1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

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.

I'm not overlooking Alexius' timescrew per se. I just don't view her reaction to it as being the very best.

[Sifr]

 

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

 

Because it supports the argument that she was possibly pressured into the alliance, since we do see evidence that Arl Wulff and the the Venatori who infiltrated the Rebellion were instrumental in garnering support for an alliance with Tevinter, but no evidence that Fiona herself put forward the motion?

 

No-one is saying that she didn't sign off on it, but it's a tad unfair to blame a leader for doing something that people around them are pressuring them to do? Couple that with the constant attacks from the Templars, the fear of the mages being involved in the destruction of the Conclave, coupled with political pressure from the Fereldan nobility who don't seem exactly happy that their monarch has allowed rebels to reside in their country, you could see why Fiona might have felt stuck between a rock and a hard place?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Because it supports the argument that she was possibly pressured into the alliance, since we do see evidence that Arl Wulff and the the Venatori who infiltrated the Rebellion were instrumental in garnering support for an alliance with Tevinter, but no evidence that Fiona herself put forward the motion?

 

No-one is saying that she didn't sign off on it, but it's a tad unfair to blame a leader for doing something that people around them are pressuring them to do? Couple that with the constant attacks from the Templars, the fear of the mages being involved in the destruction of the Conclave, coupled with political pressure from the Fereldan nobility who don't seem exactly happy that their monarch has allowed rebels to reside in their country, you could see why Fiona might have felt stuck between a rock and a hard place?

I can see that having a whole lot of powerful people hate her would be intimidating, but unless Teagan was one of them I don't see what that has to do with whether or not siding with Alexius could have looked like a good idea. And I'm aware that she was being pressured, that's not the same as it being in any way smart for her to give in.

[Sifr]

I can see that having a whole lot of powerful people hate her would be intimidating, but unless Teagan was one of them I don't see what that has to do with whether or not siding with Alexius could have looked like a good idea. And I'm aware that she was being pressured, that's not the same as it being in any way smart for her to give in.

 

Teagan might be Arl of Redcliffe and operating in concert with the monarch, but the bannorn are a fickle bunch and are likely breathing down his neck about allowing the Rebellion to set up their digs in his Arling?

 

We simply don't know how the Rebellion leadership actually operates? If they continued to vote on things like they had before, then Fiona would be forced to set forth the motion or accept the result, regardless of her feelings on the matter? If that was the case, then smartness or giving in would have nothing to do with it, she'd have had no choice but to go with the group vote, lest they fall completely into anarchy like the apostates in the hills?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Teagan might be Arl of Redcliffe and operating in concert with the monarch, but the bannorn are a fickle bunch and are likely breathing down his neck about allowing the Rebellion to set up their digs in his Arling?

 

We simply don't know how the Rebellion leadership actually operates? If they continued to vote on things like they had before, then Fiona would be forced to set forth the motion or accept the result, regardless of her feelings on the matter? If that was the case, then smartness or giving in would have nothing to do with it, she'd have had no choice but to go with the group vote, lest they fall completely into anarchy like the apostates in the hills?

The vast majority of the country was on board with this, less because they had judged it to be a good idea and more because their respect for whoever was on the throne overrode their own (as it turns out quite justified) misgivings. Whoever decided to be idiots about it and go after Teagan would have had to take Castle Redcliffe themselves before the Royal Army could ride out and give them another reason not to have tried it. The only thing they could do was what Wulff did.

 

As for the Rebellion leadership, good point, but that only excuses her to any degree if the rebellion leaders actually voted on this. Which I do not believe to be the case given that from all I can tell Fiona is the only bit of leadership they have: Don Lionheart's post seems to me to imply that there's nobody else in the Rebellion who's acknowledged as a leader even to the extent that Fiona is. (Rhys would have been an okay choice, I guess, except that he's established not to be with the rebellion at that point.)

[Sunnie]

One of the biggest problems here is again, writing. There wasn't enough exposition to give anyone a clear picture of why things happened the way they did. That lack of exposition has led to the circular argument happen right here, right now.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I thought we were doing a fairly decent job piecing stuff together.

[Vit246]

I thought we were doing a fairly decent job piecing stuff together.

I think if we are the ones who have to piece stuff like this together, then that says something about the writing. In this particular case.

[Don Lionheart]

The vast majority of the country was on board with this, less because they had judged it to be a good idea and more because their respect for whoever was on the throne overrode their own (as it turns out quite justified) misgivings. Whoever decided to be idiots about it and go after Teagan would have had to take Castle Redcliffe themselves before the Royal Army could ride out and give them another reason not to have tried it. The only thing they could do was what Wulff did.
 
As for the Rebellion leadership, good point, but that only excuses her to any degree if the rebellion leaders actually voted on this. Which I do not believe to be the case given that from all I can tell Fiona is the only bit of leadership they have: Don Lionheart's post seems to me to imply that there's nobody else in the Rebellion who's acknowledged as a leader even to the extent that Fiona is. (Rhys would have been an okay choice, I guess, except that he's established not to be with the rebellion at that point.)

 
This is a link to the conversation with Fiona in Skyhold after you become Inquisitor.  The first bit is about the Wardens which you can skip, but the rest of it is important, so it may be easier just to watch the whole thing.  That's what I use as evidence of my statement about Fiona being the leader.
 

One of the biggest problems here is again, writing. There wasn't enough exposition to give anyone a clear picture of why things happened the way they did. That lack of exposition has led to the circular argument happen right here, right now.

 
To some extent, this is true.  But even so, it didn't reduce my enjoyment of the game any, and I enjoy these spirited debates.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I think if we are the ones who have to piece stuff like this together, then that says something about the writing. In this particular case.

I would disagree if I thought Bioware had done it on purpose. As it is...

[Don Lionheart]

I would disagree if I thought Bioware had done it on purpose. As it is...

 

BioWare is intentionally vague in a lot of what it writes because it wants to leave things up to interpretation, I believe.  It seems that this particular situation is not one of those times, however, because the lack of a specific timeline of events does not make sense.  I can't see a reason why we know exactly what when down with the Templars (Envy, top-down infiltration, etc), but all we get is some sketchy timeframe for the Mages (at some point, Alexius shows up and takes over the castle...period).  There's no need to define when the Templars were infiltrated because we know the surrounding events exactly, and there's no time magic involved.  In a scenario in which there's time magic (the Mages), we know surprsingly little about time.  It's something that should have been explained or worked out for everyone's sanity, haha.  The Mages scenario is so much more complex because of the time magic, but also because they're hold up in Redcliffe after being granted sanctuary by the Ferelden Monarch, whereas the Templars are an abandoned fort (I think it was there's previously?), which is a much simpler predicament.  We know the Templar leaders willingly accepted Red Lyrium, we know that the Envy demon took over Lucius's place, we know the corruption came from within the organization's leaders accepting Corypheus (Samson).  It would be nice to know when Envy took over, but we have enough information to accurately place blame.  All we know about the Mages is that Venatori infiltrated them, which somehow led Alexius to get Fiona to agree to the alliance (whispers about a Templar attack?  Secretly pushing for Tevinter alliance?  These are suggested, but very unclear to be sure), which somehow led to Alexius kicking out Arl Teagan from the castle (completely unexplained) after arriving via time magic, which occurred at some point in time (No idea when they took over, only that they arrived a couple days after the explosion).  My point is, although BioWare strategically uses leaving information out regularly, this is either a) overdoing it if it's intentional, or some sort of oversight in the writing process/cut for resources like time or budgey.  I refuse to believe their writing is just so sloppy to leave questions like this and they did not realize it, the rest of the story (and all their other games) are too good for that.

[Shadow Fox]

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.

See? Cass has the right of it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I refuse to believe their writing is just so sloppy to leave questions like this and they did not realize it, the rest of the story (and all their other games) are too good for that.

Everyone has an off day sometimes.

 

 

 
This is a link to the conversation with Fiona in Skyhold after you become Inquisitor.  The first bit is about the Wardens which you can skip, but the rest of it is important, so it may be easier just to watch the whole thing.  That's what I use as evidence of my statement about Fiona being the leader.

Actually, I'm not so sure that this does make clear that Fiona had the sole authority I'd thought. I mean, you'd think if she'd shared the decision with anyone else (and especially if she'd been forced into it by the grumblings from below as Sifr suggests may have happened) it would have come up, but that's not very strong evidence.

[Don Lionheart]

Everyone has an off day sometimes.

 

 

Actually, I'm not so sure that this does make clear that Fiona had the sole authority I'd thought. I mean, you'd think if she'd shared the decision with anyone else (and especially if she'd been forced into it by the grumblings from below as Sifr suggests may have happened) it would have come up, but that's not very strong evidence.

 

Haha, I suppose that's true, everyone can have an off day.  But an off 3 years?  It just seems to me that at some point, someone would have said something.  It's one thing to disagree with people and love a line that others don't like, or to be a fan of a quest that's divisive, but to think that the ambiguity and confusion revolving around the Mage storyline is BioWare-level coherent storytelling is a bit of a stretch for me, haha.

 

And you're right that it's not the greatest piece of evidence, but it's what I have to offer when the whole thing is fairly muddled.  Frankly, I think that the whole Mage-Templar War could use more exposition, both in the game and out of it.  We've seen what led up to it, and the initial declaration of independence from the Chantry, but we have a year long (I think?) gap between that and Inquisition starting, and there's a lot of things that go on that we're just told happen(ed), rather than being shown in the game, or written about in the novel.  It's sort of how I felt reading The Stolen Throne, how it the main story ends just before the Battle of River Dane, when I so SUPER excited to actually read about that battle while it was taking place, but all you get it another brief description of Loghain's leadership; it would have been awesome to see his greatest military victory in action.  However, I disgress.  What I'm trying to say is that there's a lot we don't know about the Mage-Templar War that I think could use some explanation, and therefore finding evidence of Fiona being the sole leader is hard to come by.  It was her statement in that video clip that she says something like "Until then, I lead the Mages by default."