HMMMMMMMMMM.
Ha. I had the same thought.
HMMMMMMMMMM.
Ha. I had the same thought.
HMMMMMMMMMM.
The shade off this one comment.
![]()
Okay.
Well, I don't think we all have. It's very possible she's not under the direct influence of blood magic, but that possibility doesn't, in itself, make the theory nonsense. There really isn't a very good argument against it, beyond the lack of explicit confirmation.
Exactly. The lore mentions that blood magic can be used to influence minds, and doesn't have to outright control someone, which is exactly like indoctrination, minus the permanently crippling part.
To me being "big idiots" seemed like a pattern as much as the subsequent mind control. At least with the Wardens and the Templars, there was actual evidence of subsequent mind control to somewhat balance the "big idiots" part. With the mages, as far as I can tell, there is not.
This is true, the idiot ball being passed around a plenty is common in bioware stories. There is no proof of bloodmagic, but it's certainly something that should at least be considered when judging Fiona. I mean, what's his face is very liberal with his time powers. Why wouldn't he use blood magic too to influence her. I mean, she went and turned against Teagan and his men, people that were helping her. That's a big jump to make.
Exactly, it could mean a number of things.
The Colonel said it right when he pointed out that Alexius is a Magister, and thus potentially capable of controlling someone with a stronger willpower.
Fiona is someone who did something reckless, foolish, and desperate and may have been influenced by blood magic as a way to keep her in hand. This is not a nonsense suggestion, but a rather reasonable inference based on the fact that Alexius is a powerful Tevinter Magister with every reason to resort to extreme measures himself. Why wouldn't he be prepared to manipulate her with magic?
Not subscribing to it is fine, but dismissing it as silly conjecture is extreme.
And that's exactly where I'm coming from and what it comes down to. Why are people dismissing something that is reasonable?
Really, I'm only strongly supporting this angle because one, people asked "Why Fiona, why?" and two, because the hate here for her is rabid. Hell, even if there wasn't any blood magic, one could hardly blame her for going to somewhere that she has at least a small chance of being accepted, vs being stuck in Thedas having to fight the templars.
That said, I still think the decision was stupid since she had Redcliffe helping her, but well, not everyone's meant to lead and can keep their cool. *shrug* She's not a leader, no, but you'd think one would put the hate on the guys backing the animal in the corner in the first place... I used to criticize Fiona a lot more myself until people started defending Templars and shitting on mages alone.
Anyway, to wrap it up and answer my question, people are too dead set on hating Fiona to even want to consider something other than what they've been told. That is sad, if you ask me.
Pot and kettle, dear.
Perhaps the survivors will learn humility.
How dare they deem to know what is best for all life, that conceit, that arrogance is physically revolting.
But there is not a good argument for it too.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not a good argument.
I mean, not much argument is even needed. Magister, Tevinter, blood mage. That's all the consideration needed. Have you met any blood mage villains so far that didn't like using their power?
Anyway, to wrap it up and answer my question, people are too dead set on hating Fiona to even want to consider something other than what they've been told. That is sad, if you ask me.
Sorry colonel but there isn't any, it is all conjecture.Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not a good argument.
I mean, not much argument is even needed. Magister, Tevinter, blood mage. That's all the consideration needed. Have you met any blood mage villains so far that didn't like using their power?
But there is not a good argument for it too.
I remember the fabled codex entre that would proof the mages were brainwashed but no one knew where to find it.
I agree that this is a theory, not fact.
It isn't the dismissal of the theory that gets under my skin, but the dismissal of anyone who indulges it as desperately grasping at straws.
Why wouldn't the blood magic using Tevinter Magister, intent on taking control of a horde of rebel mages, be willing to resort to blood magic to ease his way? It's a valid theory, and there's nothing wrong with subscribing to it.
Sorry colonel but there isn't any, it is all conjecture.
Alexius is not shown using any kind of blood magic, he might be a maleficar, but its not shown in game or in any codex.
He is dead by the time Fiona is attacking Haven, si he cant control her
The brainwash is a theory, its cant be proved that its tru or false, so people can believe what they want.
Pretty much his point.
the game don"t say any thing about blood magic or brain control or anything just Fiona allie with Magister Alexuis yu can put 100 theory with brain control and **** but you can"t change the fact in game , and their is no hate or Pro templar mentality stoping us from thinking like you think . we all here played with the mage in 1 or 2 walkthrought . i have no best side or pro side . i m just seeking the truth and the truth is the Only responsable about what happen in redclift . end of the story
the game don"t say any thing about blood magic or brain control or anything just Fiona allie with Magister Alexuis yu can put 100 theory with brain control and **** but you can"t change the fact in game , and their is no hate or Pro templar mentality stoping us from thinking like you think . we all here played with the mage in 1 or 2 walkthrought . i have no best side or pro side . i m just seeking the truth and the truth is the Only responsable about what happen in redclift . end of the story
No, you're just seeing what's presented on the surface. Not the truth. Which is a rather simple minded approach and no way to have a discussion. The game doesn't say a lot of things.
And stating that Fiona was influenced by blood magic isn't changing a fact... in fact, unless someone gives a reasonable explanation as to why Fiona was in Val Royeaux and didn't remember, I'd suggest people stop dismissing everything they don't agree on, really. We've seen how the time magic works, and it changes everything. The only magic that just effects certain places is the one that speeds things up and slows it down.
So, any other explanations? Blood magic is the least convoluted option.
why t
No, you're just seeing what's presented on the surface. Not the truth. Which is a rather simple minded approach and no way to have a discussion. The game doesn't say a lot of things.
And stating that Fiona was influenced by blood magic isn't changing a fact... in fact, unless someone gives a reasonable explanation as to why Fiona was in Val Royeaux and didn't remember, I'd suggest people stop dismissing everything they don't agree on, really. We've seen how the time magic works, and it changes everything. The only magic that just effects certain places is the one that speeds things up and slows it down.
So, any other explanations? Blood magic is the least convoluted option.
every one say that blood magic is a theory , every one , a theory nothing more . we have now in tha game no blood magic no control keep your theory and maybe in the DA4 they will tell us if your theory is right or what we have now in the game is correct
Also, Alexius isn't the only tevinter there, so the blood magic thing still works.
why t
every one say that blood magic is a theory , every one , a theory nothing more . we have now in tha game no blood magic no control keep your theory and maybe in the DA4 they will tell us if your theory is right or what we have now in the game is correct
You can call it what you want, so long as you stop going around saying your narrow minded view is fact.
You can call it what you want, so long as you stop going around saying your narrow minded view is fact.
you to when you stop thinking that your theory is a fact
Why it couldn't be the envy demon at Val Royeaux.
Fiona brings up that what the Inquisitor says feels familiar even though she doesn't remember.
Plus the Templars he got at Val Royeaux would notice that their leader all of a sudden wasn't leading them back.
you to when you stop thinking that your theory is a fact
I haven't called it a fact yet. You however:
i m just seeking the truth and the truth is
the Only responsable about what happen in redclift is fiona . end of the story
I had assumed that it was the envy demon by that point, no?Why it couldn't be the envy demon at Val Royeaux?
And no one would notice Fiona in the middle of Val Royeaux? How she get past the templars in the Hintherlands? Why she was at Val Royeaux if no one knew the Inquisition was going there?Fiona brings up that what the Inquisitor says feels familiar even though she doesn't remember.
Plus the Templars he got at Val Royeaux would notice that their leader all of a sudden wasn't leading them back.
My guess is that even though Alexius changed the past, there are still echoes of what was erased.Fiona brings up that what the Inquisitor says feels familiar even though she doesn't remember.
Plus the Templars he got at Val Royeaux would notice that their leader all of a sudden wasn't leading them back.
I had assumed that it was the envy demon by that point, no?
Here's a question, why would the envy demon send him to an operation being conducted by someone serving Corypheus? Seems detrimental to tell him about any lead at all. Envy demon templar gave him nothing at all.
And no one would notice Fiona in the middle of Val Royeaux?
The lore has pointed out many times that all elves look the same to humans. Especially when all focus was on the mourning of Divine Justinia's death, the Chantry denouncing the Inquisition, and the Templars leaving.
Plus she is skilled, so could outrun or outdo anyone who did.
How she get past the templars in the Hintherlands?
The Templars left the Hinterlands to return to their fortress. The ones that remained were essentially bandits.
Why she was at Val Royeaux if no one knew the Inquisition was going there?
The Chantry summoned the Inquisition. That word would spread.
I had assumed that it was the envy demon by that point, no?
I thought it was a sign of blood magic control at first, then I was willing to believe a timey wimey explanation. At this point, I don't think the writers really thought the little technicalities of the plot through.
There were several things about the time travel narrative that irked me.
Here's a question, why would the envy demon send him to an operation being conducted by someone serving Corypheus? Seems detrimental to tell him about any lead at all. Envy demon templar gave him nothing at all.
What, specifically? If I might ask.
There were several things about the time travel narrative that irked me.