824 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

He's an old fart and she's a young and moderately attractive woman. I wouldn't call that a display of any expertise. And information doesn't do much good if players such as myself never see it. Besides, didn't she do it response to a petty insult?

 

But she took what could have been a 'one and done' sexual encounter and leveraged it into a permanent place at Court and position as Court Enchanter.  Plus, she's not a young woman anymore.  She's still gorgeous, but she's easily in her mid-30's.  There must have been younger, prettier gals who have come along, but she kept Bastien and developed a loving relationship with him and his family.  All of that does display expertise. 

 

To your point that it doesn't do good if you don't see it, I completely disagree.  Games like this are built on choice.  If you choose to avoid content, you are choosing to not get all of the information.  You are making assertions about this character when you admit that you don't have the full story. 

 

With regard to the last point, that is The Game.  You might not like it, but manipulating someone who has humiliated you publicly and causing their political downfall is very much part of it.  She took an opportunity to take down a political enemy while also manipulating a situation to get herself into an alliance with a major political faction.  That is exactly what you've asked for evidence of, yet you dismiss it as just a response to a petty insult? 

[BabyPuncher]

You're under much more pressure for them to add something powerful to the story, for one. If a character is likeable, people often won't be too bothered by them not doing much. While an unlikeable character will have people wondering, justifiably, why this thorn in their side was added to the story was all.

 

Secondly, you have to do a much better job giving the player the option to respond to them. Good and evil are very, very asymmetrical. If a good character does a good action, a player who wants to be evil might roll their eyes. For evil and unlikeable characters, it's very different. If a character commits a very evil or unlikeable act, players will be enraged if they aren't given an option to punish or call them out on it appropriately.

[BabyPuncher]

With regard to the last point, that is The Game.  You might not like it, but manipulating someone who has humiliated you publicly and causing their political downfall is very much part of it.  She took an opportunity to take down a political enemy while also manipulating a situation to get herself into an alliance with a major political faction.  That is exactly what you've asked for evidence of, yet you dismiss it as just a response to a petty insult? 

 

I did not 'choose' to avoid content because I decided not to run around in circles with Vivienne and Cole (or any other combination of characters, for that matter) for hours at a time waiting for every possible combination of dialogue to come up. If it has been presented in a simple Investigate option, I would have taken it.

 

With regard to the last point, that is The Game.  You might not like it, but manipulating someone who has humiliated you publicly and causing their political downfall is very much part of it.  She took an opportunity to take down a political enemy while also manipulating a situation to get herself into an alliance with a major political faction.  That is exactly what you've asked for evidence of, yet you dismiss it as just a response to a petty insult?

 

First of all, betting that murdering someone is going to win you clout instead of disgust with an organization dedicated to helping the helpless is not savvy. It's much closer to flat-out stupidity. How quickly would the Inquisitor have found out the truth if he spoke to the Marquis a bit longer? Or afterwards? And how quickly would they both discovered Vivienne was behind it?

 

Second of all, neither you nor BioWare can magically transform bumbling characters acting foolishly into shrewd chessmasters by calling it "The Game" with nice big capital letters. So there's really no point in bringing that up, is there?
 

[Fredward]

You're under much more pressure for them to add something powerful to the story, for one. If a character is likeable, people often won't be too bothered by them not doing much. While an unlikeable character will have people wondering, justifiably, why this thorn in their side was added to the story was all.

 

Secondly, you have to do a much better job giving the player the option to respond to them. Good and evil are very, very asymmetrical. If a good character does a good action, a player who wants to be evil might roll their eyes. For evil and unlikeable characters, it's very different. If a character commits a very evil or unlikeable act, players will be enraged if they aren't given an option to punish or call them out on it appropriately.

 

Enraged huh?

[BabyPuncher]

You bet. Imagine an evil companion killing a clearly innocent person and the protagonist given no option but lamely shrugging it off. Players would be furious, and calling for the companion's head

[daveliam]

I did not 'choose' to avoid content because I decided not to run around in circles with Vivienne and Cole (or any other combination of characters, for that matter) for hours at a time waiting for every possible combination of dialogue to come up. If it has been presented in a simple Investigate option, I would have taken it.

 

First of all, betting that murdering someone is going to win you clout instead of disgust with an organization dedicated to helping the helpless is not savvy. It's much closer to flat-out stupidity. How quickly would the Inquisitor have found out the truth if he spoke to the Marquis a bit longer? Or afterwards? And how quickly would they both discovered Vivienne was behind it?

 

Second of all, neither you nor BioWare can magically transform bumbling characters acting foolishly into shrewd chessmasters by calling it "The Game" with nice big capital letters. So there's really no point in bringing that up, is there?
 

 

So this all comes down to:  "I want to see evidence that she makes effective moves.  But any good moves that she makes will be dismissed because they might have gone wrong at some point in some theoretical alternate situation."  The fact that it didn't go wrong is the evidence that she is skilled. 

 

I'm not sure if you don't understand how the politics in Orlais are played or if you are just so opposed to it that you are refusing to acknowledge that it takes skill to play effectively.  I'm also not sure if it's worth continuing the conversation with you because I don't think you can objectively discuss this character.

 

And, yes, if you choose to not acknowledge content because it's not easy to find, then you are choosing to argue without knowing the whole story. 

[Personette]

I think some people here might be kind of missing the point.

 

Vivienne shouldn't be disliked because she's a powerful, manipulative bitchy snob. She should be disliked because she isn't manipulative or powerful. Because the narrative tries to build up her character as a master of this sort of thing, but instead she's completely useless. Her 'machinations' are sleeping her way to top and moving furniture around. It's the same as when a book gushes over how great of a military genius a character is, who then goes on to implementing the tactics of a five year old.

 

If Vivienne was manipulative and powerful AND the Inquisitor was given intelligent, well written dialogue to counter her and put her in her place if the player so chooses (and perhaps more than dialogue), she could have been a great character. Obviously, I would have still very much disliked her on a personal level, but that's irrelevant.

 

I think we get some examples of Vivienne being truly ruthless (jumping aboard the Inquisition, dealing with Bastien's death) & I'm not sure that 'sleeping her way to the top' really covers what she's accomplished there (holding the attention of a dude who could get all the girls takes a whole host of skills, most of them not lewd)...

 

But man, the furniture thing. It's so childish. 

[Sarielle]

 

You're under much more pressure for them to add something powerful to the story, for one. If a character is likeable, people often won't be too bothered by them not doing much. While an unlikeable character will have people wondering, justifiably, why this thorn in their side was added to the story was all.

 

Secondly, you have to do a much better job giving the player the option to respond to them. Good and evil are very, very asymmetrical. If a good character does a good action, a player who wants to be evil might roll their eyes. For evil and unlikeable characters, it's very different. If a character commits a very evil or unlikeable act, players will be enraged if they aren't given an option to punish or call them out on it appropriately.

 

None of this, imo, has anything to do with being well-written. I think thwarting a player's ability to be always in control/always have the last say is a good thing. Just because some players only want their own views reinforced rather than challenged isn't a good reason to cater to that, and it has nothing to do with whether a character is, or isn't, well-written.

 

I also don't think it's fair to compare Vivienne taking an unpopular stance on the mage situation to overtly evil actions. You ARE able to tell her not all clans behave in such and such a way. You just don't get to speak for all elves everywhere. Just like Vivienne openly admits she does not know all mages' experiences everywhere.

 

You bet. Imagine an evil companion killing a clearly innocent person and the protagonist given no option but lamely shrugging it off. Players would be furious, and calling for the companion's head

 

Again ... Vivienne doesn't do anything remotely like that. The mage situation is a complex one; anyone trying to make it purely black and white is being extremely naive/willfully ignorant, imo.

[Personette]

 

 

 

 

I also don't think it's fair to compare Vivienne taking an unpopular stance on the mage situation to overtly evil actions. You ARE able to tell her not all clans behave in such and such a way. You just don't get to speak for all elves everywhere. Just like Vivienne openly admits she does not know all mages' experiences everywhere.

 

 

 

Eh. If she puts on rose-colored glasses about the situation of other mages, that IS evil--what's the old chestnut? All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing? Something like that? Her willful blindness is cruel. 

 

But also, we have her epilogue cards--and personally, I find them pretty frightening. She's dictatorial & very harsh.

[daveliam]

Eh. If she puts on rose-colored glasses about the situation of other mages, that IS evil--what's the old chestnut? All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing? Something like that? Her willful blindness is cruel. 

 

But also, we have her epilogue cards--and personally, I find them pretty frightening. She's dictatorial & very harsh.

 

There's a huge difference between being evil yourself and not acting out against evil that other people do.  I can't see Vivienne as evil at all.  She's lawful neutral, not evil.  She has some moments where she could be seen as evil (like if you tell her to kill Alphonse), but she also has moments that are clearly 'good', which is why I say she's LN.

 

Her Divine epilogue cards are pretty much what I expected from her.  She's ruthless, but she's not any more harsh than hardened Leliana.  And, frankly, while she's more ruthless than a 'softened' Leliana, she's much more effective than her.  (Of course, all of this is why I think Cassandra make the best Divine, personally)

[Ryzaki]

None of this, imo, has anything to do with being well-written. I think thwarting a player's ability to be always in control/always have the last say is a good thing. Just because some players only want their own views reinforced rather than challenged isn't a good reason to cater to that, and it has nothing to do with whether a character is, or isn't, well-written.

 

I have to disagree here. It's only a good thing when it's well done.

 

As it is it comes across as forced and drags both characters (her and the Inquisitor) down because of it. Badly written confrontation while it's not fair it does reflect badly on the character simply because other than the devs they're the easiest one to "blame" for the scene.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

I noticed that Vivienne is he only Divine hat doesn't dedicate the chantry to charity or openly proclaim support from the inquisition

[Boost32]

I noticed that Vivienne is he only Divine hat doesn't dedicate the chantry to charity or openly proclaim support from the inquisition

The first she would never do, the latter she would if the Inquisitor is her ally, just because its not stated in the epilogue, doesn't mean it didn't happened.

[mikeymoonshine]

Yeah Viv thinks the Chantry should unite and lead the people ect ect. To her that probably is charity.  

[DanteYoda]

Yes she is... shes pretty down right evil as a companion, i doubt much would change my opinion on that, to this day i'm still not sure she killed her husband..

[Addai]

Seriously, the Vivienne "haters" need to take a pill and relax a bit.  She's a fictional character; stop taking everything so seriously.  Good lord.  It's just a shame that they won't let people have conversations about this character without coming and spewing hate all the time.  This is the third time that a Vivienne thread has gone this way in the past two weeks.  Ugh.

Then stick to her fan thread? I don't know if "haters" go there or not since I don't read it, but the forums are for open discussion from different perspectives. I respect your posts but it sounds like you're the one who needs to chill a bit.

None of this, imo, has anything to do with being well-written. I think thwarting a player's ability to be always in control/always have the last say is a good thing. Just because some players only want their own views reinforced rather than challenged isn't a good reason to cater to that, and it has nothing to do with whether a character is, or isn't, well-written.

No, that is not what it's about. Most of the NPCs will challenge you in one way or another, and I have no problem with characters who challenge or aren't awed by the PC, but that is very different than being forced into the role of drooling simpleton simply by being in her presence. Good writing has to take into account the PC responses. Maybe the word count just wasn't there, but this is one reason why I think Vivienne would work better as an NPC and not a companion.

Wynne was like this in Origins, too. I get the impression they make the pro-Circle characters drop the mic because they're trying to make sure that perspective is represented.

[KaiserShep]

Yes she is... shes pretty down right evil as a companion, i doubt much would change my opinion on that, to this day i'm still not sure she killed her husband..

 

It just doesn't make sense that she would go out of her way to kill a man that was already knocking on death's door. And if she was looking to simply kill him, she wouldn't need to go through the trouble of using her alchemy mojo to create wyvern's heart juice just to off the guy. She could just stifle what waning life he has left out of him with any one of the fancy Orlesian throw pillows in the room.

[DanteYoda]

It just doesn't make sense that she would go out of her way to kill a man that was already knocking on death's door. And if she was looking to simply kill him, she wouldn't need to go through the trouble of using her alchemy mojo to create wyvern's heart juice just to off the guy. She could just stifle what waning life he has left out of him with any one of the fancy Orlesian throw pillows in the room.

Very true.

It just seemed very weird that her drink needed a highly deadly animal part, but you're probably right there, her personality turned me off more than her killing people, that sounds terrible but its true.

[Joseph Warrick]

What are you talking about, Vivienne is my favorite character after Cassandra love her conversations, she's unapologetically machiavellian

[Xilizhra]

Her Divine epilogue cards are pretty much what I expected from her.  She's ruthless, but she's not any more harsh than hardened Leliana.  And, frankly, while she's more ruthless than a 'softened' Leliana, she's much more effective than her.  (Of course, all of this is why I think Cassandra make the best Divine, personally)

Not even slightly. Vivienne just brings back the same **** as before. Leliana actually gets things done, even as softened.

[Chiramu]

Yes, I love Vivienne with me when Blackwall is tanking. She cracks me up with her jibes at him XD! She scares me so much but I absolutely love her when she insults Blackwall!

[Assassino01]

The problem with Vivienne as I see it, and this has probably been addressed before in this thread; Is that she's supposed to be some sort of super proficient schemer, and a master of The Game. But she never comes across as such. I never believe that she is what she says she is. And that makes the rest of her character fall flat as well. 

 

I mean, if I believed she was dangerous, and skilled, and intelligent. Then I might not have been as put off by all her "Darling" and "Dear" and her snotty over the top accent. Her attitude might not have grated on me as much if she was actually an asset to the Inquisition, or if she was actually doing something.

 

As it is all she does is stand around acting holier than thou, being a b**ch to my companions and rearranging the furniture when she doesn't agree with me. That hardly says political mastermind to me. Coupled with blatant hypocrisy, and the fact that whenever she and the Inquisitor debate she always has the last word, no matter what makes me unable to stand her. 

 

And It's not the fact that we don't automatically win every argument with her that annoys me regarding my last point. That can be enjoyable, like with Mordin in Mass Effect 2. But it was well done there, and it isn't here. 

 

With Sera at least the character was well written. She has depth, even though she is unlikable (at least to me). Vivienne isn't even that. 

[daveliam]

Very true.

It just seemed very weird that her drink needed a highly deadly animal part, but you're probably right there, her personality turned me off more than her killing people, that sounds terrible but its true.

 

The character description in the game files for Bastien clears this up.  It states that he is in a coma and that his mistress, "a powerful mage", tries to create a youth regeneration potion in hopes that it will save his life.  It only partially works, causing him to wake out of the coma, but doesn't stop the illness from killing him.  It's pretty clear that she didn't kill him and was, instead, trying to save him with an experimental potion.  I linked to the exact wording last week in two of the other Vivienne discussion threads.

 

Not even slightly. Vivienne just brings back the same **** as before. Leliana actually gets things done, even as softened.

 

Oops, I meant a neither hardened or softened Leliana.  The neutral Leliana's reign is the one that says that the Chantry is possibly being torn apart forever.  A 'friend' Vivienne's rule is much more stable.  Either way she puts down rebellions quickly viciously, though, which is what I think you are referring to.  This is one of those cases where your interpretation of this will rest solely on whether you support Circles or not.  Given that I'm not anti-Circle, a reinstated Circle where Templars have less power and mages have much more freedom sounds pretty good to me.  But I can understand how people who are totally anti-Circle would find that less than satisfactory.

[Xilizhra]

Oops, I meant a neither hardened or softened Leliana.  The neutral Leliana's reign is the one that says that the Chantry is possibly being torn apart forever.  A 'friend' Vivienne's rule is much more stable.  Either way she puts down rebellions quickly viciously, though, which is what I think you are referring to.  This is one of those cases where your interpretation of this will rest solely on whether you support Circles or not.  Given that I'm not anti-Circle, a reinstated Circle where Templars have less power and mages have much more freedom sounds pretty good to me.  But I can understand how people who are totally anti-Circle would find that less than satisfactory.

In my opinion, the fact that the templars are wiped out is an opportunity that we should seize, because I don't know if it'll come again. And mages will still have their own society under Leliana; it should accomplish everything that you want.

[daveliam]

In my opinion, the fact that the templars are wiped out is an opportunity that we should seize, because I don't know if it'll come again. And mages will still have their own society under Leliana; it should accomplish everything that you want.

 

Well, not really.  I'm more in line with a Wynne or Rhys view on the situation (a moderate conservative?).  My personal view on the Mage-Templar debate is this:

• Mages were, for the most part, not being abused prior to Anders terrorism; while they had restrictions, there were checks and balances that allowed mages who earned it, freedoms away from the Circles
• Templars were, for the most part, not abusive; most were just typical soldiers who were doing their jobs
• However, due to the corruption of the templar order in some Circles, a mage rebellion (Circle Reform, would be better) was necessary.  Anders terrorism caused more death than it helped prevent and, I agree with Vivienne, the timing of the rebellion was terrible because of this.
• Whether a Circle is necessary or not is up for debate; while there are societies that don't have them, all societies had their own checks and balances; all of which had pros and cons and none of which seemed better or worse (okay, the Qun makes it worse)
• I don't think that the Circles need to be destroyed; I think that they need to be reformed with mages having more power and control and templars being more closely watched for corruption; Circles should be less of a prison and more of an academy, but mages still need to be watched for possession in some capacity

So for me, Leliana is the worst Divine.  I think she's all idealism and she will single-handedly cause the death of thousands of people, both mages and commoners alike, by failing to institute an appropriate checks and balances system.  The mages can't govern themselves, in my opinion, because absolute power corrupts absolutely; her reign will lead to the rise of a new Imperium.

 

Vivienne's reign is better, given that she does offer a better situation for mages than they had before; she reinstates the Circles and gives mages freedoms and responsibility, while still maintaining a Templar order to provide that check on mages.  However, the power pretty much all rests with her.  This is a band-aid fix; it covers the wound, but doesn't heal it.  Once Vivienne dies, will her reforms be sustainable?  I'm not so sure, particularly if they put a non-mage in the throne after her.

 

Cassandra's is the one that I like the best, but that's only because of the character, not the wording in the epilogue.  Based just on the epilogue, it sounds like it goes back to status quo (more so than Vivienne even), but having discussions with Cassandra, it's clear that she's interested in reform, not just restoration of the orders.  She puts the Circle back, puts the Templars back, and reforms the Seekers.  And if she has strong approval from the Inquisition, it's called 'a golden age' (the only epilogue slide to do so).  To me, this is the most sustainable and long-lasting situation that will provide security and safety for everyone.