inbox.

[exsecutus]

Comments

[rathercommon]

Few?

[ Not all? ]

[exsecutus]

I'm feeling optimistic.

[rathercommon]

That's rare. Which ones d'you like?

[exsecutus]

Elise of Ayesleigh. The only one of them who has been consistent enough to bother with.

[rathercommon]

Yeah? What I've heard most people talking about when they talk about her is how old she is.

[exsecutus]

And all those years she has managed to maintain a consistent record of pushing for reform. Dramatic reform. The sort that might make a change for those whose lives will be affected mostly deeply by this vote.

If someone has a moderate agenda, and gets a fight in answer to action they attempt to take, they might be willing to take a compromise. Who's to say that compromise will be aggressive enough? I would put my money behind someone who is used to a fight, who has not made significant compromises in the name of her own ambition.

[rathercommon]

[ Thoughtfully - ]

Yeah. And she's old enough that she probably knows that she'll die fairly soon, so she probably hasn't got much interest in accumulating a lot of power.

[exsecutus]

Which is also being used against her. As if it is so terrible a thing, to have someone in power who will not be in power for the next hundred years. We should strive to impose such limits.

And yet we'll see the weak pouring out in droves to support a woman of clear ambition.

[rathercommon]

Which one?

[exsecutus]

Agathe of Cumberland, of course.

[rathercommon]

Really? But - she doesn't seem so bad.

[exsecutus]

In some ways, she isn't. But we settle then for mediocrity. For the watered-down version of truer and stronger ideals and intentions. And her ambition, which she has never disguised, means that she will compromise what strong intentions she does have, so that she can get what she wants.

If the Chantry expects to lead the people it should give a shit about the people. All of them. And that should not be compromised.

[rathercommon]

[ Argument for argument's sake: ]

But if it's a choice between mediocrity and awfulness, oughtn't you choose the former? Elise hasn't got much of a chance, from the sound of it.

[exsecutus]

Mediocrity changes nothing. Complacency is a softer awfulness. One that can be ignored. It is not so bad. And because it is not so bad, that is where it will always stay.

[rathercommon]

And is that so bad, for the Divine? I mean, she's basically just some priest, right?

[exsecutus]

The Divine can change doctrine. Her interpretation of texts and the precedents that she could set could change everything for the disenfranchised. For mages, for dwarves, qunari--elves--Rifters, if you will be motivated to care out of self-interest--the poor, of all races and types.

Whatever I think of the Chantry, and I think very fucking little of it--I would still have to admit its power. However ill-deserved it might be.

I would rather the seat be taken by someone truly controversial. For better or for worse.

[rathercommon]

For worse? Why? So people would lose faith in it?

[exsecutus]

Or rebel against it. Or both, ideally, a loss of faith leading to a rebellion. If we allow ourselves a dream of idealism.

I would see that type of election stopped before it reached that point.

[rathercommon]

So you don't want to see that sort of violence?

[exsecutus]

Of course I fucking do. But I don't trust that the violence would turn to anything productive or come to any end other than a return to normalcy. People lose their stomachs too easily. They let themselves be cowed and soothed even to their detriment.

Do you?

[rathercommon]

[ She's quiet a moment. Does she?

Well. Even though she knows he'll hate this answer, she's got to say it: ]

I don't think I do.

[exsecutus]

[Scathingly, in a tone that might better suit a teenager--]

Really.

[Congratulations, he hates the answer.]

[rathercommon]

Yeah.

[ She gnaws on the inside of her lip. ]

I mean - Okay. What is it that you want to see in the world? What would it need to get to for you to be content? Hypothetically.

[exsecutus]

To never again be asked a question so useless and inane. Tell me what you mean plainly, don't try to take my hand and dance me around it.

[rathercommon]

[ A sigh - ] It's not an inane question, or a useless one. We're not fighting just for the purpose of fighting. And we're not fighting just to create chaos. We're fighting because we want to see change done. I mean -

[ She takes a breath, and thinks a moment, then hesitantly articulates - ]

What I care about is - justice. Seeing that everyone's got the same basic opportunities as everyone else, whether they're elf or mage or human, born from a noble line or a common one. And freedom, too - 'cause justice is no good if no one has opportunities. So I've got to think, then - does violence on that scale build that world I imagine? Or will it just slow the progress?