Tho he also DID say that usage of magic might also make 2 wardens have a child together too.
Because in Tevinter they would not be stigmatized. They could have a chance to be respected (and/or feared) and elevate their social status to heights unheard of outside of Tevinter. Magic is considered a gift in Tevinter. Indentured service is not forever. And everybody always works for somebody higher-up.
In the Circles mages are stigmatized. They're guarded by zealots trained to fear them and treat them as sub-human. They cannot really form relationships or keep any offspring. They have very little control over how they live and die. If they're accused of a crime, it often ends up in a summary sentence with no trial or appeal. Nobody wants to go back to the Circles.
I'm just popping in to say that, while I don't really agree with Fiona's action, I think that it was understandable given the circumstances. Considering the ever-present threat of a templar attack and the lack of any other true allies, I can't fault the decision to take an ally where she could get one. I'm sure it was mentioned that it also seems as though Alexius didn't have any intention of sticking to the terms of their agreement considering Fiona's outburst upon hearing about the mages joining the Tevinter legion.
I'm personally inclined to look more harshly upon what the leaders of the templar order decided to do, and that has little to do with my pro-mage tendencies.
Unless I'm forgetting something, we have no way of knowing what the terms of their deal originally were, aside from certain groups not being members of the legion. It's never commented on further. What I was trying to get at with that portion of my post, though, was that it wasn't like Fiona signed all of her charges up to be Venatori. Alexius made a deal with her, but it's fairly obvious that he's not going to stick to the terms of their arrangement.
Like I said, I might be forgetting some snippet of dialogue that says that the able-bodied mages would be soldiers, but I'm pretty sure it's left ambiguous.
I think I remember ambient dialogue suggesting that Redcliffe had already been attacked by templars and even suffered damages. If that's the case, then I'd call them ineffectual.
There was damage to the village because of this arrangement, but Teagan's letter to the Inquisitor at the War Table indicates that it was by and large not due to Templar action.
This is the heart of the issue. Civil disobedience is sit-ins and marches. Revolution goes a far sight farther than that.
Perhaps revolution is justified. Civil rebellion then. The rebel mages are protesting the templar's divine right to dominate them, and their means to disband forums to discuss templar abuses, and even their abuses of using tranquility and annulments to coerce the magi into compliance. It's a double standard that the templars can use violence to justify their ends but the magi can't? Since templars don't have to abide the same rules and justify violence to restore order, why should the mages resort to ineffective nonviolent means?
I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
I happen to think it's arguably worse. But this thread isn't about the Templars.
They would absolutely be stigmatised in Tevinter. First off, they're not descendants from the old bloodlines. They're inferior right from the start. On top of that they're not native born citizens. That makes them even lower on the totem pole - they had to be slaves. This ignores how they're also foreigners. They're better off that non-mages but they are the lowest of the low among mages. And Dorian quite clearly explains why that is bad.
Fiona and whoever volunteered for military service aren't slaves, they were meant to be personal indentured servants to magister alexius, and since I assume military work requires some means of self defense of warfare capability, they'd be soldiers under alexius. Show proper respect to the altus and magisters and keep your head down no laetan will dare go around bullying you. Even if slaves are just property, they are the owner's property and depending on the master, nobody vandalizes a magister's property with out consequences. Mage slaves have more utility than muggle slaves, if anything, muggle slaves are the first ones to be sacrificed. While the children and sick peel grapes and clean. When their time is up they become laetans with circle training, free to own property and go shopping or do whatever and all the other mundane domestic bliss stuff.
I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
You mean what little leadership that was left who didn't get killed at the conclave or get murdered by Corypheus's agents in the case of the knight-vigilant and possibly others as well? If so then yes the few surviving leaders of the Templars were treasonous scum who betrayed their men, I had great joy banishing the good knight captain kicking and screaming to the sea of ash for betraying his men and murdering the knight-vigilant. But the nice thing is that you don't end up with them.
I don't hate Fiona but as far as leadership goes she was extremely disappointing especially given her warden background.
I think I remember ambient dialogue suggesting that Redcliffe had already been attacked by templars and even suffered damages. If that's the case, then I'd call them ineffectual.
A failed Templar attack that neither overran the village walls or forced a retreat into the castle... proves the sanctuary provided ineffectual?
Did the meaning of the word ineffectual change when I wasn't looking or something? Heads is tails, no means yes, that sort of thing? Because in most context, the fact that an attack was repelled with such minor damage and casualties would be the demonstration of the effectiveness of protection.
A presumption of deterrance would have been deemed ineffectual by an attack... but there's certainly no real argument that selling themselves to Alexius actually benefited them in terms of deterrence against anyone.
I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
Too bad he wasn't actually at Therinfall Redoubt though. He was off dillydallying with crazy end of the world cultists.
Too bad he wasn't actually at Therinfall Redoubt though. He was off dillydallying with crazy end of the world cultists.
He still actively helped Corypheus though. You find a document that says Lucius (the real Lucius) sold out the Seekers to Corypheus, but he ended up not having use for them since they were resistant to the red lyrium.
Was Lucius even the Templar leader? His rank was Lord-Seeker, not Knight-Commander.
I dislike her as a character because it's horrible writing. She's been shoehorned into a franchise in the EU in a way that completely disregarded the Primary source material (ie, DA:O), for Reasons.
He still actively helped Corypheus though. You find a document that says Lucius (the real Lucius) sold out the Seekers to Corypheus, but he ended up not having use for them since they were resistant to the red lyrium.
Was Lucius even the Templar leader? His rank was Lord-Seeker, not Knight-Commander.
Lucius was the Templar leader post-Conclave by virtue of stepping into the power vacuum that was left when the senior Knight Commanders, Templar negotiators, and other leaders were killed in the decapitation strike. Lucius and his cabal stepped in, led the Templars to Therinfall, and proceeded to imprison/brainwash/red lyrium addict the other senior surviving Templars as part of their conspiracy to corrupt the Templars from the top-down.
Lucius wasn't the Templar leader officially, not in the way that Fiona was recognized as Grand Enchanter. He was just a trusted senior survivor of who happened not to be at the Conclave. He led the Seekers, who by and large had helped lead the Templars to break away, which was enough.
I think its important to point out that Fionna did agree to her people being military. It was child soldiers and the sick being made into military that is the issue.
Fiona didn't do anything. Bioware's writers put words into her mouth that didn't make any sense for her to say. Why would the mages, right after rebelling to gain their freedom, immediately turn around and sign a deal that makes them even less free than they were before rebelling? That makes no sense! And it isn't like the mages are thinking, hmmm, those Venatori are some really great guys even though they are widely known for committing human sacrifices and mass atrocities as well as participating in elven trafficking and slavery.
Actually, considering that each of the mages is free and no mage is actually capable of legally binding the other mages, it didn't matter what Fiona promised as the other mages could just decide to ignore Fiona and the Tevinters.
I tend to dislike her because she comes across as exceptionally incompetent. I can understand the concept of desperation pushing people to bad decisions, but it feels like that concept is incredibly overdone in DA:I. It feels like not a single leader in the game knows how to handle any crisis at all without messing up things even worse. The Inquisition feels like an organization dedicated to cleaning up after everyone finishes digging themselves into ridiculously bad situations. It is the reason my Inquisitor tends to be quite abrupt/aggressive with the different factions (especially the Wardens) he/she can't stand the rampant levels of idiocy plaguing Southern Thedas.
I haven't read the books, but after hearing a basic summary from others I can see how others might hate her more than I.
"Join us brothers and sisters. Join us in the shadows where we stand vigilant. Join us as we carry out the duty that cannot be forsworn. And should you perish, know that your sacrifice will not be forgotten. And that one day, we shall join you."
Or in Fiona's Case,
"Join us brothers and sisters. Join us in the shadows where we surrender our fate to tevinter. Join us as we carry out the duty that can totally be forsworn. And should you perish, know that your sacrifice will not be avenged. And that one day, your enslaved grandchild will know they had you to thank for their fate."
I figured her decision was 1 part desperation and 1 part pressure from the Venatori that infiltrated Redcliffe. Sprinkle with the confusing effects of Time Magic and a dash of possible blood magic/mind control and you have Fiona dealing with Alexius and the mages following her or running off to be apostates in the hills.
And?I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
I still find it surprising very few people care that the Templar leadership agreed to help a DARKSPAWN MAGISTER. Unlike Fiona, the templar leaders knew they were helping an evil guy.
The difference being you don't see any pro circle players defending Lucius Corin's or Denam's every action. Just like back in DA2 you didn't see any defend Alrik. Whereas you always see the (hardcore) pro mage players defend the likes of Fiona, Adrian, Orsino, Anders, Grace and even Quentin (looking at you Xil.)
The difference being you don't see any pro circle players defending Lucius Corin's or Denam's every action. Just like back in DA2 you didn't see any defend Alrik. Whereas you always see the (hardcore) pro mage players defend the likes of Fiona, Adrian, Orsino, Anders, Grace and even Quentin (looking at you Xil.)
I think they all have their perspectives and stories (except Denam, we never find out his story strangely and Alrik who is similarly indefensible). I guess it just depends on how sympathetic you are to the reasons why they did what they did. How important do you feel is making sure the Templars are fed "hope instead of despair"? How important do you feel the cause of mage freedom is? Personally I think Fiona's is pretty sympathetic, she was trying to protect her people, Lucius too since he had clearly become disillusioned upon discovering the secrets of the Seekers (and who wouldn't be?). Contrast this to Samson who wanted the Templars to go out with a bang or Quentin, who's Frankenstein attempts were more scary then sympathetic.
Plus it probably helps that Fiona didn't exactly know what she was signing herself up for whereas Denam, Lucius and Samson all knew exactly what and who they were dealing with.
Plus it probably helps that Fiona didn't exactly know what she was signing herself up for whereas Denam, Lucius and Samson all knew exactly what and who they were dealing with.
What makes Fiona not very sympathetic to me, is the fact that she sees little wrong in what she has done. Even after realizing in what mess she signed up herself and her people in. She shrugs and say arrogantly "I'd do all of it again", so the way I see it in order to "win" her "rebellion" she would still make the deal with Alexius, consequences and ironically the actual freedom of mages be damned. At the end of it she thinks she made no mistakes.
I'm actually more sympathetic of Samson and his insane "screw it" logic.
What makes Fiona not very sympathetic to me, is the fact that she sees little wrong in what she has done. Even after realizing in what mess she signed up herself and her people in. She shrugs and say arrogantly "I'd do all of it again", so the way I see it in order to "win" her "rebellion" she would still make the deal with Alexius, consequences and ironically the actual freedom of mages be damned. At the end of it she thinks she made no mistakes.
I'm actually more sympathetic of Samson and his insane "screw it" logic.
I think she mostly believed she made the best decisions available. She fought for mage freedom because it was the best thing for the mages (in her eyes) and when her people were seriously threatened she tried her best to save them by making a deal with Alexius. I don't think the rebellion was as important to her as the actual people in her care.
Retour en haut
