262 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

She doesn't take the position that things "aren't that bad"  She takes the position that the Circles serve a legitimate purpose.  She knows that the Circles can be better, because she has experienced it firsthand.   SHe also knows that there are abuses that need to be addressed

 

"By all means, protest abuses by the Templars!  Just don't do it in a way that says mages support wholesale murder.  By voting when they did, my colleagues all but declared war upon the ordinary people of Thedas"

 

She absolutely takes the position that things aren't that bad, and a cherry-picked quote won't change this. Her entire speech in that exchange is focused on the "malcontents" who were complaining about what, in her estimation, was the more than reasonable templar reaction to Kirkwall, which spawned great fear and distrust of magic in the mundanes. She generally talks about how the mages were tone-deaf to the fears and concerns of the mundanes, and talks about how mages became too concerned with their own mistreatment to think about the general politics of their rebellion, which is just a long winded way of her wagging a finger at them for not thinking about how the rebellion affects her own position. 

 

Her entire speech in this exchange had two essential conclusions: (1) mages gave no thought to what it meant to the mundanes that they be reigned in as a group universally after Kirkwall and the attempt on the divine; and (2) they were generally "malcontents" who overstated their own plight for the sake of an ill-defined 'freedom'. 

 

She doesn't just think Circles serve a legitimate purpose. She thinks Circles in their current form are the only solution, and is entirely dismissive of any suggestion that they are flawed institutions or, more generally, that there was any legitimate basis to the complaints that mages were mistreated in them. 

 

She denies that the Circles need to be better, and advocates restoring them exactly to what they were prior to the rebellion. Her tune certainly changes when she (if?) becomes Divine and it comes time to consolidate her own personal power, but that's not the context she's making her original assertions in. Much like her talking about the importance of templars keeping other mages in line. She certainly doesn't volunteer to have a templar guard placed next to her in case the breach makes her go mad.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

She absolutely takes the position that things aren't that bad, and a cherry-picked quote won't change this.

 

There is no such thing as a "cherry-picked" quote. Quotes indicate beliefs, not data to be measured and requires some large sample-size.

 

Just accept that your assessment on Vivienne's character is wrong, because it is. Objectively.

[Dai Grepher]

Every rational person? Way to insult.

 

I was referring to every rational person in the game universe.

[Lumix19]

There is no such thing as a "cherry-picked" quote. Quotes indicate beliefs, not data to be measured and requires some large sample-size.

 

Just accept that your assessment on Vivienne's character is wrong, because it is. Objectively.

A quote out of context can mean a very different thing than the author intended though. Objective interpretation is impossible.

 

I was referring to every rational person in the game universe.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational.

[sim-ran]

For me it doesn't matter whether Vivienne would make a good Divine or not. The outcome is simply too ludicrous for me to ever select on purpose.

A mage ruling the chantry and Templars/Chantry/Nobility/commoners accept it. Utter nonsense!

I could never do ME2 with the human-led council choice either as that was also implausibly dumb.

[Silcron]

For me it doesn't matter whether Vivienne would make a good Divine or not. The outcome is simply too ludicrous for me to ever select on purpose.
A mage ruling the chantry and Templars/Chantry/Nobility/commoners accept it. Utter nonsense!
I could never do ME2 with the human-led council choice either as that was also implausibly dumb.

That is the reason why I chose Viv actually. The game might not let me sit and watch the Chantry burn to the ground, but maybe I can put as Divine someone ludicrous enough that will finally end the Chantry. I know it's not going to happen but I like Lel and Cass enough to not condemn them to that position, and since Viv is willing and I don't particularly care much about what happens to her, well, why not?

[Jaison1986]

That is the reason why I chose Viv actually. The game might not let me sit and watch the Chantry burn to the ground, but maybe I can put as Divine someone ludicrous enough that will finally end the Chantry. I know it's not going to happen but I like Lel and Cass enough to not condemn them to that position, and since Viv is willing and I don't particularly care much about what happens to her, well, why not?

 

That kind of ending only happens if you have very low approval with her though.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

A quote out of context can mean a very different thing than the author intended though. Objective interpretation is impossible.

 

Except the quote is not out-of-context at all, so, your point is moot.

[In Exile]

There is no such thing as a "cherry-picked" quote. Quotes indicate beliefs, not data to be measured and requires some large sample-size.

Just accept that your assessment on Vivienne's character is wrong, because it is. Objectively.

The idea that text can only be interepted one way - much less that the meaning of phrases doesn't change based on context - is the only view expressed in this thread by anyone that is objectively wrong.

[Iakus]

She absolutely takes the position that things aren't that bad, and a cherry-picked quote won't change this. Her entire speech in that exchange is focused on the "malcontents" who were complaining about what, in her estimation, was the more than reasonable templar reaction to Kirkwall, which spawned great fear and distrust of magic in the mundanes. She generally talks about how the mages were tone-deaf to the fears and concerns of the mundanes, and talks about how mages became too concerned with their own mistreatment to think about the general politics of their rebellion, which is just a long winded way of her wagging a finger at them for not thinking about how the rebellion affects her own position. 

 

Her entire speech in this exchange had two essential conclusions: (1) mages gave no thought to what it meant to the mundanes that they be reigned in as a group universally after Kirkwall and the attempt on the divine; and (2) they were generally "malcontents" who overstated their own plight for the sake of an ill-defined 'freedom'. 

 

She doesn't just think Circles serve a legitimate purpose. She thinks Circles in their current form are the only solution, and is entirely dismissive of any suggestion that they are flawed institutions or, more generally, that there was any legitimate basis to the complaints that mages were mistreated in them. 

 

She denies that the Circles need to be better, and advocates restoring them exactly to what they were prior to the rebellion. Her tune certainly changes when she (if?) becomes Divine and it comes time to consolidate her own personal power, but that's not the context she's making her original assertions in. Much like her talking about the importance of templars keeping other mages in line. She certainly doesn't volunteer to have a templar guard placed next to her in case the breach makes her go mad.

Show me where she makes that assertion.

 

The entirety of that dialogue was specifically in response to asking Vivienne if the mages had reason to rebel.  She does not deny there are grievances to be addressed, but that the rebel mages went about it the wrong way.  She calls them "selfish" and "short-sighted" because, between Anders blowing up the Chantry in Kirkwall followed shortly by a blood mage attempting to assassinate the Divine (again) muggle fear of mages was at an all-time high.  The Circles declaring independence only added fuel to that fire.

 

 And because of this, mages who do not back the rebels are now left in the cold.  They are forced to isolate themselves even further.  They face being branded as traitors by the Templars or lynchings by a terrified populace because the protections they had come to depend upon are no longer there.  Vivienne's connections presumably keep Montsimmard safe, but all other mages must either 1) hide 2) join the Inquisition or 3) Join the Grey Wardens

[Dai Grepher]

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them irrational.

 

I never claimed it did.

[Lumix19]

Show me where she makes that assertion.
 
The entirety of that dialogue was specifically in response to asking Vivienne if the mages had reason to rebel.  She does not deny there are grievances to be addressed, but that the rebel mages went about it the wrong way.  She calls them "selfish" and "short-sighted" because, between Anders blowing up the Chantry in Kirkwall followed shortly by a blood mage attempting to assassinate the Divine (again) muggle fear of mages was at an all-time high.  The Circles declaring independence only added fuel to that fire.
 
 And because of this, mages who do not back the rebels are now left in the cold.  They are forced to isolate themselves even further.  They face being branded as traitors by the Templars or lynchings by a terrified populace because the protections they had come to depend upon are no longer there.  Vivienne's connections presumably keep Montsimmard safe, but all other mages must either 1) hide 2) join the Inquisition or 3) Join the Grey Wardens

I think that this just how divorced she is from the reality of what most Mages were facing. She doesn't talk about Lambert, or the fact that there's been unrest for nearly 10 years or any of it. Instead she presents this seemingly reasonable criticism that fails to take into account any of the nuances of the actual event presumably because she wasn't even there. She doesn't even offer alternatives, just criticism.
As for the loyalists, well that's just the nature of voting isn't it. And Mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, they're only responsible for their own. If Templars go around annulling Mages who aren't even part of the rebellion then they really need to check their priorities. Same with the lynchers too really although I imagine that's fairly rare.

[DuskWanderer]

I think that this just how divorced she is from the reality of what most Mages were facing. She doesn't talk about Lambert, or the fact that there's been unrest for nearly 10 years or any of it. Instead she presents this seemingly reasonable criticism that fails to take into account any of the nuances of the actual event presumably because she wasn't even there. She doesn't even offer alternatives, just criticism.
As for the loyalists, well that's just the nature of voting isn't it. And Mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, they're only responsible for their own. If Templars go around annulling Mages who aren't even part of the rebellion then they really need to check their priorities. Same with the lynchers too really although I imagine that's fairly rare.

 

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Dialogue between Cole and Vivienne (as well as dialogue with a mage Inquisitor) showed that mages who didn't want to rebel were killed by their fellow mages. Grand Enchanter Fiona never forced anyone, but the rest of the mages certainly did. And then, look at the Hinterlands. The mages went mad with power and started attacking everyone else: The templars responded to that (they just went bat-crazy inthe process)

[cronshaw]

For all her flaws, she still is very useful for debate.

While I disagree that allowing them to be free is something that should never be done as Vivienne might think, she's right about the risks.

True, mages don't turn into abominations or go power hungry everyday. But it only takes something going wrong just once for people's hatred against them to escalate.

The College of Mages is a good option, but the point is that they need to be isolated whether it's under the Chantry's rules or their own.

The good thing about Circles or a similar concept is that if the worst happens, it will be away from the common citizen's sight.

I like Divine Cassandra's idea best, though the devs decided she must fail at dealing with them no matter what. Go figure.

Vivienne is a selfish hypocrite

[Adanu]

I never claimed it did.

 

'Every rational person' implies that anyone who thinks otherwise is irrational. Your words have meaning.

[leaguer of one]

The fact that some groups have even MORE reason to rebell against their abuse masters doesn't mean the mages didn't have cause to rebel against their masters. More importantly, it doesn't matter what you think the mages conditions were - Vivienne had absolutely no moral authority to critise since she didn't live in any of those circles but instead lived in luxury so obscene she made King Alistair look like an impoverished peasant.

I never said they caused it. I just mean the mages pressed for change at the wrong time. And of course she does have a moral authority on  in, she's one of the leaders of the circle. It's more of an issue she did not push to change those circle and it ironic that she was always push for a position to be able to  change those circles. And she far from out of the way, she's a work a holic, her scene are more political then with in the circle which is need if mages ever want a voice  of in matters of change.

[leaguer of one]

Vivienne is a selfish hypocrite

..Who has a point and the only mage who seem to understand to make change under the circle system to work with the people who can change it, the chantry and the nobles.

[leaguer of one]

I think that this just how divorced she is from the reality of what most Mages were facing. She doesn't talk about Lambert, or the fact that there's been unrest for nearly 10 years or any of it. Instead she presents this seemingly reasonable criticism that fails to take into account any of the nuances of the actual event presumably because she wasn't even there. She doesn't even offer alternatives, just criticism.
As for the loyalists, well that's just the nature of voting isn't it. And Mages aren't responsible for the actions of the Templars, they're only responsible for their own. If Templars go around annulling Mages who aren't even part of the rebellion then they really need to check their priorities. Same with the lynchers too really although I imagine that's fairly rare.

*Sigh......

I have to post this again.

 

1. All circles are different.

2.If you did not get it..ALL CIRCLES ARE DIFFERENT!!!!

 

You have not idea the level of face palm the comment "intolerable conditions for circle mages" brings if you tell this to an aliange elf, a castless dwarf, or any commoner in general. Mage get a warm bed, the highest  education, and food for free were other have to work tooth and nail and pay great sums of money for that. The circles are just a gilded cage and at worse it's a gilded cage run by horrible owners. In that effect every circle is different. Some are great, others are workable and then there's the kirkwall crappy ones.

 

The issues are management.

[turuzzusapatuttu]

What I'd want to do after every conversation with Vivienne:

 

[Lumix19]

*Sigh......
I have to post this again.

I'm well aware that not every Circle has Kirkwall or White Spire conditions. But I think your missing the point that Vivienne isn't taking into account the events of the Conclave. Lambert pushed Mages into rebellion through his tyranny, I'm sure if he hasn't interfered the vote would have failed and Wynne would have gotten her way. As for intolerable conditions and management, I think that's best answered by this codex entry: http://dragonage.wik..._Circle_of_Magi

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Dialogue between Cole and Vivienne (as well as dialogue with a mage Inquisitor) showed that mages who didn't want to rebel were killed by their fellow mages. Grand Enchanter Fiona never forced anyone, but the rest of the mages certainly did. And then, look at the Hinterlands. The mages went mad with power and started attacking everyone else: The templars responded to that (they just went bat-crazy inthe process)

Those who killed fellow Mages were fringe groups, attempting to incite loyalists into joining the rebellion. Not justifiable certainly but I don't blame entire groups for the actions of individuals. All I was saying was that was the nature of the vote, loyalists made their choice and were outvoted. Also what dialogue between Cole and Vivienne? Finally what point are you trying to make about the Hinterlands?

[Iakus]

I'm well aware that not every Circle has Kirkwall or White Spire conditions. But I think your missing the point that Vivienne isn't taking into account the events of the Conclave. Lambert pushed Mages into rebellion through his tyranny, I'm sure if he hasn't interfered the vote would have failed and Wynne would have gotten her way. As for intolerable conditions and management, I think that's best answered by this codex entry: http://dragonage.wik..._Circle_of_Magi
 

Are you referring to the murder Adrian committed and framed Wynne's son for to push Lambert into interfering?  

[Lumix19]

Are you referring to the murder Adrian committed and framed Wynne's son for to push Lambert into interfering?

Adrian didn't make Lambert tyrannical, she just gave him a reason to arrest Rhys. He chose to try and crush the mage rebellion, to refuse to allow the mages to investigate the murder and to go against the direct order of the Divine and interfere with the Conclave. As much as Adrian is at fault, she was trying to get a reaction from Lambert to convince Wynne, and she got it. And do you really believe that if Adrian hadn't framed Rhys Lambert wouldn't have interfered anyway? It seems clear that he was unwilling to let the vote go ahead irrespective of the Rhys situation.

[MisterJB]

It ain't a Templars and mages argument until JB walks in.

 

 

As for intolerable conditions and management, I think that's best answered by this codex entry: http://dragonage.wik..._Circle_of_Magi

Why? That codex presents no examples or evidence of intolerable conditions. It just says " it doesn't work" and fails to present a reason.

The simple existence of rebellion does not mean there is a problem with the system. For instance, Uldred attempted to take over Kinloch Hold because he believed Chantry involvement was preventing mages reaching their full potential by becoming Abominations.

Is that something to take into consideration?

[Lumix19]

It ain't a Templars and mages argument until JB walks in.



Why? That codex presents no examples or evidence of intolerable conditions. It just says " it doesn't work" and fails to present a reason.
The simple existence of rebellion does not mean there is a problem with the system. For instance, Uldred attempted to take over Kinloch Hold because he believed Chantry involvement was preventing mages reaching their full potential by becoming Abominations.
Is that something to take into consideration?

Uldred's plan was to gain independence, he became an abomination by accident when he summoned a demon he couldn't control. Rebellion indicates dissatisfaction and that's the reason why it doesn't work, if even the most lenient Circle incites rebellion what hope is there for the others? So yes such an instance of rebellion is important to take into consideration because it's symptomatic of the problem, it's easy to brush Uldred and his followers off as crazy blood mages but that's not what they were at first, it's just that they went to extreme measures that got out of control.

This codex entry shows the dissent in Kinloch Hold: http://dragonage.wik...omises_of_Pride

[Boost32]

And why almost half of the Circle didn't want to rebel? They were forced into a war they didn't wanted, some were killed by those who wanted to fight. Why their opinion shouldnt count?