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.
I mean to say it didn't. I meant that her motivation could be 1.) less than benevolent and plays into her hands, we can't predict the future after all - is she raising them up only to crush them later? - and 2.) that a single action is not a wider indicator of her willingness to disregard the opinions of others, this single action does not encompass her entire reign. And I disagree with your view of what makes a tyrant, "cruelly oppressing dissent and rivals" does not have to encompass death, in fact would it not be more fitting to crush your opponents and have them recant? Furthermore can a ruler be branded a tyrant regardless of intention? I've pointed this out before but I do feel that what one hopes to accomplish is important when considering them a ruler. If it is personal power then I'm swayed towards calling them a tyrant, if it's selfless goals then I can forgive moral lapses - like assassination - because it's for the greater good. The overall result of one's reign, I feel, is dictated by this attitude, if you're selfless you aren't going to allow justice to fall to the wayside by simply to keep your own power, if you aren't, you can do some pretty unspeakable things in the name of keeping power.
You underestimate the power of the Divine, was it not the Templar Order, at Beatrix III's behest, who overthrew Perrin Threnhold? Was an Exalted March not declared against the Dales? Vivienne has all the power of the Templar Order and the reformed Circle at her command. Not to mention she can set interpretations on the Chant, for good or ill.
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.
And that belief about sentimentalism, even if it does lapse at times, makes her seem rather Machiavellian, perhaps tyrannical - "First we execute those who will not submit, then we deal with the rest". Blackwall notes that '"Madame" Vivienne only allied with the Inquisition because she knows it will bring her power. The most poisonous snakes are often the most beautiful.' Solas notes that she "so often come[s] out on top" but instead of helping her fellow mages she has "done nothing, save consolidate [her] own power". We know that she loves "power, wealth, notoriety", but can that attitude be reconciled with her position as Divine? Are those the qualities one would desire from a powerful religious figure? Solas notes that she would "hurt what she does not understand", that she is prefers to see a traitor helping the rebels from within so she "need never concern [her]self with the possibility that [her] Circle was wrong". Am I mean to ignore the perspectives of the other companions?
Perhaps Cassandra has a different view of what makes a tyrant than you do.
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.
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.
My attitude that she was a tyrant came before the Trespasser epilogues believe you me. I believe she is a tyrant not because she could be sabotaging the College, but because I trust companions like Solas, Blackwall and Cassandra, and even to a certain extent Sera, to make accurate judges of her character. Because whilst she has shown genuine care for order and people in general, we have repeatedly been told that she finds sentimentality a weakness, one that she only occasionally indulges in, and that power is something she greatly desires.
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.
Being ruled by emotion is why she can be called impulsive, even when she's calculating. It's not a disservice.
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.
No but, to me, Vivienne holding all true power, does reduce others to only having privileges. She doesn't hold greater power, as if it is shared amongst those beneath her, but true power, as if the powers of others is nothing but pretense. What other interpretation is there?
I phrased that poorly then. I think she is directed by emotion-related goals, or sentiment, but that doesn't mean she doesn't recognise threats. It's noteworthy that Vivienne's appointment in the base game resulted in three revolts that had to put down violently, whilst Leliana's reforms inspire only small sects.
Retour en haut
