1363 réponses à ce sujet

[SugarBabe49]

I didn't mind Fiona in The Calling (she was alright) but in Inquisition, I thought she lost a few levels of IQ (Haven't read Asunder)

 

But the one thing that pissed me off - the mages in Hinterland. If you spoke to Commander Vael - he says that the Real Rebel Mages in Redcliffe had washed their hands of the mages outside.

 

Sorry - nope. If you are going to push for Freedom then you damn well do your job and keep your mages in line. You don't get to pick and choose who you want to protect. Those mages were destroying everything (including Templars - Yes, I saw that) but you know what - I was attacked just as much by those rebel mages as I was by Templars.

 

Fiona should have made sure all her mages were under her control. That was her job as a leader but she chose to wash her hands of any responsibilities when it came to those mages.

 

I understand why she turned to Tevinters (though it was still stupidity on her part) but the one thing that gets me - Fiona signed everyone over as slaves. There was no misunderstanding about that. They were to be slaves for 10 years - not just a little while, a long time and everyone would be trained in military - that is when she protested saying that he said the children would not be military (Seriously - I had a hard time understand why anyone would trust him since he smirking the whole time. Even Fiona says that his arrival was timely - meaning she had her own suspicions).

 

And if you played DA:II with Alistair as King (and met him), you find Meredith was not happy with him for taking in the Mages who fled to Ferelden (which is understandable). Alistair had made it clear that he was offering sanctuary for the mages who wished for them.

 

He allowed the Mages in Redcliffe - you can hear people are not happy with this, even Connor (if alive) remarks that he wondered what was going through the King/Queen's mind when they allowed this considering the people of Redcliffe had not forgotten what he had done 10 years previously.

 

Alexius also kicked out Arl Teagan and anyone who was not Mages - That was the starting of a problem. By kicking out the Arl - you are no longer protected. Yes - there was that other Arl but he desperate to get rid of the Mages (and if you take in the Mages - Teagan sends you a letter saying that now we've assumed responabiliities for the mages - we've to make up for their troubles. There was a frost over harvest (destroying most of it), a building was burned down and some people were hurt.) You can see why he was desperate to get the Mages out and why the people of Redcliffe were not happy.

 

In the end - Fiona had lost any potential alliance with the King/Queen they had. Alistair had even said that he wanted to help them but they've now made it impossbile. Why? Because of the people and Nobles - they would have been clamouring to get the Mages out of Ferelden for their alliance with Tevienter. And if you think about it, Anora/Alistair have already dealt with Tevinters taking the City Elves in Origins - that was a massive spit in the face to them for the Mages to sign themselves over.

 

Yes - Fiona thought she was in danger from the Templars, but she could have asked around and discovered there was only a handful of templars roaming around in the Hinterland.

 

However - we need to also consider - Alexius rewound time back far enough that he arrived just AFTER the explosion of the Conclave - BEFORE Fiona meets the Inquisition so she had no way of knowing that they were coming to Redcliffe to see about an alliance. At that point, all she had was Alexius (who had his own agenda for the Mages/Inquisitor)

 

And for the Tranquils - well, nope. I'm sorry but I fail to see how even the Mages could have not noticed them going missing. They know what the Tranquils are like so them just wandering off was something that was not likely to happen. (In the Tower in Origins, they remained in the same place because it was safe). So we don't know if Fiona just dismissed the fate of the Tranquils (since not all mages cared for them) or maybe she knew about the fates. If she did, she could have protested but was under Alexius control or maybe she didn't care. Who knows.

 

Hell - Take Vivenne with you and even she is disgusted by what had happened to the tranquils saying she thought they would have been safe with the Rebel Mages.

 

I think the one thing that puts me off her (other than saying I was more lenient on the Wardens - my Warden(s) would have kicked my Inquisitor's ass if they had been there, mind you) was the fact she doesn't do anything in the game. There is no side-quests, there is no recruiting or looking for anything. There's no war-table missions. Nothing.

 

And she says that she would do the whole thing again. Which is something I find really hard to swallow because if it was me, and knowing the fate of the Tranquils, I would have at least expressed some regret over what had happened to them or said that I would have found a way to change what happened them but I got nothing from her.

 

whereas Ser Barris gives you war table missions and you can see the good he does. He brings Mages back to Skyhold for protection. He investigated rumours of a man being a blood-mage, discovered he wasn't one, and stood between the man and the mob without raising his sword. You get the chance to promote him while with Fiona - she just gets to stand around looking pretty in the library. There is no judgement.

 

So - in the end, I don't hate her but I find it hard to like her after everything, especially when she shows no regret to her actions (and if she does - I've missed it)

[Eshamae]

I didn't like Fiona before reading this thread, but the more I think about her, the more I despise her. In addition to all that's been said already: Why does she let her mages stroll around Redcliffe village? That's a huge liability for the innocent villagers who don't deserve having to deal with this bullshit. We're shown that attacking templars don't trouble themselves with differentiating between mages and non-mages. Ok, so maybe they were in the castle before and Alexius threw them out. It's possible, I guess, though nobody says so. Seems like they were in the village even before Alexius arrived.

 

I'm also beginning to think less and less of the mages who let her remain their leader after joining the inquisition. If they can't be bothered to arrange for a vote to depose a clearly incapable leader, maybe they deserve her.

[Nethalf]

Wha...? I never knew people hate Fiona. She has the cutest ears! And she's a MILF!

How can they hate her?

[Eshamae]

I think a major factor for players hating her is also this: We get to kill/judge the hell out of every other incapable leader. Not Fiona. She's just there, hanging out in our castle, being utterly useless, judging us.

[KaiserShep]

But the one thing that pissed me off - the mages in Hinterland. If you spoke to Commander Vael - he says that the Real Rebel Mages in Redcliffe had washed their hands of the mages outside.

 

Sorry - nope. If you are going to push for Freedom then you damn well do your job and keep your mages in line. You don't get to pick and choose who you want to protect. Those mages were destroying everything (including Templars - Yes, I saw that) but you know what - I was attacked just as much by those rebel mages as I was by Templars.

 

Sounds like it'd be a good old fashioned Mexican standoff in the woods.

[Ieldra]

How can you like a person who sells herself and her people in to slavery?
She was a leader who started a war for freedom for mages and then gave up to become a slave to people who practise blood rituals.

The writing was bad but that does not mean we should like a person who is weak and should never be a leader.
Fight for freedom or die that is the motto. Not make someone a slave to make the inquisitor look big.
Bioware seams to chop peoples head to make the inquisitor look big in DAI and it is not just for mages. The same applies to the wardens and Templers.

I never said I like her. You're responding as if "like" or "hate" are the only alternatives, but I can only like or hate a fictional character if they come across as convincing in the first place, and Fiona doesn't. My reaction is more like "Yeah, so they needed a way to have the Venatori get their hands on the rebel mages. Done badly. Badly contrived plot. Mark against the story. Move on."

And in fact, it isn't quite as bad if you assume Fiona was mind-controlled. It's how I rationalized her incomprehensible behaviour.

[SnakeCode]

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.

And Alexius and Arl Wulf are? So much confirmation bias in all of the arguments you've put forward in this thread.

[earl of the north]

If Fiona's only option is to effectively give up, why doesn't she agree to rejoin the Circles, this would cut of any justification the Templars had for attacking the Redcliffe mages, the Fereldan nobility could take up temporary control of the Mages until the Chantry could be reorganised and if the Templars invade Fereldan in force, they would lose all support as they would be attacking the Mages, Chantry and Fereldan.....or is slavery to Tevinter, the use of children as soldiers and the slaughter of the Tranquil the better option than the Circle system?

[Eshamae]

You know what would be fun? Making Fiona Vivienne's assistant. *evil grin*

Vivienne would have a blast.

 

"Fiona, darling, what ARE you wearing? This won't do, as my assistant you reflect upon me. Let's have a look at your wardrobe." Vivienne proceeds to throw out Fiona's entire wardrobe and have it converted into horse covers.

 

"Fiona, there's a tear in my dress. Be a dear an mend it."

 

"Is that how you light a fire, Fiona? I seem to have forgotten how flawed your technique is. Clearly a consequence of your years of absence from a circle. How fortunate for you that you have me to correct you, before you embarass yourself any further in public."

[Steelcan]

If Fiona's only option is to effectively give up, why doesn't she agree to rejoin the Circles, this would cut of any justification the Templars had for attacking the Redcliffe mages, the Fereldan nobility could take up temporary control of the Mages until the Chantry could be reorganised and if the Templars invade Fereldan in force, they would lose all support as they would be attacking the Mages, Chantry and Fereldan.....or is slavery to Tevinter, the use of children as soldiers and the slaughter of the Tranquil the better option than the Circle system?

after you've declared independence and gone on a war of revolution, surrendering and agreeing to going back to the way things were is usually off the table.  It might have been a dictate of a peace if the templars had crushed the rebellion, but I don't think any of them ever considered it.

 

It might also have just been a matter of pride

[Don Lionheart]

If Fiona's only option is to effectively give up, why doesn't she agree to rejoin the Circles, this would cut of any justification the Templars had for attacking the Redcliffe mages, the Fereldan nobility could take up temporary control of the Mages until the Chantry could be reorganised and if the Templars invade Fereldan in force, they would lose all support as they would be attacking the Mages, Chantry and Fereldan.....or is slavery to Tevinter, the use of children as soldiers and the slaughter of the Tranquil the better option than the Circle system?

 

after you've declared independence and gone on a war of revolution, surrendering and agreeing to going back to the way things were is usually off the table.  It might have been a dictate of a peace if the templars had crushed the rebellion, but I don't think any of them ever considered it.

 

It might also have just been a matter of pride

 

The second point effectively answers the first, but I do have something to add.  The Circles, at this point in time, were not there to rejoin.  Period.  The Templars, having left the Chantry, and the mages, having rebelled, destroyed whatever Circles there might have been with one of them remaining.  So, had the Templars not splintered, they may have been able to go back.  Had the Templars revolted (and the entire plot would have been...reversed?  At least different), it may have been possible.  But with both of them gone, the Circles were no more.  The only way to return to status quo would have been to have the fight drawn to such a stalemate that they both gave up, or the Templars crushed the mages and they were unbelievably lenient to the degree that Alistair/Anora allowing the Templars to invade and slaughter the mages and their people in Redcliffe to get to the mages would be more believable, and the terms of surrender were returning to the way things were.  And, honestly, the way that some mages lived, people indebted to the people of Tevinter for a limited duration may be a more attractive option than living in a Circle forever.

[Fearsome1]

I've read all of the DA novels including The Calling, and recruited the mages a couple of times in Inquisition. That being said, I fail to understand why Fiona has a bad rap from some players? I didn't see any reason to dislike her and in fact, would have enjoyed seeing her play a more active role after arriving at Skyhold. Why the designated face of whichever group you allied with [Fiona or Barris] did not factor in at the Temple of Sacred Ashes when the Inquisitor sealed the Breach is beyond me?

 

The decision why either of those characters isn't included in that cut scene is one of several peculiar aspects of an otherwise terrific game?

[Iakus]

I still believe that people's hate for Fiona is not rooted in her decisions at Redcliffe. If you want to hate someone, you will always find reasons, but in the end it has more to do with you than with the character.

Yes, the Venatori takeover in Redcliffe feels contrived, but I'd rather blame the writers for that.

 

Perhaps unfortunately for me, I never read The Calling.  So all I have to judge her by is Asunder and DAI. So I'm not left with a very impressive look at her decision-making skills.

[Steelcan]

The Circles are still in operation under Vivienne and her loyalists, and the Ostwick circle was not part of the rebellion

[Iakus]

The Circles are still in operation under Vivienne and her loyalists, and the Ostwick circle was not part of the rebellion

 

My understanding was Montsimmard was the last loyal Circle, made up of those from the other Circles who didn't rebel>

[MisterJB]

The funny part is that the bolded never happened.

 

According to her, the mages were losing badly which is probably true considering they had been reduced to scattered small groups with no central leadership and the main group which was composed both of combatants and non and had no base of operations beyond what was mercifully granted to them by sympathetic non-mage monarchs and that could be revoked whenever they felt like it while the Templars were beholden to no one, composed of nothing but combatants, had, at least, one impressive fortress and lyrium reserves.
 

[Aimi]

Was the RPF actually allowed to enter any of the Western Nations in question? Because the thing that had me convinced that Anora or Alistair or both intended to protect the mages from the Templars was the idea that if they didn't view fighting the Templars as an acceptable outcome, they wouldn't have made clear that the mages were welcome in Redcliffe; the most sure way of avoiding problems with the Templars (who are by this point completely off the rails and acting in a way that even their former allies and former superiors cannot predict or control) would be to just keep the whole thing out of their borders.

Oh, let me clarify.

The Great Lakes crisis erupted following the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Following the revelations of the horrors perpetuated by the Hutu Power regime there, the (predominantly Tutsi) RPF launched a liberation campaign from exile in Uganda and successfully reconquered the country. Hundreds of thousands of Hutu fled Rwanda for refugee camps in neighboring Zaire as the RPF's victory march continued.

Zaire was already a borderline failed state under the leadership of Mobutu Sese Seko, an arguably senile dictator entrenched in power since the 1960s. The military might that had kept Mobutu in power in Kinshasa was fading, especially with the end of the Cold War; the American government no longer felt it expedient to help prop him up as a bulwark against World Communism. So as Hutu streamed into the eastern reaches of his country, Mobutu totally lacked the power to do anything about them. Instead, he seems to have thought that the Hutu (which included major chunks of the old Hutu Power regime's military) would act as a sort of buffer between his territory and the newly resurgent Tutsi. He had never managed to exercise control over the Kivu Provinces in the east at the best of times; they were heavily populated but distant from the capital in a country whose infrastructure had never even been good enough to start crumbling. So he offered the Hutu shelter, and the token aid and sanction that was all he really had to give, and tried to let his new friends run the fractious Kivus in his name.

The RPF-led Rwandan state correctly pointed out on the international stage that this meant Mobutu was effectively harboring génocidaires, and that those men needed to be made accountable for the horrors of the Hutu Power regime. There was also a not-so-subtle tinge of accusation toward the Western countries; the Hutu regime in Rwanda had not been effectively dealt with by UN peacekeepers in the country at the time, and there were darker murmurs that the French government had even backed Hutu Power despite knowing about the Interahamwe massacres. The Americans, British, and so on had eventually come in on the side of the RPF after it became embarrassingly clear who was doing what to whom, but apart from giving official statements of support the Western powers had done little. The international tribunal set up to prosecute Hutu Power war criminals came up with virtually no indictments, let alone trials. When Paul Kagame and the RPF started to accuse the West of coddling mass murderers and dictators, there was not a little bit of truth in the accusation, and a growing sense of guilt over their inaction.

To make matters worse, the Kivu Provinces exploded in their own civil war, between Tutsi refugees that had come there fleeing the genocide in 1994 on the one side and Hutu refugees that had come fleeing the collapse of the Hutu Power regime on the other. Mobutu, wary of losing his buffer, gave direct military assistance to the Hutu forces. In retaliation, Rwandan proxies and even the RPF itself began covertly supporting the Tutsi refugee community in the area, and eventually, in 1996, successfully assembled a grand central African coalition to destroy the derelict Mobutu regime.

The subsequent story of the bloodiest conflict in African history - and the most destructive one in the entire world since 1949 - would be veering even further from the original point. But the comparison I was making is this: as RPF troops swarmed into eastern Zaire, they enjoyed considerable support from Western powers, including on at least one occasion American Air Force air-dropped supplies. Western-administrated UN refugee camps, housing Hutu and Tutsi alike, were targeted by the RPF in a massive revenge campaign against the génocidaires. UN administrators, already out of their depth trying to keep the camps running, could do nothing but stand by while the RPF and associated groups massacred the refugees. Western governments, including America's, were aware of these atrocities, at least in the broadest outline of their form, and apparently considered them a sort of balancing-out act for what had happened in 1994. The RPF's campaign to unseat Mobutu - and slaughter Hutu - could not have been successful without outside logistical support, and that support was provided in spades by the same countries that helped to fund the Hutu refugee camps that were targeted.

So no, the Americans did not let Rwandan forces onto US soil to murder refugees. It is not a one-to-one comparison with what Ferelden did during the mage-templar war. (Or rather, did not do; I also think that the claim that Ferelden backed the Templars is absurd.) If anybody fit the description of your actual post, it was Mobutu, who accepted Tutsi refugees into Zaire in 1994 and promptly allowed the Hutu refugees who came in after them to instigate a second slaughter. And I don't think Alistair and/or Anora is anything like Mobutu.

[ThreeF]

Fiona likes the idea of "rebellion" but doesn't see beyond the idea, she is the most dangerous kind of leader.

[X Equestris]

Fiona likes the idea of "rebellion" but doesn't see beyond the idea, she is the most dangerous kind of leader.

Yes, that contradiction is part of her character annoys me. Freedom is important enough for her to rebel over, but when things get tough, it isn't important enough to die for.

[ThreeF]

Yes, that contradiction is part of her character annoys me. Freedom is important enough for her to rebel over, but when things get tough, it isn't important enough to die for.

 

Not only that, realistically speaking rebellions that have leaders such as Fiona are doomed from the start, because such leaders don't see the practical side of the thing and typically have no plan besides "lets rebel". Historically all such rebellions ended up in failure with heavy losses. The fact that because of IQ mages can get out of the mess she created alive is a dumb luck.

[KaiserShep]

The Circles are still in operation under Vivienne and her loyalists, and the Ostwick circle was not part of the rebellion

 

The Ostwick Circle did rebel. Its senior enchanter was killed by one of her students, according to Vivienne.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Merely a possibility, as I said before.  All things must be taken into consideration, after all.  I'm not sure about B, but I doubt it was being "forced" into the village by Teagan so much as it would have been 100s or more mages would not all fit inside one castle.

 

 

The only point I was making is that the Inquisition was in no different a situation than the Templars were, nor the mages for that matter, when it comes to someplace they're allowed to be.  We just set up camp in Haven (I believe there's a War Table mission about the guy who controls having not being happy about that, as a matter of fact), like the Templars and mages both just set up camps.  Mages had a more legal right than any of the others because they were granted sanctuary at Redcliffe, come to think of it.  The reason I drew the comparison is that we, the Inquisition, were going into sovereign nations' land with goals in mind, and, given, our goals were not to wipe out a particular faction, but we killed our fair share of people, and did not face any military resistance as a military organization (like the Templars) for entering Ferelden (or anywhere, actually).  This was all in reference to your point about not being allowed to have the group that you're fleeing from follow you into the country providing sanctuary.

A: Castles were meant to fit an entire village full of people. If there's room in the village for the mages, there's probably room in the castle if the **** really hits the fan.

B: Yes, but does the Inquisition actually have any policies that directly oppose those of Orlais or Ferelden? That's why the Templars would be stopped from doing what they wanted to do: the Mages have been given sanctuary, and the Templars would violate that sanctuary. I can see room for the Templars to be thrown out of Ferelden where the Inquisition wasn't.

[earl of the north]

The second point effectively answers the first, but I do have something to add.  The Circles, at this point in time, were not there to rejoin.  Period.  The Templars, having left the Chantry, and the mages, having rebelled, destroyed whatever Circles there might have been with one of them remaining.  So, had the Templars not splintered, they may have been able to go back.  Had the Templars revolted (and the entire plot would have been...reversed?  At least different), it may have been possible.  But with both of them gone, the Circles were no more.  The only way to return to status quo would have been to have the fight drawn to such a stalemate that they both gave up, or the Templars crushed the mages and they were unbelievably lenient to the degree that Alistair/Anora allowing the Templars to invade and slaughter the mages and their people in Redcliffe to get to the mages would be more believable, and the terms of surrender were returning to the way things were.  And, honestly, the way that some mages lived, people indebted to the people of Tevinter for a limited duration may be a more attractive option than living in a Circle forever.

 

I believe there were still 'loyalist' mages (and loyalist Templars) who continued to support the Circles mentioned in game, if so then the Circles still exist in some broken form, unless those mages who didn't join the rebellion all gained their freedom.....but really thats not the point, surrendering to the authorities in Fereldan totally undercuts the Templars and puts the Templars into a position of invading a hostile country to continue the conflict.

 

Signing your way into slavery to a slave owning society with a history of slave blood sacrifices, has to be one of most amazingly poor decisions in history.....give it a year and the survivors (minus the Tranquil, mage children, the old etc) living as cannon fodder would have been talking about the good old days of the Circles.

[Steelcan]

The Ostwick Circle did rebel. Its senior enchanter was killed by one of her students, according to Vivienne.

But if you read the Human mage's background it says that you were sent essentially as a neutral party.

It seems to me there were rebels at the Ostwick Circle, but they either left or were put down before Trevelyan was sent to the Conclave.

[Ogillardetta]

Wha...? I never knew people hate Fiona. She has the cutest ears! And she's a MILF!

How can they hate her?

Because she led people to their death and slavery against their will and was a sucky leader that escapes punishment for her actions.