I think people boasting about Redcliffe's defenses are confusing Redcliffe CASTLE with Redcliffe VILLAGE. The village is not some invincible stronghold. Just look at how it got trashed in DAO by undead and darkspawn.
There was nobody in the village when it was trashed by darkspawn. This is because lords typically evacuate their villages into their castles whenever the power of the village to throw back an attack might otherwise become relevant.
We are not, in fact, questioning whether or not that happened. What we are questioning is whether or not that should have been sufficient, to which the post you replied to is relevant. I do not believe it should, since Fiona should have known to check with Teagan as to what their castle can take, and with other mages (or Teagan's men, for that matter) as to what they could expect to have to take. (If you intend to counter that by asking how honest Teagan would be with them, I'd suggest you first consider Teagan's habit of making clear how grim things are in the Redcliffe defense.)
Teagan is not a credible source. So it's not empirical evidence that fiona can just blindly follow. Maybe fiona has doubt but teagan's reassurance isn't enough or logically shouldn't be enough to put the issue to rest. Arl Wulf vouched for alexius and it was less of a gamble if he followed the original terms. And if we are talking about habits, josephine says wulf is a good man so how is fiona supposed to decide who is more credible? And fiona doesn't have a loyal spy service to give her an informed decision. Case in point, it is impossible for her to know better.
I think people boasting about Redcliffe's defenses are confusing Redcliffe CASTLE with Redcliffe VILLAGE. The village is not some invincible stronghold. Just look at how it got trashed in DAO by undead and darkspawn.
if the mages didn't think the Venatori would let them in the castle in the event of a siege then their alliance was even more stupid than it appears
I think people boasting about Redcliffe's defenses are confusing Redcliffe CASTLE with Redcliffe VILLAGE. The village is not some invincible stronghold. Just look at how it got trashed in DAO by undead and darkspawn.
You really think the people giving them safe harbour (protecting them) would just close up shop without evacuating the village into the keep?
Teagan is not a credible source. So it's not empirical evidence that fiona can just blindly follow. Maybe fiona has doubt but teagan's reassurance isn't enough or logically shouldn't be enough to put the issue to rest. Arl Wulf vouched for alexius and it was less of a gamble if he followed the original terms. And fiona doesn't have a loyal spy service to give her an informed decision. Case in fact, it is impossible for her to know better.
I do not believe that Fiona had any more credible advisors than Teagan. I am aware that she thought she did, but I don't understand why you think that that conclusion makes any sense. As for loyal spies, Teagan probably does have those. If not, all Fiona has to do is send mages to see the threat for themselves. If she's afraid they'll get caught, all she has to do is send a lot of them.
Arl Wulf vouched for alexius and it was less of a gamble if he followed the original terms. And if we are talking about habits, josephine says wulf is a good man so how is fiona supposed to decide who is more credible?
Teagan is also considered to be a good man, and is the one who actually knows what Redcliffe Castle can stand up to. I don't understand what you believe Wulff to have that should be considered equivalent to that. Could you please explain it?
Never said it was rational. Just rubs me the wrong way something chronic. Like Carver, but I could leave him to die in the deep roads.
Besides, she's just in it for the power.
She's not just there because of a promise of power. Not for herself. She encourages you to embody the power given by your status as the Herald of Andraste. Later in the game, she advises you to push Cassandra as the next Divine, although she is a candidate too. She's quite the rational type.
As for wishing to execute Viv', I can totally see why you would feel like that.
She's not just there because of a promise of power. Not for herself. She encourages you to embody the power given by your status as the Herald of Andraste. Later in the game, she advises you to push Cassandra as the next Divine, although she is a candidate too. She's quite the rational type.
As for wishing to execute Viv', I can totally see why you would feel like that.
She's not encouraging you to pick Cassandra. She's telling you Cassandra is poorly suited for the job by damning her with faint praise.
I dont think she is giving Cass a faint praise, she at first says the qualities a Divine should have, qualities she have, to try influence you to support her, but she knows a mage Divine is not something a lot of people want, so if she cant sway you to support her, she tries to influence you to support the second better Divine candidate on her opinion.She's not encouraging you to pick Cassandra. She's telling you Cassandra is poorly suited for the job by damning her with faint praise.
From this it seems like you're implying that Fiona being a former GW, sexing up a King, and giving birth to his baby means she should be liked. I don't care about her being a GW or her deeds as one, I don't care about her giving birth to the dude my Warden eventually has killed. She didn't have to sell out her people into slavery, she was well protected by a Fereldan Monarch and Arl. She chose to spit on their goodwill, turned a blind eye to the missing Tranquil, and stupidly sold herself and her people into enslavement. She put the Mages in a worse position than they were in before due to her foolishness of rebelling instead of waiting. She's a moron and it sucks that I can't recruit the Mages without giving her a free pass.
Nope, all that paragraph was for was to provide some background for the people who may not know her entire character or where she came from. That said, I do believe that her history has somewhat of an impact on how you should view her, but I'm not saying that she needs to be liked because of it, just that it needs to be taken into consideration. Her past actions don't justify or validate her decisions in DA:I
She had an alliance. One that provided her with a castle. As for the rest of it, nobody's arguing she didn't see what was happening as a desperate situation. We're arguing that she had reasons to know better. So I'm not sure what this argument is meant to do.
Having read every post on this thread, I feel this quote sums up a fairly common belief/opinion in this thread that I, frankly, find absolutely no support for in the game, and that is that the mages had an alliance with Ferelden. There is nothing in the game that comes off as Fiona having been given an alliance with the Ferelden Monarchy (be it Alistair, Anora, or whatever combination there of). At the end of In Hushed Whispers, Alistair (in my playthrough, so I can't speak for the exacting wording with Anora as solo Queen) and Anora come in to the picture and accuse Fiona of abusing hospitality. Anora's exact words are "When we offered the mages sanctuary..." "Sanctuary" does not constitute an alliance. Period. This means that the Ferelden Monarchy agreed to allow the mages to stay on their territory without killing them. Nowhere in an agreement like this does it mean that Ferelden would send its soldiers, risking their lives to defend rebel mages should the Templars attack them. All it means is that they won't attack the mages themselves, so I find this whole discussion asking Teagan if the castle would hold out essentially pointless. I don't discourage it, because you may disagree with me in that sanctuary is not an alliance, but I don't see the virtue. As far as I'm concerned, my (forgive me for using this word) headcanon would mean that Alistair and Anora would help the mages should they have been attacked because of my mage Warden who was friends with Alistair and Alistair's general hatred of Templars, but that's entirely theoretical and depends on each person's respective view of Alistair/Anora and how their characters developed. Therefore, the sanctuary that Ferelden provided was the town, not the castle, and the castle only came with Tevinter/Venatori taking it over and not the result of a non-existent alliance with the government.
Having read every post on this thread, I feel this quote sums up a fairly common belief/opinion in this thread that I, frankly, find absolutely no support for in the game, and that is that the mages had an alliance with Ferelden. There is nothing in the game that comes off as Fiona having been given an alliance with the Ferelden Monarchy (be it Alistair, Anora, or whatever combination there of). At the end of In Hushed Whispers, Alistair (in my playthrough, so I can't speak for the exacting wording with Anora as solo Queen) and Anora come in to the picture and accuse Fiona of abusing hospitality. Anora's exact words are "When we offered the mages sanctuary..." "Sanctuary" does not constitute an alliance. Period. This means that the Ferelden Monarchy agreed to allow the mages to stay on their territory without killing them. Nowhere in an agreement like this does it mean that Ferelden would send its soldiers, risking their lives to defend rebel mages should the Templars attack them. All it means is that they won't attack the mages themselves, so I find this whole discussion asking Teagan if the castle would hold out essentially pointless. I don't discourage it, because you may disagree with me in that sanctuary is not an alliance, but I don't see the virtue. As far as I'm concerned, my (forgive me for using this word) headcanon would mean that Alistair and Anora would help the mages should they have been attacked because of my mage Warden who was friends with Alistair and Alistair's general hatred of Templars, but that's entirely theoretical and depends on each person's respective view of Alistair/Anora and how their characters developed. Therefore, the sanctuary that Ferelden provided was the town, not the castle, and the castle only came with Tevinter/Venatori taking it over and not the result of a non-existent alliance with the government.
The word "sanctuary" implies some degree of protection in just about any definition I've heard.
Teagan is also considered to be a good man, and is the one who actually knows what Redcliffe Castle can stand up to. I don't understand what you believe Wulff to have that should be considered equivalent to that. Could you please explain it?
I can't stress it enough that the plan was to have the mage rebellion extradited to tivinter before the battle was ever going to happen. If the templars attacked redcliffe, they'd find no mages and no reason to prolong a war with ferelden in their borders. I don't understand how you can consider this less of a risky plan considering that the alternative was involving ferelden in a long war. And this plan was guaranteed by Arl Wulf, which was to add to it's credibility. so there wasn't ever supposed to be any displacement of redcliffe in the first place. Could Fiona have prevented that? I doubt she just left the door open for Alexius, it could be, but I doubt it. More likely it was one of the tevinter agents who let them displace redcliffe castle. Point is, all this talk if she should have stuck to her guns and had faith in redcliffe's defenses is moot because it was never meant to got that far. Sadly, time magic and tevinter agents conspired to make events way beyond her control which is the point, she was unable to know any better or alter events before it's too late. Can't explain it in any simpler way than that.
The word "sanctuary" implies some degree of protection in just about any definition I've heard.
I'm not sure Alistair/Anora's words hold much weight, considering the war. The mages are on the run from Templars, who all but gave the middle finger to the Chantry and were killing mages (and non-mages) in the Hinterlands (and if there's any scale to the region map, fairly closely to Redcliffe). Alistair/Anora might send troops to protect the mages, but I don't think the Templars would much care.
I'm not sure Alistair/Anora's words hold much weight, considering the war. The mages are on the run from Templars, who all but gave the middle finger to the Chantry and were killing mages (and non-mages) in the Hinterlands (and if there's any scale to the region map, fairly closely to Redcliffe). Alistair/Anora might send troops to protect the mages, but I don't think the Templars would much care.
I'm pretty sure the templars do care about declaring war on Ferelden. It's why they don't actually siege Redcliffe.
I can't stress it enough that the plan was to have the mage rebellion extradited to tivinter before the battle was ever going to happen. If the templars attacked redcliffe, they'd find no mages and no reason to prolong a war with ferelden in their borders. I don't understand how you can consider this less of a risky plan considering that the alternative was involving ferelden in a long war. And this plan was guaranteed by Arl Wulf, which was to add to it's credibility. so there wasn't ever supposed to be any displacement of redcliffe in the first place. Could Fiona have prevented that? I doubt she just left the door open for Alexius, it could be, but I doubt it. More likely it was one of the tevinter agents who let them displace redcliffe castle. Point is, all this talk if she should have stuck to her guns and had faith in redcliffe's defenses is moot because it was never meant to got that far. Sadly, time magic and tevinter agents conspired to make events way beyond her control which is the point, she was unable to know any better or alter events before it's too late. Can't explain it in any simpler way than that.
Why do I consider a plan where Fiona stays where she is and trusts a castle to protect her less risky than a mass exodus to another country that has no direct borders with the country they're in? I don't know, maybe it's because I'm prejudiced for castles as a defensive position and against large wagon trains.
I'm not sure Alistair/Anora's words hold much weight, considering the war. The mages are on the run from Templars, who all but gave the middle finger to the Chantry and were killing mages (and non-mages) in the Hinterlands (and if there's any scale to the region map, fairly closely to Redcliffe). Alistair/Anora might send troops to protect the mages, but I don't think the Templars would much care.
How does that speak to whether or not the Ferelden monarch meant what he or she said?
I can't stress it enough that the plan was to have the mage rebellion extradited to tivinter before the battle was ever going to happen. If the templars attacked redcliffe, they'd find no mages and no reason to prolong a war with ferelden in their borders. I don't understand how you can consider this less of a risky plan considering that the alternative was involving ferelden in a long war. And this plan was guaranteed by Arl Wulf, which was to add to it's credibility. so there wasn't ever supposed to be any displacement of redcliffe in the first place. Could Fiona have prevented that? I doubt she just left the door open for Alexius, it could be, but I doubt it. More likely it was one of the tevinter agents who let them displace redcliffe castle. Point is, all this talk if she should have stuck to her guns and had faith in redcliffe's defenses is moot because it was never meant to got that far. Sadly, time magic and tevinter agents conspired to make events way beyond her control which is the point, she was unable to know any better or alter events before it's too late. Can't explain it in any simpler way than that.
The plan is to go to Tenvinter to be slaves, which is about the most insane endgame to a war started because mages saw themselves as slaves to the Chantry that one can imagine.
How does that speak to whether or not the Ferelden monarch meant what he or she said?
I didn't say it had any bearing on whether or not the monarch meant what they said. I said that the Templars probably wouldn't care that the King/Queen offered the mages protection and would try to kill them anyway. The Templars already broke off from the Chantry (and far more powerful body than just Ferelden) and effectively told them to go f**k themselves after the Chantry lost control of the Order. If they have the gall to do that, they might be willing to do it here too.
I didn't say it had any bearing on whether or not the monarch meant what they said. I said that the Templars probably wouldn't care that the King/Queen offered the mages protection and would try to kill them anyway. The Templars already broke off from the Chantry (and far more powerful body than just Ferelden) and effectively told them to go f**k themselves after the Chantry lost control of the Order. If they have the gall to do that, they might be willing to do it here too.
The Templars have also broken away from their funding. Without funding, they can try to kill anyone they want, but if that person has a castle to hide in they might as well not even try.
I didn't say it had any bearing on whether or not the monarch meant what they said. I said that the Templars probably wouldn't care that the King/Queen offered the mages protection and would try to kill them anyway. The Templars already broke off from the Chantry (and far more powerful body than just Ferelden) and effectively told them to go f**k themselves after the Chantry lost control of the Order. If they have the gall to do that, they might be willing to do it here too.
Breaking off from the Chantry not the same as declaring war against a sovereignty state. Attacking Ferelden means starting a war, which they officially haven't sanctioned. Even their lunatic groups in the Hinterlands don't do that bit.
Breaking off from the Chantry not the same as declaring war against a sovereignty state. Attacking Ferelden means starting a war, which they officially haven't sanctioned. Even their lunatic groups in the Hinterlands don't do that bit.
Well those rogue Templars are killing Ferelden citizens. Don't see the army doing anything about them.
At the start of the war: "FREEDOM OR DEATH!!!!!"Breaking off from the Chantry not the same as declaring war against a sovereignty state. Attacking Ferelden means starting a war, which they officially haven't sanctioned. Even their lunatic groups in the Hinterlands don't do that bit.
At the start of the war: "FREEDOM OR DEATH!!!!!"
She is getting her ass kicked and a lot of mages died: "LETS BECOME SLAVES! ITS OR ONLY HOPE!"
And the Templars decide to become the thralls of a darkspawn magister since they think he's a god.
The Templars have also broken away from their funding. Without funding, they can try to kill anyone they want, but if that person has a castle to hide in they might as well not even try.
They have enough funding to keep some semblance of stability and hierarchy during the segment at Therinfal, before everything falls apart. Also, by this time the Venatori have taken over Redcliffe with their time magic and ousted Teagan. In any case, if the Templars did attack the town, they'd be facing the Venatori (who aren't a very large group and are vulnerable to the Templars' abilities since many of them are mages), not a state-funded and equipped military. The Venatori would have the advantage since they're defending a fortified castle, but the Templar order, from what we've seen, is simply bigger and has higher numbers.
Well those rogue Templars are killing Ferelden citizens. Don't see the army doing anything about them.
You do see them intervene when somebody actually attacks Redcliffe Castle.
Nah, you know its not truth, only the leaders who did not go the the Conclave decided it (and they died if you sides with the templars).And the Templars decide to become the thralls of a darkspawn magister since they think he's a god.
Also, by this time the Venatori have taken over Redcliffe with their time magic and ousted Teagan. In any case, if the Templars did attack the town, they'd be facing the Venatori (who aren't a very large group and are vulnerable to the Templars' abilities since many of them are mages), not a state-funded and equipped military. The Venatori would have the advantage since they're defending a fortified castle, but the Templar order, from what we've seen, is simply bigger and has higher numbers.
Which is a large part of the case that I and others are making against Fiona's decision being at all intelligent.
Retour en haut