins and soft Leliana as the new Divine frees all the mages and dissolves circles. Vivienne most probably won't change the sides too obviously, that would hurt her reputation, but she'll definitely stay active and do something. If she changes her attitude depends on what changes would the freeeeee~ mages enforce and how stable would the result be - if she evaluates the situation as 'yes, the mages will rule in two generations', she'll play it in her favour. Which is a different play from when it would look like 'they'll be back in Circles in ten years and they'll be happy'.

 

So if Vivienne was faced with an ideology she vehemently despises, for reasons that don't change if mages are free, and is just as much an idiot to believe she'll be alive in two generations to enjoy a mageocracy, she'd reverse her positions and views that have already slid her towards irrelevance in order to... support a vision of 'stability' that defies the principles of what she considers stability? Because she's a politician in The Game?

 

Something like that. You may wish to pick better words in the morning.

[Dean_the_Young]

My dear, Vivienne is like Littlefinger, only less evil. However, she is just as manipulative as he is.

 

That's a woeful misunderstanding of Littlefinger.

 

Littlefinger is a deliberate provacateur to tear down established power structures while selling himself as an unthreatening asset to the latest lead-person in a series of backstabs and betrayals. His theme is 'chaos is a ladder', a reflection that the quickest way up the social ladder is to destablize it, and if there's not already chaos he will make it himself. He has no principle or allegiance except to himself and an old crush of sorts.

 

Vivienne is an arch-conservative dedicated to preserving and restoring the established power structure by working within the system as much as possible, making alliances and opportunities but with no exceptional or even known practice of stabbing patrons (as distinguished from rivals) in the back. She is a reactionary, not proactive, assailant in that her maneuvers are in response to harms people do to her, rather than instigating them on others Because Chaos. Her theme might as well be 'there will be order,' and her beliefs of iron self-control are reflected down to her uncompromising dress code, and she is more consistent in her beliefs and values across the game than rival Leliana.

[Dean_the_Young]

But it is a matter of trust.Would you trust someones who goal are generally unclear and show little human emotion?

 

Aside from the banaly obvious answer of 'yes, because people are always unclear and adults tend to have emotional self-control,' there's also the 'yes, you can trust people who share interests to keep together to the extent that they share interests,' and 'yes, trust is a spectrum of degrees and not a binary'...

 

There's also the fact that Vivienne is remarkably clear about what she wants. She wants the mage rebellion over. She doesn't want mage freedom as the mages define it, because she views it is irresponsible and chaotic and selfish. She does want reforms of the Circle system, and the Chantry, and oversight of Templars and their abuses. She's also, and if you hadn't noticed this you weren't paying attention or at least never heard the flirt line, openly ambitious.

 

Vivienne is self-controlled, not stunted, in her emotions. This is a lifestyle choice, not a personality defect... and considering that she is a mage, who's greatest threats to the public good all derive from passionate emotions, self-control is a good thing. And certainly far more reliable, and thus trust-worthy, than someone ruled by 'human emotion.'
 

[Dean_the_Young]

To be fair, Vivienne proves those aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I like this human- he understands!

[Dean_the_Young]

Except when it comes to her given she wants to be divine, ignoring what others want

 

 

Vivienne's not some dictator who came to power with a coup. She has broad, even majority, public tolerance and elite support: if she didn't, not only would she never have been elected Divine, but she wouldn't have been able to put down the revolts.

 

Accusing Vivienne of ignoring what others want is ignoring what even more others DID want- which was Vivienne for Divine.

 

This is just slightly akin to complaining that a democratically elected president has some nerve to think they can ignore The Will of the People (that they just out-peopled in an election). I believe Americans had an experience with this 150 years ago. Something about a region rebelling after it lost an election...?

[FiveThreeTen]

I'm a few pages behind, but I wanted to respond to this.

 

 

 

Some party banter with Cole revelas that before the Inquisitor even showed up that Vivienne manipulated the marquis to attack the Inquisitor because he insulted her, and then was perfectly willing to follow through with whatever the Inquisitor decided to show off her power and her own level of importance. 

 

And quite frankly, even if her natural inclination is to let him live but shamed, it still doesn't change the fact that a mage can kill a noble man, and a Chevalier to boot if her dressing him down means anything. 

 

Vivienne may be in less danger of becoming an abomination because of her attitude, but she is just as dangerous due to her willingness to play the game in Orlais, manipulate people and treat them as tools. Blackmail, murder, corruption, she's eyeball deep in it. When Cassandra complained about all the underhanded dealings in the Winter Palace, Vivienne dismisses it as just part of the game, even the servants being killed.

 

She may not be an abomination or anything similar, but she's not a paragon of virtue either, and willingly plays a game that got tens of thousands of elves killed by Celene in order to keep up appearances. 

 

I'd say she's actually in a position to do a lot more harm over a period of time than any abomination met in any of the games thus far. 

It's a late reply but why are people so prone on inflating the numbers? The book specify it's between "a hundred of peasant elves" and "a few thousand".

 

I also keep seeing 3000 ppl killed and it's not in the book. Not that it changes a whole lot but still, check your facts people.

[FiveThreeTen]

There is no way mages won't be political at this point. she already open that box. She the time who would rather not destroy what she can use. She as a master of the game  can easilly control and use any mage or mages who want  to be political out side the circle. And it's clear she wants a class based society similar to tevinter. it's how she thinks.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Circles were already ladden with "politics" with their fraternities. It's too simple to view southern mages as completely isolated from the Chantry dealings.

The only thing which is clear for me regarding Vivienne mindset is that she is aware non-mages are more numerous than mages and fears the Mage-Templar conflict might disrupt the privilege some are able to achieve within the restrictions that she actually endorse. She despises Tevinter society where mages are seen as "tyrant", her own words, that I think she actually means.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I'm not sure what you mean. Circles were already ladden with "politics" with their fraternities. It's too simple to view southern mages as completely isolated from the Chantry dealings.
The only thing which is clear for me regarding Vivienne mindset is that she is aware non-mages are more numerous than mages and fears the Mage-Templar conflict might disrupt the privilege some are able to achieve within the restrictions that she actually endorse. She despises Tevinter society where mages are seen as "tyrant", her own words, that I think she actually means.

Which is funny given how she does things almost exactly like Tevinter with the Templars leashed to her hand, Mage divine, and killing all who oppose her

[leaguer of one]

Trust is as simple as an all-or-nothing value. At least, not to anyone who is wise enough to recognize the truth of it. As Flemeth once said, "Shut one's eyes tight or open one's arms wide, either way, one's a fool." Trust itself is not bad, too much or too little of it is.

 

As it relates to fighting Corypheus, no more trust is needed than recognizing that both parties share mutual interest in defeating him. That is where an Alliance with Vivienne starts and ends, unless the Inquisitor takes it any further (Support Vivienne war-table operation, personal-quest, Truth or Dare war-table operations... all optional).

I did not say not to use her help. it's more of a case of opening one's arm too wide.  I share a policy like how Shepard has when meet Grunt the first time..... Have a hand ready for great and the other ready to pull a pistol just in case.

[leaguer of one]

Incorrect. Neutral parties can have interests in a conflict being resolved. Neutrality comes from relationship to the factions involved, not a lack of relations to the conflict in the first place.

 

But, now that we have agreed on the initial point of

 

 

 

 

 

At the time the Vivienne extends her offer, the Inquisition is most certainly an underdog faction. It has no armies, not major political alliances, no prominent backers, and no militarily capable allies. It is mostly a bunch of die-hards of the Justinia's old guard, declared heretics, claiming they can do things no one else knows or is sure they can do. Not even the Inquisition knows if they can actually seal the breach or not.

 

Moreover, once the Inquisition does seal the breach- at that point, there's no obvious or compelling mandate for why they would remain in effect, and grow increasingly stronger. The Inquistion's one unique feature is to seal Veil tears- which, while useful, is relegated to a minor issue once the Breach itself is no longer threatening the world. Everything else about the Inquisition can, and in some respects is, better handled by the other political actors around Thedas.

 

Other forces may not be able to solve the problems... but they still vastly outweigh and outmatch the Inquisition in almost every relevant category of 'who's the bigger power.' The Inquisition's growth from single-issue group to superpower was neither obvious, or inevitable, and it certainly wasn't a bigger power at the start when Vivienne joined.

 

 

 

Do I need to ask a third time for Vivienne's exceptional backstabbery to be revealed, or is this going to be a variation of the mind-controlled mages codex?

 

Though that might be unfair. Picking allies based on who would be the most beneficial is so unremarkable it's practically banal. How many people pick inferior allies that disagree with them more?

1. Only in case they lose nothing as a result. hat's not the case for her.

 

2.Not is the same case. The issue you bring up would be one  under normal circumstance. At that, all power in any other circle is pointless. Everything is going to be destroyed so what is the point of political power else were. The chantry is in shamble. The mages and templers are fighting among themselves and Orlis is in a civil war and can't do anything.  It matters not what resources and number the inquisition has, nobody else is functional. The Inquisition is the strong power by default because they are the only ones functional in any form even after the breach closed. And after doing so the land is still in chaos and they still need to investigate what was seen in hushed whispers/champion of the just. No way would the inquistion disperse after closing the breach.

[leaguer of one]

I'm not sure what you mean. Circles were already ladden with "politics" with their fraternities. It's too simple to view southern mages as completely isolated from the Chantry dealings.

The only thing which is clear for me regarding Vivienne mindset is that she is aware non-mages are more numerous than mages and fears the Mage-Templar conflict might disrupt the privilege some are able to achieve within the restrictions that she actually endorse. She despises Tevinter society where mages are seen as "tyrant", her own words, that I think she actually means.

Circle a ladden with "internal" Politic. None of which matter to the outside world or to chang e the fate of the mages in a circle. It's all pointless, which Vive saw and never took part of. None of it made any real change to the circle at all. Sorry, but the fact thing got so bad is because the circle has no say with chantry dealing. They are so powerless that they can have the right of assembly taken at anytime from them and be censored on with topic to debate.

 

The thing is Vive get it. To make change to the circle she needs to be apart of non-mage politics.

[leaguer of one]

Aside from the banaly obvious answer of 'yes, because people are always unclear and adults tend to have emotional self-control,' there's also the 'yes, you can trust people who share interests to keep together to the extent that they share interests,' and 'yes, trust is a spectrum of degrees and not a binary'...

 

There's also the fact that Vivienne is remarkably clear about what she wants. She wants the mage rebellion over. She doesn't want mage freedom as the mages define it, because she views it is irresponsible and chaotic and selfish. She does want reforms of the Circle system, and the Chantry, and oversight of Templars and their abuses. She's also, and if you hadn't noticed this you weren't paying attention or at least never heard the flirt line, openly ambitious.

 

Vivienne is self-controlled, not stunted, in her emotions. This is a lifestyle choice, not a personality defect... and considering that she is a mage, who's greatest threats to the public good all derive from passionate emotions, self-control is a good thing. And certainly far more reliable, and thus trust-worthy, than someone ruled by 'human emotion.'
 

Sorry, but us regular folks would say any answer would be uneasy to make being the fact they don't know if you have the same goals of said person and the fact people are social beings and work better with people they can relate to. People in general are not pure logical. It's a mix of emotional and logic reaction. It's why alot of people are uneasy and don't like Vivian.

 

Logically, can work with her be emotional....It's uneasy.

[Illegitimus]

Which is funny given how she does things almost exactly like Tevinter with the Templars leashed to her hand, Mage divine, and killing all who oppose her

 

No.  She doesn't install a ruling class of mages who are constantly at each other's throats while the non-mages are subject to their every whim.  While she loosens the typical restrictions on mages being allowed to contribute with their powers (provided a mage shows no signs of instability or dissidence) she doesn't give them any kind of administrative role.  And she doesn't use blood magic to secure her position.