437 réponses à ce sujet

[DuskWanderer]

True, all we have is Cullen's word, but he's proven trustworthy.  Cassandra also tells you that there were reports about abuses from Kirkwall, but the Seekers didn't seem too interested in investigating.  Neither of them have ANY reason to lie to you.  Plus, Cassandra is Pro-Templar, not Pro-Mage.  Why would she fudge accounts on their behalf?

 

Okay, I have to say, mentioning Grace was a masterstroke.  If there was EVERY a mage who was the poster child for 'EVIL BLOOD MAGE', she'd be it.  Ungrateful, psychotic, ax-crazy abomination loving monster.  She was evil.  I CAN'T argue against that.  I mean, she took the ONE chance that the mages had for reconciliation and BLEW it because she had an UTTERLY irrational grudge against Hawke.  She and her VERY dead boyfriend had NO ONE to blame but themselves and they got what they deserved.  Heck, they managed to drag down numerous mages AND Templars with them!  Seriously, I thought mages were SUPPOSED to have an education...apparently she skipped Kirkwall Survival 101:  Don't mess with Hawke and Company...like EVER!

 

Again, the mages DIDN'T start the war.  That was Lambert.  He was ITCHING for an excuse.  The mages merely voted for independence...WITH the Divine's blessing.  Lambert decided that he didn't want that, OR the knowledge about reversing Tranquility to get out and decided the mages HAD to die.  First shot came from the Templars.  The Seekers dissolved the Nevarran Accord.  The Templars joined up.  Red Lyrium came later.  Most mages fled to Redcliffe and asked Ferelden for help.  Some rogue mages AND Templars stayed out to get payback, but most of the mages ran and hid.  Sure, Fiona was a complete idiot and trusted the Venatori.  Still, remember that the Elder One was pulling ALL their strings.  The Red Lyrium AND the Venatori were working for HIM.  

 

Now, AFTER it blew up?  Yes, there were mages who made it worse.  That loon from Ostwick in the Tavern...the one who defended Tevinter like crazy and in the bad future became a blood mage?  I DOUBT she was in the minority.  Still, it was the leaders of the mages that made the agreement to join Tevinter.  Most of the mages were bemoaning the fact.  If Connor was there, he told you flat out that he was against it.  Most of the mages do.  They just wanted to be free...they DIDN'T want a war.  Alexus used time magic to manipulate events and Fiona...dear, dear sweet Fiona in all her glorious make things ten times worse magnificent self panicked and agreed to terms she didn't understand.  A deal that seemed to change faster than the one Lando took from Vader.  Plus, at the end of it, she got to possibly watch as her own SON exiled her elfy butt in a bit of karmic turnabout.  Good job Fiona, GOOD JOB...

 

Yet if you go to Therinfall, you'll see its about the same.  The top guys took the Red Lyrium, tricked their subordinates and it worked out in the Elder Ones favor.  Their stories are VERY similar.  Yet Cole tells you that a LOT of Templars are pretty far gone.  They stopped seeing their charges as human and instead as THINGS.  Dehumanizing them allows them to commit horrific acts without the feelings of guilt that SHOULD accompany them.  Some were good, but not most.  Between the various mages we've had in our groups, the few Templars that joined up, Cole, and the books, it paints a pretty clear picture that something was fundamentally wrong with the Templars.  Maybe it was the lyrium.  MAYBE it was the conditions of the Circle.  MAYBE, like with the mages...power corrupts.  And when  you have power over another human being, thats quite a bit of power.

 

Meredith was ill-suited to being a Templar based on her background.  She clearly held a grudge from her youth.  She may have hidden it, but she felt justified in what she was doing.  Like many tyrants, she cloaked herself in virtue.  She told herself and Hawke that she was doing it for the mages protection.  To a degree, MAYBE...but the fact remains that once a mage has completed their Harrowing, they AREN'T supposed to be made Tranquil.  SHE did it anyway.  She defied the Chantry, HER boss, when she could.  She may have gone off the deep end, but the seeds were already there.  

 

NOW...as how this relates to Vivienne...she seemed to think that what happened in Kirkwall was the MAGES fault.  Not the Templars.  Cullen (who was THERE) tells you that both sides had problems.  So does Varric.  THEY were there.  Vivienne creates a narrative that suits what she wants.  She blames ALL mages for what Anders did.  Remember, ANDERS blew up the Chantry.  HE decided that reconciliation was not going to be an option anymore.  He was an ex-Grey Warden apostate.  NOT a Circle mage anymore.  Meredith didn't care.  HE KNEW THAT.  He knew if he acted, she'd kill them all.  He turned Kirkwall into bloodbath.  Meredith was simply happy to go along with it...a bit TOO happy.  One has to wonder what she would have told the Divine after slaughtering everyone.  The Seekers would have had to put her down.  

 

It was ALL a mess.  Grey and Gray.  MOST mages aren't child eating crazies, and most Templars don't kick puppies for fun.  Painting them with such broad strokes doesn't help.  Vivienne is HAPPY to throw her fellow mages under the bus.  By paining HERSELF as the only true loyal mage, she cements her position and power.  Never mind all the innocents caught in the crossfire.  Templars are merely TOOLS to her.  Their lives don't matter EITHER.  She's a base breaker for those reasons.  Not everyone will agree, and everyone is right to their opinion.  Mine says she's basically a villain protagonist...but only just.  At least Loghain, Meredith and the Architect had good intentions...she's only in it for herself.

 

IMO...

 

I'll remind you that Cullen is quite bitter about Kirkwall due to believing he should have stood up to Meredith sooner. This can very easily cloud his judgment. Further, he may simply hold Meredith accountable because she was in charge. Ditto with Cassandra, it's never mentioned who the reports claim was doing this. We have proof that it's Alrik, but not that it's Meredith pre-idol. 

 

It was not the templars who started the war: The mages were more than complicit what with their attempted assassination of Divine Justinia. And as I recall, Rhys and the other mages fought when Lambert came to arrest him. It was Adrian, not Lambert, who caused all that. Again, Lambert was doing his job (finding an assassin), Adrian pulled all the strings to get independence. 

 

The Divine does not have the authority to put the world in danger. We see this in the history when you have ax-crazy Divines like the one who ordered an Exalted March on her own Chantry. 

 

Again, I'll remind you that Fiona consciously, if idiotically, made a clear and present choice. She knew exactly what indenturing herself to a magister would cause. She also knows just what it is Tevinter mages do. By contrast, there wasn't a single person who knew about Red Lyrium on the good guy's side who wasn't Varric or Bianca. And neither of them went to Thereinfall. You're condemning them for knowledge they couldn't possibly know. 

 

Templars are required to be detached from mages. Remember mages become abominations, and templars would have a much harder time doing their jobs if they were close to their charges. 

 

Now, the funny thing is: I agree that Meredith was insane. I agree that she made for an incredibly poor leader. The reason I don't condemn her so strongly is that, as Sten puts it, she has madness as her excuse. She's wrong, but she's a wrong crazy. Many of the templars get to be that way because of the lyrium, it drives them bonkers. The mages have no such excuse. 

 

In spite of the haughtiness she has, Vivienne does remarkably care for innocents. She simply tries to project that she shouldn't. She and Varric are the only ones who care that you save everyone's lives at Haven. Is she self-serving? Without a doubt. But even she knows you have no power if the world is in ruins. 

[Dean_the_Young]

@Urzon: There's quite a bit about her opinions that makes sense, yes. Part of what makes her untenable for me, though, is her hypocrisy. "Magic exists to serve man, not to rule over him" -- I fully agree with that sentiment, but she clearly does not, or else she would not have made a grab for the Sunburst Throne. That one move makes her just as much of an example of the bad, power-hungry kind of mage as the ones she supposedly wants to guard against. It's mind-boggling, but unfortunately not that surprising, since many people in power tend to have an "I am an exception to the rules" kind of mentality. Including many players and player characters, mind.

 

Perhaps it's been awhile, but I don't recall Vivienne ever objecting to mages gaining political power. Objecting to unlimited power with no oversight, yes- but (at least to a mage Inquisitior) she's actually very approving of the idea of mages gaining power in the Chantry.

 

Vivienne spurns the mage rebellion- but most of her arguments are as much 'they're being stupid about it' as anything else. The timing, the incompetence, the public reception, the rampant idealism and lack of checks and the assumptions that people should just give them stuff because Reasons.

 

Vivienne's not against ambition so it's not really fair to call her a hypocrite on it. She just wants the pursuit of ambition to follow in certain contexts.

[Dean_the_Young]

Having finished reading through the thread, but not wanting to get dragged down into anyone's specific back-and-forths...

 

 

I suspect the reason that people have a hard time supporting Vivienne's views is because most people don't understand what they actually are.

 

There are a variety of reasons for this- because Vivienne is a manipulator as well as a politician, because Vivienne is abrasive, because Vivienne is content to take an absolutist tone even when she speaks with nuance- but most of all, I think it's because people try to put Vivienne's motivations into an archetypical box. If Vivienne takes position X (opposing the mage rebellion), then her reasons must be Y (even if she says otherwise).

 

Because of her outspoken nature, there are a few main myths that surround Vivienne- myths that I frequently see in the people who dislike her.

 

Myth 1: Vivienne is not a reformist.

 

A lot of people believe that because Vivienne supports the Circles system and is a vocal advocate of the Templars, that she doesn't think there was an issue with the system. This sort of belief goes hand-in-hand with the idea that she views the mages as whiny crybabies and selfish and such. It's about as reasonable... and just as unsupported. Vivienne, on a number of occasions, gladly and freely admits to problems within the Circle system on the establishment and Templar side- she just disagrees with the conclusion that the system should be rejected as a result of those abuses.

 

Vivienne is NOT the reactionary who refuses to change things compared to Leliana's reformist- Vivienne is a conservative reformist to Lelianna's nearly revolutionary approach. Whereas Lelianna wants radical change of the system at fundamental levels, Vivienne seeks and approves of changes within the context of pre-existing system. She does seek to establish oversight and Chantry control over the Templars, rather than let the run unaccountable. She does open pathways for the mages to advance in power, status, and relevance. She does a great deal of the many things that 'pro-Mage' advocates of the non-revolutionary sort advocated for years.

 

She just does it in the context of the existing system, which she argues is more good than evil. But the fact that she disparages the people who don't agree with that- the fact that she scorns the rebellion that sought to throw out the system entirely- blinds many to the fact that, if given the power, she does change the system.

 

 

 

Myth 2: Vivienne has only known, and never earned, privilege.

 

One of the common accusations against Vivienne is that she's far removed from any of the experiences of the 'typical' mage because of her status when we find her. Vivienne is, at the time of Inquisition, effectively a de facto noble- an independent political actor, able to move (relatively) freely, and with powerful patrons.

 

Bizarrely, people think that she's always enjoyed such, and never known what it meant to be a 'common' mage.

 

This is pretty obviously false, especially with the insights that Cole provides. Vivienne did not start at the top of the pecking order- she started at the bottom, the same as other mages. Unlike some, she didn't even have the privilege of being born into nobility and having patrons who could pull strings for her from birth. She faced the fear of Templars, which Cole promises to protect her from. She faced her harrowing, which Cole remembers the fear. She faced discrimination and fear and whisper campaigns from mundanes, commoners and nobles. And even when she did get a bit of status, became that advisor to Celene, what she really got was a token position that was ceremonial bordering on the farcicle.

 

It's not that Vivienne had an easier life because she was privileged and free from the constraints of the system. That confuses the cause and effect. Vivienne has a life of privilege because she earned it even within the constraints of the system.

 

Vivienne is, as strange as it may seem, a self-made woman who has risen because she pushed herself to excell better than the rest. Power wasn't given to her- she took it and made it from the opportunities she found, opportunities everyone else had as well. Yes, she was the mistress to a Duke, whose influence benefited her greatly- but she hardly was born into that role, or magicked him either into falling in love with her or into letting her use his power base as her own.Vivienne started at the same point as everyone else- just another girl in the room- but played herself to stand apart. She took a mage mistress, what could have been a dirty sordid affair or modest secret, and made it into a power base. She took a powerless role as 'magical advisor,' and gave it teeth and relevance. She made alliances, followed the Rules, played The Game- and played it well. Just as she applied herself with discipline into becoming a Knight Enchanter.

 

If she has freedom and power, it's despite starting with none. Vivienne's success isn't innately unique to her, not like an Inquisitor's anchor or a noble's blood. In that sense, she's the anthisis of the idea of 'someone who's never known what it means to be a common mage.' She's what any common mage could be, if they only applied themselves as well as she did.

 

Or so goes the theory. Obviously, luck plays a role- but Vivienne is an up-jumped commoner who wouldn't have succeeded without hard work and determination, not a born elitist.

 

 

 

Myth 3: Vivienne opposes mages earning power or privilege that she enjoys.

 

This is the common charge of hypocrisy- that Vivienne relishes her own privilege but would deny it to mages, It comes from two main directions: Vivienne's antagonism towards Morrigan, and her dismissal of the rebel mages who want freedoms like she has.

 

The critical weakness in this line of argument is the oversight on the role of 'how' freedom is gained. It's easiest to see with Morrigan, since Cole helps provide insight. A key part of Vivienne's dislike of Morrigan is that Morrigan just walked into Vivienne's spot- that she didn't earn it, didn't make it herself. Remember that Vivienne spent years turning a powerless position into one of relevance. Morrigan didn't, but enjoyed the fruits of Vivienne's accomplishments. That's less hypocrisy, and more of a 'you didn't earn it' mindset.

 

This helps shed light on Vivienne's dislike of the rebel mages- who she actually doesn't oppose their goals as much as their methods. When Vivienne chastises the mage rebellion, she frequently does it in terms of how they went or go about about it. The timing was horrible because of the events of Kirkwall- an implication that the timing wouldn't have been so horrible had it been a different context. The in-series mage arguments of opposing Templar oversight relies on fanciful wishful thinking, and a disregard of anyone else's concerns.

 

Vivienne doesn't actually hate or condemn people, mages or otherwise, who rise through the ranks of the system. She approves of trying to work through the system. She respects those who play the Game (well). She admires success in others. She even empathizes with those who play within the roles and rules of the system, and expresses dislike on those who prey on them: the rebel mages who murdered loyalists who refused to rebel, the genocide of the Tranquil, the butchering of innocents. Vivienne's broad view is that people who stay within the system are legitimate- even if the system occasionally eats its own (as any system does). Vivienne is just as much a part of the system- she plays the Game, follows the rules of the context, and practices great self-control.

 

What Vivienee dismisses with the rebel mages isn't 'they want what she has.' It's that they want what she has, without paying the price or the role that she does. They don't want to be part of the system- they want to be outside of the system entirely, without accountability or compromise- which is what Vivienne, the consumate player, has had to do to get the freedom and privilege she enjoys.

 

That's why they're selfish in her book- they want the prizes of the Game, without playing the Game. The want what they can already get within the system, without playing by the system's rules.

 

 

Myth 4: Vivienne doesn't care about others

 

This is one of the more common, in part because Vivienne encourages it. But it's also the easiest to disprove, since Cole cuts to the heart of the matter.

 

Vivienne thinks that caring, that showing you care, is a weakness. So she tries to hide it. But she can't.

 

Cole detects it, it even applies to him (who she largely hates), but it's actually relatively easy to see. Vivienne has three main sorts of positive feelings: personal relations, feelings of respect, and feelings of propriety towards those who play by the rules.

 

The first, the personal ties, are few and close to the heart. There's two main ones in the story: Vivienne's lover, the Duke, who she truly cares for even/despite making use of him in the game. The other, with high approval, is the Inquisitor- as a genuine friend. Vivienne can be friendly, but has few friends, because the Game has a way of turning friends to foes.

 

The second, respect, is her version of affection/friendliness. It's what she gives to people who dare to try, and succeed- skilled players of the game, admirable comrades in arms, or people who play their roles well. It's not always equality and amiability- she dominates Iron Bull, and quibbles with Dorian- but unless the Game leads her to it, she does well enough by such people and leaves them alone. Madam de Fer tears down her enemies, but leaves respected peers alone even when she could (such as her refusal to demean Dorian's romance with the Inquisitor).

 

But the third relationship, propriety, is something she expresses for the people who play by the rules, who don't reject the system. They may not be players in The Game- they may be beneath notice or concern- but by the same token, so long as they don't try to play the Game, the game should not be played against them. When loyalist mages who didn't want war are murdered by rebels mages. When innocents suffer. And, perhaps the epitome, the Tranquil- who are the most rule-abiding people of the context. When people who respectfully stay within the system are harmed, Vivienne disapproves.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Oh of course now explain me pls how aveline was associate with anders when she could leave hawke or anders could leave hawke?

And no, we are talking about time after chantry was blown up.

 

And?She does kill him when inquisitor asks and she set up that whole thing in first place just because inquistior could have option to show mercy doesn't change fact that she still was ready to do it as scenario where she kills him proves.

 

And again it is.

 

Except if you tell her to do what she wills with him, she only verbally smacks him. It's not that the Inquisitor has the option to show mercy, She doesn't kill him unless you tell her to.

[Deztyn]

Dean, my love, once again you have said everything I wanted to say, only better.

The next time someone complains about Viv I am linking them to your post.

[Darkstarr11]

I'll remind you that Cullen is quite bitter about Kirkwall due to believing he should have stood up to Meredith sooner. This can very easily cloud his judgment. Further, he may simply hold Meredith accountable because she was in charge. Ditto with Cassandra, it's never mentioned who the reports claim was doing this. We have proof that it's Alrik, but not that it's Meredith pre-idol. 

 

It was not the templars who started the war: The mages were more than complicit what with their attempted assassination of Divine Justinia. And as I recall, Rhys and the other mages fought when Lambert came to arrest him. It was Adrian, not Lambert, who caused all that. Again, Lambert was doing his job (finding an assassin), Adrian pulled all the strings to get independence. 

 

The Divine does not have the authority to put the world in danger. We see this in the history when you have ax-crazy Divines like the one who ordered an Exalted March on her own Chantry. 

 

Again, I'll remind you that Fiona consciously, if idiotically, made a clear and present choice. She knew exactly what indenturing herself to a magister would cause. She also knows just what it is Tevinter mages do. By contrast, there wasn't a single person who knew about Red Lyrium on the good guy's side who wasn't Varric or Bianca. And neither of them went to Thereinfall. You're condemning them for knowledge they couldn't possibly know. 

 

Templars are required to be detached from mages. Remember mages become abominations, and templars would have a much harder time doing their jobs if they were close to their charges. 

 

Now, the funny thing is: I agree that Meredith was insane. I agree that she made for an incredibly poor leader. The reason I don't condemn her so strongly is that, as Sten puts it, she has madness as her excuse. She's wrong, but she's a wrong crazy. Many of the templars get to be that way because of the lyrium, it drives them bonkers. The mages have no such excuse. 

 

In spite of the haughtiness she has, Vivienne does remarkably care for innocents. She simply tries to project that she shouldn't. She and Varric are the only ones who care that you save everyone's lives at Haven. Is she self-serving? Without a doubt. But even she knows you have no power if the world is in ruins. 

 

True he may have been bitter, but that doesn't detract from what he says.  No one contradicts his statements.  Considering that his entire arc is him going from a damaged young Templar who was willing to 'kill all mages' to a general with moderate views, I'd say whatever bitterness he has is overshadowed by his honesty.  Those reports Cassandra had may be biased, but the sheer amount of reports HAD to contain some truth.  Also, it couldn't have ALL been Alrik.  What about Karras?  There is no way that only ONE Templar in the Circle at Kirkwall is bad and rest are just 'misjudged'.  Kirkwall was a nightmare build on an even worse nightmare.  We know that Lyrium, even in its regular form, does nasty things to a person.  It's an addictive substance that seriously affects the mind.  So when you combine 'City of Madness due to ancient blood rituals and an evil thought controlling Darkspawn Magister' with a substance that affects the mind, it ISN'T going to go well.

 

 As for the mages, they WERE under the influence...of fear.  People want them dead simply for existing.  The Chantry DIDN'T help with its narrative that mages are monsters to be feared and shackled.  In many ways, they are responsible for the conditions of the Circle...by many I mean pretty much ALL of the reasons AND the excuses.  I've said before, you take someone who was traumatized and put them in a situation where they are afraid for their lives, and they WILL act out.  Being locked away has a profound affect upon your mental health.  Remember, Anders tells you that a good many mages commit suicide.  This is NOT the actions of healthy happy secure people.  The Circles that we have seen were oppressive environments that instilled fear in the people living...sorry, IMPRISONED there.

 

Jeannot was able to get into to attack the Divine through subtle influence from the Templars.  Wynne notes that it was practically impossible for a mage to get that close unless the Templars were complicit.  They set it up so they COULD kill the mages.  Lambert may have been hunting an assassin, but after his time in Tevinter he changed from someone who was willing to work with mages into a zealot.  He admitted to Rhys that he was looking for a reason to put down the mage rebellion.  He murdered Pharamond and tried to frame Rhys.  From the moment he showed up, he did nothing that suggested anything other than he was trying to crush them.  He sent Evangeline on her mission to make sure that the mages FAILED.  Every step of the way he was focused not on preventing conflict, but creating it.  It was due to the brutal conditions in Kirkwall that led mages to react the way they did.  Lambert, Adrian, Fiona...they all helped move it forward.  Yet, do we blame mages for NOT wanting to be subjected to imprisonment and horrific treatment?  Do we say, enjoy the rapes?  Enjoy the brutality?  Do you oppress them until they have no hope left?  That's their perspective.  I'm not saying they were innocent, but its hard to imagine that they weren't justified in wanting to be free of the conditions they were in.  

 

Vivienne stated that protesting was fine, but fighting back was not.  She didn't live like they did.  She came from Ostwick originally, which was noted as being a more tolerant and moderate Circle.  So no, she DIDN'T have it as bad as Anders, or Fiona.  Neither of them acted responsibly...but considering their backgrounds, I don't see how they would have acted differently.  Anders lived in horrible conditions and some VERY bad things happened to him.  Fiona?  Sex slave.  Yes, they did idiotic things, but I never considered them completely rational people.  We've all seen how a wounded animal reacts when you reach for it.  Was anyone surprised that they did what they did?

 

No, you are right.  The Templars DIDN'T know...but some of the Captains did.  Just like the leaders of the mages...several of the leaders of the Templars KNEW what they were getting into.  Lucius (The Envy demon) and Samson told them.  Most didn't, that's true, but their leaders were quick to jump on the bandwagon.  Denam, Carrol and Paxley had to have known.  They JOINED the Red Templars.  

 

Being detached from their charges led to them seeing them as less than human.  Once they stopped thinking of them as people, it because easier to subject them to harm and death.  Just like what happened with the elves.  Cullen recommends an outreach were Templars and mages work together to foster understanding.  The relationship between a jailor and a prisoner is very clear.  The relationship between a protector and their charge is different.  Templars stopped being protectors, and focused on being jailors and hunters and killers.  They weren't detached from the mages...they were detached from their own humanity.

 

Easy to blame the alcohol when you run someone over with a car...but its still an excuse.  It was a choice.  Templars choose to take Lyrium.  Mages ARE born with magic.  Its like being born with claws, or with sharp teeth.  Its part of who you are.  Mages have magic.  They will always have magic.  So they need assistance, training and someone to help them through it.  Trauma and violence are only going to create more of the same.  If Templars continue with threats, they'll get a fight.  You can't bully someone and not expect reaction.  That goes BOTH ways.

 

Viv shows a lot of concern for the Tranquil when you find their skulls.  Also, she does give the Inquisitor a gift at the end of her personal quest.  Yet that is because she has a personal connection.  Here is my thoughts on the matter.  If Cassandra, or Leliana...if Cullen or Varric or Bull had to sacrifice themselves...everything they had...to better the status of their people, would they do it?  Of course they would.  Varric FOUGHT at Hawke's side when their was little hope they'd survive.  The city, the Seekers, they could have taken EVERYTHING from him.  He put everything on the line for a friend and people he didn't agree with.  Leliana...of course she did.  Cullen fought against Meredith for that reason.  He committed treason against his Knight Commander...yeah, he did.  Its ALWAYS a close call when you ask your CO to stand down.  He had a good reason, but he KNEW it was a risk.  Bull gets that choice in game.  Cass does that right at the beginning of the game.  

 

Vivienne?  Would she give up everything she had to save the mages?

 

Not.  On. Your. Life.  

 

Yes, on yours.  She isn't risking HER wealth and power...

[SgtSteel91]

edit: nvm

[rapscallioness]

I also think that when Viv is talking about it being an inopportune time to rebel, she wasn't really talking about the mages needing to endure more abuses. Rather, the time frame, after the attack on the Divine--that nobody would know was orchestrated by Lambert-and Anders' Kirkwall thing, people are terrified of mages right now.

 

I think she sees it as throwing all the mages to the wolves. The mob of the mundanes. They are scared of mages moreso than usual right then, and they outnumber mages 100 to 1.

 

So, now they decide to disband the Circles; no Templar protection, because the Templars do not just protect against magical dangers. They also protect mages from the friggin crazy mob.

 

She was not talking about the mages. She was talking about the leadership not being perceptive enough, and rather disconnected from the widespread terror these recent actions have caused among non mages.

 

Get together a fearful mob, and horrors will ensue. She sees the leadership as throwing the mages to the wolves. That''s what she means by this was not a good time for this.

[Ashaantha]

I like Vivienne, I thought she was well written and well portrayed in the game.

 

My Inquisitors however, they didn't like her methods one bit and she disliked them in return. The one time she got Divine the epilogue, more elaborately, pretty much stated that the Divine and Inquisitor didn't get along. lol

[Vit246]

 

I also think that when Viv is talking about it being an inopportune time to rebel, she wasn't really talking about the mages needing to endure more abuses. Rather, the time frame, after the attack on the Divine--that nobody would know was orchestrated by Lambert-and Anders' Kirkwall thing, people are terrified of mages right now.

 

I think she sees it as throwing all the mages to the wolves. The mob of the mundanes. They are scared of mages moreso than usual right then, and they outnumber mages 100 to 1.

 

So, now they decide to disband the Circles; no Templar protection, because the Templars do not just protect against magical dangers. They also protect mages from the friggin crazy mob.

 

She was not talking about the mages. She was talking about the leadership not being perceptive enough, and rather disconnected from the widespread terror these recent actions have caused among non mages.

 

Get together a fearful mob, and horrors will ensue. She sees the leadership as throwing the mages to the wolves. That''s what she means by this was not a good time for this.

 

I see what you mean, BUT....

If the common people are terrified then its the responsibility of the Chantry and Templars to try to calm them down and teach them to distinguish between the lawful mages and the unlawful ones. Problem is, the people are religiously indoctrinated by the Chantry to fear magic. And at that point, the Templars did not protect them much anymore. They still treated the Circle mages like they were all unlawful and decided to crack down on them even more for fear they would rebel, leading mages to want to rebel even more. And if the leadership is too disconnected from non-mage society, then it is the fault of the Chantry and Templars for effectively segregating the mages away from mundane society. If the mages have little connection to mundane society, especially one that is taught to fear, hate, and lynch them, then why should they feel any obligations to these mundane people as if the mages should owe them everything?

She was pretty much asking mages to accept a collective guilt by association and continue to suffer indignities in silence.

EDIT: One more thing, she seems to talk about how terrible the Anders' Kirkwall thing was, but never the part where Meredith invoked the Right of Annulment to exterminate an entire Circle of men, women, and children for the actions of one apostate, and the Templars went along with it. 

Can the mages be blamed for wanting to rebel so much?

[Sports72Xtrm]

Do people still see Templars as protectors even after Kirkwall? Even after Lambert? Yes in theory the templars were meant to be protectors of the mages but it's clear that they are part of the crazy muggle mob. The seekers became corrupt and believe that abuse was necessary in order to stamp out magical corruption and the chantry could not hold them accountable since the seekers operate outside of the divine's scrutiny despite in theory being beholden to the Chantry. The relationship balance of checks and balances was not upheld. The whole the Circle is protecting mages is academic.

[Deztyn]

Darkstarr11,

Not in the mood for a full on Mage/Templar debate but there are a couple of things you are objectively wrong about:

1) Cullen had the right as Meredith's second to challenge her and call off the Right. David said that sometime way back. It was not "treason."

2) Lambert sincerely believed Rhys was guilty. Adrian killed Pharamond and framed Rhys to back Wynne into a corner. She knew that Wynne would be able to talk the mages into voting to stay with the Chantry so she created a situation that required Wynne to choose between her principles and her love for her son. Wynne went mama bear as predicted and chose her child over her ideals. This is spelled out in Asunder.

3) Anders was never abused. With him it's all about the ideal of freedom. He says it himself. WoT2 confirms it. If anything he was actually quite spoiled by Irving.

Yet people would prefer to believe that he was bullied, beaten and raped every other day, because otherwise they can't wholeheartedly support his actions.

[Vit246]

delete. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean, my love, once again you have said everything I wanted to say, only better.

The next time someone complains about Viv I am linking them to your post.

 

Dez, my paramore, you sell yourself too short. Your own articulate words were poetry to my mind, and stirred my soul to such endeavors.

 

It was only for you, my dear.

[Darkstarr11]

Darkstarr11,

Not in the mood for a full on Mage/Templar debate but there are a couple of things you are objectively wrong about:

1) Cullen had the right as Meredith's second to challenge her and call off the Right. David said that sometime way back. It was not "treason."

2) Lambert sincerely believed Rhys was guilty. Adrian killed Pharamond and framed Rhys to back Wynne into a corner. She knew that Wynne would be able to talk the mages into voting to stay with the Chantry so she created a situation that required Wynne to choose between her principles and her love for her son. Wynne went mama bear as predicted and chose her child over her ideals. This is spelled out in Asunder.

3) Anders was never abused. With him it's all about the ideal of freedom. He says it himself. WoT2 confirms it. If anything he was actually quite spoiled by Irving.

Yet people would prefer to believe that he was bullied, beaten and raped every other day, because otherwise they can't wholeheartedly support his actions.

 

1) Any officer in an organization, especially a military-styled one, has not only a duty, but a moral obligation to ensure that command follows the law.  In an instance in which they believe that command is unfit for duty, they have the right to require said command to relinquish their authority.  This subject has been done to death in literature, film, and history.  

 

HOWEVER...their is a VERY fine line between duty and treason.  If his fellows could not be convinced that he was in the right, he could be sanctioned and accused of treason.  What if Lambert had decided that Cullen had overstepped his bounds and Meredith had been justified in calling for Annulment?  

 

2)  I went back, dug the book out...you are correct.  It was Adrian (I forgot she lived, the little karma houdini).  And Lambert DID believe...but that doesn't excuse his behavior.  No matter his intentions, he was still trying to crush the mages.  It's like absolving Saddam Hussein for the evils of his reign by reminding people that he was intact protecting his country from Iran.  Lambert STILL was looking for a way to break the rebellion and would kill to protect the knowledge about reversing Tranquiliity.

 

3) Solitary confinement is abuse.  It causes severe mental issues to be forcefully separated from other people and trapped in confined spaces.  Irving did spoil him, but again, taking a child away from their family in a forceful manner is a traumatic experience.  When he came to the Circle, he didn't even speak.  This shows signs of being catatonic.  Ideals of freedom or not, Anders shows signs of mental illness.  Whether he had this from before the Circle or not is irrelevant.  Being in the Circle, being BROUGHT to the Circle clearly was traumatizing as noted by his repeated escape attempts.  Confining him did nothing more than exacerbate the issue.  

 

Nice.    You know your lore.  And called me out on my mistakes.  Cool.

[Deztyn]

Darling, you flatter me too much. Anyone can see that it is you whose words sing with such sweetness it would humble even Blessed Andraste.

Darkstarr1,

1) Treason has a very specific meaning and is never legal. Even if the Seekers had ultimately decided Cullen was wrong, he was still within his rights to challenge Meredith at the time. Meredith had the legal authority to call for the Right of Annulment in the absence of the Grand Cleric, but the accepted criteria used for making that decision were not met. There was no uprising in the Circle, there was no indication that it was truly beyond redemption. That's why ultimately Cullen decides enough is enough.

In the end, with a Hawke that sided with the Templars, she is clearly acting illegally at that point, attempting to murder an ally for no reason but her paranoia. The situation is slightly murkier with a pro-mage Hawke, but there it is just the last straw, the cap on a night that never should have happened. The difference is reflected in-game during Inquisition. He was officially made Knight-Commander in the first case, but remained a Knight-Captain in the second.

Either way he acted well within the boundaries of his authority.

Maker knows I adore that man. It certainly took courage to stand up for what he believed was right, but his actions were not treasonous.

3) "Oh but they put him in solitary confinement! Don't you understand the horror?"

To that I say, "Meh."

People make too much of Anders solitary confinement. Sure, it's a terrible punishment, but he wasn't being punished arbitrarily. He escaped from the Circle six times. First, he was treated with kindness and understanding-- Irving went out of his way to make sure his time in the Circle was as pleasant as possible, treating him like a favored son to try and foster a sense of belonging. That failed. Then lesser punishments (when he was punished at all) also failed. After their attempts to keep him contained within the Circle while still allowing him some freedoms had failed six times, he was placed in solitary confinement with a constant Templar guard. That also failed. Despite popular opinion, Anders did not escape solitary confinement, he was released after serving his sentence before making his seventh and final escape.

So should his constant escape attempts have continued to go unpunished? Should he have continued to be allowed the same privileges within the Circle as rule abiding mages? Should they have just shrugged and said, "Oh well since he really wants to go, may as well make it easy for him."?

No.

Anders broke the law and flouted Templar authority over and over and over and over and over and over again and when all other methods of controlling him failed was punished accordingly. He is no helpless innocent abused by evil Templars for the crime of existing.


This is also yet another example of players expecting people within a quasi-medieval society to conform to present day sensibilities. Actually, I take that back. Solitary confinement is still a legal practice within modern criminal justice systems. So players are actually holding these less educated, less enlightened people to a higher standard than many adhere to today.

That's an unreasonable expectation.

It's also disingenuous to say Anders was forcefully removed from his home. He was turned over to the Templars by his own father after burning down their family's barn. His father was afraid of the damage he could do and wanted him gone. Let's not imply he was dragged away from his crying, screaming parents by brutal monsters who beat him all the way to Kinloch Hold.

Catatonic? Or stubborn, defiant and unhappy and protesting his situation by refusing to cooperate? Based on what we've seen of his character, I'd go with the second. I'm no mental health expert, but from what I can tell, Anders showed no obvious signs of mental illness until he started sharing living space with a demon. Prior to merging with Justice, he even disapproved of the Circles dispanding and agreed with Wynne that it would be a mistake. Another fact that is often overlooked by his supporters.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Except if you tell her to do what she wills with him, she only verbally smacks him. It's not that the Inquisitor has the option to show mercy, She doesn't kill him unless you tell her to.

Explained it about 20 times not intrested in doing it again.

[DuskWanderer]

True he may have been bitter, but that doesn't detract from what he says.  No one contradicts his statements.  Considering that his entire arc is him going from a damaged young Templar who was willing to 'kill all mages' to a general with moderate views, I'd say whatever bitterness he has is overshadowed by his honesty.  Those reports Cassandra had may be biased, but the sheer amount of reports HAD to contain some truth.  Also, it couldn't have ALL been Alrik.  What about Karras?  There is no way that only ONE Templar in the Circle at Kirkwall is bad and rest are just 'misjudged'.  Kirkwall was a nightmare build on an even worse nightmare.  We know that Lyrium, even in its regular form, does nasty things to a person.  It's an addictive substance that seriously affects the mind.  So when you combine 'City of Madness due to ancient blood rituals and an evil thought controlling Darkspawn Magister' with a substance that affects the mind, it ISN'T going to go well.

 

 As for the mages, they WERE under the influence...of fear.  People want them dead simply for existing.  The Chantry DIDN'T help with its narrative that mages are monsters to be feared and shackled.  In many ways, they are responsible for the conditions of the Circle...by many I mean pretty much ALL of the reasons AND the excuses.  I've said before, you take someone who was traumatized and put them in a situation where they are afraid for their lives, and they WILL act out.  Being locked away has a profound affect upon your mental health.  Remember, Anders tells you that a good many mages commit suicide.  This is NOT the actions of healthy happy secure people.  The Circles that we have seen were oppressive environments that instilled fear in the people living...sorry, IMPRISONED there.

 

Jeannot was able to get into to attack the Divine through subtle influence from the Templars.  Wynne notes that it was practically impossible for a mage to get that close unless the Templars were complicit.  They set it up so they COULD kill the mages.  Lambert may have been hunting an assassin, but after his time in Tevinter he changed from someone who was willing to work with mages into a zealot.  He admitted to Rhys that he was looking for a reason to put down the mage rebellion.  He murdered Pharamond and tried to frame Rhys.  From the moment he showed up, he did nothing that suggested anything other than he was trying to crush them.  He sent Evangeline on her mission to make sure that the mages FAILED.  Every step of the way he was focused not on preventing conflict, but creating it.  It was due to the brutal conditions in Kirkwall that led mages to react the way they did.  Lambert, Adrian, Fiona...they all helped move it forward.  Yet, do we blame mages for NOT wanting to be subjected to imprisonment and horrific treatment?  Do we say, enjoy the rapes?  Enjoy the brutality?  Do you oppress them until they have no hope left?  That's their perspective.  I'm not saying they were innocent, but its hard to imagine that they weren't justified in wanting to be free of the conditions they were in.  

 

Vivienne stated that protesting was fine, but fighting back was not.  She didn't live like they did.  She came from Ostwick originally, which was noted as being a more tolerant and moderate Circle.  So no, she DIDN'T have it as bad as Anders, or Fiona.  Neither of them acted responsibly...but considering their backgrounds, I don't see how they would have acted differently.  Anders lived in horrible conditions and some VERY bad things happened to him.  Fiona?  Sex slave.  Yes, they did idiotic things, but I never considered them completely rational people.  We've all seen how a wounded animal reacts when you reach for it.  Was anyone surprised that they did what they did?

 

No, you are right.  The Templars DIDN'T know...but some of the Captains did.  Just like the leaders of the mages...several of the leaders of the Templars KNEW what they were getting into.  Lucius (The Envy demon) and Samson told them.  Most didn't, that's true, but their leaders were quick to jump on the bandwagon.  Denam, Carrol and Paxley had to have known.  They JOINED the Red Templars.  

 

Being detached from their charges led to them seeing them as less than human.  Once they stopped thinking of them as people, it because easier to subject them to harm and death.  Just like what happened with the elves.  Cullen recommends an outreach were Templars and mages work together to foster understanding.  The relationship between a jailor and a prisoner is very clear.  The relationship between a protector and their charge is different.  Templars stopped being protectors, and focused on being jailors and hunters and killers.  They weren't detached from the mages...they were detached from their own humanity.

 

Easy to blame the alcohol when you run someone over with a car...but its still an excuse.  It was a choice.  Templars choose to take Lyrium.  Mages ARE born with magic.  Its like being born with claws, or with sharp teeth.  Its part of who you are.  Mages have magic.  They will always have magic.  So they need assistance, training and someone to help them through it.  Trauma and violence are only going to create more of the same.  If Templars continue with threats, they'll get a fight.  You can't bully someone and not expect reaction.  That goes BOTH ways.

 

Viv shows a lot of concern for the Tranquil when you find their skulls.  Also, she does give the Inquisitor a gift at the end of her personal quest.  Yet that is because she has a personal connection.  Here is my thoughts on the matter.  If Cassandra, or Leliana...if Cullen or Varric or Bull had to sacrifice themselves...everything they had...to better the status of their people, would they do it?  Of course they would.  Varric FOUGHT at Hawke's side when their was little hope they'd survive.  The city, the Seekers, they could have taken EVERYTHING from him.  He put everything on the line for a friend and people he didn't agree with.  Leliana...of course she did.  Cullen fought against Meredith for that reason.  He committed treason against his Knight Commander...yeah, he did.  Its ALWAYS a close call when you ask your CO to stand down.  He had a good reason, but he KNEW it was a risk.  Bull gets that choice in game.  Cass does that right at the beginning of the game.  

 

Vivienne?  Would she give up everything she had to save the mages?

 

Not.  On. Your. Life.  

 

Yes, on yours.  She isn't risking HER wealth and power...

 

I'm not saying that all reports show it's only one templar. However, what we see from many of the events in Kirkwall is that it's a lot of crazies that end up doing things. Alrik and to a lesser extent Karras are taking up a lot of the space, but we see many great templars too. By contrast, we don't see very many "great" mages. The only one I can think of in DA2 are Alain and Bethany, and even the former's a blood mage. 

 

I've yet to see any of the people who reacted in the way Anders states, and he's far from unbiased in that regard. I remember the mage in Origins disliked the fact that the templars were watching, but that was the only objective source I can find (and even she's biased). Could the templars do better? Sure. Everything can be better. But I don't see very many mages showing they deserve the freedom they crave. 

 

You say that the templars were complicit in killing the mages, but offer no proof. It could very well be that the templar was a well-meaning idiot like Thrask. 

 

I do agree the templars could have done better, but the mages didn't exactly do anything aside from sneak around, even to gossip, as Rhys mentioned in Asunder. 

 

No, I'm not surprised either Anders or Fiona acted as they did. That doesn't mean they acted properly. And Viv states, quite clearly: "By all means, protest abuses against the templars. But don't do it in a way that condones slaughtering innocents." That statement doesn't rule out the use of violence. That statements simply says "Don't show the world you'll slaughter them if you don't get your way." 

 

The only templar we see who willingly subjects people to red lyrium is Denam. For all we know, Caroll and Paxley were converted the normal way and became red templars without knowledge. Are there others? Probably. But evidence is needed. 

[Solace]

" A man with no motive, is a man no one suspects."

 

I was immediately turned off from Vivienne. She makes her self-serving intentions too obvious, and because of her privileges, she doesn't really know what the hell she is talking about, making it even more obvious she is in it for her and her only...she doesn't care about other mages or anyone for that matter. Supporting her would make me feel like I was being a doormat.

 

She could of taken a lesson from Flemeth or Little-finger(game Of Thrones)

[Urzon]

" A man with no motive, is a man no one suspects."
 
I was immediately turned off from Vivienne. She makes her self-serving intentions too obvious, and because of her privileges, she doesn't really know what the hell she is talking about, making it even more obvious she is in it for her and her only...she doesn't care about other mages or anyone for that matter. Supporting her would make me feel like I was being a doormat.
 
She could of taken a lesson from Flemeth or Little-finger(game Of Thrones)

Flemeth maybe, but I would almost say that Littlefinger and Vivienne have more in common than they have differences. They were both common born children put into certain circumstances in which they used their wits to make the best of the situation and rise above their station, and they both continued to do so until they made themselves a ranking member in the Imperial Court/King's Council.

Neither of them hide their self-serving intentions either, and there really isn't any point to do so. Though, they don't hide it for different personal reasons. Vivienne sees no point in doing so because The Game is such an obvious part of Orlesian culture. It's all about self-serving power plays and cutting down your enemies socially, politically, and sometimes physically, and her trying to hide her ambition would give her enemies a weapon to attack her with. Littlefinger on the other hand uses his obvious self-serving intentions to manipulate those around him. A lot of the power players still think of him as a social climber that wouldn't act against his own self interests, or that whoever can offer him the best deal can easily gain his loyalty, and that allows him to easily pull strings in the background.

[Darkstarr11]

Wow.  Interesting.

 

Okay.  That's a LOT to sum up.  I don't know if I have the time to break down each one, though I may not actually need to.  Good points were made.  Nice.  A summary perhaps?

 

First, Cullen.  I agree, he is an awesome character.  I mean, very few characters develop as well as he does.  In Origins? Then DAII?  And now Inquisition?  Standing up to Meredith took guts.  I didn't mean to say that he was WRONG...but he absolutely could have been condemned for it.  I believe he made the right choice.  I was stating that...okay, I was making a poor attempt at stating...that he could have been condemned for his actions by others of his Order because they weren't willing to admit that Meredith had boarded the crazy cruise with a one way ticket.  What he did was right...but history has shown that sometimes good men DO the right thing and are still punished for it.  

 

Okay...

 

Basically, good people got screwed.  Both mage and Templar leaders messed up.  We can't deny that mistakes were made.  Some points will end up in the 'agree to disagree' bin, but yes, I can totally see where y'all are coming from.  Did the mages make things worse?  Yes they did.  Do I think that the Templars are responsible?  Yes.  ALL the Templars?  No, not at all.  Most were probably in the dark until things went bad.  Yet I can't simply ignore the abuses.  Yes, there WERE abuses.  We've spent two games and an expansion with the tales of Templar abuses coming out at us.  Alrik and Meredith stand out.  Karras as well.  Yet, we did have Emeric who was an older Templar who was actively searching for mages who had disappeared.  NOT because they were blood mages, but because he was concerned for them.  As DAII has shown, there were a LOT of mages resorting to REALLY, REALLY bad ideas to protest their conditions.  Blood magic was NOT the way.  

 

I fault Elthina for NOT stepping in.  She kept saying that patience was key, but honestly, as was said, you don't stand in a fire and complain that it is hot.  You put the fire OUT.  She was in a position to do so.  Anders, being insane AND possessed (and frankly, he may have been insane BEFORE being possess...we know he was paranoid) snapped and decided to remove her from the equation.  Fiona was as stubborn as ALWAYS (having NOT learned from the PREVIOUS times that she'd lost her temper) and pushed ahead with a vote.  I do blame the Templars for attacking, but after reading the arguments of DuskWanderer and Deztyn (and going back to the book) I'll concede that she basically flipped them the bird and dared them to do SOMETHING.  So yes, she shares a huge chunk of the blame...and that was BEFORE Redcliffe.  

 

As to the solitary, even after what Anders did, it was still inhumane.  Values dissonance aside, the psychological trauma that in inflicts is terrifying.  I've read the reports on individuals in the prison system AND in mental facilities who have been put in long term solitary.  You want to destroy someone permanently?  Put them in there for a few months.  Even a few weeks is horrifying.  We do still use it in our criminal justice system, but recent studies are showing exactly how bad it is.  Mental hospitals have known for YEARS.  That's why the courts are beginning to debate if it should be allowed.

 

As to Anders.  Okay, yes, he's a screw up.  A MAJOR screw up.  I've looked through what I have...so yes, he did get sent away, and we don't know how the Templars reacted.  Yet, that act would be traumatic.  I've worked with screwed up kids.  If your parents actively send you away, that devalues you, creates feelings of inadequacy and destroys your ability to trust.  Again, VERY traumatic.  Does this absolve Anders of the horrible things he has done?  NO, not at all, but it gives context and reason.  I mean, lets just look at his worst act...blowing up the Chantry.  How many people were in there?  The surrounding buildings?  No matter what anyone might say, he is directly responsible for a HUGE number of deaths...and INDIRECTLY responsible for all the deaths that came as a result of his actions there.  Templar...Mage...ANYBODY else.  He doesn't have blood on his hands...he's BATHED in rivers of the stuff.

 

At the end of it...the ONLY innocents are the ones standing in the middle.  I DO side with the mages...but I should clarify and say that I stand with the guys who just wanted to be free.  I DON'T condone the blood magic, or the killings.  I understand not wanting to be jailed.  To be oppressed and hurt.  Yet I may have inadvertently suggested that I condone murder, violence and terrorism.  NO.  Methods I don't.  Some mages, in fighting for freedom, DID become the thing they hated.  They used fear and violence to get their way...which was what they were protesting in the first place.

 

Alright, NOW...a bit on Vivienne.  Again, I LIKE her character, but I don't like her.  She's divisive.  I don't trust her even a tiny bit.  She's useful as an ally, but that's about it.  I see making her Divine as a VERY dangerous thing.  I cannot see it as working out well.  One of her epilogues clearly states that she becomes a vicious tyrant and it splinters the chantry.  So yeah, she's just too political.  I find it amusing that she holds such a grudge against Morrigan, who doesn't really give her a second thought.  She believes she's been usurped.  Cole confirms that she hasn't.  

 

Though notice that she never takes any DIRECT action against Morrigan?  Not surprising.  In the Game you rarely do...you act through proxies until your opponent is weak.  Plus, engaging in a magical duel would end only one way...NOT in Vivienne's favor.  I may respect her skill, but this is Morrigan.  Morrigan doesn't KNOW how to play fair.  She was trained by FLEMETH.  Vivienne wouldn't last but a moment.  She'd probably ambush Viv prior to the duel and just be done with it.  For all her combat magic, she's still not what I'd consider to be one of the more powerful mages in the series.  Merrill, Morrigan, Mage Hawke, and a Mage Warden all rank above her.  Plus they all have actual battle field experience.  

 

Now, does she care?  To a degree, yes.  Not so much that she would put others before her though.  What it comes down to, for me, is that she's proven that she will ALWAYS put her interests FIRST.  She's ambitious and prideful...she doesn't deny EITHER.  She may not have started out privileged, but neither do most politicians now a days.  She's lived the life she's had for a while.  I wonder if she even VISITS the Circle anymore...I haven't seen anything that says she did.  Her life at court is what she has now.  Its VERY hard to empathize with people that you DON'T interact with.  She's a social climber.  Once she's stepped over you, your use has ended.  She also appears woefully undereducated about demons and spirits...but, actually MOST mages in the Circle do.  Even MERRILL seemed to understand them better, and she was bit...um...out there?  Whatever we might think about Solas, he KNOWS spirits and demons.  It's his specialty...the Fade.  Dorian seems to understand them better...Viv just fears them.  Cassandra and IRON BULL have a better grasp.  We know why Bull fears them...thats what the Qun teaches.  

 

Anyway, I really am NOT trying to hate on her, just that she's this flawed individual, JUST like the rest.  Cassandra was mind raped by the Seekers, Varric is traumatized by Kirkwall and blames himself for Cory, Blackwall is trying to pretend to be a better man to make up for his past, Bull is caught between being who he was raised as versus who he is becoming...is ANYONE in the Inquisition a healthy, normal person?  Even little Harding is a miniature murder machine.  I just DON'T agree with her.  I love how she was written...though there are a few writing flubs...seriously, I wanted to see her engage more on a diplomatic level rather than just those few war table missions, and I even get WHY she thinks the way she does.  I just...don't agree with her stance.  I think its dangerous and self serving.  

 

Then again, so was Morrigan, and Isabela, were they not?  And weren't they divisive too?

 

And YES, I'm aware that my summary turned out to be a page or so long.  I'm long winded and scatterbrained.  And easily distrac-

[Ashaantha]

This entire thread has now turned into one huge novel, not even just due to one or two people, but many. Might take me quite a while to catch up now

[Darkstarr11]

This entire thread has now turned into one huge novel, not even just due to one or two people, but many. Might take me quite a while to catch up now

 

Everytime I come back, I think 'do I REALLY want to read and catch up, or take a nap'.

 

Something occurred to me...or maybe it did before and I'm just remembering...but about Vivienne's character development.  When you think about it, she's probably roughly the same age, or a little older than Morrigan, Leliana and the Warden, right?  Mid-fourties to early fifties?  About that age, you settle into your own.  You've basically found who you are, and don't really change that much from that point forward.  It a way, it makes a LOT of sense that she wouldn't agree to disagree..she already knows what she wants to do in her life.  Especially someone strong-willed like her.  So expecting the Inquisitor to change her stance is pretty foolish.  She knows who she is, knows what she wants...why on earth (or 'in Thedas') would she shift her position for a younger individual who hasn't proven themselves?  She's the older, more experienced one there...YOU should be listening to her, at least in her mind.  Makes sense why she'd disapprove...she's thinking you just aren't GETTING IT!  Trust the Master, grasshopper!