Nevermind that she did nothing to defend Teagan, her alliance with a hostile foreign power who annexed a territory of her host nation was a betrayal.
How could she have defended Teagan if Teagan was removed before Alexius made contact with her? And if it hadn't been for the alliance, she had every reason to think that she was going to get crushed by the templars (until they were all recalled to Val Royeaux).
Not just betrayal, what she did was treason, high treason, in fact. And we all know what the punishment for treason in Medieval times was, don't we?
Fiona isn't a citizen of Ferelden, so... not really, no.
Sex?Not just betrayal, what she did was treason, high treason, in fact. And we all know what the punishment for treason in Medieval times was, don't we?
Fiona isn't a citizen of Ferelden, so... not really, no.
She was given refuge in Redcliife by the King/Queen of Fereldan, a sort of temporary citizen. You don't actually have to be born in a country to be it's citizen
Btw, what if someone visits some country, breaks all their laws, and when they prosecute him, he just whips out the ol 'I am not a citizen of your country, so .... not really, no' How quickly will he be released?
Sex?
But seriously a trip to the headsman.
One does not have to exclude the other ....
When was it stated that Teagan was deposed before Alexius confronted Fiona?How could she have defended Teagan if Teagan was removed before Alexius made contact with her? And if it hadn't been for the alliance, she had every reason to think that she was going to get crushed by the templars (until they were all recalled to Val Royeaux).
She was given refuge in Redcliife by the King/Queen of Fereldan, a sort of temporary citizen. You don't actually have to be born in a country to be it's citizen
Btw, what if someone visits some country, breaks all their laws, and when they prosecute him, he just whips out the ol 'I am not a citizen of your country, so .... not really, no' How quickly will he be released?
I'm just saying that treason wasn't the crime.
When was it stated that Teagan was deposed before Alexius confronted Fiona?
Clemence more or less says so when he says the Venatori came in the night and cleared everyone out of the castle.
If he wanted to be what templars should be, he should have abandoned an order whose attempts to avoid corruption were pretty much drowned at the order's birth, and joined the Inquisition.
Or try to work change from within. If al the good eggs abandon the Order, of course it will be rotten to the core!
It had some noble goals. But other goals were ignoble, and they were too woven into the organization's fabric for it to have been fixed, in my opinion. Samson gave the Order deliverance and ultimately enabled a merciful death for it.
What ignoble goals were those? Not the stuff spouted to justify atrocity, but what set goals of the Templar Order are so inextricably tied to being a Templar that they cannot be separated?
Barris, to me was a "real" Templar. Meredith's exact opposite.
I'm just saying that treason wasn't the crime.
Clemence more or less says so when he says the Venatori came in the night and cleared everyone out of the castle.
Treason was pretty much what the ruler in charge said it was back then.
Also, I don't think anything Clemence said actually requires that to have happened before Fiona made that deal.
Or try to work change from within. If al the good eggs abandon the Order, of course it will be rotten to the core!
Some things just can't be fixed anymore. If they could have ever been.
What ignoble goals were those? Not the stuff spouted to justify atrocity, but what set goals of the Templar Order are so inextricably tied to being a Templar that they cannot be separated?
Barris, to me was a "real" Templar. Meredith's exact opposite.
Control of mages in the name of a god.
Treason was pretty much what the ruler in charge said it was back then.
Also, I don't think anything Clemence said actually requires that to have happened before Fiona made that deal.
No, but it makes far more sense. If Alexius had the power to evict Teagan from Redcliffe, why would he tip his hand to Fiona before doing so and possibly get the mage rebellion and the arl's army both on the alert against him?
Clemence more or less says so when he says the Venatori came in the night and cleared everyone out of the castle.
Checked Clemence's convo, and he made no mention of when the alliance was accepted by Fiona. Is there dialogue from someone else that sets a clearer timeline of events?
Control of mages in the name of a god.
The thing is that that's not their only argument for doing so. The lesser argument, which I think would be insufficient on its own, is that mages can abuse their powers if they're not educated and monitored. The much better argument is that mages can go abomination, apparently whether or not they want to (though it can be done on purpose), and apparently whether or not they're been properly trained (to judge from the fact that the FE of Kirkwall apparently went abomination, and judging by the fact that she held back the demon so that the Templars could kill it and her she probably didn't want it to happen.) Mages don't unwillingly turn often, which is good because there probably wouldn't be a Thedas otherwise, but it can apparently happen, and judging by the Codex one Grand Cleric wrote to a Starkhaven noble what can happen at Redcliffe is apparently not an unprecedented example of what abominations can do. Even if it was down in the rules of the setting that magic cannot be used selfishly or immorally (and it is decidedly not) that would be enough danger to merit keeping mages separate from the general population to whatever extent is possible.
No, but it makes far more sense. If Alexius had the power to evict Teagan from Redcliffe, why would he tip his hand to Fiona before doing so and possibly get the mage rebellion and the arl's army both on the alert against him?
It's possible that he didn't want to go to the effort until he had Fiona in hand. That said, the fact that this is your argument leads me to suspect that Fiona didn't comment one way or the other on the order this happened in.
Is that the case? Because if she had been railroaded like this by Alexius, you'd think that she'd have said so when Anora/Alistair/Anora+Alistair were in Redcliffe side-eyeing her: if Alexius had made himself the only source of relief in evidence against an attack Fiona had thought was coming right then she might have been able to talk the Crown into showing her mercy. Come to think of it, that's actually a reason for Alexius to want her to sell herself to him of her own free will: this way, it's harder to mend the fence with Teagan's boss(es).
Just talked to Fiona at Skyhold on my current run. Lots of people said she whines about being conscripted, but she did not sound upset about it at all, saying that it was actually not as bad as she feared.
Granted, I could not find her at Haven, so if she says anything about it there then I missed it.
Player Hatred of Fiona
Shrek's wife? I thought she was pretty cool.
Fiona isn't a citizen of Ferelden, so... not really, no.
It may not be one definition of treason (which, depending on how far you want to finagle it, can extend past the political definition) but it was most certainly a betrayal of Alistair/Anora and Teagan. That allow deserves blowback and speaking as a staunch mages's rights supporter, I really wish I'd be able to do away with Fiona.
Shrek's wife? I thought she was pretty cool.
A lovely woman, indeed.
Some things just can't be fixed anymore. If they could have ever been.
Like the Imperium?
Control of mages in the name of a god.
Not part of the Templar mandate. Not originally at least. They are suppposed to protect, not control.
The thing is that that's not their only argument for doing so. The lesser argument, which I think would be insufficient on its own, is that mages can abuse their powers if they're not educated and monitored. The much better argument is that mages can go abomination, apparently whether or not they want to (though it can be done on purpose), and apparently whether or not they're been properly trained (to judge from the fact that the FE of Kirkwall apparently went abomination, and judging by the fact that she held back the demon so that the Templars could kill it and her she probably didn't want it to happen.) Mages don't unwillingly turn often, which is good because there probably wouldn't be a Thedas otherwise, but it can apparently happen, and judging by the Codex one Grand Cleric wrote to a Starkhaven noble what can happen at Redcliffe is apparently not an unprecedented example of what abominations can do. Even if it was down in the rules of the setting that magic cannot be used selfishly or immorally (and it is decidedly not) that would be enough danger to merit keeping mages separate from the general population to whatever extent is possible.
None of which necessitates templars having authority over mages beyond what's necessary for anti-abomination efforts. Having people around who aren't likely to be possessed by demons in the event of a cascade is useful, but that's all.
It's possible that he didn't want to go to the effort until he had Fiona in hand. That said, the fact that this is your argument leads me to suspect that Fiona didn't comment one way or the other on the order this happened in.
Is that the case? Because if she had been railroaded like this by Alexius, you'd think that she'd have said so when Anora/Alistair/Anora+Alistair were in Redcliffe side-eyeing her: if Alexius had made himself the only source of relief in evidence against an attack Fiona had thought was coming right then she might have been able to talk the Crown into showing her mercy. Come to think of it, that's actually a reason for Alexius to want her to sell herself to him of her own free will: this way, it's harder to mend the fence with Teagan's boss(es).
All she has time to say is "We never intended..." She doesn't get a chance to make that, or any, argument.
It may not be one definition of treason (which, depending on how far you want to finagle it, can extend past the political definition) but it was most certainly a betrayal of Alistair/Anora and Teagan. That allow deserves blowback and speaking as a staunch mages's rights supporter, I really wish I'd be able to do away with Fiona.
I would disagree unless circumstances prove otherwise, and I won't kill people who aren't trying to kill me.
Like the Imperium?
That's not an organization. Maybe the Magisterium.
Not part of the Templar mandate. Not originally at least. They are suppposed to protect, not control.
Pfft. They shouldn't have been affiliated with the Chantry claiming to have authority over mages, then.
None of which necessitates templars having authority over mages beyond what's necessary for anti-abomination efforts. Having people around who aren't likely to be possessed by demons in the event of a cascade is useful, but that's all.
All she has time to say is "We never intended..." She doesn't get a chance to make that, or any, argument.
I suppose the first bit makes sense, if the mages were simply trying to overturn the Templar authority over them. I think the Circle on the whole is necessary, but if Fiona just wanted the Templars to no longer be on top I understand that much given their track record.
Is there any point at which she gets to make such arguments to the Inquisitor? Any time at which she explains or justifies herself? If so, you'd still expect her to mention it then.
I suppose the first bit makes sense, if the mages were simply trying to overturn the Templar authority over them. I think the Circle on the whole is necessary, but if Fiona just wanted the Templars to no longer be on top I understand that much given their track record.
I would say some kind of organization is necessary, but not one under Chantry authority.
Is there any point at which she gets to make such arguments to the Inquisitor? Any time at which she explains or justifies herself? If so, you'd still expect her to mention it then.
She actually goes on a tangent about how the mage rebellion had been infiltrated by Tevinter spies earlier and doesn't address the issue, so I think it was just poorly written.
I would say some kind of organization is necessary, but not one under Chantry authority.
She actually goes on a tangent about how the mage rebellion had been infiltrated by Tevinter spies earlier and doesn't address the issue, so I think it was just poorly written.
Then whose? The only other international organization is the Grey Wardens, and forcing all mages into the wardens is far worse than Circles
Does she ever provide proof of this?
Then whose? The only other international organization is the Grey Wardens, and forcing all mages into the wardens is far worse than Circles
Does she ever provide proof of this?
She actually goes on a tangent about how the mage rebellion had been infiltrated by Tevinter spies earlier and doesn't address the issue, so I think it was just poorly written.
Hard to argue with that.
Isn't the point that the mages come under their own authority? Learn to manage and govern themselves?
like they did in Tevinter?
There needs to be some sort of organizational body that has authority over the mages and can enforce compliance with certain doctrines like "not using blood magic on other people" or "no demon possession"
like they did in Tevinter?
There needs to be some sort of organizational body that has authority over the mages and can enforce compliance with certain doctrines like "not using blood magic on other people" or "no demon possession"
Hardly. Tevinter's issues have nothing to do with it being run by mages; it's oppression and selective law enforcement, like it is pretty much everywhere else.
Retour en haut