601 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

All templars were called to Therinfal, the only templars who refused to go there were the ones who stayed in the Chantry and the one at the Hasmal (the largest force after the ones at Therinfal), and even the one at Hasmal can join the Inquisition.

 

Any proof that ALL templars were called to Theirinfall?

 

How about the templars in the Hinterlands? Do they disappear from the map after Lucius goes to Theirinfall? And what about all the red templars who show up in later parts of the game? Clearly not all templars were called to Theirinfall.
 

The Hassmal templars join the Inquisition after the events of In Your Heart Shall Burn. They don't help seal the breach.

[The Baconer]

Any proof that ALL templars were called the Theirinfall?

 

How about the templars in the Hinterlands? Do they disappear from the map after Lucius goes to Theirinfall? And what about all the red templars who show up in later parts of the game? Clearly not all templars were called to Theirinfall.

 

The order would have been intended for all Templars who had left their posts at the Circles to pursue the mages, but that doesn't mean all of them followed said order.

 

The Templars in the Hinterlands ignored the call to march to Val Royeaux, and from there, to Therinfal. They had split off of the Templars' main host. Red Templars were being created even before the Conclave, and it's also possible that they picked up a number of "stragglers" from around Thedas.

[Master Warder Z_]

The order would have been intended for all Templars who had left their posts at the Circles

 

Not really their posts anymore

 

The circles were after all disbanded by majority vote, and of course the Templars served their ties with the Chantry and thus that wouldn't be a posting for them any longer beyond any individual who wished to stay. 

 

But yes, the order was directed obviously to the Templar forces who left the Chantry.

[The Baconer]

Not really their posts anymore

 

The circles were after all disbanded by majority vote, and of course the Templars served their ties with the Chantry and thus that wouldn't be a posting for them any longer beyond any individual who wished to stay. 

 

But yes, the order was directed obviously to the Templar forces who left the Chantry.

 

The Lord Seeker severed their ties, and his orders are aimed at those who follow.

[MisterJB]

Alexius is her last hope in getting her people to safety in Tevinter. If that deal falls through, then Fiona has no hope at all, and thus no reason to obey Alexius. It makes no sense to avoid fighting templars while they are alone and the mages have Ferelden support, but then attack these templars after they gain powerful allies and the mages lose theirs. This rationale is completely backwards, and this is why some here believe Fiona was being mind-controlled during the events of Haven. If she didn't want to fight templars before, she would not have wanted to after.

Alexius has all the leverage, Fiona has none. Do you think she can actually force him to fulfill their bargain NOW if he demands they destroy the Inquisition first?

And again, she is not attacking Templars, she is attacking the Inquisition. And they were being backed bya  vast army of Venatori.

 

 

No, the full templar army was in Haven for the attack. The vets were sent soon after Theirinfall's business was complete. The scene with Cole appearing on top of the chore table confirms that. This was before the breach was closed. So if Fiona was going support any attack, it should have come before the breach was closed and before the main templar forces arrived.

The scenes goes:


"A few dozen veterans are coming ahead of the rest to help seal the Breach.


When will these veterans arrive?

*poof*

They're almost here. Templars don't like to be late."

So, the Inquisition was being backed only by a few dozens Templars.

Fiona could have surrendered, or ordered her people to stand down. Or she could have ordered them to turn on the Venatori. Anything is better than continuing to help a force that not only took advantage of your people and put their lives in jeopardy, but also serves the darkspawn.

 

It's a battle involving several hundred people.

First, she would have to be able to get message to the hundreds of mages fighting in various points. Then, she would have to precisely coordinate either a retreat or a surrender or a betrayal while everyone else is still fighting without getting the mages killed by either side.
 

[MisterJB]

Don't know about that. Alexius seemed very pro-Tevinter to me. Then he turned to pro-Elder One. But who knows how he presented himself to Fiona. So yeah, maybe he came off as pro-mage to her and she willingly agreed. I don't contest the fact that Fiona was foolish. I'm just saying she would not have willingly side with him knowing what he truly was. The mages path shows this.

 

As for the bad future, we saw her turn against Alexius in the castle hall. Logically, after the Herald and Dorian disappeared Ferelden's monarch(s) would have entered the hall and kicked Alexius out. Fiona would then have to choose to go with Alexius knowing what he was really all about, or side with the Inquisition and hope they would cover for her with the monarch(s). Based on her fate in the cell, I think it's clear to see that she went with the Inquisition.

 

So I think she would have made the same choice in the templar path upon discovering Alexius' true intentions.
 

The notes found on bad future tell us how the Ferelden forces failed thrice to take Redcliff castle from the Venatori.

 

It's just as possible Fiona remained with them due to them appearing to be the winning side but, eventually, did something that angered Corypheus. Maybe she only said not to involve her people on that because she didn't believe, at the time, Alexius would suceed.

[Dean_the_Young]

I sort of find that problematic because it comes off as oppressed groups can't be the architects of their own liberation and freedom without some outside 'savior' t swoop in for them. I feel like this also applies to the Elves too. Like the only way things can get better for Elves in Orlais is if the Inquisitor feels charitable enough to support Briala. Or Elves in Fereldan getting better representation if a City Elf Warden asks for it, then go and **** all over it in the epilogue (or just not mention it).

 

This runs into the nature of epic adventure RPGs- where the PC saves everyone (or not), and holds the fate of most people in their own hands. Agency for the player means less agency for everyone else. There's nothing unique to it regarding oppressed groups: even the un-oppressed groups are dependent on the Inquisitor to save them.

 

The issue with the mage rebellion isn't that an oppressed group couldn't get their own liberation and freedom: the fact that you pose it like that is the problem.

 

The issue of the mage rebellion is that only the extremists ever wanted it in the first place. Fiona is not the epitome of the typical mage's thoughts and desires, no more than Meredith is the archetypical Templar. The rebellion was set off by a complicated series of sparks, but most of those sparks were deliberatly ignited by extremists on both sides regardless of the desires of the majority. Revolutionaries like Anders wanted the mages to have liberty or death, either being acceptable. Hardliners like Meredith agreed with the later half. Neither had anything approaching a genuine follow-up plan: Fiona had not revolutionary strategy, and the Templars were largely focused on putting the genie back into the bottle and deciding something else later.

 

The mage rebellion was not a popular uprising. The Mages only barely consolidated for the position in extreme and artificial circumstances in which rebellion was tied to imminent survival... and then fractured soon after, between loyalists and rebels and apostates and the many mages who just went underground and hoped to be ignored by both sides.

 

Fiona only getting her desired outcome isn't a reflection of 'oppressed minority movement needs saving.' It's a reflection of 'marginal political actor only gets her way with PC support.'

[Sifr]

Its the only in game proof of what happened, there is no mention of any kind of mind control, you are just trying to excuse Fiona. She attacked the Inquisition without any kind of mind control.

There is a leap of your logic. Krem doesn't mention any kind of blood, but since its a magic ritual it must be blood magic!

 

Even if you believe she did it without being mindscrewed, you have to acknowledge how completely out of character it was for the FIona to do so.

 

Compare the relatively lighthearted Fiona from Val Royeaux who offered an alliance with the Inquisition (presumably pre-time screw), to the utterly miserable and dejected Fiona who was under Alexius' yoke by the time we arrive in Redcliffe and that makes it obvious. Especially her very vocal opposition to the idea that her people would be forced to fight for the Imperium, which Alexius had previously promised her would not happen.

 

When we also factor in that she was one of the most opposed to the Architect in The Calling novel, even if she had been coerced into fighting for the Venatori under duress, she still would have turned coat immediately upon seeing Corypheus and his pet Dragon show up on the field and realised exactly who (and what) the Venatori's mysterious patron was.

 

And no, before it's suggested that she somehow missed spotting him, the game has many people who survived Haven mention having seen him during the assault on the town. If the denizens of Haven didn't fail to spot one giant darkspawn magister who's making no attempt to hide himself, how do you suppose that none of the countless minions who followed him into battle failed to notice him?

 

As for the lack of blood... isn't the goal of blood magic to use blood as fuel for magical rituals, not paint the walls with it?

 

Whenever we've seen evidence of blood mages using blood magic en-masse in the previous games, we've only ever seen a bunch of drained corpses with little-to-no blood surrounding them, either used up during the casting or collected for later.

 

Blood mages who leave most of their alternate fuel source left all over the ceiling and floor, would be pretty wasteful blood mages, eh?

[TK514]

As for the lack of blood... isn't the goal of blood magic to use blood as fuel for magical rituals, not paint the walls with it?

 

Whenever we've seen evidence of blood mages using blood magic en-masse in the previous games, we've only ever seen a bunch of drained corpses with little-to-no blood surrounding them, either used up during the casting or collected for later.

 

Blood mages who leave most of their alternate fuel source left all over the ceiling and floor, would be pretty wasteful blood mages, eh?

 

"No one saw any blood magic, so it must be blood magic."

[Master Warder Z_]

"No one saw any blood magic, so it must be blood magic."

Because it's magic!

[Dai Grepher]

Alexius has all the leverage, Fiona has none. Do you think she can actually force him to fulfill their bargain NOW if he demands they destroy the Inquisition first?

And again, she is not attacking Templars, she is attacking the Inquisition. And they were being backed bya  vast army of Venatori.

 

The scenes goes:

"A few dozen veterans are coming ahead of the rest to help seal the Breach.

When will these veterans arrive?

*poof*

They're almost here. Templars don't like to be late."

So, the Inquisition was being backed only by a few dozens Templars.

 

It's a battle involving several hundred people.

First, she would have to be able to get message to the hundreds of mages fighting in various points. Then, she would have to precisely coordinate either a retreat or a surrender or a betrayal while everyone else is still fighting without getting the mages killed by either side.
 

 

Of course she can't make him uphold their bargain. Never wrote that she could. I wrote that she would turn on him after realizing that he never had the ability to immigrate them to Tevinter, and/or that he intended to use them in his own war all along.

 

The Venatori are a vast army, but so is the Inquisition, which has home field advantage. Also, if the argument is that Fiona was told that the Inquisition allied with the templars, then Fiona would believe she is fighting the full templar army as well and thus she would refuse.

 

As I wrote before, the vets were coming ahead of the others to help seal the breach. However, the rest of the templars were on their way as well. They arrived after the breach was closed. Perhaps sooner depending on how much time passed between the chore table meeting and the quest to seal the breach. Remember, the sealing occurred during daylight, and the celebration occurred at nightfall. That is plenty of time for the main templar forces to reach Haven. But let's say the Inquisition only had 24 veteran templars. How many mages did Fiona have? Hundreds. But not all of them were battle-ready. Of those that wanted to fight, of those that did not flee as Dorian confirms, how many were there to fight against the Inquisition? More than 24? Even Lennea, who seems the most gung-ho in fighting against anyone and everyone, wasn't at Haven. She was left out of the fight, and she appears in one of the crystal visions with Calpernia.

 

Fiona would only have to surrender to the Herald upon finding him. She could do that by attacking Venatori, or hanging back and then dropping her staff when it was just the Herald's party left standing. As for a more noticeable gesture, she could have commanded her people to flee to the south. Or she could have launched an attack on Alexius depending on the circumstances. More likely Alexius had already been replaced by Calpernia though.

[Boost32]

Any proof that ALL templars were called to Theirinfall?
 
How about the templars in the Hinterlands? Do they disappear from the map after Lucius goes to Theirinfall? And what about all the red templars who show up in later parts of the game? Clearly not all templars were called to Theirinfall.
 
The Hassmal templars join the Inquisition after the events of In Your Heart Shall Burn. They don't help seal the breach.

Yes, they were all called, did you ever played Champions of the Just? The ones who didn't answered the call were the ones who stayed with the Chantry, the ones at Inquisition, the ones from Hasmal and the ones from Hinterlands.

Even if you believe she did it without being mindscrewed, you have to acknowledge how completely out of character it was for the FIona to do so.
 
Compare the relatively lighthearted Fiona from Val Royeaux who offered an alliance with the Inquisition (presumably pre-time screw), to the utterly miserable and dejected Fiona who was under Alexius' yoke by the time we arrive in Redcliffe and that makes it obvious. Especially her very vocal opposition to the idea that her people would be forced to fight for the Imperium, which Alexius had previously promised her would not happen.
 
When we also factor in that she was one of the most opposed to the Architect in The Calling novel, even if she had been coerced into fighting for the Venatori under duress, she still would have turned coat immediately upon seeing Corypheus and his pet Dragon show up on the field and realised exactly who (and what) the Venatori's mysterious patron was.
 
And no, before it's suggested that she somehow missed spotting him, the game has many people who survived Haven mention having seen him during the assault on the town. If the denizens of Haven didn't fail to spot one giant darkspawn magister who's making no attempt to hide himself, how do you suppose that none of the countless minions who followed him into battle failed to notice him?
 
As for the lack of blood... isn't the goal of blood magic to use blood as fuel for magical rituals, not paint the walls with it?
 
Whenever we've seen evidence of blood mages using blood magic en-masse in the previous games, we've only ever seen a bunch of drained corpses with little-to-no blood surrounding them, either used up during the casting or collected for later.
 
Blood mages who leave most of their alternate fuel source left all over the ceiling and floor, would be pretty wasteful blood mages, eh?

The same Fiona who made every wrong choice she could have made? Specially if Corypheus threatened the lives of her fellows mages.

And they were at the middle of the ritual, so yes they should have seen blood.
Even if they were already finished, they didn't find any bodies.

[Catche Jagger]

Even if you believe she did it without being mindscrewed, you have to acknowledge how completely out of character it was for the FIona to do so.

Compare the relatively lighthearted Fiona from Val Royeaux who offered an alliance with the Inquisition (presumably pre-time screw), to the utterly miserable and dejected Fiona who was under Alexius' yoke by the time we arrive in Redcliffe and that makes it obvious. Especially her very vocal opposition to the idea that her people would be forced to fight for the Imperium, which Alexius had previously promised her would not happen.

When we also factor in that she was one of the most opposed to the Architect in The Calling novel, even if she had been coerced into fighting for the Venatori under duress, she still would have turned coat immediately upon seeing Corypheus and his pet Dragon show up on the field and realised exactly who (and what) the Venatori's mysterious patron was.

And no, before it's suggested that she somehow missed spotting him, the game has many people who survived Haven mention having seen him during the assault on the town. If the denizens of Haven didn't fail to spot one giant darkspawn magister who's making no attempt to hide himself, how do you suppose that none of the countless minions who followed him into battle failed to notice him?

As for the lack of blood... isn't the goal of blood magic to use blood as fuel for magical rituals, not paint the walls with it?

Whenever we've seen evidence of blood mages using blood magic en-masse in the previous games, we've only ever seen a bunch of drained corpses with little-to-no blood surrounding them, either used up during the casting or collected for later.

Blood mages who leave most of their alternate fuel source left all over the ceiling and floor, would be pretty wasteful blood mages, eh?

Characterization being sacrificed in order to facilitate a nonsensical conflict? No! That never happens! It must be blood magic.

[Dai Grepher]

 

The notes found on bad future tell us how the Ferelden forces failed thrice to take Redcliff castle from the Venatori.

 

It's just as possible Fiona remained with them due to them appearing to be the winning side but, eventually, did something that angered Corypheus. Maybe she only said not to involve her people on that because she didn't believe, at the time, Alexius would suceed.

 

Ferelden failed after Alexius left Redcliffe to join up with the Venatori and retake Redcliffe at some later date.
 

You're making an assumption about why she said that, and that she went along with the Venatori's evil up to some unseen point and then turned on them for some unknown reason despite them being the winning side at all times after this. I think the more logical conclusion is that she turned against him in the main hall because he broke their deal.

[MisterJB]

Of course she can't make him uphold their bargain. Never wrote that she could. I wrote that she would turn on him after realizing that he never had the ability to immigrate them to Tevinter, and/or that he intended to use them in his own war all along.

She would turn against him and then what? They are the only ones willing to help them. Of course she is not going to turn against him

 

 

As I wrote before, the vets were coming ahead of the others to help seal the breach. However, the rest of the templars were on their way as well. They arrived after the breach was closed. Perhaps sooner depending on how much time passed between the chore table meeting and the quest to seal the breach. Remember, the sealing occurred during daylight, and the celebration occurred at nightfall. That is plenty of time for the main templar forces to reach Haven. But let's say the Inquisition only had 24 veteran templars. How many mages did Fiona have? Hundreds. But not all of them were battle-ready. Of those that wanted to fight, of those that did not flee as Dorian confirms, how many were there to fight against the Inquisition? More than 24? Even Lennea, who seems the most gung-ho in fighting against anyone and everyone, wasn't at Haven. She was left out of the fight, and she appears in one of the crystal visions with Calpernia.

Exactly what evidence do you have to claim any more Templars arrived in that space of time? There is absolutely nothing that indicates this.

There is an enormous difference between 24 travelling and 24000 or more. It's not jut half a day more.

Never mind how just one portion of the Venatori, complemented by a few hundred mages plus one dragon could defeat the entirety of, at least, two chapters of the Templar Order (Orlais and Ferelden). And did most of them die or were there thousands of Templars being lead by Chancelor Roderick?
 

 

Fiona would only have to surrender to the Herald upon finding him. She could do that by attacking Venatori, or hanging back and then dropping her staff when it was just the Herald's party left standing. As for a more noticeable gesture, she could have commanded her people to flee to the south. Or she could have launched an attack on Alexius depending on the circumstances. More likely Alexius had already been replaced by Calpernia though.

 

Ok, she drops her staff and the Herald runs her through because it's a battle and she is an enemy.

And how is she going to command her people when they are fighting the Inquisition? How are they going to flee south without the Inquisition or the Venatori attacking their back? How are they going to coordinate a retreat when they are split up amidst the Venatori forces?

[Deztyn]

It isn't about what the templars would address first. It's about what Fiona thinks they would do first, or what she would be told by Alexius. So the templars seal the breach first in exchange for what? The Inquisition could just dump them right afterward. It would make more sense for the Inquisition to help the templars kill the mages first if that was their plan all along like you say Alexius might have told Fiona. The templars ally with the Inquisition in exchange for help in killing the mages to prove loyalty, then they help seal the breach as repayment. That makes more sense than the templars agreeing to seal the breach first when the Inquisition has, from Fiona's perspective, done nothing for the templar order. I mean, what would Fiona think the Inquisition offered the templars to get them to cooperate?

... I imagine even Fiona is smart enough to recognize that closing the big hole in the sky that spits out demons before it consumes the entire world is a higher priority than killing the mages.

[Dean_the_Young]

... I imagine even Fiona is smart enough to recognize that closing the big hole in the sky that spits out demons before it consumes the entire world is a higher priority than killing the mages.

 

Perhaps Fiona is as smart as Dai Grepher, clearly the Sun Tzu of the modern era?

[Sifr]

"No one saw any blood magic, so it must be blood magic."

 

If you're using blood magic to put the whammy on someone and they notice what you're doing... you're kinda doing it wrong.

 

Both the Venatori using it on King Markus and Sophia Dryden having Avernus give the nobles a little "push" to join her rebellion, only worked because no-one saw what they were doing and thus the people affected had no reason to suspect they were acting contrary to their own free will.

 

In DA2, when Idunna uses it on Hawke, part of the reason they were shown to struggle against her control was because she wasn't being at all subtle to hide what she was doing to them and was using it in a far more forceful manner to extract info, than giving them a slight nudge to leave.

 

The same Fiona who made every wrong choice she could have made? Specially if Corypheus threatened the lives of her fellows mages.

And they were at the middle of the ritual, so yes they should have seen blood.
Even if they were already finished, they didn't find any bodies.

 

Really, because Fiona offering an alliance to the Inquisition in Val Royeaux was actually a smart and practical move, wasn't her fault that Alexius Control-Z'd the event from happening to her, nor was it really her fault that he kept changing the deal after they'd struck it?

 

Corypheus already had threatened the lives of her fellow mages by killing the dissenters who refused to join the Venatori, then ordered the rest into an attack on Haven... which goes against both things that Fiona wanted to do, keep her people free from harm and free from any kind of military action.

 

As for all the bodies, I pointed out a couple pages ago there's the lake or the Hinterlands to dump them in, the latter of which is already filled with corpses from the fighting already. Plus y'know, the Venatori have magic, so it's not like they couldn't dispose of the corpses simply by wiggling their fingers and turning them to ash?

[Dean_the_Young]

"No one saw any blood magic, so it must be blood magic."

 

I'm reminded of the indoctrination debates of Mass Effect.

[Master Warder Z_]

Perhaps Fiona is as smart as Dai Grepher, clearly the Sun Tzu of the modern era?

More like the Haig

[The Oracle]

I'm reminded of the indoctrination debates of Mass Effect.

 

To be honest, that was a pretty interesting theory. If I were the ME writers, and I hadn't thought of that before, I would have been kicking myself at such an interesting little twist that could have been hinted at throughout the game, even if it was never confirmed.

[Carmen_Willow]

They are supposed to be very rare, and only extremely exceptional individuals are given the Chantry sanction to even learn it. That means that the only circle mages that would be allowed to learn it are mages who are very trusted, trusted enough that it's a mage they don't have any worry will start attacking templars or would go apostate.

Yes, the ones who would toe the company line and vote against rebellion. The Chantry banned spells they couldn't control and forms of magic that were immune to Templar counter-attack. As a former Warden, Fiona should have known how important mundane martial arts could be for her people. It was a serious tactical (I think it's tactical - war guys correct me if I'm wrong) error on her part and incomprehensible given her history.

[Dean_the_Young]

If you're using blood magic to put the whammy on someone and they notice what you're doing... you're kinda doing it wrong.

 

Both the Venatori using it on King Markus and Sophia Dryden having Avernus give the nobles a little "push" to join her rebellion, only worked because no-one saw what they were doing and thus the people affected had no reason to suspect they were acting contrary to their own free will.

 

In DA2, when Idunna uses it on Hawke, part of the reason they were shown to struggle against her control was because they could see what she was doing.

 

And yet, Dragon Age writing has consistently approached blood magic from a narrative perspective of 'let's make it really obvious to the player.' Induced insanity is consistently a point of emphasis with blatant codexes or character conversation, not left to meta-inferrance in the absence of others. Every time we deal or address magical mental influences, the game is bloody obvious- including, ironically, the very examples you cite. Dragon Age has not been a story in which 'blood magic influence' is the default rational for antagonism. When the writers want to indicate that someone important (or even someone unimportant, but part of a story plot) is under mental influence, they tell us that. Be it Blight contamination, or demonic possession, or demonic insertion, or idol-induced paranoia, or magical compulsion seals, or... yes, blood magic.

 

The argument of 'Fiona is a victim of blood magic' not only ignores that there is a standing, often-raised basis for her decisions (Alexius's time travel shenanigans, her own history of decisions), but it also ignores how the Dragon Age writers have depicted Blood Magic in every other case... which is to say, how absent the suggestion of blood magic is. This isn't just a matter of 'Fiona's opponents don't like her'- no one in the story suggests Fiona is under blood magic compulsion.

 

The Inquisitor can't. Experienced mages like Solas and Vivienne don't. Dorian, who's been spying on Alexius and is familiar with Tevinter blood magic plays, doesn't. Alexius doesn't, not in the bad future (where he for some reason doesn't brainwash her unlike the alleged present) or in the current timeline (when he's given up all hope and resistance). Alexius's son, who's within Alexius's inner circle and helps the Inquisitor and Dorian, doesn't. Circle Mages, well placed to notice sudden or arbitary changes in Fiona, don't. Leliana the spymaster, conspirator master and outspoken pro-mage, doesn't. Experienced diplomat Jospehine doesn't. There's no codex, or background dialogue, informed or otherwise, alleging it.

 

But, most of all, not even Fiona argues that she was ever under blood magic influence after the fact. And considering Fiona's actions to that point- betraying Ferelden and selling mages into slavery and standing by during the Tranquil genocide and offering empty protests but no actions to Alexius's actions and intentions because she's already committed- Fiona should be the first person to want to argue that it wasn't her fault.

 

But she doesn't.

 

When no one- not the alleged victim, not the would-be perpetrator, not the collaborators, not the mole, not the spy master, not the observors, not the peers, not the enemies, not the friends- when absolutely no one argues that Fiona is under mind control influence-

 

-when the only people who do are fan sympathizers who argue on standards of inference that dismiss every other profered explanation, that ignore the narrative tools habitually used in mind-control circumstances, that ignores a major narrative theme of how the arch-villain didn't rely on mind-control to control or influence the leaders of his pet factions-

 

-then, by Bioware standards, there's no narrative support to believe something as paradigm-shifting as this happened.

 

 

It's the indoctrination theory all over again.

 

 

Really, because Fiona offering an alliance to the Inquisition in Val Royeaux was actually a smart and practical move, wasn't her fault that Alexius Control-Z'd the event from happening to her, nor was it really her fault that he kept changing the deal after they'd struck it?

 

Corypheus already had threatened the lives of her fellow mages by killing the dissenters who refused to join the Venatori, then ordered the rest into an attack on Haven... which goes against both things that Fiona wanted to do, keep her people free from harm and free from any kind of military action.

 

As for all the bodies, I pointed out a couple pages ago there's the lake or the Hinterlands, which is already filled with corpses from the fighting already. Plus y'know, the Venatori have magic, so it's not like they couldn't dispose of the corpses simply by wiggling their fingers and turning them to ash?

 

 

I honestly don't understand what this back-and-forth has to do with anything.

 

That's not aimed at you- I just don't understand what this argument is supposed to demonstrate. Are you arguing that Fiona and the mages would have gone along with the attack because they felt they had no choice? Sure. Not sure what that's supposed to show.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Barris says a couple times in Champions of the Just that the Templars have people scattered all across Thedas.

[Dean_the_Young]

To be honest, that was a pretty interesting theory. If I were the ME writers, and I hadn't thought of that before, I would have been kicking myself at such an interesting little twist that could have been hinted at throughout the game, even if it was never confirmed.

 

Indoctrination theory was interesting in the way a fanfic is interesting. Canonically, as something that tried to claim it was The Truth, it was a mess of confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

 

Anything that supported Indoctrination Theory was an uncontestable fact. Anything that didn't was the product of indoctrination, and thus proof of indoctrination.

 

It was a non-falsifiable theory. It didn't argue that it had to prove itself- it argued on the basis that it had to be disproved, and then spent the rest of the time claiming nothing actually disproved it.