394 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

Ser Barris knew they were using red lyrium, they just justified it as being ignorant of its effects. Perhaps some were intimidated afterwards once enough of them were corrupted, just as the Venatori intimidated the mages when they took all other options from them. But they all invited the corruption to take root. Which is a double standard as it's a plead to ignorance but the same cannot apply to Fiona and her being manipulated by the Venatori? Why? She was no more aware of their plans to sack redcliffe or brainwash them or change the terms of their deal. In the end, they were all manipulated to become enslaved to Corypheus. the Inquisitor simply rescues one of them. No one is better or worse, all fell prey to idiocy and manipulation.

Funny, I see Ser Barris take full responsibility and never trying to defend what his superiors did(in fact he's far more disgusted then even Varric is, that's very telling). Do you see Fiona taking responsibly?Nope, she simply keeps tryng to defend her idiotic choice.

 

Lets also not forget templars are soldiers, if they don't follow orders there are far more dire consequences then some rebels not listening to their leader. People seem to think templars can just up and leave, that's not how military works, more so for people like Ser Barris are not even officers.

[King Dragonlord]

The phrase she used was "you said not all of them had to be military." I assumed Alexius assured her that only the mages with war mage training needed to be military and fight in the legion while the apprentices and those who can barely light a candle become quezars shifting papers around for a tevinter Circle or some other mundane task. Yet once Alexius took over Redcliffe and everyone in the south is alienated against mages, he changed the terms of the indentured servitude to "everyone gets 10 years in the legion" leaving Fiona all

 

I don't know if this decision was a Fiona decision or if they put it to a vote and the pro-Tevinter alliance people won out. In all the cases I know Fiona, she's always been democratic and forthright about the decisions involving the mages. The mages in redcliffe all have differing opinions on the alliance, some for it, some against it but considering some of them are Tevinter infiltrators who helped the motion go along as well, the popular vote was likely biased.

Well, thats why I included the phrase "If thats true". I didn't notice it during my playthrough but yeah, in Dragon Age if you're only conscripting men, its some kind of sexism (arguably the case in modern society given the nature of modern military). But there's no mention of that with Fiona so we'll scratch that one off.

 

Yea, I think people are seriously starting to miss use the term Marry Sue to mean something compeltely different.

 

The 'Mind control' thing, for me came when we met her at redcliff and she didn't know and wondered why we where there. Then Mr. Treventor showed up, and told that she is now in under his command. Then he said he wanted to meet you. Which then said in my mind, did he mind control her to give me a msg to go there.

Well, as one of the quotes I pulled below shows, there are other terms we can use for her. I don't know if she's a Sue at the end of the day but I do know that the list on page three if it were true points to Sueishness. Again, remember professional writers are held to higher standards. It doesn't take as much Sueishness to earn the label if its in a published work.

 

"Starting"?

 

I think you give people here too much credit.

Like its exclusive to here. 

 

Its always been a nebulous term but at the end of the day its about someone intruding on canon for the sake of their pet character. Wesley Crusher is another good example and he was created by Gene Roddenberry. Nobody is exempt. 

 

 

I wouldn't call Fiona a mary sue

 

Just a special snowflake who's a moron 

 

That would suit me based on what I've heard. 

FWIW I saw a survey recently of fannish terms that sci fi authors hated and mary sue was top of the list because people do not understand it and use it indiscriminately.

Authors have blind spots just like normal people do. Thats how Sues and/or author's pets creep into canon.

[Mr.House]

That's still speculation. The Tranquil don't fight back and according to a couple sources, some of them were just left behind or wandered. They would probably seek out mages as a means to be useful, so it wouldn't be hard to round them up. And even if they took the ones in Redcliffe, that still doesn't mean Fiona "sold" them.

Yes it does. Fiona gave them free reign once she gave herself and all the other mages including the tranquil to Tevinter as indentured servants. All their lives belong to the Venatori now. If that's not selling, I don't know what s.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Funny, I see Ser Barris take full responsibility and never trying to defend what his superiors did(in fact he's far more disgusted then even Varric is, that's very telling). Do you see Fiona taking responsibly?Nope, she simply keeps tryng to defend her idiotic choice.

 

Lets also not forget templars are soldiers, if they don't follow orders there are far more dire consequences then some rebels not listening to their leader. People seem to think templars can just up and leave, that's not how military works, more so for people like Ser Barris are not even officers.

She put herself and her followers at the mercy of the Inquisition. Same as Barris. If you want her to douse herself on fire, you're just someone trying to rub salt in the wounds. she knows it was a mistake in hindsight and acknowledges it. Obviously, she feels guilty about betraying her son. It's obvious she regrets it.

[King Dragonlord]

Funny, I see Ser Barris take full responsibility and never trying to defend what his superiors did(in fact he's far more disgusted then even Varric is, that's very telling). Do you see Fiona taking responsibly?Nope, she simply keeps tryng to defend her idiotic choice.

 

Lets also not forget templars are soldiers, if they don't follow orders there are far more dire consequences then some rebels not listening to their leader. People seem to think templars can just up and leave, that's not how military works, more so for people like Ser Barris are not even officers.

 

That reminds me, I'm watching a lets play of DAI right now and Fiona said just a little bit ago with respect to all that Mage Rebellion stuff she did in the books that she regrets nothing, that it was all necessary. Make of that what you will. See someone earlier in this thread said that Fiona makes snap judgments, that this is her flaw. Well, the way to handle a flaw like that is to have a character regret hasty decisions and it seems she does not.

[Addai]

Yes it does. Fiona gave them free reign once she gave herself and all the other mages including the tranquil to Tevinter as indentured servants. All their lives belong to the Venatori now. If that's not selling, I don't know what s.

She didn't give them free reign- or so she thought. She obviously made stipulations. Anyway people are implying she knowingly gave the Tranquil over for slaughter and that's pure speculation.

[Mr.House]

She put herself and her followers at the mercy of the Inquisition. Same as Barris. If you want her to douse herself on fire, you're just someone trying to rub salt in the wounds. she knows it was a mistake in hindsight and acknowledges it. Obviously, she feels guilty about betraying her son. It's obvious she regrets it.

Yet she says she regrets nothing and keeps defending a choice that everyone agrees was stupid. Barris didn't need to take responsibility for an order that was not his, he did.  Barris has more character integrity on his pinkie then Fiona has had since her introduction in that crappy book.

[Sports72Xtrm]

That reminds me, I'm watching a lets play of DAI right now and Fiona said just a little bit ago with respect to all that Mage Rebellion stuff she did in the books that she regrets nothing, that it was all necessary. Make of that what you will. See someone earlier in this thread said that Fiona makes snap judgments, that this is her flaw. Well, the way to handle a flaw like that is to have a character regret hasty decisions and it seems she does not.

Regretting to trust alexius=/= regretting to rebel for their freedom. Some mages will consider it the only choice they've been given the opportunity to decide, even should they fail. Someone who isn't oppressed might not understand.

[Addai]

That reminds me, I'm watching a lets play of DAI right now and Fiona said just a little bit ago with respect to all that Mage Rebellion stuff she did in the books that she regrets nothing, that it was all necessary. Make of that what you will. See someone earlier in this thread said that Fiona makes snap judgments, that this is her flaw. Well, the way to handle a flaw like that is to have a character regret hasty decisions and it seems she does not.

Are you still talking about the "right" way to write a character? She genuinely believed in her cause, she just didn't have the chops to be a general. Though if the Conclave had resulted in mage freedom, she'd be the victor. The templars and Seekers gave themselves over to red lyrium, but Fiona's desperation is somehow unforgivably worse.

[Mr.House]

She didn't give them free reign- or so she thought. She obviously made stipulations. Anyway people are implying she knowingly gave the Tranquil over for slaughter and that's pure speculation.

She didn't make any stipulations, what part of indentured servitude for ten years don't you understand? You have NO rights as an indentured servant. You are the properly of your master till your term is up. Alexius makes this VERY clear. Until ten years is up(or until he is taken care of) Fiona, the mages and tranquil at Redcliffe are HIS properly and subject to his whims.

 

That is the truth of Fiona, idiotic mage leader.

[herkles]

She didn't make any stipulations, what part of indentured servitude for ten years don't you understand? You have NO rights as an indentured servant. You are the properly of your master till your term is up. Alexius makes this VERY clear. Until ten years is up(or until he is taken care of) Fiona, the mages and tranquil at Redcliffe are HIS properly and subject to his whims.

 

That is the truth of Fiona, idiotic mage leader.

but it is alright to give up freedom to earn freedom that would give mages the power to take freedom away from others(ie own slaves) right?

[Sports72Xtrm]

Yet she says she regrets nothing and keeps defending a choice that everyone agrees was stupid. Barris didn't need to take responsibility for an order that was not his, he did.  Barris has more character integrity on his pinkie then Fiona has had since her introduction in that crappy book.

If taking responsibility means deferring whatever to do with them to the Inquisitor, they're the same. It's not as if Barris sacrificed himself on behalf of his templars or anything.

[Mr.House]

Are you still talking about the "right" way to write a character? She genuinely believed in her cause, she just didn't have the chops to be a general. Though if the Conclave had resulted in mage freedom, she'd be the victor. The templars and Seekers gave themselves over to red lyrium, but Fiona's desperation is somehow unforgivably worse.

Not all of them did.  Templar's like Ser Barris where clearly killed at Redoubt before the attack on Redcliife and then you have Cullen who set a fantastic example of outright never taking lyruim again and getting past the issues itp osed.

 

Fiona wanted freedom, yet forced all the mages under her whim back in a collar, what a great leader. I give you 5 stars.

[King Dragonlord]

Are you still talking about the "right" way to write a character? She genuinely believed in her cause, she just didn't have the chops to be a general. Though if the Conclave had resulted in mage freedom, she'd be the victor. The templars and Seekers gave themselves over to red lyrium, but Fiona's desperation is somehow unforgivably worse.

No I'm talking about the right way to write a character. Minus the quotes. At least if you want her to be seen as a hero.

[Mr.House]

If taking responsibility means deferring whatever to do with them to the Inquisitor, they're the same. It's not as if Barris sacrificed himself on behalf of his templars or anything.

He does if you don't help the templars.

[Mr.House]

but it is alright to give up freedom to earn freedom that would give mages the power to take freedom away from others(ie own slaves) right?

Yes, lets give up the freedom we all fought for, for ten years of servitude.... Makes sense.

[Addai]

She didn't make any stipulations, what part of indentured servitude for ten years don't you understand? You have NO rights as an indentured servant. You are the properly of your master till your term is up. Alexius makes this VERY clear. Until ten years is up(or until he is taken care of) Fiona, the mages and tranquil at Redcliffe are HIS properly and subject to his whims.
 
That is the truth of Fiona, idiotic mage leader.

She argues with Alexius that he's violating their agreement, so yes, she did try to set the terms. You can say that she shouldn't have trusted him but that's hindsight, and none of it proves she just surrendered unconditionally and gave over the Tranquil in the bargain. People are just spilling the haterade.
 

Not all of them did. Templar's like Ser Barris where clearly killed at Redoubt before the attack on Redcliife and then you have Cullen who set a fantastic example of outright never taking lyruim again and getting past the issues itp osed.

Fiona wanted freedom, yet forced all the mages under her whim back in a collar, what a great leader. I give you 5 stars.

And not all the mages agreed with Fiona. Beside my point.
 

No I'm talking about the right way to write a character. Minus the quotes. At least if you want her to be seen as a hero.

And if you want people to see her as a fallible human being?

[Sports72Xtrm]

Yes, lets give up the freedom we all fought for for ten years of servitude.... Makes sense.

Put it in the proper context, ten years compared to lifetime imprisonment or outright slaughter as an apostate.

[Mr.House]

She argues with Alexius that he's violating their agreement, so yes, she did try to set the terms of the agreement. You can argue that she shouldn't have trusted him but that's hindsight, and none of it proves she just surrendered unconditionally and gave over the Tranquil in the bargain. People are just spilling the haterade.

Their agreement means nothing, if she really thought he would live up to her terms as an indentured servant, she's not only an idiot, shes a naive moron.

[herkles]

Yes, lets give up the freedom we all fought for, for ten years of servitude.... Makes sense.

not only that but when it is up they get to own slaves, for as tevinter citizens they can be slave driving assholes just as bad as the templars could be.

[Morroian]

Their agreement means nothing, if she really thought he would live up to her terms as an indentured servant, she's not only an idiot, hes a naive moron.

 

She didn't know who she was dealing with.

[Hellion Rex]

Yet she says she regrets nothing and keeps defending a choice that everyone agrees was stupid. Barris didn't need to take responsibility for an order that was not his, he did.  Barris has more character integrity on his pinkie then Fiona has had since her introduction in that crappy book.

Yes, praise Barris!!!!!!!!

[Mr.House]

She didn't know who she was dealing with.

She's dealing with a Tevinter magister. Anyone with sense should know that was a bad idea.

[Hellion Rex]

She's dealing with a Tevinter magister. Anyone with sense should know that was a bad idea.

Any one with half a brain cell would know how stupid that was.

[Sports72Xtrm]

She's dealing with a Tevinter magister. Anyone with sense should know that was a bad idea.

And yet people recruit Dorian. fiona just had the bad luck to trusting the wrong Vint.