1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Milan92]

 

She does just that, in the Arbor Wilds.

 

How generous of her. Too bad it took her the entire game before she actually did something.

[Xilizhra]

And the mages will counteract the many more thousands of years of far more oppressive and exploitative bondage that mundanes were kept in by... continuing to live a quality of life virtually unmatched outside the nobility, at taxpayer expense, with even less oversight and restrictions than the national elites?

 

I'd say something about being disgusted, but this sort of bias isn't much of a surprise coming from you.

 

My dislike of claiming compensation on historic victimhood aside, since that's a never ending game, even if you did believe in such a thing mundanes in Thedas have far, far greater claim to compensation from mages than vice-versa. Mages kept mundanes in far more exploitative and oppressive bondage for a far longer period of time, and still do in Tevinter. In fact, it's the mages who continue to run the only actual chattel slavery system in Thedas, one that continues to prey on the mundanes of the South- and which deals in far more flesh and blood on a yearly basis than may even exist in the Circle system.

 

If you believe victim poker determing the current status of affairs, far more mundanes have suffered far worse for far longer, in the past and present, to mages than vice-versa.

Antiva still has a chattel slavery system. But you can rest assured that none of my ideas apply to Tevinter mages, who, after all, don't need them.

The point of it isn't to settle scores, it's to give the College the boost it needs to maintain its independence.

 

 

How generous of her. Too bad it took her the entire game before she actually did something.

It took the entire game for there to be something for her to do. Believe me, I do wish she'd have been a companion.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Prohibit industry within their territory,open legal channels to purchase mage services and sell mundane goods and I'm on board.

 

There are still some issues to iron out but, if that is a compromise pro-mages would accept, I would be fine with it.

 

Problem is, who's willing to give said land? Other than barren dumps that nobody wants? Ferelden giving safe haven to the mages is one thing, gifting land is quite another. No noble is ever going to be happy to do that.

 

It also means no mages to help when the Qunar/Tevinter/Blights come knocking around unless there's an alliance pact sealed and the mages actually honor it.

 

Plus, I very much doubt it will solve the issue. The Dalish aren't any less hated because they keep to themselves, quite the contrary. 

 

No, integration is definitely the way to go. Vivienne on this has the right idea, mages in the Chantry is a good first step. Instate a College of some sorts with compulsory magical education, focusing on anti-demonic tactics and self-defense spells. Once the Harrowing is passed, mages can stay and study further if they like, or venture forth into the world. Show people mages aren't to be feared once they have some training. Mix in a force that keeps an overwatch on the system (new Seekers perhaps) and you should have a decent groundwork. Not foolproof, but better than what it was.

[AshenEndymion]

Antiva still has a chattel slavery system.

 

Debatable.  The Crows are the only group that is described as such, but even while doing so, Zevran makes it decidedly clear that he wanted to be part of the Crows, he wasn't forced(which would make it more debt-slavery, like the rest of Andrastian Thedas, rather than chattel like Tevinter).

 

It took the entire game for there to be something for her to do. Believe me, I do wish she'd have been a companion.

 

The actions of Ser Barris' show that there are things Fiona could be doing to help during the entirety of Inquisition.  She chooses to do nothing until forced to participate in the Arbor Wilds action(and her "participation" in the Arbor Wilds is to just stand around in the main camp doing nothing).

[Boost32]

The actions of Ser Barris' show that there are things Fiona could be doing to help during the entirety of Inquisition.  She chooses to do nothing until forced to participate in the Arbor Wilds action(and her "participation" in the Arbor Wilds is to just stand around in the main camp doing nothing).

I'm not that far in my playthrough where i sided with the mage, but Fiona isn't fighting in the second blockade like Barris?

[Iakus]

Subsidization will only last as long as it takes to counteract the effects of mundanes keeping mages in bondage for nearly a thousand years.

 

Which is what, another thousand years?
 

 

 

That makes them too dependent on the terrible monarchies in power and would lead to magical arms races and the like in the future, with the College under the thumb of national governments. I don't consider this a desirable future at all, and would work to keep it as independent as possible.

 

That's kinda part of the point of the CIrcles, to prevent governments from forcing mages to fight for this monarch or that.

 

 

She does just that, in the Arbor Wilds.

And Ser Barris is leading charges against the Venatori and demons, and protecting kids from angry mobs after being falsely accused of being an abomination

[Sunnie]

The actions of Ser Barris' show that there are things Fiona could be doing to help during the entirety of Inquisition.  She chooses to do nothing until forced to participate in the Arbor Wilds action(and her "participation" in the Arbor Wilds is to just stand around in the main camp doing nothing).

That's actually an issue with poor attention to her in the writing. She does nothing you would expect of someone that' supposed to be helping because the writers are focusing on everything everywhere else. Fiona (and her participation) is a victim of obscurity. Had more attention been afforded her character, I'm pretty sure there would have been more to her in the game.

IOW, don't shoot the messenger.

[thesuperdarkone2]

That's actually an issue with poor attention to her in the writing. She does nothing you would expect of someone that' supposed to be helping because the writers are focusing on everything everywhere else. Fiona (and her participation) is a victim of obscurity. Had more attention been afforded her character, I'm pretty sure there would have been more to her in the game.

IOW, don't shoot the messenger.

This. After siding with the mages, it's possible to completely ignore her as the mage/templar stuff is pretty much over with. Don't forget how she's the de-facto leader of the mages and there are things that a leader does that don't involve fighting.  We don't have any idea of how much work she does behind the scenes.

[MisterJB]

Which is what, another thousand years?

Longer if the mages can make normals feel guilty enough.

No reason not to milk the cash cow for as long as they can, after all.

At least there is no Hollywood in Thedas.

[LOLandStuff]

Fiona sits around because nobody trusts her not to botch it.

Makes sense, really.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

This. After siding with the mages, it's possible to completely ignore her as the mage/templar stuff is pretty much over with. Don't forget how she's the de-facto leader of the mages and there are things that a leader does that don't involve fighting.  We don't have any idea of how much work she does behind the scenes.

I think Ser Barris's War Table missions prove that the mage/templar stuff is winding down rather than over; if that was why Fiona doesn't have such missions you'd expect that Ser Barris wouldn't have anything like that to do either. As for there being things a leader does that don't involve fighting, yes there are, but are we given any reason to believe Fiona is doing them?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 "Freeloading Fiona."

[In Exile]

More to the point, there's very little reason to believe that wholesale political upheaval would change things away from de-facto feudalism and towards anything better. In many cases, revolutions see a return to more feudal relationships as strong-men dominate local areas and become key power brokers who trade their acquiesence to higher authorities in exchange for perks and privileges.

Power may come from the barrel of a gun and allow for mass revolution, but enlightened western liberalism really doesn't.

That's a very fair point. Though I suppose some mages might then think they could become the local strongmen, so to speak.

[In Exile]

Which is what, another thousand years?

More to the point, doesn't that mean that the Chantry was morally right all along, by extracting payment for Tevinter's oppression? Particularly in places like Kirkwall?

If you're always asking for restitution for pasts debts you'll never be able to create a stable society. That doesn't mean allowing past wrongs to go unaddressed, but it can't be seen through the lens of settling debts.

[Rekkampum]

Hatred is too good of an emotion to waste on Fiona. I do strongly dislike her because of the glaring plothole - and terrible boss- that she is, but otherwise see potential in her.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's a very fair point. Though I suppose some mages might then think they could become the local strongmen, so to speak.

 

Having their own oversight/police force sworn to them, while being unbound and unbeholden to any national authority, would certainly help with that yes.

[Dean_the_Young]

Antiva still has a chattel slavery system.

 

 

*Citation needed.

 

 

 

The point of it isn't to settle scores, it's to give the College the boost it needs to maintain its independence.

 

 

Then not only is your rational wildly hypocritical, but it is also groundless on its own internal merits. Your claim to the mages deserving subsidization amounts to mere favoritism, not even compensation.
 

 

It took the entire game for there to be something for her to do. Believe me, I do wish she'd have been a companion.

 

 

 

If only there was some other person, a leader of a similar group aligned with the Inquisition, to whom we could contrast Fiona and see whether there were things that could have been done...

[Xilizhra]

I think Ser Barris's War Table missions prove that the mage/templar stuff is winding down rather than over; if that was why Fiona doesn't have such missions you'd expect that Ser Barris wouldn't have anything like that to do either. As for there being things a leader does that don't involve fighting, yes there are, but are we given any reason to believe Fiona is doing them?

Well, Fiona explicitly says that she's no longer the leader of the rebellion, so who can say?

 

 

More to the point, doesn't that mean that the Chantry was morally right all along, by extracting payment for Tevinter's oppression? Particularly in places like Kirkwall?

If you're always asking for restitution for pasts debts you'll never be able to create a stable society. That doesn't mean allowing past wrongs to go unaddressed, but it can't be seen through the lens of settling debts.

No, that only applies to the Magisterium. Similarly, the only organization that would give seed money to the College would be the Chantry, and in that case, it's not about settling debts for some moral reason, but rather practical ones.

 

 

Having their own oversight/police force sworn to them, while being unbound and unbeholden to any national authority, would certainly help with that yes.

Well, there's an alternative, but even fewer people seem to like it: remove any and all laws that would bar mages from both entering the Chantry and obtaining noble titles, so that they might be fully integrated into the power structure.

 

 

*Citation needed.

My (possible) mistake. It's only said that Antiva has slavery, not explicitly chattel slavery.

 

 

Then not only is your rational wildly hypocritical, but it is also groundless on its own internal merits. Your claim to the mages deserving subsidization amounts to mere favoritism, not even compensation.

In part compensation, in part necessity.

 

 

If only there was some other person, a leader of a similar group aligned with the Inquisition, to whom we could contrast Fiona and see whether there were things that could have been done...

Ah, yes, because another mage would do just as well at defusing hostility towards falsely accused abominations as a templar, and can perfectly imitate templar antimagic abilities.

[Don Lionheart]

Jeez, a guy takes a couple days off from reading his thread and it goes bonkers, adding 6 pages.  I'm so happy =D.

 

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.

 

I don't think that the Chantry couldn't be the authority that controls the Templar organization, depending on who you choose to become Divine.  Under Lel or Cas, and I think that the Chantry would have been reformed in its doctrine enough to be alright authority.  This is not saying I agree with Circles though.

 

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"

 

This situation as nothing like Tevinter.  Mages in Tevinter govern themselves in a way that would not be accepted in southern Thedas, and the fear of it happening again is sort of why the Circles and whatnot formed in the first place.  These Mages, those who are from the Circles, do not have the same inclinations as those in Tevinter do, and if you look at Dorian, not even all Mages in Tevinter have those inclinations.  Point is, you can't compare southern Mages to Tevinter Mages.

 

Well once again there's no existing organization outside the wardens that can provide for such an order besides the Chantry, religious fanaticism and zealousness are certainly going to come with the territory and it'd be hard to convince someone who isn't religious to dedicate their life to a drug.

Perhaps then the Seekers should be relied upon more since they avoid the lyrium issue, but they clearly aren't numerous enough and they have even worse oversight.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Inquisition is an organization that's not the Chantry or the Wardens and it could exercise this kind of control.  The Inquisition, while headed by the "Herald of Andraste" certainly initially appears to be a Chantry organization to outsiders, but quickly is revealed to be completely separate from it, and manages to wield enough influence to choose the Divine of the Chantry.  That kind of power is what would be necessary.  Also, the problem with relying on Seekers is described by Cas in the game, that it's incredibly difficult for Seekers to be created and they have crazy trials they need to go through that most people would die.

 

There is now: the Inquisition. It can help the College of Enchanters set things up.

 

Yes, this is what I was getting at with my above response.  Though the question becomes if the Inquisition would want to be bothered handling this sort of thing.  The only reason it intervened in any of the situations beyond Corypheus himself was because it had to.  Remember, we only approach one side of the Mages-Templar War and not the other.  That's not us siding with either side thinking they're right (by default, that is.  Headcanon and what actually happens are different from the reasons behind our actions), it's we need to close the breach so we approach for help.  We don't approach with the intent of settling the war.

 

I started out extremely pro mage when I played through the first game, but as I have gone through the games and read more and more of lore, I've come to realize that there needs to be some oversight on mages from outside the collective mage group. The problem with Templars, even with throwing out the Chantry is the fact that lyrium is so bad for you. Well then we could end the Templar order and then make everyone Seekers, which could work, but then the fact that a Seeker is made tranquil and then that is reversed could get out, and there goes another reason that validates a mage's viewpoint of being oppressed. Also being that the spirit that cures a Seeker is one of Faith, that then brings us to the religious viewpoint and possible fanaticism and extremism. 

 

However, what if other spirits could do it? Like Valor or Justice. Would that change the flavor of a Seeker's capabilities?

 

The fact that it's a spirit of Faith (which I'm take at your word because I haven't gotten to that revelation in my current playthrough to have it fresh in my mind) does not mean it's religion and extremism etc, Faith has more to with more than believing in the Maker, it has to do with believing there's a reason things will happen, that things work out for the best because of some sort of divine reason, if not the Maker than some other high being.  I'm not going to get into a discussion about Faith here, lol, but the point is, I don't think what spirit it is matters.  Again, Seekers are incredibly difficult to make either way, so using Seekers would take a very long time to get a proper force, if it'd be possible at all.

 

Do the Seekers go through the same thing? Because it just seems to me that some part of the ritual besides the Tranquility seems to do something that alters the effects to the point of unrecongnizability: Cassandra doesn't realize that she is a former Tranquil until it is made inescapably obvious that all Seekers are.

 

Seekers have rigorous training.  I don't know what the details are, but Cas tells us some of what they need to go through, so I think that being made tranquil and un-tranquil is just a part of what it takes.

 

 

On topic, I like Fiona despite her mistake and a perceived weakness derived for care of people in her charge. 

 

I'm glad that someone brought us back to topic, and that someone likes Fiona, haha.

 

Eh.  You need to distinguish between isolationism and separatism.

 

There have been arguments made that one of the common points for successful states (such as most of Europe, and Asia) vis-a-vis failed states is the degree of identity-homogeneity within the borders. Ethnic homogeneity ('the Germans,' 'the Koreans'), religious homogeneity, cultural homogeneity- whatever people most identify with and by, it should be overwhelmingly dominant, with the 'other' relegated to outside the borders and overwhelmingly dominant within its own area.

 

The commonly raised examples of when this doesn't happen is the Colonial-legacy map borders for Africa and the Middle East, which frequently don't have the sort of ethnic/cultural homogeneity within their borders that many ethnic-identity states take for granted.

 

This is a fair point, actually.  SO many of the problems in the real world being faced today are a result of the legacy of colonies all over the world.  The Middle East in particular, where the cultural groups are so mixed.  There's a map somewhere that shows traditional borders for cultural and religious groups, and then what the current countries actually are, and it's terrible, and is a cause of so many problems.

 

So, you're assuming that Fiona does all of this of her own free will?  Kind of a big assumption to make considering that she's up against a Tevinter cult that cheerfully practices blood magic at many times during the game.  Mind-control magic is supposed to be so subtle that often even the person being influenced by it doesn't know.  They either had a demon impersonate her in Val Royeaux or she went there under mind control and subsequently forgot what happened, too.  So I'd say calling Fiona "responsible" for all this may be over-the-top.  EVERYONE went crazy in this game--mages, seekers, templars, grey wardens, you name it.  Making people crazy is pretty much Corypheus' best trick.

 

TIME MAGIC.

[Don Lionheart]

Why would the Chantry, even under Lels, continue to fund an organization that started a war to prove how much they didn't want anything to do with the Chantry?  "We support your rights to self-determination and self-governance" is very, very different from "We are going to keep paying some or all of your bills".  The two could actually be interpreted as mutually exclusive, in fact.  If the mages want to run themselves, then they have to stand on their own.

 

As for the Inquisition, where would they be getting the funding to support themselves, much less make charitable contributions to an organization as expensive and self-absorbed as the College of Enchanters?  Troops, even former Templars, don't work for free.  Arms, Equipment, and crops don't grow in ice fields.  Fortresses on other people's land don't pay rent and upkeep for themselves.  The Inquisition has no territory to call its own except maybe Skyhold, and that's assuming that whichever nation owns that spot in the Frostbacks is willing to sell/give it away.  They can't levy taxes, they don't produce anything for export, and basically have less to offer by way of income than even a nascent College of Enchanters.  As a massive charity case themselves, completely at the mercy and whim of sympathetic rulers for their very existence, the only way they are in a position to 'support' mages is if the mages were conscripted.  Then, at least, the Inquisition could allocated some portion of whatever charity they get for upkeep to their version of a mage collective.

 

I hit 'post' too soon.

 

The casteless idea is a good one, provided you can convince them to leave Orzammar, have someone who can train them, and have some way to pay them for their work.  They still aren't going to be cheap.  The Tranquil worked for room and board, and had no ambitions.  Dwarves, even casteless ones, won't do that.

 

I'm not opposed to the idea of Mages being granted land to rule themselves.  The way I see it, nations would give them some territory, not idyllic territory, but something like the Elves had with the Dales.  How it works is anyone can live there free, including Mages.  Templars (reformed, uncorrupted, and maybe not even Templars by some sort of abomination watch) would have a presence within there, and the borders would be open to anyone.  The Mages can trade their labor and abilities for coin and other goods, whatever sort of economy they set up.  Mages throughout the rest of Thedas would have stricter regulations on magic use, but still be allowed to live among the people, but they would participate in the traditional economy.  The Mages could rule themselves if they wanted to set it up to be Feudal, or set up whatever system they want.  The Chantry would be present in its usual capacity of churches, clerics, etc.  Just a Mage nation, but unlike Tevinter, where not having magic doesn't hurt you.

 

 

If fewer people do bad things to more people, this is worse than when more people do bad things to fewer people because more people are hurt in the first than the second.
 

 

They wouldn't. The manner of protection is intrinsically tied to who benefits the most, as is the difference in threats based on proximity.

 

Talk about your strict utilitarian viewpoints, haha

 

And to add to this, before the mages could even begin to think about becoming a primary trading partner, they'd have to prove that they would be a stable and trustworthy trading partner in the first place. Remember, dwarves don't trust surfacers. They look down on them. They might welcome and honour individual surface dwellers but as a whole, they don't like or trust surface people. They're not going to care about the mages' problems or give two hoots about the intentions of the Mage Collegium. Their only concern is are you going to pay/provide your goods on time and in full. And presuming they do a bit of a background check on the mages, well, it's going to be a long time before the mages come off probationary status as trading partners. They're not the most reliable of people, especially with Fiona in charge.

 

And going back to how the Collegium would get land and money to establish itself, Fiona has actually made that more difficult by her betrayal of Arl Teagan and the Fereldan monarch, irrespective of the reasons behind it. She's set a precedent. Any sensible noble, when asked for money and/or land, would first ask "How do I know you won't betray me like you did Arl Teagan and King Alistair/Queen Anora?" And why would they trust any answer Fiona gave them? She has set a precedent of being treasonous. I know if I were a mage-sympathising noble, I might still be inclined to give them money but it'd be hedged in all sorts of conditions first. The major one being a new leader for the mages. I just don't see how any noble could trust the mages with Fiona in charge. If the mages were willing to set Fiona aside as a leader and install someone who could garner more trust, they might have half a chance.

 

I'm still not comfortable with the assertion that Fiona and the Mages betrayed the Ferelden Monarch, nor Arl Teagan.  I'm going to stick with the "Time magic, desperation, Tevinter sneaking in and plotting/meddling are enough to remove most of the blame for what happened" argument when it comes to Fiona and the Mages.  As I've said before, minus time mage, Fiona sides with the Inquisition and everything is hunky dory.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Well, Fiona explicitly says that she's no longer the leader of the rebellion, so who can say?

I'd thought she took back over when Alexius was deposed?

 

TIME MAGIC.

See, I don't think that answers all of the problems people have with Fiona. Yes, she's deceived by Alexius using Time Magic, but the deception itself seems pretty flimsy: the idea is that Alexius tricks her into thinking the Templars are about to destroy them all. It's not on the face of it a bad plan. Unfortunately for my respect for Fiona the crowd she's supposed to be afraid for is adjacent to (and possibly living in) the best castle in Ferelden, which is ruled by a lord who has shown no indication of the cruelty needed to shut the gates on them if the Templars come for them.

 

If Alexius took the castle before negotiating with her so that he could give her a Corleone-style offer, or if he influenced her with blood magic, or if he'd managed to convince her Teagan was untrustworthy, or if she'd sent scouts to see the truth of his words and he'd subverted them, I'd be more inclined to forgive her. But so far as I'm aware he isn't known to have done any of this. I'd also be more inclined to forgive her for falling for this trick if she'd worked against Alexius after he Vader'd the deal; it is my understanding that she quite visibly doesn't. Alexius could have thwarted just about anything Fiona did to counter him using his Time Abilities, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he apparently didn't have to.

[Sifr]

I'm still not comfortable with the assertion that Fiona and the Mages betrayed the Ferelden Monarch, nor Arl Teagan.  I'm going to stick with the "Time magic, desperation, Tevinter sneaking in and plotting/meddling are enough to remove most of the blame for what happened" argument when it comes to Fiona and the Mages.  As I've said before, minus time mage, Fiona sides with the Inquisition and everything is hunky dory.

 

People also seem to conveniently forget that if you side with the Templars, a war table mission tells us outright that Arl Wulff was instrumental in setting up the alliance with Tevinter, as he believed that the Fereldan Monarch was wrong to allow the Rebellion to have safe haven in Ferelden. Thus he unwittingly aided the Venatori, in his attempt to try to "help" his nation by making the mages someone else's problem?

 

Funny how once again, we see evidence that the alliance was proposed by someone who wasn't Fiona, eh?

 

[Xilizhra]

I'd thought she took back over when Alexius was deposed?

No, she says otherwise at Skyhold.

 

 

See, I don't think that answers all of the problems people have with Fiona. Yes, she's deceived by Alexius using Time Magic, but the deception itself seems pretty flimsy: the idea is that Alexius tricks her into thinking the Templars are about to destroy them all. It's not on the face of it a bad plan. Unfortunately for my respect for Fiona the crowd she's supposed to be afraid for is adjacent to (and possibly living in) the best castle in Ferelden, which is ruled by a lord who has shown no indication of the cruelty needed to shut the gates on them if the Templars come for them.

 

If Alexius took the castle before negotiating with her so that he could give her a Corleone-style offer, or if he influenced her with blood magic, or if he'd managed to convince her Teagan was untrustworthy, or if she'd sent scouts to see the truth of his words and he'd subverted them, I'd be more inclined to forgive her. But so far as I'm aware he isn't known to have done any of this. I'd also be more inclined to forgive her for falling for this trick if she'd worked against Alexius after he Vader'd the deal; it is my understanding that she quite visibly doesn't. Alexius could have thwarted just about anything Fiona did to counter him using his Time Abilities, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he apparently didn't have to.

I don't think we have enough to condemn her. I also don't think her actions matter in terms of what decision one should make, because the whole shouldn't be punished for the alleged misdeeds of one.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

No, she says otherwise at Skyhold.

 

 

I don't think we have enough to condemn her. I also don't think her actions matter in terms of what decision one should make, because the whole shouldn't be punished for the alleged misdeeds of one.

That's a relief.

 

It seems to me that if Bioware meant for her to have any of these excuses, there'd be in-game evidence to point to or at least Word Of God. Though I agree that this shouldn't matter as far as whether or not the mages are recruited or not; I'm not sure how democratic the selection process that gave her her position was, and I don't think the mistake of putting her there is worth a death sentence no matter what the answer to that question is.

 

 

People also seem to conveniently forget that if you side with the Templars, a war table mission tells us outright that Arl Wulff was instrumental in setting up the alliance with Tevinter, as he believed that the Fereldan Monarch was wrong to allow the Rebellion to have safe haven in Ferelden. Thus he unwittingly aided the Venatori, in his attempt to try to "help" his nation by making the mages someone else's problem?

 

Funny how once again, we see evidence that the alliance was proposed by someone who wasn't Fiona, eh?

 

 

I don't see how this excuses her in and of itself either.

[Don Lionheart]

I'd thought she took back over when Alexius was deposed?

 

See, I don't think that answers all of the problems people have with Fiona. Yes, she's deceived by Alexius using Time Magic, but the deception itself seems pretty flimsy: the idea is that Alexius tricks her into thinking the Templars are about to destroy them all. It's not on the face of it a bad plan. Unfortunately for my respect for Fiona the crowd she's supposed to be afraid for is adjacent to (and possibly living in) the best castle in Ferelden, which is ruled by a lord who has shown no indication of the cruelty needed to shut the gates on them if the Templars come for them.

 

If Alexius took the castle before negotiating with her so that he could give her a Corleone-style offer, or if he influenced her with blood magic, or if he'd managed to convince her Teagan was untrustworthy, or if she'd sent scouts to see the truth of his words and he'd subverted them, I'd be more inclined to forgive her. But so far as I'm aware he isn't known to have done any of this. I'd also be more inclined to forgive her for falling for this trick if she'd worked against Alexius after he Vader'd the deal; it is my understanding that she quite visibly doesn't. Alexius could have thwarted just about anything Fiona did to counter him using his Time Abilities, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he apparently didn't have to.

 

That particular emphasis of time magic was directed at the quoted poster's claim of a demon or mind control in Val Royeaux, not used to completely excuse her.  However, my opinion of Fiona really comes from what her intended actions were, and they were to approach the Inquisition immediately after its formation like she did in Val Royeaux, which was the responsible, wise, and appropriate action to take.  Everyone seems to form an opinion of her based on what happened at Redcliffe, which were admittedly bad and stupid decisions made by a desperate woman who's reality had literally been played with.  I don't think that can be overlooked.

 

No, she says otherwise at Skyhold.

 

 

I don't think we have enough to condemn her. I also don't think her actions matter in terms of what decision one should make, because the whole shouldn't be punished for the alleged misdeeds of one.

 

She pretty much says what I wrote a few days ago on this thread: that she is the leader of the Mages until they decide otherwise, that it's de facto and she doesn't want it, no one else has tried to step up.  She gave authority away in Redcliffe, and says in Skyhold that people just call her Grand Enchanter because that's what they call her, not that the title means much.  When you ally the Mages, it's like there's no real leadership beyond her de facto position of respect that she has and the Inquisition itself.