384 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

that's been bothering me as well. Only thing I could think of for why we remember is maybe the Anchor allowing us immunity, but that falls flat when IIRC the companions remember as well.

 

Or are they silent on the matter of Fiona in VR at the meeting in Redcliffe? If they're silent then I'm just gonna roll with Anchor-Immunity headcanon.

I can't remember. I want to say they comment on her strange behavior, pretty sure they do. If they don't however, and they forgot, then they'd ask why they're going to redcliffe in the first place and what you were talking about.

[TEWR]

I can't remember. I want to say they comment on her strange behavior, pretty sure they do. If they don't however, and they forgot, then they'd ask why they're going to redcliffe in the first place and what you were talking about.

 

"What is the Inquisitor going on about?"

 

"Oh don't mind him Seeker. He's delirious. Probably all that weird Fade **** that's on his hand and in the air. Dwarves and the Fade don't get along."

 

"The Fade would do nothing of the sort."

 

"Chuckles, for all we know right now you're seeing an Ogre wearing a dress since you practically live in the Fade. You're hardly objective here."

[eyezonlyii]

I would assume the Inq and Co remember the meeting in Val Royeaux because the time event is localized. We already know that Alexius can only go back as far as the breach (if you play the mage path, this is mentioned as his failure). Also, the time manipulations by the little rifts happen in small areas. And also notice, that the time warping rifts never show up anywhere outside of Redcliffe. So, maybe, Alexius could only turn back time in a limited amount of space and that space was Redcliffe, thereby leaving time flowing uninterrupted in the rest of the world. 

[The Baconer]

that's been bothering me as well. Only thing I could think of for why we remember is maybe the Anchor allowing us immunity, but that falls flat when IIRC the companions remember as well.

 

Or are they silent on the matter of Fiona in VR at the meeting in Redcliffe? If they're silent then I'm just gonna roll with Anchor-Immunity headcanon.

 

Shhh, writing.

 

Also, your companions being subjected to Red Lyrium for a year and then being geared-up and ready to go? Shhhhhh

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

I would assume the Inq and Co remember the meeting in Val Royeaux because the time event is localized. We already know that Alexius can only go back as far as the breach (if you play the mage path, this is mentioned as his failure). Also, the time manipulations by the little rifts happen in small areas. And also notice, that the time warping rifts never show up anywhere outside of Redcliffe. So, maybe, Alexius could only turn back time in a limited amount of space and that space was Redcliffe, thereby leaving time flowing uninterrupted in the rest of the world. 

 

That's how I read it as well, Alexius' trick was restrained only to Redcliff.

 

 

Also, your companions being subjected to Red Lyrium for a year and then being geared-up and ready to go? Shhhhhh

 

Finally someone else who disliked that.

[TEWR]

Shhh, writing.

 

Also, your companions being subjected to Red Lyrium for a year and then being geared-up and ready to go? Shhhhhh

 

 

True on the RL front. I did find it odd how Varric had Bianca all that time (never mind how I think the Venatori should've been able to **** with them and make them turn against us briefly -- not of their own volition though).

 

That's how I read it as well, Alexius' trick was restrained only to Redcliff.

 

 

 

It would make sense, I suppose. You do find a place out in the Western Approach that has been locked in time, but it's only that one area and not the WA itself.

[The Baconer]

 

True on the RL front. I did find it odd how Varric had Bianca all that time (never mind how I think the Venatori should've been able to **** with them and make them turn against us briefly -- not of their own volition though).

 

It's not even the gear that ticks me off the most, it's that they are, effectively, just fine and dandy even after their exposure. No mutations, or significant mental affects.

 

Then there's Cassandra and the mage companions. All writing that exists on the subject tells us that mages cannot handle Red Lyrium, like, at all. Cassandra is a Seeker, who apparently react differently to the substance. I mean, at this point they're still trying to preserve the big reveal with the Seekers, but... If you need to literally lie to the player to make the story advance, you've done a bad thing.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

It's not even the gear that ticks me off the most, it's that they are, effectively, just fine and dandy even after their exposure. No mutations, or significant mental affects.

 

Then there's Cassandra and the mage companions. All writing that exists on the subject tells us that mages cannot handle Red Lyrium, like, at all. Cassandra is a Seeker, who apparently react differently to the substance. I mean, at this point they're still trying to preserve the big reveal with the Seekers, but... If you need to literally lie to the player to make the story advance, you've done a bad thing.

 

Varric is the worst of the lot, he even cracks a joke after being released about being glad to doing something productive again.

 

Geez, Varric, it's almost as if a year of torture, malnourishment and red lyrium exposure hasn't taken its toll at all. Way to sell this "Dark future" crap to me.

[myahele]

All threads talking about Fiona never ends well ...

[TEWR]

It's not even the gear that ticks me off the most, it's that they are, effectively, just fine and dandy even after their exposure. No mutations, or significant mental affects.

 

Then there's Cassandra and the mage companions. All writing that exists on the subject tells us that mages cannot handle Red Lyrium, like, at all. Cassandra is a Seeker, who apparently react differently to the substance. I mean, at this point they're still trying to preserve the big reveal with the Seekers, but... If you need to literally lie to the player to make the story advance, you've done a bad thing.

 

 

Varric is the worst of the lot, he even cracks a joke after being released about being glad to doing something productive again.

 

Geez, Varric, it's almost as if a year of torture, malnourishment and red lyrium exposure hasn't taken its toll at all. Way to sell this "Dark future" crap to me.

 

 

[ComedicSociopathy]

Dragon Age isn't that subtle, especially when it comes to establishing whether characters are under evil influence or not. If Fiona was indeed under blood magic manipulation then the game would have flat out told us during Alexius's sentencing at Skyhold or when you actually talk to Fiona again. Why leave out such a critical detail that doesn't actually add any kind of mystery, but as this thread has shown, only created confusion with the story's narrative?

 

Fiona made a really, really, stupid mistake that almost feels like a character assassination by the writers, but really it was done purposely so that the mages are shown in a negative light this time around compared to the one-sided portrayal of the mage/templar conflict in Dragon Age 2. I mean, seriously, there's a reason why Fiona is made to be an idiot in this game while the templars get Ser "Way Better Than Fiona" Barris. If blood magic was involved in the mage story then the rebel mages would be completely exonerated of any wrong doing while the templars would once again look like the transparent bad guys because of Lucius Corin and the entire templar leadership willingly following the Elder One. 

 

The writing team obviously didn't want that to happen again in Inquisition so Fiona has to hold the Idiot Ball. Regardless, its bad writing all around. 

[Digger1967]

They're adamant because there's so much mindless hate for Fiona on these boards, that a logical inference is dismissed as a crazy asspull because to do otherwise would be to see Fiona and the rebel mages as human and her bargain as a desperate but understandable measure.

This is coupled by reflexive hate of Tevinter such that we're supposed to believe mages owe the countries who imprisoned them all their lives some kind of eternal loyalty even if they all die in the process. As the guy in Redcliffe says, the fault of the war is put on the mages no matter how messed up the templars are. Welcome to BSN.

 

Well I got my daily dose of snark early, so it left more time for other endeavors, no harm done really.  Lol.  Personally I don't quite get it, I mean I wouldn't say she's my favorite character but she didn't seem nearly that bad, at least not in DA:I - and it her decision for the alliance just doesn't make any sense at all on it's own, nor does the notion that any of the rest of the mages in high standing with the rebellion would go along with it either.  I can't imagine that they've sworn undying loyalty to Fiona, I mean sure she's in charge but that doesn't mean she could announce that she'd decided that they were all going to surrender unconditionally to the templars and that most likely they'd get executed for their trouble that every mage in the rebellion is going to go,"Hey Fiona, what a great idea!  Why didn't we think of that."  Nope, I think the reaction would be more along the lines of, "What are you,nuts?  Not a chance  Your fired.  We're going to pick a new leader."

 

I would imagine that it would probably be much the same if she told them they were all now going to be indentured to a Travinter magister so that they can gain an alliance that frankly, does them very little good.  Alexius couldn't possibly have brought anywhere near enough forces with him to secure Redcliffe against both the templars and a ticked off Fereldon army, not a chance.  Any sort of evacuation is going to be a difficult process at best and they are going to have to move through what will now be very hostile territory, because you know the moment they leave the fortress not only will the Templars be all over them, but I would have very little doubt that the rightful rulers of Redcliffe would take the opportunity to make them all sit on those pointy hats they wear.

 

Fiona and her people must have realized this.. I mean when every single one of my companions can point out what a horrible idea this is, you know it's beyond horrible as an idea - because they almost never agree on anything.

 

As for who's fault the war is.. umm.. takes two to tango as my grandpappy used to say.  Plenty of blame to go around for both factions as far as I can tell.  Me i don't get caught up in that so much, I'm just trying to fill in some serious blanks that lessen the roleplay enjoyment of the game for me, because there are some plot elements that just don't line up and that sort of detracts from things for me at least.

 

So I'll more or less go with this until someone can release an "official" version that makes sense.  And if I get some snark hulred my way in the meantime, I'm ok with that.  Much like the whales I'm trying to save a whole set.. lol

[Digger1967]

Dragon Age isn't that subtle, especially when it comes to establishing whether characters are under evil influence or not. If Fiona was indeed under blood magic manipulation then the game would have flat out told us during Alexius's sentencing at Skyhold or when you actually talk to Fiona again. Why leave out such a critical detail that doesn't actually add any kind of mystery, but as this thread has shown, only created confusion with the story's narrative?

 

Fiona made a really, really, stupid mistake that almost feels like a character assassination by the writers, but really it was done purposely so that the mages are shown in a negative light this time around compared to the one-sided portrayal of the mage/templar conflict in Dragon Age 2. I mean, seriously, there's a reason why Fiona is made to be an idiot in this game while the templars get Ser "Way Better Than Fiona" Barris. If blood magic was involved in the mage story then the rebel mages would be completely exonerated of any wrong doing while the templars would once again look like the transparent bad guys because of Lucius Corin and the entire templar leadership willingly following the Elder One. 

 

The writing team obviously didn't want that to happen again in Inquisition so Fiona has to hold the Idiot Ball. Regardless, its bad writing all around. 

 

Well that may have been the writers intent - but from a story perspective, it just doesn't work for me at all.  So unless they clarify or someone comes up with a better explanation, I'm sticking with my own backstory for now.  In order to enjoy the game from a roleplay standpoint, I've got to have stuff make at least a little sense - and when I'm in character going with the "well in a previous game that I didn't play the game designers did x so in this one they did y" just really doesn't work, not for me at least.

 

So I'm not saying your wrong here at all, just saying that as a solution that one really doesn't address the storyline problem, at least not for me.  Hope that makes sense.

[Digger1967]

that's been bothering me as well. Only thing I could think of for why we remember is maybe the Anchor allowing us immunity, but that falls flat when IIRC the companions remember as well.

 

Or are they silent on the matter of Fiona in VR at the meeting in Redcliffe? If they're silent then I'm just gonna roll with Anchor-Immunity headcanon.

 

The only explanation that works for me is that Fiona meets you in Val Royauex and offers you the meeting.  Alexius  goes back in time after this event, and changes the past - for Fiona.  But the Inquisitor is not affected by this change - he/she still remembers the meeting.  Rather than fussing about with a long winded explanation of alternative timelines, etc - I figured the best/easiest way to explain that one would be the mark.  Since the rifts are necessary for time travel to work, the Inquisitor is not affected by the altered timeline because of the mark.

 

Ok, not a superior bit of writing by any means, but hey, the time travel thing was absolutely not my idea.  I despise it as a plot device, but since I'm sort of stuck with it, well just do the best I can to make it livable.

[Digger1967]

That's how I read it as well, Alexius' trick was restrained only to Redcliff.

 

 

 

Finally someone else who disliked that.

 

If you really want to bake your noodle, how about equipping your companions in the future with something you find in the castle only to discover that even though their future selves go and get themselves killed, when you come back to the past their past selves still have the new equipment even though it was never really given to them.

 

Ya, the time travel thing is always just such a mess.  I really wish people would stop using it, it is so exceedingly rare to actually see it done well.  

[dantares83]

till now, i am still confused about the imposter in Val Royeaux.

 

Fiona clearly states she has not met us so is that an imposter? or is the Fiona in Redcliff trapped in a time loop? so if we 'killed' Fiona, did we kill a future her or a past her or a present her? does that mean she can come back alive?

 

mind blown!

[TK514]

Well, we know Alexius' time travel is localized because the first time we find out about is due to a localized event right outside Redcliffe. There's a weird rift (though I didn't notice anything different) and everyone freaks out over it.

[Krypplingz]

Well, we know Alexius' time travel is localized because the first time we find out about is due to a localized event right outside Redcliffe. There's a weird rift (though I didn't notice anything different) and everyone freaks out over it.

I think it's the green circles around the Redcliffe rifts that make them special. I think that if you step into them your character starts to move a bit slower. Atleast if you push a demon into them they seem to attack less/do less damage. 

[phyreblade74]

Fiona is precisely why I did THIS:

 

[Lady Artifice]

Shhh, writing.

 

Also, your companions being subjected to Red Lyrium for a year and then being geared-up and ready to go? Shhhhhh

 

::head desk:: So much this. 

 

They have been freaking outside their heads at that point. If they didn't immediately attack, they should have at least been paranoid and erratic beyond all measure. 

 

The way they took all the build up in DA2 about how dangerous red lyrium is on your psyche and reduced it to barely more than an informed attribute in DAI makes me want to kick things. 

 

Edit: We see it affecting the red Templars, but we're stuffing it into our weapons and...nothing?

[TEWR]

::head desk:: So much this. 

 

They have been freaking outside their heads at that point. If they didn't immediately attack, they should have at least been paranoid and erratic beyond all measure. 

 

The way they took all the build up in DA2 about how dangerous red lyrium is on your psyche and reduced it to barely more than an informed attribute in DAI makes me want to kick things. 

 

Edit: We see it affecting the red Templars, but we're stuffing it into our weapons and...nothing?

 

Agreed. DAII even did the same thing with the Primeval Lyrium Rune if you don't let Varric keep the idol fragment. I'm sure there's some way to safely work the stuff into a weapon without the paranoia/hearing voices/contracting the Blight crap that went down, but I'm also thinking it'd probably be more trouble then it's worth.

 

But this could've been a decent way to involve the Architect and Avernus (not the only way, as he should've helped us against Cory, but in addition to other ways he would be present). Maybe we could take it to him and he has us send him all the Red Lyrium we find and he works on it to get it to be safe to use in a weapon. Or at least, safe-ish.

[SgtSteel91]

Lyrium can kill you if it's not used right but it's used to make runes. Why can't the same apply to Red Lyrium? Just gotta be more careful with it.

[LOLandStuff]

Because red lyrium is even worse than lyrium.

I don't know where but it's said they're kept in special containers and only studied for like an hour or so by one person. And after the shift they needs a whole day off or more to recover.

[Han Shot First]

Fiona is the epitome of bad decisions.

 

I don't know where this whole blood magic mind control thing comes from, but it's a poor excuse. And I certainly don't remember her ever doing anything smart.

All her decisions are on the spur-of-the-moment.

 

The worst part isn't even that she is bad leader who stumbles from one blunder to the next. She'd at least be somewhat sympathetic if she was a good person who was poorly suited for her role. But she's a despicable person. Redcliffe gave her and the rest of the mages shelter and protection, when most of the world would have turned their back on them. And how does she reward Arl Teagan and the town of Redcliffe for their generosity? By betraying them over a mere rumor of Templars. 

 

Siding with the mages really should have ended with a Judgement for Fiona. The Inquisitor should have had to choose whether to set her free, toss her in the dungeon, make her tranquil, turn her over to Arl Teagan for judgement, or order her beheaded. 

[LOLandStuff]

We sure needed a judgment. It sort of baffling we don't have it and just let her stand in the library.

I'm thinking of all those tranquils she let horribly die to turn them into oculara.