1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

very well her claims weren't unfounded. Her mages were dying in the hinterlands, you can't deny a major battle was brewing. Whether we believe it was right for her to be intimidated is were we branch off in opinion, both subjective which i doubt will reach any sort of agreement. We both said our piece:

Me:she was manipulated

you:she should have stood her ground she had a castle (a very well known defensible castle admitttably) and the monarchy's support

Me: did you see what she was up against? time magic, agents, an arl, a templar host approaching. how could she not be intimidated?

you: nope. she should have known better.

 

see where i'm coming from? At this rate it will be a circular argument. beccause it is impossible for me to prove if redcliffe could have been defended with or without the tevinter's support unless it actually happened. 

Well, again, if she consulted Teagan and he backed up the Venatori (and showed no signs of being enthralled into it), I'm inclined to switch to your side. If he wasn't consulted or (much worse) told Fiona there was nothing to worry about and was ignored, I'm inclined to suggest that maybe you should consider whether or not you're being objective. And if there's nothing either way then we probably are both wasting time.

[TobiTobsen]

We know that Redcliffe Castle is the most defensible keep in Fereldan, and if you side with the mages Cullen says it would be suicide to launch an assault on the keep, and that's just with a skeleton crew of Tevinters guarding it. There's nothing to suggest it wouldn't have held (even had there been a significant force advancing.)

 

Hell, the castle is protecting the the only land route into Ferelden and was only taken three times since it was build. Siding with the mages even tells you that the Inquisition and the Fereldan Army both failed at conquering the castle in the bad future.

 

I don't see how the ragtag band of templars that stayed behind in the Hinterlands could've taken that castle. They couldn't even purge the mage supremacists that were roaming the countryside. A simple scouting mission would've told Fiona as much.

[SnakeCode]

Hell, the castle is protecting the the only land route into Ferelden and was only taken three times since it was build. Siding with the mages even tells you that the Inquisition and the Fereldan Army both failed at conquering the castle in the bad future.

 

I don't see how the ragtag band of templars that stayed behind in the Hinterlands could've taken that castle. They couldn't even purge the mage supremacists that were roaming the countryside. A simple scouting mission would've told Fiona as much.

This is why I don't accept the "Fiona was manipulated" as a reasonable excuse. All she had to do was NOT take the Tevinters at their word to see that they weren't being truthful. She didn't even ask for a shred of proof or ask how they knew.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Well, again, if she consulted Teagan and he backed up the Venatori (and showed no signs of being enthralled into it), I'm inclined to switch to your side. If he wasn't consulted or (much worse) told Fiona there was nothing to worry about and was ignored, I'm inclined to suggest that maybe you should consider whether or not you're being objective. And if there's nothing either way then we probably are both wasting time.

I'm objective enough to know that the premises you keep demanding that I have to prove to be proven "correct" or "change your mind" with the information at hand doesn't exist making it impossible for me to be right. It's a circular reasoning fallacy. There is no conversation with teagan about the defenses and even if there were, it would only be credible if it was his own private thoughts as Iron bull says, people don't always tell the truth when they are being polite. i mean why would teagan divulge their low rate of survival to fiona even if it were true when they are about to go into battle?, that's just lowering morale. The point is moot as there is no such information ingame.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm objective enough to know that the premises you keep demanding that I have to prove to be proven "correct" or "change your mind" with the information at hand doesn't exist making it impossible for me to be right. It's a circular reasoning fallacy. There is no conversation with teagan about the defenses and even if there were, it would only be credible if it was his own private thoughts as Iron bull says, people don't always tell the truth when they are being polite. i mean why would teagan divulge their low rate of survival to fiona even if it were true when they are about to go into battle?, that's just lowering morale. The point is moot as there is no such information ingame.

If you want to dip into logical terminology, the mistake this post makes is confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions. I'll take something else as good if you have it.

[SnakeCode]

I'm objective enough to know that the premises you keep demanding that I have to prove to be proven "correct" or "change your mind" with the information at hand doesn't exist making it impossible for me to be right. It's a circular reasoning fallacy. There is no conversation with teagan about the defenses and even if there were, it would only be credible if it was his own private thoughts as Iron bull says, people don't always tell the truth when they are being polite. i mean why would teagan divulge their low rate of survival to fiona even if it were true when they are about to go into battle?, that's just lowering morale. The point is moot as there is no such information ingame.

Didn't Teagan do exactly that when Connor's undead army were massacring the village every night?

[Sports72Xtrm]

If you want to dip into logical terminology, the mistake this post makes is confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions. I'll take something else as good if you have it.

Now we've gone to circular reasoning territory. As I said before, the lack of relevant data to determine if tevinter support was necessary or not can only be verified if the templar host attacked redcliffe and if they succeed or not but as that never occured, it is impossible to prove. Thus the premise is unprovable. There is no sufficient data to prove the premise. There is nothing that can be offered to give you a satisfied answer.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Well, again, if she consulted Teagan and he backed up the Venatori (and showed no signs of being enthralled into it), I'm inclined to switch to your side. If he wasn't consulted or (much worse) told Fiona there was nothing to worry about and was ignored, I'm inclined to suggest that maybe you should consider whether or not you're being objective. And if there's nothing either way then we probably are both wasting time.

 

When is it ever said that Teegan supported the Tevinter alliance? Because that would make him a traitor to Ferelden and be wildly OOC to boot. Maybe I missed that bit but that changes things, and would be bad writing unless correctly explained.

 

Also, as SnakeCode has said, even if Fiona was deceived, it's still a fault of hers. A Templar army large enough to lay siege to a defensible castle protected by hundreds of mages is not going to be stealthy at all, they would number in the thousands if not tens of thousands, if such numbers are even possible in the first place for the crippled Order. A simple scouting mission would Tell Fiona that no such army existed and that her ''desperate situation'' was completely made up by the Venatori. Surely among the numerous Harrowed mages at her command not all of them are wastes of space and could carry out such a mission?

 

And people still haven't addressed the Tranquil issue, I see.

[Urazz]

I pretty much dislike Fiona for her bad decisions in DA:I.  There was really no excuse for her to accept the Venatori's help other than she panicked and if she did that as a leader then it's a sign that she's a bad one.

[Barquiel]

Hell, the castle is protecting the the only land route into Ferelden and was only taken three times since it was build. Siding with the mages even tells you that the Inquisition and the Fereldan Army both failed at conquering the castle in the bad future.
 
I don't see how the ragtag band of templars that stayed behind in the Hinterlands could've taken that castle. They couldn't even purge the mage supremacists that were roaming the countryside. A simple scouting mission would've told Fiona as much.

The mages didn't live in the castle, the lived in Redcliffe...and the walls of the village are not that impressive (maybe comparable to Haven, and the templars didn't have any problems with them). There is simply not enough room in the castle for hundreds of mages, villagers and servants.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

When is it ever said that Teegan supported the Tevinter alliance? Because that would make him a traitor to Ferelden and be wildly OOC to boot. Maybe I missed that bit but that changes things, and would be bad writing unless correctly explained.

 

Also, as SnakeCode has said, even if Fiona was deceived, it's still a fault of hers. A Templar army large enough to lay siege to a defensible castle protected by hundreds of mages is not going to be stealthy at all, they would number in the thousands if not tens of thousands, if such numbers are even possible in the first place for the crippled Order. A simple scouting mission would Tell Fiona that no such army existed and that her ''desperate situation'' was completely made up by the Venatori. Surely among the numerous Harrowed mages at her command not all of them are wastes of space and could carry out such a mission?

 

And people still haven't addressed the Tranquil issue, I see.

That's not what this conversation is about. I'm arguing that if Teagan had supported it or had given her reason to believe that the situation was desperate enough to merit it even without supporting it then Fiona would be justified in believing the situation was that desperate, and giving Sports a chance to convince me that depends on that being the case. Sports argues that we don't know either way, which means that we're back to square one here, which means in turn that your arguments, Snake's arguments, and the arguments I was making before I raised that line of inquiry, (which support your and Snake's conclusion) are once again all we have. I don't think Sports has adequately answered them.

 

 

Now we've gone to circular reasoning territory. As I said before, the lack of relevant data to determine if tevinter support was necessary or not can only be verified if the templar host attacked redcliffe and if they succeed or not but as that never occured, it is impossible to prove. Thus the premise is unprovable. There is no sufficient data to prove the premise. There is nothing that can be offered to give you a satisfied answer.

My argument isn't that we have enough to know (though I think we do) it's that Fiona should have known she didn't have enough information to justify what she did.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Didn't Teagan do exactly that when Connor's undead army were massacring the village every night?

The Warden was attacking the castle under cover of night, he wasn't standing their ground and defending and when they were defending the villiage, I seem to recall the warden deluding the soldiers by giving them a lip service chantry rite so they'd fight harder. The circumstances were different. You tell the truth when the information will help, not when it discourages. That's just common sense.

[SnakeCode]

The Warden was attacking the castle under cover of night, he wasn't standing their ground and defending and when they were defending the villiage, I seem to recall the warden deluding the soldiers by giving them a lip service chantry rite so they'd fight harder. The circumstances were different. You tell the truth when the information will help, not when it discourages. That's just common sense.

The cover of night? That's when the undead attacked, and you actually infiltrate the castle during the day. You spend the night defending the village with the mayor and a ragtag bunch of villagers, so he actually was standing his ground under dire circumstances. The circumstances ARE similar (if we're assuming the templar threat is real, which wasn't the case.)

[Sports72Xtrm]

 I don't think Sports has adequately answered them.

 

 

 

Then why did Fiona feel that she had one?

I can't prove something that is unproveable with the information at hand, I can only go with the game provides so your premise is an unproveable premise. this is circular reasoning.

 

Fiona had what? What goalpost do you want to move now?

[BubbleDncr]

I didn't dislike Fiona before DA:I. I don't even adamantly dislike her now (plenty of characters I dislike more) - but she was incredibly stupid in DA:I. Like, the only character I can think of who makes worse decisions than her is Solas, but at least he owns up to his mistakes. Fiona just whines and thinks you're a jerk if you conscript the mages - when giving them full freedom after the Alexius thing is being more forgiving than they deserve. 

[SnakeCode]

I didn't dislike Fiona before DA:I. I don't even adamantly dislike her now (plenty of characters I dislike more) - but she was incredibly stupid in DA:I. Like, the only character I can think of who makes worse decisions than her is Solas, but at least he owns up to his mistakes. Fiona just whines and thinks you're a jerk if you conscript the mages - when giving them full freedom after the Alexius thing is being more forgiving than they deserve. 

 I think it's funny that she whines if you conscript the mages, when she had just allowed the Venatori to conscript the mages.

[TheLoreSeeker]

Still would've liked it better if Irving has risen to Grand Enchanter...... but I don't mind Fiona.

I think a lot of people don't like her because she alters Alistair's origin story after they had locked in on the lore of Origins.

Personally.... I never liked his Origin story anyway. Son of a random commoner is so lame.

[Sports72Xtrm]

The cover of night? That's when the undead attacked, and you actually infiltrate the castle during the day. You spend the night defending the village with the mayor and a ragtag bunch of villagers, so he actually was standing his ground under dire circumstances. The circumstances ARE similar (if we're assuming the templar threat is real, which wasn't the case.)

Apples and oranges. The makeup of the army counts for something. If the templars could shut down a the mages powers, and have an overpowering number, then the redcliffe army will fold. The Warden had a varried army of tempalr (alistair), mages, and warriors that helped him overcome any obstacles. While if the templar host had a superior army, they would be doomed.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I can't prove something that is unproveable with the information at hand, I can only go with the game provides so your premise is an unproveable premise. this is circular reasoning.

 

Fiona had what? What goalpost do you want to move now?

We can't prove anything either, but we're able to give arguments that make our conclusion pretty likely. I don't remember you doing so.

 

As I've previously stated, you don't use Godzilla Threshold options when you don't know the situation has crossed the Godzilla Threshold. (For the sake of this aspect of the discussion we'll ignore Dean_The_Young's argument that what Fiona did actually caused a situation that hadn't yet crossed the Godzilla Threshold to finally get there, despite the fact that I believe it to be correct.) If your argument is that we can't know how it would have gone unless the Templars actually attacked, then how is that consistent with Fiona being justified by what she knew?

[In Exile]

From my understanding, she didn't techinically sign the mages on for slavery; what she actually did was sign them on to become citizens of Tevinter, which would've required ten years of living there via indentured servitude.

Which, in comparison to being brutally massacred and/or being shoved back into prison-like circles for the rest of their natural born lives, sounds like the better deal.

Indentured servitude = slavery. Especially when someone makes that decision for you.

It sounds like the kind of deal people should get a choice over. Because the whole rebellion is about how Death + Freedom > Life + Servitude. Doing the opposite is literally anathema to everything the rebellion stood for when it started.

[In Exile]

The game was in development for years. The story of DA:O was fleshed out long before The Calling was written.

It is canon story but was certainly a retcon.

As for Fiona - I felt bad for her on my first encounter because I could tell she acted out of desperation and you can see she is already regretting the deal and feels trapped. Then I did some research on her past and I totally feel bad for her considering what she went through. It magnified my sympathy exponentially. Not enough for me to abandon my plan to do Champions of the Just, but I really felt terrible I abandoned her and the Mages to their fate.

DAO was a mess story wise. It's not like we count the abandoned Loghain is mind controlled by the AD plot.

[LobselVith8]

I didn't dislike Fiona before DA:I. I don't even adamantly dislike her now (plenty of characters I dislike more) - but she was incredibly stupid in DA:I. Like, the only character I can think of who makes worse decisions than her is Solas, but at least he owns up to his mistakes. Fiona just whines and thinks you're a jerk if you conscript the mages - when giving them full freedom after the Alexius thing is being more forgiving than they deserve. 

 

If you think Fiona deserves to be punished for making an alliance with Alexius, that's one thing, but why do the mages all need to be punished?

[SnakeCode]

Apples and oranges. The makeup of the army counts for something. If the templars could shut down a the mages powers, and have an overpowering number, then the redcliffe army will fold. The Warden had a varried army of tempalr (alistair), mages, and warriors that helped him overcome any obstacles. While if the templar host had a superior army, they would be doomed.

Nope the Warden had no such army. He had his party (three of them anyway) a skeleton crew of knights (most were on the hunt for Andraste's ashes) and a few villagers. Against an army of undead who controlled a defensible keep. I'd go so far as to say their situation was far more dire than Fiona's make-believe dilemma.

[Sports72Xtrm]

We can't prove anything either, but we're able to give arguments that make our conclusion pretty likely. I don't remember you doing so.

 

As I've previously stated, you don't use Godzilla Threshold options when you don't know the situation has crossed the Godzilla Threshold. (For the sake of this aspect of the discussion we'll ignore Dean_The_Young's argument that what Fiona did actually caused a situation that hadn't yet crossed the Godzilla Threshold to finally get there.) If your argument is that we can't know how it would have gone unless the Templars actually attacked, then how is that consistent with Fiona being justified by what she knew?

pretty likely to you... you mean. That's because I don't have any impossible premise that you have to prove as a stipulation, and I still don't know what your arguments are proving!

 

As for fiona's judgement, I can only believe that any rational being would believe the advice of their advisors just like the Inquisitor. If the Inquisitor's advisors were giving **** advice and you know no other way, then ofcourse I don't blame them for taking it. It was a **** situation with compromised entourage and bad advice. She was swindled but the circumstances ensured she would be that way. There was no malice in her intentions and circumstances enforced by entrappment set her on that path. That is not negligence, that's entrapment which you people don't care for. Thus it is impossible for her to know better.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Nope the Warden had no such army. He had his party (three of them anyway) a skeleton crew of knights (most were on the hunt for Andraste's ashes) and a few villagers. Against an army of undead who controlled a defensible keep. I'd go so far as to say their situation was far more dire than Fiona's make-believe dilemma.

Yes well the warden's party of three or four seem to buzzsaw through legions so the low number is irrelevant. If that party of three or four wasn't there, would the redcliffe village have survived? Then the parameters are equal and it is ceterus paribus (all things being equal). But it's not.