Oh gosh, imagine Cass' face if Leliana just disappears in a puff of blue lyrium smoke one day during an audience. XD
LG!Leliana: "My work here is done~" *poofs*
Cassandra: ...
*BSoD*
I was thinking along the lines of Leliana spontaneously turning into a Pride or Desire demon in the middle of an audience
"Defy me will you!? GRRRAAAARGH!!!!!"
Cassandra: Oh Crap 
Who said anything about a secret police?
Why exactly does the local guard have to have an emblem stating "I have templar abilities"? I mean, in all 3 games, you as a player could have templar abilities without donning the skirt
re: Templars in post-trespasser era
Only in Cassandra's epilofue do templars beholden to the chantry exist...there's no templars in Leliana's epilogue and in Vivienne's, the templars no longer answer to the Chantry. Again, another example of how the game tries to make Vivienne look bad. Leliana can murder-stab everyone and Cassandra has no problem with it...but apparently, Vivenne is the tyrant.
re: Smuggling
I actually think there SHOULD be a rise in smuggling AND it should be much more successful as I can easily see the College not wanting to be beholden to the Chantry as well as local lords wanting to have their own Templars (-again, does anyone think that Aveline and Varric for that matter would not want to have for Kirkwall, guards who can actually do something when magic/demons are involved?) and in 2 o the scenarios, I don't see how the Chantry stops it (no Templars to provide security of trade)
But Vivienne have templars too.Who said anything about a secret police?
Why exactly does the local guard have to have an emblem stating "I have templar abilities"? I mean, in all 3 games, you as a player could have templar abilities without donning the skirt
re: Templars in post-trespasser era
Only in Cassandra's epilofue do templars beholden to the chantry exist...there's no templars in Leliana's epilogue and in Vivienne's, the templars no longer answer to the Chantry. Again, another example of how the game tries to make Vivienne look bad. Leliana can murder-stab everyone and Cassandra has no problem with it...but apparently, Vivenne is the tyrant.
re: Smuggling
I actually think there SHOULD be a rise in smuggling AND it should be much more successful as I can easily see the College not wanting to be beholden to the Chantry as well as local lords wanting to have their own Templars (-again, does anyone think that Aveline and Varric for that matter would not want to have for Kirkwall, guards who can actually do something when magic/demons are involved?) and in 2 o the scenarios, I don't see how the Chantry stops it (no Templars to provide security of trade)
Who said anything about a secret police?
Why exactly does the local guard have to have an emblem stating "I have templar abilities"? I mean, in all 3 games, you as a player could have templar abilities without donning the skirt
Because you're lying about their role. Pretending that they're ordinary guards is lying to the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving, namely mages.
re: Smuggling
I actually think there SHOULD be a rise in smuggling AND it should be much more successful as I can easily see the College not wanting to be beholden to the Chantry as well as local lords wanting to have their own Templars (-again, does anyone think that Aveline and Varric for that matter would not want to have for Kirkwall, guards who can actually do something when magic/demons are involved?) and in 2 o the scenarios, I don't see how the Chantry stops it (no Templars to provide security of trade)
Why would the Chantry not have guards just because it no longer has templars? In fact, using the templars for both military and law enforcement was one of the Chantry's worst ideas, and having a non-templar military would be much better.
As superdarkone said no.
She calling Vivienne a tyrant is very difficult to know why because of that and beyond Vivienne using violence to quell the revolts there is nothing else indicating why she would be a tyrant.
Moreover, there's the matter of bloody-murder Leliana... who isn't called out in any way by Cassandra, even though her murderous tendency is hardly a secret to the player.
It's also a bit unclear who Vivienne is supposed to by a tyrant over- the mages, who she allows to establish and join a College she doesn't control? Some country? The Inquisition? Her own eclisiastical beuracracy?
As much as I like Cassandra, politically astute she is not- nor is her word gospel.
The thing with Vivienne is that she plays the game, she is neither really as obsessively controlling and masterful in that sense as either Solas or even someone like Blackwall, but neither does she demonstrate that kind of natural charm like Cassandra or perhaps Dorian.
So she ends up falling uneasily between being not a very "good" control freak (if that contrary seeming logic makes sense) and not having a gentle touch, at least, by comparison to the others.
That said, I mean compared to the typical citizen of Orlais Vivienne is certainly an accomplished player, but if we're comparing her to the other characters.
Moreover, there's the matter of bloody-murder Leliana... who isn't called out in any way by Cassandra, even though her murderous tendency is hardly a secret to the player.
It's also a bit unclear who Vivienne is supposed to by a tyrant over- the mages, who she allows to establish and join a College she doesn't control? Some country? The Inquisition? Her own eclisiastical beuracracy?
As much as I like Cassandra, politically astute she is not- nor is her word gospel.
I think you're both right and wrong. Your observation that she comes across as parental is very astute. But your 2nd paragraph sees the parent from the perspective of the child (or teenager).
Change the perspective to that of the weary but caring parent, and I think there's a real insight into Vivienne's character. She's heard all these arguments before. She's seen the consequences of ideology over pragmatism. She understands the value of self-discipline. She's frustrated that members of her 'family' are making what are obviously idiotic decisions but can't see it. She's resigned to letting them make their own mistakes, while trying to guide them towards something a bit more practical and a bit less disastrous.
If you browse through her dialogue with the Inquisitor you'll see time and again she approves of practical and (for want of a better phrase) 'grown-up' choices. She most strongly disapproves of wild ideology. And look closely at what she slightly approves - it might surprise you. The writers clearly allocated her approval very carefully and subtly.
I think it indicates an attempt at gentle guidance toward the solutions that are most likely to bring stability, peace and the greatest good for the many. I guess another way to put it is that Vivienne is a classic utilitarian, like many good parents.
That was done on purpose; to try and show where the people bothered by her patronising attitude were coming from. 
The other day, I was browsing youtube for party banter in JoH DLC and accidentally found a good example of her pragmatism. She suggests the Inquisitor could not only make a fortune with a rare kind of plant, but also use its sap to produce potent poultices.
After some reflection, I’m going to disagree with my own topic.
What's missing from Vivienne as a character is growth. The (Orlesian) mask never slips, even at the most emotionally climactic scene for the character (her lover’s death). She never questions her beliefs. She never breaks down. There's no moment of revelation, no epiphany.
I'm not saying this makes her bland, but it’s a missed opportunity. There’s no character arc – it’s just a straight line. It would've been nice to drop her into a situation that forced her to question her beliefs. How she resolved a situation like that would've been interesting. Would she change? How would that affect her? Or would she try to preserve her ego, even if it meant self-deceit?
I guess what I'm saying is it would've been interesting to see Vivienne's id.
Tyranny isn't just gratuitous violence, it's about how you deal with people and whether you're willing to to actually listen and take on board advice, and of course whether your ultimate goal is for the betterment of others or yourself. Vivienne certainly is not portrayed as the most selfless of people, and during her time on the Council Cassandra could have come to the conclusion that Vivienne wasn't going to listen to anybody but herself. Leliana might be similar, she has a pension for eliminating opposition, but perhaps she's willing to take on advice, particularly Cassandra's, considering they have a close relationship. And Leliana doesn't come off as particularly selfish, she simply comes off as too idealistic at times.
None of what you describe is particularly tyrannical for Vivienne, though- especially when we know Vivienne does listen to others, because that's the premise behind her allowing the College which she disagrees with. The Game is a dynamic that encourages compromises and alliances- which entail listening to others even if it's just because it's in your own interest to do so.
Vivienne cracks down on open revolt- but tolerates dissidents, and even sanctions her rivals. Blood Murder Leliana faces revolt as well... but her dissidents face knives in the dark, and her rival institution has no such support from her- and so the College and Circle are in even worse terms.
'Selfish' and 'idealistic' don't have much to do with being a tyrant. How you manage those who disagree with you does. Cassandra makes a claim- but on the basis of known actions, and what she doesn't object to, it's hard to take her as the absolute authority here without support.
- Cole: He hurt you. You left a letter, let out a lie so he would do something foolish against the Inquisition. A trap.
- Vivienne: Inquisitor, as your demon lacks manners, perhaps you could get Solas to train it.
So Vivienne set up the offensive noble who appears during her recruitment. Good.
Vivienne's comically stupid plan was evidence in convincing you she's "complex" and "usually right"?
The only evidence this should be is evidence of how bad the DA writing team is at having their characters actually have the qualities the narrative clumsily tries to pretend they have.
After some reflection, I’m going to disagree with my own topic.
What's missing from Vivienne as a character is growth. The (Orlesian) mask never slips, even at the most emotionally climactic scene for the character (her lover’s death). She never questions her beliefs. She never breaks down. There's no moment of revelation, no epiphany.
I'm not saying this makes her bland, but it’s a missed opportunity. There’s no character arc – it’s just a straight line. It would've been nice to drop her into a situation that forced her to question her beliefs. How she resolved a situation like that would've been interesting. Would she change? How would that affect her? Or would she try to preserve her ego, even if it meant self-deceit?
I guess what I'm saying is it would've been interesting to see Vivienne's id.
I think Vivienne's reaction to Bastien's death was understated, but not a missed opportunity.
Vivienne is not one to wear her heart on her sleeve. The mask is always on. If you want to see what's beneath it, you have to listen to Cole. But at that moment, it slipped, just a little. This was the one person, as far as we know, that she truly cared about. She did absolutely everything she could to save him, and failed. And I think in her rather subdued reactions, she was genuinely grieving.
Of course, the mask goes back on almost immediately. The next time you speak with her she's back in the game. But that moment showed the "real Vivienne"
No not really. Terrible offensive character ridden with tropes and cliches. Even more since shes a black woman.
None of what you describe is particularly tyrannical for Vivienne, though- especially when we know Vivienne does listen to others, because that's the premise behind her allowing the College which she disagrees with. The Game is a dynamic that encourages compromises and alliances- which entail listening to others even if it's just because it's in your own interest to do so.
Vivienne cracks down on open revolt- but tolerates dissidents, and even sanctions her rivals. Blood Murder Leliana faces revolt as well... but her dissidents face knives in the dark, and her rival institution has no such support from her- and so the College and Circle are in even worse terms.
'Selfish' and 'idealistic' don't have much to do with being a tyrant. How you manage those who disagree with you does. Cassandra makes a claim- but on the basis of known actions, and what she doesn't object to, it's hard to take her as the absolute authority here without support.
When did it say she supported the College because of the Game? It was primarily because of her respect for the Inquisition, not a mark of her regard for rivals. And it was "grudgingly" - not exactly a word that conveys support for a rival.
If we're thinking about this in the context of the Game, it seems to me that Vivienne's allowance of the College is to ensure that it fails, thus discrediting her rivals and legitimizing her Circle - "True mastery is to give your opponent no choice but to concede—gracefully.” The overall tone of her epilogue "Divine Victoria, secure on her Sunburst Throne - and with a rebuilt Chantry Circle at her disposal - chose to be magnanimous." seems to indicate that perhaps the College isn't a legitimate rival. So ultimately I don't think Vivienne plans to play fair, I don't think she's giving the Circle a chance to prove themselves so much as setting them up to fail.
And her epilogue from the base game seems to indicate that she does not tolerate true rivals - Mages rise quickly in the new Circle, having more freedom and responsibility then ever before - even if all true power lies with her.
But you do raise a good point, Leliana does seem to eliminate opponents surreptitiously and it's possible that she's doing all this too. The nice counterpoint is at least she dedicates the Chantry to charity, opens it up to men and women of all races and canonizes Shartan - actions which project the Chantry's willingness to return to feeding the poor rather than sewing dresses. And by not involving herself in the Circle-College conflict she maintains a sense of neutrality that Vivienne simply cannot project - after all there's some legitimate criticism that the Chantry has dreadfully mismanaged the Circle issue before, it seems smart to me to distance herself from it.
Of course Cassandra's comment is a lot about what Leliana and Vivienne project as Divine. Perhaps she doesn't know about Leliana's behind the scenes manipulations or if she does she perceives it as "for the greater good". Contrast this to Vivienne's support of a system that Cassandra feels failed and her more open crushing of rebellion. And if she claims that Vivienne is perverting the intent of the Chant of Light that's something to take note of. I would also note that Sera offers her aid to Cassandra and Leliana, but conspicuously not to Vivienne. Perhaps she just doesn't like Vivienne, but perhaps she has a legitimate concern that Vivienne isn't going to look out for the 'little people' during her time as Divine - not that Sera is necessarily the best judge of character but who knows? She hears things.
Ultimately we'll see how it turns out but I don't have high hopes for Vivienne's term - not that I have tremendously high hopes for Leliana's either, it's possible all her reforms will be undone the minute she dies and a new Divine steps in.
When did it say she supported the College because of the Game? It was primarily because of her respect for the Inquisition, not a mark of her regard for rivals.
I didn't say that she supported the College because of the Game, or because she held her rivals in high esteem. I said that her supporting the formation of the College was an example of her listening to others- which is a dynamic the Game encourages.
If Vivienne did not listen to others- ie, the Inquisitor- then she would not have done so.
And it was "grudgingly" - not exactly a word that conveys support for a rival.
On it's own, no. In conjunction with her, you know, supporting a rival by allowing and sanctioning it's creation of a rival institution she thinks is better?
'Grudging' it may be, but support for a rival it also is.
If we're thinking about this in the context of the Game, it seems to me that Vivienne's allowance of the College is to ensure that it fails, thus discrediting her rivals and legitimizing her Circle - "True mastery is to give your opponent no choice but to concede—gracefully.” The overall tone of her epilogue "Divine Victoria, secure on her Sunburst Throne - and with a rebuilt Chantry Circle at her disposal - chose to be magnanimous." seems to indicate that perhaps the College isn't a legitimate rival. So ultimately I don't think Vivienne plans to play fair, I don't think she's giving the Circle a chance to prove themselves so much as setting them up to fail.
If you wish to headcanon that Vivienne is only allowing the College to ensure that it fails, that's your perogative. But it's still you assigning a motive that Vivienne does not express, and no one in-universe has assigned to her. Vivienne may not think the College will succeed- but that's not the same as ensuring it fails by sabotage. And certainly allowing it to exist and operate itself can't be a criteria of how one intends to 'ensure that if fails'- that would take all agency away from the College. If they fail, it instantly becomes Vivienne's fault.
You're also mis-using 'legitimate' rival in the context I'm discussing. 'Legitimate' isn't a measure of relative strength- like your apparent appeal to a 'true' rival that could give her dififculty- but a reflection of the relationship between an institution and its source of authority and role. In Andrastian Thedas, one of those sources is the Chantry- and it's by the Chantry's sanction that the College is a legitimate institution, even if it's not as powerful as the Circles.
And her epilogue from the base game seems to indicate that she does not tolerate true rivals - Mages rise quickly in the new Circle, having more freedom and responsibility then ever before - even if all true power lies with her.
And?
If you're arguing that the centralization of power makes someone a tyrant, you're either watering down the charge, or it's not inherently a charge in the first place.
After all- why not bold 'Mages rise quickly in the new Circle, having more freedom and responsibility than ever before'? Vivienne having the 'true power' doesn't change 'more freedom and responsibility'.
But you do raise a good point, Leliana does seem to eliminate opponents surreptitiously and it's possible that she's doing all this too. The nice counterpoint is at least she dedicates the Chantry to charity, opens it up to men and women of all races and canonizes Shartan - actions which project the Chantry's willingness to return to feeding the poor rather than sewing dresses. And by not involving herself in the Circle-College conflict she maintains a sense of neutrality that Vivienne simply cannot project - after all there's some legitimate criticism that the Chantry has dreadfully mismanaged the Circle issue before, it seems smart to me to distance herself from it.
I disagree- on two grounds, both the merits of the 'nice counterpoint' and the merits of Chantry non-intervention regarding the Circles.
The merits of the nice counterpoint seem unarguable- but they also reflect what I consider a flaw of Leliana as a leader, which is her tendency to let her feelings define her faith. This, on its own, wouldn't be a bad thing- except that an institution of common culture and shared interpretations depends on people actually sharing those views, and not simply leading it by the whims of the leader and hoping it sticks. Things like Leliana opening up the priesthood for marriage- but only if she were romanced by the Warden- are troubling, not inspiring, because it indicates how maleable her faith is. Her faith is built on the foundation of her feels- rather than serving as the foundation for what she feels- and her changes are less deliberate and more impulsive as a result.
Leliana is made to appeal to a modern western liberal audience. I totally get that. I'm not sure it will work so well in the context of Thedas, however- and that it won't make things worse, because I see relatively little to suggest she's thought through the possibility of bad consequences, other than by resolving them with murder of dissidents. Opening up the Chantry to the elves and re-canonizing Shartan sounds great to a western liberal anti-racism ideology- but where has she shown to have done the work on considering the impacts, on elves, even if she thinks it will still be worth it? Has she even seriously considered why Shartan may have been removed in the first place- to question if there was something more than senseless racism and bigotry behind it?
My suspicion? She didn't see any reason not to change, or didn't give it much thought.
There's a quote from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing, in the chapter entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity”:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
In my view, Leliana, with her emotion-driven politics, is the 'more modern' type of reformer. I actually agree that a lot of her reforms would not only be nice to have, but actual reforms: opening up the chantry to all races being one of them.
But the danger of modern-types of reformers is that because they don't see any reason to keep a fence, they assume there isn't one, and expect others to adopt their viewpoint and accept their changes in perpetuity.
Why- besides murder-knives in the dark- should anyone expect Leliana's reforms to stick during the next Divine's reign? If Leliana could change doctrine to suit her whims and preferences- why can't the next divine change doctrine again? It can't be on the moral authority of Divine Leliana overshadowing all others- and so it'll come down to political costs of roll back and/or other changes. And that's a gamble on the social acceptance of the reforms- that people won't want to change them back- that's neither well thought out here, and an appeal to the tyrrany of the majority anyways. If Leliana's emotionally-reasoned reforms don't stick, then the roll-back on popular emotion could be even worse.
This is why I'm far more supportive of Cassandra's careful gradualism- an approach that makes fewer of the massive changes but doesn't lose the popular legitimacy and support- as the better path to reform. Far less prone to rollback, and the advantage of gradualism is that it's better at helping bring the acceptance of the reforms.
As for the merits of non-internvention of the Circles-
I view the single greatest merit of the Circles being that they have made the mages an international, rather than national, concern. Countries don't manage, or count, or gather mages as a resource for competitive advantage- and that's very, very good for everyone involved. But it also depends on the Chantry being the ultimate arbiter of mage issues, so that countries don't have to stick in.
I certainly agree on the merits of keeping a refrained hand- though it's not always successful. Vivienne, who allows a rival but is committed to the Circle, has a more peaceful time than Cassandra, who is presumably more even-handed. But an absent hand is not a free hand- and if Leliana's approach to the mages (as seems likely) is 'they're free to do whatever they want,' with her only stepping in if they do something she really doesn't want them having done, then issues with the inter-mage conflict will be worse. You could let them sort it out themselves... but the last time the Chantry took that much of a hands-off on the Circles, the Mages and Templars tore eachother half apart.
Of course Cassandra's comment is a lot about what Leliana and Vivienne project as Divine. Perhaps she doesn't know about Leliana's behind the scenes manipulations or if she does she perceives it as "for the greater good". Contrast this to Vivienne's support of a system that Cassandra feels failed and her more open crushing of rebellion. And if she claims that Vivienne is perverting the intent of the Chant of Light that's something to take note of. I would also note that Sera offers her aid to Cassandra and Leliana, but conspicuously not to Vivienne. Perhaps she just doesn't like Vivienne, but perhaps she has a legitimate concern that Vivienne isn't going to look out for the 'little people' during her time as Divine - not that Sera is necessarily the best judge of character but who knows? She hears things.
There's no 'perhaps' about it- Vivienne and Sera loathe eachother.
Going from their dialogue, though, Sera doesn't justify it on grounds of Vivienne abusing the staff- so you're back to inventing justifications.
Ultimately we'll see how it turns out but I don't have high hopes for Vivienne's term - not that I have tremendously high hopes for Leliana's either, it's possible all her reforms will be undone the minute she dies and a new Divine steps in.
I agree- see above.
Why- besides murder-knives in the dark- should anyone expect Leliana's reforms to stick during the next Divine's reign? If Leliana could change doctrine to suit her whims and preferences- why can't the next divine change doctrine again? It can't be on the moral authority of Divine Leliana overshadowing all others- and so it'll come down to political costs of roll back and/or other changes. And that's a gamble on the social acceptance of the reforms- that people won't want to change them back- that's neither well thought out here, and an appeal to the tyrrany of the majority anyways. If Leliana's emotionally-reasoned reforms don't stick, then the roll-back on popular emotion could be even worse.
There's not really any indication that the majority of the Chantry would care. Mother Giselle, our only real viewpoint character on the Chantry itself, quite openly states that the racial and gender restrictions on the priesthood are political and not theologically sound. Even as far back as DAO, Mother Perpetua is quite open about the Canticle of Shartan being stricken for political reasons. Moreover, Leliana's opponents all have to rely on factionalism and threats of schism in their opposition, not attempting to sway the majority of the Chantry against her; really, the Chantry was already moving in Leliana's direction, and Leliana only needs to give it a slightly harder shove.
(Of course, it's possible that everyone who was both conservative and had enough power to keep this in place died in the Conclave explosion, which is just one more component of my point of view that Corypheus was actually good for Thedas, though I don't expect anyone else to actually share that.)
I question the notion that gradualism makes reforms more likely to stick. If you just nibble at a problem and don't address the major underlying problems, then the odds are that things will simply drift back to the status quo.
Also, "never let a good crisis go to waste". The established order of the Chantry has been smashed, and that gives an opportunity to rebuild in a new way. If you waste that opportunity, then a few years later you may well find that it's much harder to make even small reforms.
I don't imagine that Leliana's reforms would survive her death now, but she's young for her position. If she can live and stay in post for a few decades, then her Chantry will be the new normal. A generation will have grown up listening to the Canticle of Shartan, and by then she should have got her own supporters into a strong position for the next Conclave.
Briala ruling through Gaspard has a pretty big chance of snapping back badly though. Her grasp on power is way too tenuous for what she's trying to do - if nothing else, Gaspard is old and her blackmail will be meaningless once he dies.
Briala ruling through Gaspard has a pretty big chance of snapping back badly though. Her grasp on power is way too tenuous for what she's trying to do - if nothing else, Gaspard is old and her blackmail will be meaningless once he dies.
Also that opponents to Gaspard making radical changes because of Briala don't openly attack because of the Inquisition's power, which either disbands or relinquishes much of that power.
I question the notion that gradualism makes reforms more likely to stick. If you just nibble at a problem and don't address the major underlying problems, then the odds are that things will simply drift back to the status quo.
Also, "never let a good crisis go to waste". The established order of the Chantry has been smashed, and that gives an opportunity to rebuild in a new way. If you waste that opportunity, then a few years later you may well find that it's much harder to make even small reforms.
I don't imagine that Leliana's reforms would survive her death now, but she's young for her position. If she can live and stay in post for a few decades, then her Chantry will be the new normal. A generation will have grown up listening to the Canticle of Shartan, and by then she should have got her own supporters into a strong position for the next Conclave.
Well, Archon Hessarian tried to reform the Imperium after Andraste's Exalted March. Sadly, aside from the end of Old God worship and conversion to the Chantry, little of it survived him.
If Leliana reigns for a good long time, and has a successor with similar views, perhaps her views will genuinely take root. But remember, the Canticle of Shartan was an accepted part of CHantry teachings for a century before it was stricken as Dissonant. It would take more than a religious or political shift to make such changes last, it would have to be social and cultural as well. That was Hessarian's failing: Tevinter culture overrode his politics.
I didn't say that she supported the College because of the Game, or because she held her rivals in high esteem. I said that her supporting the formation of the College was an example of her listening to others- which is a dynamic the Game encourages.
If Vivienne did not listen to others- ie, the Inquisitor- then she would not have done so.
On it's own, no. In conjunction with her, you know, supporting a rival by allowing and sanctioning it's creation of a rival institution she thinks is better?
'Grudging' it may be, but support for a rival it also is.
So that's it? Does her support for a rival make her less of a tyrant regardless of her motivation? I know we cannot ascribe any particular motivation to Vivienne's actions - except the somewhat ambiguous "mark of her regard for the Inquisition" - but that doesn't mean Cassandra does not have legitimate criticisms.
If you wish to headcanon that Vivienne is only allowing the College to ensure that it fails, that's your perogative. But it's still you assigning a motive that Vivienne does not express, and no one in-universe has assigned to her. Vivienne may not think the College will succeed- but that's not the same as ensuring it fails by sabotage. And certainly allowing it to exist and operate itself can't be a criteria of how one intends to 'ensure that if fails'- that would take all agency away from the College. If they fail, it instantly becomes Vivienne's fault.
You're also mis-using 'legitimate' rival in the context I'm discussing. 'Legitimate' isn't a measure of relative strength- like your apparent appeal to a 'true' rival that could give her dififculty- but a reflection of the relationship between an institution and its source of authority and role. In Andrastian Thedas, one of those sources is the Chantry- and it's by the Chantry's sanction that the College is a legitimate institution, even if it's not as powerful as the Circles.
I'm not headcanoning anything. I'm merely providing possible reasons, that I feel are not implausible, for why Cassandra may have declared her a tyrant, or accused her of perverting the Chant of Light. Motivations are not ascribed to any of Vivienne's actions, but such a motivation is not unprecedented within the Game she loves so much - note Celene's attempt to discredit Gaspard. Ultimately I trust Cassandra's honesty and judge of character. If she feels that Vivienne is a tyrant, or perverting the Chant of Light, then I feel there's some legitimacy to that. By contrast as much as I like Vivienne, she's not someone I would trust not to do these things.
How is allowing the College to exist independently and with self-governance not the perfect chance to discredit the concept of mage self-governance? If the College fails Vivienne can hold Circles up as the only valid option. And sabotaging the College is the perfect way to do that, why would Vivienne be blamed (unless it became public knowledge)? It's a simple matter to claim that she had tried to be fair and give them a chance, and was betrayed. She allows the College to exist, nowhere does she exclaim that it's existence is a good idea.
I apologise if I misused 'legitimate', you hadn't used the word before so I was unsure what meaning you were ascribing to it. I was merely attempting to point out that Vivienne is in a powerful position, she stands little to lose from allowing it's existence but everything to gain.
And?
If you're arguing that the centralization of power makes someone a tyrant, you're either watering down the charge, or it's not inherently a charge in the first place.
After all- why not bold 'Mages rise quickly in the new Circle, having more freedom and responsibility than ever before'? Vivienne having the 'true power' doesn't change 'more freedom and responsibility'.
Because that "freedom and responsibility" is framed in the context of having no real power, the implication being that they only have such privileges if they obey like good little sycophants. Vivienne being good to her pet supporters doesn't make her less of a tyrant, it just means she's smart and knows how to play the Game.
But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
I disagree- on two grounds, both the merits of the 'nice counterpoint' and the merits of Chantry non-intervention regarding the Circles.
The merits of the nice counterpoint seem unarguable- but they also reflect what I consider a flaw of Leliana as a leader, which is her tendency to let her feelings define her faith. This, on its own, wouldn't be a bad thing- except that an institution of common culture and shared interpretations depends on people actually sharing those views, and not simply leading it by the whims of the leader and hoping it sticks. Things like Leliana opening up the priesthood for marriage- but only if she were romanced by the Warden- are troubling, not inspiring, because it indicates how maleable her faith is. Her faith is built on the foundation of her feels- rather than serving as the foundation for what she feels- and her changes are less deliberate and more impulsive as a result.
Leliana is made to appeal to a modern western liberal audience. I totally get that. I'm not sure it will work so well in the context of Thedas, however- and that it won't make things worse, because I see relatively little to suggest she's thought through the possibility of bad consequences, other than by resolving them with murder of dissidents. Opening up the Chantry to the elves and re-canonizing Shartan sounds great to a western liberal anti-racism ideology- but where has she shown to have done the work on considering the impacts, on elves, even if she thinks it will still be worth it? Has she even seriously considered why Shartan may have been removed in the first place- to question if there was something more than senseless racism and bigotry behind it?
My suspicion? She didn't see any reason not to change, or didn't give it much thought.
There's a quote from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing, in the chapter entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity”:
In my view, Leliana, with her emotion-driven politics, is the 'more modern' type of reformer. I actually agree that a lot of her reforms would not only be nice to have, but actual reforms: opening up the chantry to all races being one of them.
But the danger of modern-types of reformers is that because they don't see any reason to keep a fence, they assume there isn't one, and expect others to adopt their viewpoint and accept their changes in perpetuity.
Why- besides murder-knives in the dark- should anyone expect Leliana's reforms to stick during the next Divine's reign? If Leliana could change doctrine to suit her whims and preferences- why can't the next divine change doctrine again? It can't be on the moral authority of Divine Leliana overshadowing all others- and so it'll come down to political costs of roll back and/or other changes. And that's a gamble on the social acceptance of the reforms- that people won't want to change them back- that's neither well thought out here, and an appeal to the tyrrany of the majority anyways. If Leliana's emotionally-reasoned reforms don't stick, then the roll-back on popular emotion could be even worse.
This is why I'm far more supportive of Cassandra's careful gradualism- an approach that makes fewer of the massive changes but doesn't lose the popular legitimacy and support- as the better path to reform. Far less prone to rollback, and the advantage of gradualism is that it's better at helping bring the acceptance of the reforms.
Some have addressed it better than I could already. But I do think that calling Leliana impulsive etc. is a disservice to her, she's a calculating person by all accounts even if she is ruled by emotion - I imagine one of the most important things being a bard taught her was how to do things and get away with it, the application to her current work enacting (supposedly) unpopular reforms should be obvious.
As for the merits of non-internvention of the Circles-
I view the single greatest merit of the Circles being that they have made the mages an international, rather than national, concern. Countries don't manage, or count, or gather mages as a resource for competitive advantage- and that's very, very good for everyone involved. But it also depends on the Chantry being the ultimate arbiter of mage issues, so that countries don't have to stick in.
I certainly agree on the merits of keeping a refrained hand- though it's not always successful. Vivienne, who allows a rival but is committed to the Circle, has a more peaceful time than Cassandra, who is presumably more even-handed. But an absent hand is not a free hand- and if Leliana's approach to the mages (as seems likely) is 'they're free to do whatever they want,' with her only stepping in if they do something she really doesn't want them having done, then issues with the inter-mage conflict will be worse. You could let them sort it out themselves... but the last time the Chantry took that much of a hands-off on the Circles, the Mages and Templars tore eachother half apart.
I wouldn't necessarily say it placed the mages, or templars, out of the hands of national concerns, the ties between the Chantry and Orlais are too tight for that to ever happen, but I don't dispute that the Circle did well at it's inception and for the next few centuries.
Was it the Chantry's hands-off approach or their influence on the situation? The templars felt the Chantry owed them allegiance and felt betrayed, the mages felt oppressed, not just by the templars but the Chantry as well. The Chantry tried to mediate between the two and failed, they were never going to win, but it was a scenario of their own making.
This way, from the College's inception, the Chantry can remain neutral in a way it couldn't before, without expectation and feelings of betrayal. And the scenario is different, the issue is between mages themselves, it's no longer templar vs. mage which (I think) takes much of the hostility out of it.
There's no 'perhaps' about it- Vivienne and Sera loathe eachother.
Going from their dialogue, though, Sera doesn't justify it on grounds of Vivienne abusing the staff- so you're back to inventing justifications.
True. Again I guess it depends on how much you trust Sera's judge of character.
There's not really any indication that the majority of the Chantry would care. Mother Giselle, our only real viewpoint character on the Chantry itself, quite openly states that the racial and gender restrictions on the priesthood are political and not theologically sound. Even as far back as DAO, Mother Perpetua is quite open about the Canticle of Shartan being stricken for political reasons. Moreover, Leliana's opponents all have to rely on factionalism and threats of schism in their opposition, not attempting to sway the majority of the Chantry against her; really, the Chantry was already moving in Leliana's direction, and Leliana only needs to give it a slightly harder shove.
(Of course, it's possible that everyone who was both conservative and had enough power to keep this in place died in the Conclave explosion, which is just one more component of my point of view that Corypheus was actually good for Thedas, though I don't expect anyone else to actually share that.)
Dodging the question, Xil- the question isn't 'would', but 'could.' If Leliana's changes to theological doctrine are a matter of whim, then all that prevents a rollback is the whim of the next divine.
Strongman social reforms- that a single enlightened ruler can change culture singlehandidly- are less than a proven historical occurance.
Because you're lying about their role. Pretending that they're ordinary guards is lying to the people they're supposed to be protecting and serving, namely mages.
Er, no. City guards role is to protect the interests of the lord of the city. you keep thinking of Thedas as a modern day state but no city guard is being paid from the coffers of the average citizen (there isn't a national tax or anything like that - TRADERS/Merchants/Ships are probably taxed but not the average citizen).
In most cases, this means keeping the city free of crime so that business can flourish and thus the lord of the city can collect tax revenues. Remember, apparently the colleges are independent of any secular nation and thus why would say Neverra feel any need to isten to what the college of enchanters says when it is outfitting its guards?
And this is Neverra who is literally next door to Tevinter who honestly should be the first nation creating their own templar forces. The games make mention of the Orlais and Tevinter border but quite frankly, looking at the map any attack from Tevinter is going to come through either Neverra or the Marcher states.
Why would the Chantry not have guards just because it no longer has templars? In fact, using the templars for both military and law enforcement was one of the Chantry's worst ideas, and having a non-templar military would be much better.
Ok, this makes no sense. A non-templar force would actually be MORE expensive than the Templars. Templars weren't paid and in the vast majoirty of cases, didn't have a family to take care of. Remember, Aveline herself said thatt he only reason she could marry Wesley was that she and Wesley showed that she could provide for herself. The restrictions on a templar's personal iife while harsh actually had a benefit, namely that they were much more immune to corruption but a non templar force is going to want to be paid and given that in game we know templars individually were considered one of the most highly skilled warriors, the equivalent mercenary is not going to be cheap.
I don't particularly care about any of the Divine's reforms sticking in the future because that's out of my hands now. Bioware can have all 3 divines be assassinated and replaced by the next game for all I care.
So that's it? Does her support for a rival make her less of a tyrant regardless of her motivation? I know we cannot ascribe any particular motivation to Vivienne's actions - except the somewhat ambiguous "mark of her regard for the Inquisition" - but that doesn't mean Cassandra does not have legitimate criticisms.
Her treatment of those who disagree with her absolutely matters for depicting her as a tyrant, if we use any colloqualism of tyrant meaning 'one who cruelly oppresses dissent and rivals' rather than 'a strong politician I disagree with.' In one, you risk marginalization until you gather enough strength in institutions to act. In the other, you risk your life. Considering that the only populations the Divine can be a tyrant over are (a) the mages of a Circle the Chantry controls, or (
the beuracracy, 'tyrant' is already suspect.
We certainly can subscribe motivations to Vivienne- we have her stated beliefs, as validated by her policies when empowered, Cole's inner-self reveal-a-tron, and the meta-tool of the approval system. And we know, from all of those, that Vivienne a political conservative (in the sense of 'order, then reform) who opposes the Mage Rebellion movement on grounds both practical (how they go about it) and sentimental (her thoughts at loyalist deaths, the Tranquil, and the fate of innocent commoners not playing in the Game), even if she believes sentimentalism is a flaw (Cole's dialogues).
What we can't do is assign motivations that are not supported in-game- and if Cassandra's accusation is completely unsupported (as it is) and selective (as her absence of criticizing Leliana's murders of political opponents), it certainly undermines the legitimacy of what could otherwise be called political differences.
I'm not headcanoning anything. I'm merely providing possible reasons, that I feel are not implausible, for why Cassandra may have declared her a tyrant, or accused her of perverting the Chant of Light. Motivations are not ascribed to any of Vivienne's actions, but such a motivation is not unprecedented within the Game she loves so much - note Celene's attempt to discredit Gaspard. Ultimately I trust Cassandra's honesty and judge of character. If she feels that Vivienne is a tyrant, or perverting the Chant of Light, then I feel there's some legitimacy to that. By contrast as much as I like Vivienne, she's not someone I would trust not to do these things.
You providing reasons which are not in the game is why they are headcanon. They exist only in your head, not canon- it doesn't matter how reasonable they are, if you claim them as the basis for further conclusions.
How is allowing the College to exist independently and with self-governance not the perfect chance to discredit the concept of mage self-governance? If the College fails Vivienne can hold Circles up as the only valid option. And sabotaging the College is the perfect way to do that, why would Vivienne be blamed (unless it became public knowledge)? It's a simple matter to claim that she had tried to be fair and give them a chance, and was betrayed. She allows the College to exist, nowhere does she exclaim that it's existence is a good idea.
The issue isn't whether discrediting it is a sensible idea- the issue is that your argument that Vivienne is actively trying to sabotage it utterly ubsubstantiated. There are lots of things that are good ideas for tyrants that Vivienne doesn't do.
Vivienne never claims it's a good idea- nor does she need to. She doesn't even need to treat it as an equal. Yet you're treating these things as some sort of proof that she's forcing it to fail- in order to justify the conclusion that she's a tyrant, which is why you think she's sabotaging the College.
This is circular reasoning dependent on headcanon to start and repeat. Vivienne is a tyrant, in part because she's sabotaging the College. She's sabotaging the College because she's a tyrant. Repeat cycle.
I apologise if I misused 'legitimate', you hadn't used the word before so I was unsure what meaning you were ascribing to it. I was merely attempting to point out that Vivienne is in a powerful position, she stands little to lose from allowing it's existence but everything to gain.
Because that "freedom and responsibility" is framed in the context of having no real power, the implication being that they only have such privileges if they obey like good little sycophants. Vivienne being good to her pet supporters doesn't make her less of a tyrant, it just means she's smart and knows how to play the Game.
But perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
Indeed you are. A pursuit of sycophancy has never been one of Vivienne's points, and Vivienne reserving greater power doesn't reduce everyone else to only having privileges.
Some have addressed it better than I could already. But I do think that calling Leliana impulsive etc. is a disservice to her, she's a calculating person by all accounts even if she is ruled by emotion - I imagine one of the most important things being a bard taught her was how to do things and get away with it, the application to her current work enacting (supposedly) unpopular reforms should be obvious.
Being ruled by emotion is why she can be called impulsive, even when she's calculating. It's not a disservice.
True. Again I guess it depends on how much you trust Sera's judge of character.
Not much- but then, I don't trust Sera's sense of morals or ethics much. Too much of a short-term thinker, too little sense of responsibility, and a reflexive classest.
Dodging the question, Xil- the question isn't 'would', but 'could.' If Leliana's changes to theological doctrine are a matter of whim, then all that prevents a rollback is the whim of the next divine.
Strongman social reforms- that a single enlightened ruler can change culture singlehandidly- are less than a proven historical occurance.
My point is that this isn't a strongman social reform with no backup; we've heard no theological defense of the dissonance of the Canticle of Shartan, and two confirmations of it just being political racism from two Chantry mothers. While Leliana definitely has a conservative wing opposing her, there's no indication that the majority of the Chantry found anything objectionable in her reforms. If anything, Leliana comes the closest to returning to Andraste's original roots. Even Cassandra has no theological quibbles with Leliana's ideas, she only worries about their practicality.
Er, no. City guards role is to protect the interests of the lord of the city. you keep thinking of Thedas as a modern day state but no city guard is being paid from the coffers of the average citizen (there isn't a national tax or anything like that - TRADERS/Merchants/Ships are probably taxed but not the average citizen).
In most cases, this means keeping the city free of crime so that business can flourish and thus the lord of the city can collect tax revenues. Remember, apparently the colleges are independent of any secular nation and thus why would say Neverra feel any need to isten to what the college of enchanters says when it is outfitting its guards?
And this is Neverra who is literally next door to Tevinter who honestly should be the first nation creating their own templar forces. The games make mention of the Orlais and Tevinter border but quite frankly, looking at the map any attack from Tevinter is going to come through either Neverra or the Marcher states.
I was talking about Vivienne's proposal to have secret templars in the Inquisition.
Ok, this makes no sense. A non-templar force would actually be MORE expensive than the Templars. Templars weren't paid and in the vast majoirty of cases, didn't have a family to take care of. Remember, Aveline herself said thatt he only reason she could marry Wesley was that she and Wesley showed that she could provide for herself. The restrictions on a templar's personal iife while harsh actually had a benefit, namely that they were much more immune to corruption but a non templar force is going to want to be paid and given that in game we know templars individually were considered one of the most highly skilled warriors, the equivalent mercenary is not going to be cheap.
Who says they'd be mercenaries? The Chantry could easily create a templar variant that existed solely for military defense, not magical law enforcement, and didn't require lyrium.
Retour en haut