Actually, this is incorrect. Lucius was not taken over by a demon, he allowed a demon to impersonate himself while he planned/worked on other apocalyptic things.
Yeah, the real Lord Seeker was willingly luring all the Seekers of Truth to their deaths since they were immune to Corypheyus' methods.
It's kind of hilarious that so many are harping on Fiona when her counterpart was clearly so much better in caring for his charges. #Sarcasm
You mean the guy who let a demon impersonate him to turn the Templars into Reds and killed other Seekers, who we also got to kill
Which kinda makes Lucius a lot worse than Fiona, since he not only screwed over both the Templars by letting a demon turn them into monsters, but also betrayed his fellow Seekers, by luring them to their deaths.
At least with Fiona, she was trying to help her people by attempting to allow them to become part of the Imperium (even though it failed miserably when Alexius seized power from her), whereas Corin was purposefully trying to take down two entire orders.
Unlike the theory that Fiona was brainwashed via blood magic, we can't really wonder the same for Corin since Seekers are supposed to be resistant to blood magic and mental domination (although this trait is annoying inconsistent), so he'd be far more culpable in his actions.
I dont think no one has ever said Lucius is better than Fiona, but its doesnt make Fiona a good leader and neither a good character.
True, but I think we can say that when you look at the leaders of both sides of the war, the Mage leaders come across as far saner and reasonable.
Even Vivienne says that (before the Rebellion at least), she'd thought Fiona was competent at her job, although given her later remarks about her, I suppose that she could be damning her with faint praise?
Whya re we comparing someone who eas intent on destroying his order and the Templars to someone who tried to preserve her charges at any cost....
And unless Fiona was also impersonated by a demon I fail to see the point of comparing the actions of a lunatic/demon and a moron
I dont think no one has ever said Lucius is better than Fiona, but its doesnt make Fiona a good leader and neither a good character.
Yup. Got to love the moving goal posts. Can't adequately defend Fiona's incompetence? Point out Lucius was an apocalyptic nutjob, as if people were even defending him the first place, and hope it sticks.
I'll at least give this to Lucius. Unlike Fiona he was competent enough to more or less succeed in achieving what he was trying to do. IE: Destroy the Seekers and Corrupt the Templars.
Lucius only went insane after the revelation that his beloved order was made of guys who were almost posessed by a spirit, and the powers didn´t come from faith in the maker but from that spirit. So he lashes out violently and decides the whole world is corrupt and it must be burned durn to start anew.
Sure it´s very messed up, but Fiona didn´t have any revelation which destroyed her world-view, so we can´t compare the two. We don´t know how Lucius might have reacted had Lambert been alive, or had Lucius shared his secret with the other seekers and somehow managed to cope with it instead of going insane.
In short: Lucius was known as a moderate and supporter of the peace talks before he went insane due to a world-shaking revelation.
Fiona was known as a rabid freedom fighter right from the beginning, she then later proceeded to sell her freedom fighters into slavery to avoid risk of death.
Got to love the moving goal posts. Can't adequately defend Fiona's incompetence? Point out Lucius was an apocalyptic nutjob, as if people were even defending him the first place, and hope it sticks.
I'll at least give this to Lucius. Unlike Fiona he was competent enough to more or less succeed in achieving what he was trying to do. IE: Destroy the Seekers and Corrupt the Templars.
Enough with the goalposts, you're obsessed with goalposts, get out of the gym! 
Dras, while we know that you don't think of Fiona that much, it's not exactly fair to dismiss a valid and legitimate point because of it. Fiona overall was a far less terrible leader than Lucius was when you compare how the leadership of the war managed things?
I mean, while Fiona and the mages unwittingly allowed the Venatori to infilitrate and take over the Rebellion out from under them, leading them becoming slaves, blood sacrifices and lyrium fuel (the latter two being their fate in the Dark Future)... how is that any worse a screw up than the Templars who have spent years training to fight magic and identify demons, failed to recognise they've got one under the bloomin' noses posing as their boss?
Because it was an Envy demon, one of the hardest to spot. One of the few capable of identifying him could have been the Knight Vigilant, which was summoned and murdered by Envy with the help of Denam.
http://img2.wikia.no...Therinfal_1.png
Templars don´t have a demon sensor, they are fallible too.
The difference is Lucius wasn't really a leader, he was a saboteur and traitor with motivations and goals completely different to Fiona's. Trying to compare them falls flat because they have little in common.
Furthermore a big difference between the templars and the mages is that it took active sabotage to make the former fall while the latter were destroyed by their own complacency and negligence.
Case and point the templars not knowing about the Envy demon. That happened because the senior templars who could recognise it were disposed of before hand, a smart move. Fiona signing over the mages because of a non-existant templar army? That happened because she wouldn't even do basic follow up on information she received, incompetence.
The difference is Lucius wasn't really a leader, he was a saboteur and traitor with motivations and goals completely different to Fiona's. Trying to compare them falls flat because they have little in common.
Furthermore a big difference between the templars and the mages is that it took active sabotage to make the former fall while the latter were destroyed by their own complacency and negligence.
Case and point the templars not knowing about the Envy demon. That happened because the senior templars who could recognise it were disposed of before hand, a smart move. Fiona signing over the mages because of a non-existant templar army? That happened because she wouldn't even do basic follow up on information she received, incompetence.
So, Fiona gets called a bad leader because she made mistakes while trying to help her side... bu Lucius was sabotaging his own side and wanted them all to die, yet he gets a free pass on being called a bad leader?
(And I've been accused of being biased... wow?)
Wait, confused, which side was complacent and negligent? Those terms equally describe what the Templars suffered because they accidentally allowed a demon to take over, while the upper ranks where either bumped off or quickly corrupted. You'd think that in a war with Mages who for all they know, might summon demons to fight them, they might be a little bit more on their guard?
Dras, you keep referring to a non-existant army as proof of Fiona's negligence, ignoring the numerous times when it's pointed out to you that the Templars were in the Hinterlands before they withdrew to Val Royeaux, leaving only the deserters behind? Doesn't this suggest that they had some kind of presence in the area to make the Mages feel threatened, thus giving cause for her to fear an imminent attack?
Because being handed the highly coveted titles of saboteur and traitor really constitutes "a pass" right?
Fiona gets labelled as a bad leader because she was bad at leading and ultimately failed as a result of her leadership. Lucius gets labelled a traitor instead because treachery was his defining contribution not leadership.
Wait, confused, which side was complacent and negligent? Those terms equally describe what the Templars suffered because they accidentally allowed a demon to take over, while the upper ranks where either bumped off or quickly corrupted. You'd think that in a war with Mages who for all they know, might summon demons to fight them, they might be a little bit more on their guard?
Oh absolutely, having someone deliberately place a demon in a position and making sure to remove the people who could identify it as such is really a textbook example of something "accidently" happening 
Because being handed the highly coveted titles of saboteur and traitor really constitutes "a pass" right?
It shows a double-standard at least, that Fiona will be condemned for her mistakes while trying to protect her people, but Lucius' willfull actions against his own side don't merit or generate the same kind of scrutiny or hatred against him?
Oh absolutely, having someone deliberately place a demon in a position and making sure to remove the people who could identify it as such is really a textbook example of something "accidently" happening
You know what I mean, it does constitute a degree of complacency and belief in their own infallibility that allowed the Templars to get caught with their collective pants round their ankles. We've seen throughout the games that the more overzealous Templars hold the firm belief that Mages need to be watched because they might fall pray to demons... so it seems to have never occured to them that they might end up getting duped by one as well?
Incidentally, aren't you focusing on the language and not the point at hand? Methinks someone doth protest about goalposts too much?
Well, Lucius sure was a good leader since he did manage to lead them on and to their doom.
The guy just wanted everyone to die and didn't give a damn.
I've never seen anyone defend him in the first place.
It shows a double-standard at least, that Fiona will be condemned for her mistakes while trying to protect her people, but Lucius' willfull actions against his own side don't merit or generate the same kind of scrutiny or hatred against him?
You know what I mean, it does constitute a degree of complacency and belief in their own infallibility that allowed the Templars to get caught with their collective pants round their ankles. We've seen throughout the games that the more overzealous Templars hold the firm belief that Mages need to be watched because they might fall pray to demons... so it seems to have never occured to them that they might end up getting duped by one as well?
Incidentally, aren't you focusing on the language and not the point at hand? Methinks someone doth protest about goalposts too much?
It shows a double-standard at least, that Fiona will be condemned for her mistakes while trying to protect her people, but Lucius' willfull actions against his own side don't merit or generate the same kind of scrutiny or hatred against him?
You know what I mean, it does constitute a degree of complacency and belief in their own infallibility that allowed the Templars to get caught with their collective pants round their ankles. We've seen throughout the games that the more overzealous Templars hold the firm belief that Mages need to be watched because they might fall pray to demons... so it seems to have never occured to them that they might end up getting duped by one as well?
Incidentally, aren't you focusing on the language and not the point at hand? Methinks someone doth protest about goalposts too much?
What double standard? No one is defending him os his actions, he does not get any hatred because we kill him and he is done.
Envy Demons are very rare, only the higher ranking templars can track him. Envy made sure to send the uncorrupted leaders to the Conclave to die, the rest were his lackey, the rank and file couldnt track a Envy Demon, if you played through the quest "Champions of the Just" you would know.
But what I find curious, is why do you need to change the focus do Lucius? This thread is about Fiona, not about who was the worst leader, her fans trying to change the subject will not change the fact she is a horrible leader and a terrible character.
It shows a double-standard at least, that Fiona will be condemned for her mistakes while trying to protect her people, but Lucius' willfull actions against his own side don't merit or generate the same kind of scrutiny or hatred against him?
Everyone knows Lucius is nuts and needed to die badly. Nobody denies it, and nobody bothers with it because there's no one going out of their way to defend him...because there's nothing to defend in the first place.
Fiona made a bad decision and you see people scurry about blaming blood magic, time magic and basically being unable to accept the fact that she screwed up and is bad at leading.
I think the Fiona hate has more to do with the fact that it's Fiona who was already hated before Inquisition came out and not her actions. Would there still be as much hatred if he Mage leader was a completely new person but did the same things Fiona did?
Yes, there would still be hate for a completely new mage leader. But then you'd show up and claim everyone is a mage hater.
Yes, there would still be hate for a completely new mage leader. But then you'd show up and claim everyone is a mage hater.
It shows a double-standard at least, that Fiona will be condemned for her mistakes while trying to protect her people, but Lucius' willfull actions against his own side don't merit or generate the same kind of scrutiny or hatred against him?
Retour en haut
