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?
I'd say her actions added on to the already hate she had
And the said new mage leader would probably get hate if they did the same thing Fiona did
Insults. And you wonder why I don't like you people
Please point out exactly where I insulted you?
And these "you people", haven't seen them wonder that. So I'd say to drop this ridiculous persecution complex.
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?
It's not really a double-standard if everyone agrees that Lucius' was insane and everyone kills him
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?
Probably not, people really seem to absolutely hate her for some reason?
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.
The double-standard is that people let their own bias against Fiona rule the day here? That Lucius is a worst leader for his side is a valid point, so accusations that Fiona is the worst leader in Thedas and a "moron" are hardly fair considering what the other side was getting upto?
I have played "Champions of the Just", but even if Envy Demons are super rare and hard to identify, that still doesn't excuse that they let their guard down and allowed one to infiltrate and destroy them from within, without catching on way earlier than they did?
Fiona fans like to change the subject? Remember a couple pages ago where people couldn't shut up about my occasional overuse of question marks?
Please point out exactly where I insulted you?
And these "you people", haven't seen them wonder that. So I'd say to stop with this ridiculous persecution complex.
It's not exactly insults per se, but there is a degree of condenscion on the anti-Fiona side, that even Artifice picked up on and pointed out a few pages back? Not saying that it's you or that it's intentional from people, but it's definitely noticable and oft directed to people.
Fiona, on the other hand, has people actively trying to shift the blame for her idiocy to anyone BUT her. "It's not her fault that she's a moron" seems to be the pro-Mage rallying cry. And to an extent, I agree. It isn't entirely her fault that the mages elected a loud mouthed idiot outsider as their highest representative. Some of the stupid clearly resides with the voting mages. The Redcliffe business, however, is all on her. It's like someone handed her a menu and she decided to order 'the worst that could happen' with a side of 'needlessly alienating our most powerful allies'.
I think that a lot of Fiona supporters don't discount her mistakes, but point out that there are mitigating reasons for them. The rest of the time is spent holding up a mirror to comments like this and pointing out to the Fiona-haters that they are extremely biased and open in their dislike of her? It's hard to have a balanced discussion when one side goes in actively calling her an idiot?
It's not really a double-standard if everyone agrees that Lucius' was insane and everyone kills him
Quite. No one questions the belief that he was batpoo crazy. The only one of the two leaders that is currently being defended is Fiona.
The rest of the time is spent holding up a mirror to comments like this and pointing out to the Fiona-haters that they are extremely biased and open in their dislike of her? It's hard to have a balanced discussion when one side goes in actively calling her an idiot?
And conversely, it's hard to have what you deem a "balanced discussion" when one sides goes in actively white-knighting the woman.
And just because we are open in our dislike of the character hardly dismisses her faults. We are actually providing evidence for her stupidity, not blindly hating on her.
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?
Actually in DA2 I saved the mages.
Even if you have a new mage leader, that person has to go for several reasons:
Committed treason against the King/Queen
Sold the mages into slavery
Mages who disagreed were killed or ran for their lives
Therefore, that leader is responsible for the crimes committed. That leader should have at least been sent to prison.
We can eliminate Lucius. Some of the knights are actually worth saving and fight with you. You can disband them and help them kick the habit.
If you save the mages, you are stuck with a poor leader for the mages.
We can eliminate Lucius. Some of the knights are actually worth saving and fight with you. You can disband them and help them kick the habit.
If you save the mages, you are stuck with a poor leader for the mages.
Back before the game launched, I was hoping to replace both factions with a new leader
We only get to do it with one faction 
And conversely, it's hard to have what you deem a "balanced discussion" when one sides goes in actively white-knighting the woman.
And just because we are open in our dislike of the character hardly dismisses her faults. We are actually providing evidence for her stupidity, not blindly hating on her.
It's hardly white-knighing considering that some of us are willing to acknowledge her flaws and mistakes. Fiona is a stubborn, haughty and sometimes impulsive woman, who really should have had more of a plan going into the Rebellion, or at least some contingencies in place if it went as badly as it did?
Does that mean that she's a moron who deserves to be hated, accused of being a willing accomplice in enslavement and aiding and abetting the mass murder of the Tranquil? A lot of the comments about her have been extremely unfair and overblown, since it's obvious that Fiona was as much a victim of Alexius and the Venatori as much as the rest of the rebellion?
Why should the supporters accept evidence for her "stupidity", when their own evidence that exonerates or at least mitigates some of the responsibility in the Venatori takeover is routinely ignored, dismissed or mocked?
It's not exactly insults per se, but there is a degree of condenscion on the anti-Fiona side, that even Artifice picked up on and pointed out a few pages back? Not saying that it's you or that it's intentional from people, but it's definitely noticable and oft directed to people.
There isn't really. Archie just shows up, rams everyone who disagrees with them in the Fiona-hate-troll-love boat.
If I start quoting them, most of the posts are "you're a hater"
I think that a lot of Fiona supporters don't discount her mistakes, but point out that there are mitigating reasons for them. The rest of the time is spent holding up a mirror to comments like this and pointing out to the Fiona-haters that they are extremely biased and open in their dislike of her? It's hard to have a balanced discussion when one side goes in actively calling her an idiot?
Actually, I would have loved to see her with her son. Sadly, her actions in this game stopped me from supporting her. If anything, I wanted to support her but couldn't. Couldn't give her a free pass. If they would have let me send her to prison, I would have saved the mages.
Does that mean that she's a moron who deserves to be hated, accused of being a willing accomplice in enslavement and aiding and abetting the mass murder of the Tranquil?
Why should the supporters accept evidence for her "stupidity", when their own evidence that exonerates or at least mitigates some of the responsibility in the Venatori takeover is routinely ignored, dismissed or mocked?
Yes, she deserved that.
Because there is no proof that exonerate her;
Actually in DA2 I saved the mages.
Even if you have a new mage leader, that person has to go for several reasons:
Committed treason against the King/Queen
Sold the mages into slavery
Mages who disagreed were killed or ran for their lives
Therefore, that leader is responsible for the crimes committed. That leader should have at least been sent to prison.
We can eliminate Lucius. Some of the knights are actually worth saving and fight with you. You can disband them and help them kick the habit.
If you save the mages, you are stuck with a poor leader for the mages.
Fiona made it hard for me to ally with the mages.
I conscripted them because of her. And I stopped feeling bad about it when she started complaining.
Yes, she deserved that.
Because there is no proof that exonerate her;
Kinda made my point for me... any suggestion that she's not at fault and people don't seem to want to listen?
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 you're right there is a double standard, just not the one you're thinking of. Lucius pays for his actions, if however you decide to save the mages, you get saddled with Fiona who walks away from her disastrous actions scott-free. Maybe Fiona gets more scrutiny because she is handed arbitrary immunity depending on a larger choice where as Lucius getting his comeuppance can happen regardless of which larger choice you make.
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?
No you see, I don't know what you mean because apparently we have different definitions of basic words such as "accidentally". Happy? 
That aside, it's hardly complacency when you literally do not possess the means to detect a threat.
Kinda made my point for me... any suggestion that she's not at fault and people don't seem to want to listen?
I did listen to everything, people saying how she was brainwashed, she was controlled by blood magic, she didnt have any choice, etc. But there is no proof of any os those, they are all excuses trying to absolve her, people should just accept she is guilty for what happened at Redcliff, she attacked the Inquisition without being brainwashed/controlled by blood magic and she is a terrible leader.
You know you're right there is a double standard, just not the one you're thinking of. Lucius pays for his actions, if however you decide to save the mages, you get saddled with Fiona who walks away from her disastrous actions scott-free. Maybe Fiona gets more scrutiny because she is handed arbitrary immunity depending on a larger choice where as Lucius getting his comeuppance can happen regardless of which larger choice you make.
Does she even deserve a comeuppance though in the same manner as Lucius, that's the entire point of the thread?
Furthermore, her second rebellion if you put Vivienne on the Divine's seat gets crushed.
No you see, I don't know what you mean because apparently we have different definitions of basic words such as "accidentally". Happy?
That aside, it's hardly complacency when you literally do not possess the means to detect a threat.
Well, no-one lets themselves be taken over on purpose as you said, so it does technically consitute an accident?
Which is why Templars and their level of being able to identify threats has been annoying inconsistent, in Origins, the Warden if trained as a Templar could mention to Otto that they were able to sense something off about the orphanage in the Alienage.
(I'd point out you're hardly one to talk about not understanding definitions, since you just used "literally" incorrectly, but I often do that too)
It's hardly white-knighing considering that some of us are willing to acknowledge her flaws and mistakes. Fiona is a stubborn, haughty and sometimes impulsive woman, who really should have had more of a plan going into the Rebellion, or at least some contingencies in place if it went as badly as it did?
Does that mean that she's a moron who deserves to be hated, accused of being a willing accomplice in enslavement and aiding and abetting the mass murder of the Tranquil? A lot of the comments about her have been extremely unfair and overblown, since it's obvious that Fiona was as much a victim of Alexius and the Venatori as much as the rest of the rebellion?
Why should the supporters accept evidence for her "stupidity", when their own evidence that exonerates or at least mitigates some of the responsibility in the Venatori takeover is routinely ignored, dismissed or mocked?
I guess the truth is how we are raised. If you are raised to believe that you are accountable for your actions, then it is impossible to give her a free ride. We know Lucius plays for his crimes either way.
Does she even deserve a comeuppance though in the same manner as Lucius, that's the entire point of the thread?
Furthermore, her second rebellion if you put Vivienne on the Divine's seat gets crushed.
Well, no-one lets themselves be taken over on purpose as you said, so it does technically consitute an accident?
Which is why Templars and their level of being able to identify threats has been annoying inconsistent, in Origins, the Warden if trained as a Templar could mention to Otto that they were able to sense something off about the orphanage in the Alienage.
(I'd point out you're hardly one to talk about not understanding definitions, since you just used "literally" incorrectly, but I often do that too)
All the commanders that took the Red lyrium die. So you only get the ones that were actually trying to think for themselves.
I guess the truth is how we are raised. If you are raised to believe that you are accountable for your actions, then it is impossible to give her a free ride. We know Lucius plays for his crimes either way.
But the problem is what exactly is she accountable for?
From what we see, the most she does is declare a rebellion that even the Divine stated was a long time coming, try to get her people into the Imperium so they can be free citizens, as well as sending people to the Conclave in the hopes they can negotiate an end to hostilities?
The rest of what happened in Redcliffe was Alexius, as we know he's obviously calling the shots and using her as a puppet. While he has her show up in both the tavern and at the castle, she plays no part in any of the negotiations and even he doesn't want her involved in the latter. It's the Inquisitor who can ask that she remain to at least pretend that she still has a say in all this?
If you don't think she was brainwashed and agreed to attack Haven willingly, then she does pay with her life?
But the problem is what exactly is she accountable for?
From what we see, the most she does is declare a rebellion that even the Divine stated was a long time coming, try to get her people into the Imperium so they can be free citizens, as well as sending people to the Conclave in the hopes they can negotiate an end to hostilities?
The rest of what happened in Redcliffe was Alexius, as we know he's obviously calling the shots and using her as a puppet. While he has her show up in both the tavern and at the castle, she plays no part in any of the negotiations and even he doesn't want her involved in the latter. It's the Inquisitor who can ask that she remain to at least pretend that she still has a say in all this?
If you don't think she was brainwashed and agreed to attack Haven willingly, then she does pay with her life?
If nothing else she is their leader and committed treason. That alone gets a person jail time.
But the problem is what exactly is she accountable for?
From what we see, the most she does is declare a rebellion that even the Divine stated was a long time coming, try to get her people into the Imperium so they can be free citizens, as well as sending people to the Conclave in the hopes they can negotiate an end to hostilities?
The rest of what happened in Redcliffe was Alexius, as we know he's obviously calling the shots and using her as a puppet. While he has her show up in both the tavern and at the castle, she plays no part in any of the negotiations and even he doesn't want her involved in the latter. It's the Inquisitor who can ask that she remain to at least pretend that she still has a say in all this?
If you don't think she was brainwashed and agreed to attack Haven willingly, then she does pay with her life?
The rebellion may have been a long time coming but she was the one pushing for it at the absolute worst time since she claims they were losing
I also hold her accountable for selling the mages into slavery and bring Alexius into Redcliffe despite the fact that they were already being protected
Well, no-one lets themselves be taken over on purpose as you said, so it does technically consitute an accident?
No, they were sabotaged because it was purposefully done to them by one of their own. It was not the unforeseen result of some random or innocent action. It's really not hard to understand.
Furthermore, her second rebellion if you put Vivienne on the Divine's seat gets crushed.
It's hardly the same thing given it's an epilogue in which you have no participation unlike the Lucius confrontation. And, unless you have the means to deliberately meta-game it as either a result of more than one playthrough or using guides you don't know at the time you're punishing Fiona with your other non-Fiona related choices.
Which is why Templars and their level of being able to identify threats has been annoying inconsistent, in Origins, the Warden if trained as a Templar could mention to Otto that they were able to sense something off about the orphanage in the Alienage.
There's a fair bit of difference between a barely controlled poltergeist giving off bad vibes and notoriously elusive and rare demon whose entire thing is revolves around perfectly stealing other people's identities.
(I'd point out you're hardly one to talk about not understanding definitions, since you just used "literally" incorrectly, but I often do that too)
How so? There was nothing figurative or exaggerated or metaphorical about the templars inability to detect envy before it revealed itself. They had no means of doing so.
But the problem is what exactly is she accountable for?
From what we see, the most she does is declare a rebellion that even the Divine stated was a long time coming, try to get her people into the Imperium so they can be free citizens, as well as sending people to the Conclave in the hopes they can negotiate an end to hostilities?
The rest of what happened in Redcliffe was Alexius, as we know he's obviously calling the shots and using her as a puppet. While he has her show up in both the tavern and at the castle, she plays no part in any of the negotiations and even he doesn't want her involved in the latter. It's the Inquisitor who can ask that she remain to at least pretend that she still has a say in all this?
If you don't think she was brainwashed and agreed to attack Haven willingly, then she does pay with her life?
She didn't have to accept the help of the Venatori you realize so she is at fault for bringing them in.
I do think she was brainwashed though by the time Haven happens, along with the rest of the rebel mages that weren't killed or didn't get away. The war table mission after Haven showed that if I recall.
I personally just wished that the mages had their own version of Ser Barris that could take over the mages in place of Fiona.
Retour en haut