1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Her characterisation between the books and Inquisition is a bit incongruous admittedly but I think that can safely put it down to the extremely bad circumstances (Breach, Conclave explosion, losing end of the war etc.). Everybody seems to go a little bit mad.

 

But she made the whole war pointless. It's like rebelling against your government because they banned chocolate, and in order to win the war, you ban chocolate. Essentially taking a dump on everyone who died while fighting YOUR war.

 

She'd be better of going blood mage, at least then she'd have somewhat of an explanation, like Orsino. But this was worse, much much worse .

[Ranadiel Marius]

But she made the whole war pointless. It's like rebelling against your government because they banned chocolate, and in order to win the war, you ban chocolate. Essentially taking a dump on everyone who died while fighting YOUR war.

....so tempted to make an Animal Farm reference here.

[Lumix19]

But she made the whole war pointless. It's like rebelling against your government because they banned chocolate, and in order to win the war, you ban chocolate. Essentially taking a dump on everyone who died while fighting YOUR war.

 

She'd be better of going blood mage, at least then she'd have somewhat of an explanation, like Orsino. But this was worse, much much worse .

I think it's just that at that point she had given up on actually winning the war, she was just trying to get her people to survive it. Some people aren't willing to fight to the bitter end especially when you think martyrdom won't actually accomplish anything or change the way people view you.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

I think it's just that at that point she had given up on actually winning the war, she was just trying to get her people to survive it. Some people aren't willing to fight to the bitter end especially when you think martyrdom won't actually accomplish anything or change the way people view you.

 

Then she is a poor leader who led her people into a hopeless war. There were no unforeseen circumstances, save for the breach, which really didn't do anything to the Mage/Templar war.

 

Sure, the Conclave was destroyed, but it was pretty obvious that it was gonna be fruitless anyway. Even if it wasn't, she couldn't have known that Justinia would call for such a meet. She went into the war to win, when there was no possible way it could've happened. And that too after a magical terrorist attack. 

 

She went in head first, and f*ck the consequences, which is an admirable quality to have, IF you are a dashing rogue with no one to look after. Not so much when you are a "wise" leader with hundreds or even thousands of life depending on you.

[Lumix19]

Then she is a poor leader who led her people into a hopeless war. There were no unforeseen circumstances, save for the breach, which really didn't do anything to the Mage/Templar war.

 

Sure, the Conclave was destroyed, but it was pretty obvious that it was gonna be fruitless anyway. Even if it wasn't, she couldn't have known that Justinia would call for such a meet. She went into the war to win, when there was no possible way it could've happened. And that too after a magical terrorist attack. 

 

She went in head first, and f*ck the consequences, which is an admirable quality to have, IF you are a dashing rogue with no one to look after. Not so much when you are a "wise" leader with hundreds or even thousands of life depending on you.

Believe you me this point, and it's response, has been argued before, in this very thread actually. My response basically boils down to the idea that Fiona believed that the conclave (in Asunder), was the only chance the mages were going to get to break away from the Templars and Chantry, and that's why she pushed for independence. Perhaps she should have known the reaction that this would engender from the Templars but as she states in the book, they (the mages) are not responsible for the actions of the Templars.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Believe you me this point, and it's response, has been argued before, in this very thread actually. My response basically boils down to the idea that Fiona believed that the conclave (in Asunder), was the only chance the mages were going to get to break away from the Templars and Chantry, and that's why she pushed for independence. Perhaps she should have known the reaction that this would engender from the Templars but as she states in the book, they (the mages) are not responsible for the actions of the Templars.

 

That's what I am saying, if someone were to take up arms against their government, feeling that they have been wronged, they may be even right, but that wouldn't change the outcome, they're gonna get their asses handed to them. You can't then argue, that they did what they felt was right, and can not be responsible for the actions of the military or police or whoever kicks their asses. 

 

The point I am trying to make with my broken English is that she knew exactly what would happen, but didn't care, she created a moral safe house for herself ; "I believe what I am doing is right, if the Templars oppose us, they are evil" It doesn't work like that,you have to be held accountable to your actions.

 

My ramblings aside, I really don't think that she was bad or evil, just a very poor leader. And mages deserved better than her.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

....so tempted to make an Animal Farm reference here.

I don't believe it would be entirely misplaced if you did.

[Lumix19]

That's what I am saying, if someone were to take up arms against their government, feeling that they have been wronged, they may be even right, but that wouldn't change the outcome, they're gonna get their asses handed to them. You can't then argue, that they did what they felt was right, and can not be responsible for the actions of the military or police or whoever kicks their asses. 
 
The point I am trying to make with my broken English is that she knew exactly what would happen, but didn't care, she created a moral safe house for herself ; "I believe what I am doing is right, if the Templars oppose us, they are evil" It doesn't work like that,you have to be held accountable to your actions.
 
My ramblings aside, I really don't think that she was bad or evil, just a very poor leader. And mages deserved better than her.

It wasn't necessarily a forgone conclusion though, sure the Templars thought they would crush the mages in a matter of weeks but it took a whole year of fighting for the mages to lose. I agree that you have to be held accountable for your actions but why does that mean Fiona must take the blame for what Lambert did? She thought she was doing what's right, sure the response on the Templars was predictable but does that mean you shouldn't do it because you fear the backlash? Lambert didn't have to attack the mages and start a war. There were a myriad of options he could have taken, but instead he chose to crush the mage rebellion with force. Fiona may have provoked him but you're always accountable for your own actions, so if you declare a war with Mages, regardless of the provocation, that's still on you.

[thesuperdarkone2]

It wasn't necessarily a forgone conclusion though, sure the Templars thought they would crush the mages in a matter of weeks but it took a whole year of fighting for the mages to lose. I agree that you have to be held accountable for your actions but why does that mean Fiona must take the blame for what Lambert did? She thought she was doing what's right, sure the response on the Templars was predictable but does that mean you shouldn't do it because you fear the backlash? Lambert didn't have to attack the mages and start a war. There were a myriad of options he could have taken, but instead he chose to crush the mage rebellion with force. Fiona may have provoked him but you're always accountable for your own actions, so if you declare a war with Mages, regardless of the provocation, that's still on you.

The logic for templar supporters is that mages should take any punishment they receive. If they want more rights or actually try to resist being abused, they are wrong and deserve to be punished simply for the crime of existing as a mage.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

It wasn't necessarily a forgone conclusion though, sure the Templars thought they would crush the mages in a matter of weeks but it took a whole year of fighting for the mages to lose. I agree that you have to be held accountable for your actions but why does that mean Fiona must take the blame for what Lambert did? She thought she was doing what's right, sure the response on the Templars was predictable but does that mean you shouldn't do it because you fear the backlash? Lambert didn't have to attack the mages and start a war. There were a myriad of options he could have taken, but instead he chose to crush the mage rebellion with force. Fiona may have provoked him but you're always accountable for your own actions, so if you declare a war with Mages, regardless of the provocation, that's still on you.

 

Even if the mages had won, which let's face it, was pretty unlikely, but even if they had won, what then? They couldn't have overthrow the non-mage royalty of all the southern Thedas nations, so they still would have had to live in places ruled by non mages, so they could either have ;

 

1. Gone to Tevinter en masse, if the Imperium accepted them, then they would have, in no time started dabbling in Blood magic and other evil sh!t like that. (some mages in Fiona's group didn't had any problems with Blood Magic) which would have made them no better than the dangerous malificars the chantry warns the masses about.

 

2. Fight till either every mage is dead, or only the mages are alive (the former is more likely) because they would have never been accepted by the common folk or the nobility alike, especially after they annihilated the "faithful" templar order.  

 

I say it again, fighting against tyranny is an admirable goal, but when thousands of lives depend on your shoulders, you have to consider your actions more carefully. And if 'fighting the power' results in an unending cycle of death and destruction, then it would be better to wait and bide your time for a better opening, rather than martyring yourself and your charges senselessly. 

 

Agree with you about Lambert, though, that man was nine kinds of crazy ....

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

The logic for templar supporters is that mages should take any punishment they receive. If they want more rights or actually try to resist being abused, they are wrong and deserve to be punished simply for the crime of existing as a mage.

 

It isn't as simple as that. You are looking at it, as if mages are normal people who get discriminated because of their skin color or some other triviality. 

 

Mages ARE dangerous, you can not deny that. They have to be treated differently, not cruelly, differently. 

 

The circle or its equivalent can not be optional ; those who want to learn how to handle their magic, are free to learn, and those who want to stay in their homes and accidentally set fire to it, are free to do that too. 

 

There HAS to be a place where mages are taught that, although they are capable of both great good and great evil, they still are a threat to themselves and everyone around them. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

It isn't as simple as that. You are looking at it, as if mages are normal people who get discriminated because of their skin color or some other triviality. 

 

Mages ARE dangerous, you can not deny that. They have to be treated differently, not cruelly, differently. 

 

The circle or its equivalent can not be optional ; those who want to learn how to handle their magic, are free to learn, and those who want to stay in their homes and accidentally set fire to it, are free to do that too. 

 

There HAS to be a place where mages are taught that, although they are capable of both great good and great evil, they still are a threat to themselves and everyone around them. 

Funny how that's what happens with Leliana's independent circles. Guess letting mages govern themselves won't destroy them or the world.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Funny how that's what happens with Leliana's independent circles. Guess letting mages govern themselves won't destroy them or the world.

 

The ending wasn't completely clear about how free an individual mage was in the College of Enchanters, can they leave whenever they want, is it optional to join, can you still live in your house, even after everyone finds that you are mage ? 

 

And by the way, I never said that there is anything wrong with mages policing themselves. I just said that someone should police the mages, if it is done by senior, experienced AND sane mages, all the better. 

[Ranadiel Marius]

The logic for templar supporters is that mages should take any punishment they receive. If they want more rights or actually try to resist being abused, they are wrong and deserve to be punished simply for the crime of existing as a mage.

And the logic for mage supporters is that all people are equal, but some people (mages) are more equal than others.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Funny how that's what happens with Leliana's independent circles. Guess letting mages govern themselves won't destroy them or the world.

Which we already knew, since the Circles hadn't always existed, and since even the Chantry admits abominations are rare. The vast majority of the time, mages and even abominations aren't an existential threat to the world. But just because they're (usually) not a potential apocalypse doesn't mean they aren't dangerous; dangers that won't even threaten the world can still wipe out a city. Of course, if they're making and enforcing rules among their own that minimize this danger (which I hope is the case with the independent Circles), that is to a large degree moot.

[Poledo]

Does anyone know the exact deal that was worked out with Anora or the Arl with Fiona in Redcliffe.

 

Because it seems to me they were in no danger at that point. Redcliffe (as Cullen states has never fallen to siege), so what would submitting to Tevinter servitude, evicting the Arl and townsfolks accomplish for her exactly at that point in time? If he had found them when they were fleeing and being hunted out in the open by templars, I could see her begging for that kind of deal. Seems like she had some safety to fall back on and make an informed decision when she went over to Tevinter.

 

It makes no sense to me.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Does anyone know the exact deal that was worked out with Anora or the Arl with Fiona in Redcliffe.

 

Because it seems to me they were in no danger at that point. Redcliffe (as Cullen states has never fallen to siege), so what would submitting to Tevinter servitude, evicting the Arl and townsfolks accomplish for her exactly at that point in time? If he had found them when they were fleeing and being hunted out in the open by templars, I could see her begging for that kind of deal. Seems like she had some safety to fall back on and make an informed decision when she went over to Tevinter.

 

It makes no sense to me.

I think it depends on when they were given the deal. If they were given the deal after the Conclave, they likely would have already been allied with Alexius at the time who likely overthrew Teagan to ensure nobody else liked the mages and thus ensuring they had to remain with him if they wanted protection for punishment which is exactly what happens once Alexius loses given that the monarch exiles the mages.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I think it depends on when they were given the deal. If they were given the deal after the Conclave, they likely would have already been allied with Alexius at the time who likely overthrew Teagan to ensure nobody else liked the mages and thus ensuring they had to remain with him if they wanted protection for punishment which is exactly what happens once Alexius loses given that the monarch exiles the mages.

My understanding is that she got the deal after the Conclave, and that Alexius approached her at Redcliffe. As for why Alexius overthrew Teagan, he had other reasons to overthrow Teagan: in addition to limiting Fiona's options, overthrowing Teagan came with the nice benefit of granting him what is represented to us not as a castle, but the castle.

[Lady Elsa]

Does anyone know the exact deal that was worked out with Anora or the Arl with Fiona in Redcliffe.

 

 

 

This is what it said in  Anora's codex entry -  ...they fully supported her decision to give the rebel mages safe harbor in Redcliffe Village following an impassioned speech she delivered in Denerim six months ago. When the rebel mages took over both the town and castle, forcing Arl Teagan to flee for the capital, her support among the nobility dwindled rapidly. What this will mean for her rule in the coming years — particularly with renewed interest from neighboring Orlais — remains to be seen.

 

It mentions 6 months but doesn't clarify if its in relation to the conclave/the events of the game. Still it seems the mages were welcome in Ferelden for quite a while according to this?

[SgtSteel91]

My understanding is that she got the deal after the Conclave, and that Alexius approached her at Redcliffe. As for why Alexius overthrew Teagan, he had other reasons to overthrow Teagan: in addition to limiting Fiona's options, overthrowing Teagan came with the nice benefit of granting him what is represented to us not as a castle, but the castle.

 

The Tranquil Clemence will tell you that Alexius and his men came to Redcliff two days after the Conclave explosion in the night and evicted Arl Tegan and anyone without Magic from the Castle, expect the servants.

[Ryriena]

Time travel plots give me a headache. This is why in my fan fiction I think I will rewrite this quest.

[Poledo]

The Tranquil Clemence will tell you that Alexius and his men came to Redcliff two days after the Conclave explosion in the night and evicted Arl Tegan and anyone without Magic from the Castle, expect the servants.

 

How did he do this exactly? I know we don't know, but I am baffled by it. When we want to enter the castle to depose Alexius, Cullen talks about it being unassailable. BW is very inconsistent in this area.

 

The Tranquil Clemence will tell you that Alexius and his men came to Redcliff two days after the Conclave explosion in the night and evicted Arl Tegan and anyone without Magic from the Castle, expect the servants.

 

If that's the case then I'm not buying Fiona's story. I think more that she was afraid of Alexius and the Tevinter mages and Venatori and caved in on those grounds, not out of fear of templars.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

How did he do this exactly? I know we don't know, but I am baffled by it. When we want to enter the castle to depose Alexius, Cullen talks about it being unassailable. BW is very inconsistent in this area.

Presumably they posed as rebel mages and bypassed any need to fight their way in. (If so, I think this is evidence that the mages did, in fact, have access to the castle Cullen describes as unassailable.)

[Don Lionheart]

I don't know about others, but I didn't like her because I had such high hopes for character, granted that I haven't actually read the novels, but from what I heard about her; from slave to Warden to Grand Enchanter, I was expecting someone, I don't know, less pathetic... 

 

Seriously I didn't hate her, I pitied her, to a point. I was expecting someone ballsy and manipulative and/or arrogant ( like Vivienne, though I don't know what she has done to be arrogant about) or at the very least competent. All I found was a mewling kitten begging to be saved from the 'evulz magisterz'.

 

And after all said and done, after she sold her people in slavery to free them from 'teh oppressive templaaars', after I saved her from her epic failure and still offered an alliance, she had the audacity to tell me, that if given a choice, she'd do it all again. Yeah, maybe I do hate her a bit.

 

I will admit that I was let down by the overarching portrayal of Fiona in the game having already read the books before the game was released.  I don't know if I would characterize her as pathetic in the game, so much as worn down.  She's in her 50s at least by the time the game takes place, if you assume she was in her 20s when she was a Warden, then Alistair was in his early 20s by the time of Origins, and then this is 11 or so years after that, so that brings her to 55 or so in my book, without doing precise math or exact sourcing.  I don't think we know how long Elves live in the Dragon Age universe, all we have is, that I know of, is the indications from Zathrian's First (can't think of her name) in DA:O who says that Elves are living a little longer than that had been, but that Zathrian was unusual to be centuries old.  Point that I'm making is that she's gotten older since her time in The Calling, and it's understandable that she mellowed out since then, but the fiery Mage described in Asunder is nowhere to be found, perhaps because she's been fighting for a year.

 

Even if the mages had won, which let's face it, was pretty unlikely, but even if they had won, what then? They couldn't have overthrow the non-mage royalty of all the southern Thedas nations, so they still would have had to live in places ruled by non mages, so they could either have ;

 

1. Gone to Tevinter en masse, if the Imperium accepted them, then they would have, in no time started dabbling in Blood magic and other evil sh!t like that. (some mages in Fiona's group didn't had any problems with Blood Magic) which would have made them no better than the dangerous malificars the chantry warns the masses about.

 

2. Fight till either every mage is dead, or only the mages are alive (the former is more likely) because they would have never been accepted by the common folk or the nobility alike, especially after they annihilated the "faithful" templar order.  

 

I say it again, fighting against tyranny is an admirable goal, but when thousands of lives depend on your shoulders, you have to consider your actions more carefully. And if 'fighting the power' results in an unending cycle of death and destruction, then it would be better to wait and bide your time for a better opening, rather than martyring yourself and your charges senselessly. 

 

Agree with you about Lambert, though, that man was nine kinds of crazy ....

 

I think there's only a small minority who don't think that Lambert was crazy.  I disagree with your analysis in those first two points, however.  I feel that, without the Conclave exploding and everything going bonkers, there would have been more ways for this way to end.  For instance, if they had one as you say, and the Conclave had not been ruined, the Chantry, and more specifically Justinia, would have been responsible for establishing the Mages' freedom throughout southern Thedas, as it was the one responsible for establishing their imprisonment.  Had the Templars lost, they would no longer be a threat, and the victor is the one who decides what happens in war.  With Justinia still alive and the Mages victorious, they would have figured out how Mages could live freely, and they would have made the monarchs deal with it, just the same as the Chantry forced the monarchs to allow circles (the boon granted to a Mage HoF being reversed on order of the Chantry if he requested Circle freedom ring any bells?) even if the monarch did not want it. 

[duckley]

I think it's just that at that point she had given up on actually winning the war, she was just trying to get her people to survive it. Some people aren't willing to fight to the bitter end especially when you think martyrdom won't actually accomplish anything or change the way people view you.

Maybe so, but there are always other options,
Sorry Fiona is a fool IMO