601 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

Strategic. But then, Fiona was a strategic idiot.

 

This is the woman who tried to kick-start a rebellion without any preparations for success. No support networks, no allies, no strongholds, not underground safe houses, no vision of what victory would look like, no idea of who she would negotiate with to have victory recognized, no clever gambits or pre-laid traps to defeat or hinder the Templars. Her entire game plan amounted to 'Vote for Independence,' '**** the Divine,' '???', 'Profit! (Freedom!)'

 

She not only failed to prepare for a rebellion, she was utterly unfit to lead it. She didn't have a military mind, or political acumen, or remarkable intelligence and cleverness, or inspire a common vision, or keep unity, or even claim unbreakable ethics.

 

The most damning indictment of Fiona in the game is that, when the senior leaders and serious adults came together for the Conclave, she was left behind.

[The Oracle]

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.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing for all that nonsense from the forums that it was more canon than the actual ending and that "the writers are wrong". That was a fiasco. I'm just saying that as an idea, it was a really interesting one. I do love when the main protagonists are called into question. It tends to not happen so much in Bioware games. You almost always end up, no matter the path you take, being the hero.

[Dean_the_Young]

Oh, I'm not arguing for all that nonsense from the forums that it was more canon than the actual ending and that "the writers are wrong". That was a fiasco. I'm just saying that as an idea, it was a really interesting one. I do love when the main protagonists are called into question. It tends to not happen so much in Bioware games. You almost always end up, no matter the path you take, being the hero.

 

Ah, I see what you mean then. Fair enough.

[Sifr]

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.

 

And I think this is the problem with what the detractors are missing, no-one has been suggesting that she was under mind-control from the start.

 

Merely that at some time during the interim period between the time that the Inquisitor allied with the Templars and the attack on Haven, Corypheus was desperate to launch a reprisal attack on Haven and thus ordered the Venatori to accelerate their plans at Redcliffe. Brainwashing the mages would be a quick way to raise an army that is fanatically loyal to him, who'd not freak out and quit once they saw who their master and his little pet was.

 

No-one saw anything weird in Redcliffe, because at that point, nothing weird was going on (save for messing with time). That's also why in the Dark Future, this incarnation of Fiona still is herself, as in this timeline with both the Mages, Templars and Wardens under heel, there was no need to raise an immediate army, meaning Alexius was free to keep her around and eventually turn her into a lyrium grow-bag.

 

Yes, it's a freaking shame that this would require it all to happen offscreen and is extremely lazy writing... but it would account for how we see little indication that most of the mages in Redcliffe want anything to do with the Venatori, until they all somehow end up drinking the kool-aid and become a legion of fanatical Elder One supporters who decided to come over and get a little rowdy?

 

On the Templar path, it's confirmed that Corypheus was planning to use blood magic to take control of Calpernia if she ever became too indepedent... so precisely why is it so far-fetched to believe that the Venatori didn't do the same thing to the rebellion?

 

 

 

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.

 

No, I was arguing that Fiona would never have gone along with the attack, not unless she was being controlled somehow.

 

She was trying to keep her people safe and was vocally opposed to having the rebellion serve as cannon fodder for the Venatori... so Corpyheus murdering some of them, as well as conscripting them into an army would have been reasons she personally would never have been in his army.

 

Fiona strikes me as one of those who'd have died resisting... the only reason you'd keep someone like her alive is to mindscrew her into a slave, to send a message to the other dissenters that this would happen to them if they continued to resist.

[Deztyn]

Oh, I'm not arguing for all that nonsense from the forums that it was more canon than the actual ending and that "the writers are wrong". That was a fiasco. I'm just saying that as an idea, it was a really interesting one. I do love when the main protagonists are called into question. It tends to not happen so much in Bioware games. You almost always end up, no matter the path you take, being the hero.

Agreed.

Really makes me wish the writer's had gone through with their original plan for Envy.

[SgtSteel91]

The most damning indictment of Fiona in the game is that, when the senior leaders and serious adults came together for the Conclave, she was left behind.

 

No, she sent others to the Conclave because she thought the meeting could be a trap. She says as much when you meet her for the first time ("Both of us [the Lord Seeker and I] sent negotiators in our stead, in case it was a trap"). And she was right to send others since the Conclave blew up, killing most of the top leadership of the Chantry, Templars, and her own people.

[Master Warder Z_]

Agreed.

Really makes me wish the writer's had gone through with their original plan for Envy.

 

Which was?

[The Oracle]

Agreed.

Really makes me wish the writer's had gone through with their original plan for Envy.

 

Oh, intriguing. What was the original plan for envy?

 

[EDIT] Snap Z_

[Boost32]

 
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?

How do you know it was Fiona and not the Envy demon? And yes, it was her fault, she was the one who invited Alexius and she was the one who sold the rebels to the Venatori.

And thats why she would attack the Inquisition, in hopes to please Corypheus, so he would spare her fellows mages.

How they would hide the bodies? The Charges interrupted the rituals, they would not have the time to do it. And they reported that they found only Tevinter mages, no bodies,blood or others mages were reported.

[Dean_the_Young]

And I think this is the problem with what the detractors are missing, no-one has been suggesting that she was under mind-control from the start.

 

 

It's a pretty old claim from some of the people in this thread, Sifr. Not you specifically- not that I remember- but I know Ieldra's made it in the past.

 

It typically comes up at the 'at what point does Fiona allegedly break character?' For people who tend to make the blood magic argument, it's when she does stupid things- most of which are well before the attack on Haven.

 

 

Merely that at some time during the interim period between the time that the Inquisitor allied with the Templars and the attack on Haven, Corypheus was desperate to launch a reprisal attack on Haven and thus ordered the Venatori to accelerate their plans at Redcliffe. Brainwashing the mages would be a quick way to raise an army that is fanatically loyal to him, who'd not freak out and quit once they saw who their master and his little pet was.

 

No-one saw anything weird in Redcliffe, because at that point, nothing weird was going on (save for messing with time). That's also why in the Dark Future, this incarnation of Fiona still is herself, as in this timeline with both the Mages, Templars and Wardens under heel, there was no need to raise an immediate army, meaning Alexius was free to keep her around and eventually turn her into a lyrium grow-bag.

 

Yes, it's a freaking shame that this would require it all to happen offscreen and is extremely lazy writing... but it would account for how we see little indication that most of the mages in Redcliffe want anything to do with the Venatori, until they all somehow end up drinking the kool-aid and become a legion of fanatical Elder One supporters who decided to come over and get a little rowdy?

 

Except there's no requirement they drink the cool-aid, because the objection of 'mages and Fiona would never go along with it' are... well, dependent on the assertion that the mages and Fiona would never go along with it actually being true.

 

'Fiona would never go along with an attack against the Inquisition because that would be strategically stupid.' 'Fiona would never make deals with Tevinter, because she was a Tevinter slave herself.' 'The mages would never accept slavery, because that's why they rebelled against the Templars in the first place.' 'The Circle mages would never tolerate blood magic and power-mad mage supremacists.'

 

These are all the same sort of assertions, resting on the same sort of base- the assertion of the character of those involved... and every single one of them was wrong. Fiona would make strategically stupid choices in the name of the mages, because that's been consistent both within Inquisition and before. Fiona would make deals with Tevinter slavers, because she did. The mages would accept being sold into slavery, because that's exactly what they did when Fiona cut her deal. The Circle mages do tolerate blood magic- and the massacre of dozens/hundreds of Tranquil. The Circle mages do tolerate power-mad mage supremacists... right outside their own gates. Meanwhile, the Mages within Redcliffe are either passively going along with Alexius, because of a lack of alternatives or otherwise, or are willing participants.

 

We could insist that the only blood magic could explain the lack of heroic character. Or- and this doesn't require copious amounts of headcanon absent from the story- we can consider that the rebel mages don't have heroic character.

 

Which, and this is a huge hit to the moral superiority of the pro-mage movement, consistently gets shown time and time again in the game. A great deal of the still-active mages are mage supremacists or open to them- not only those outside the gates, but those rising in favor within Redcliffe's new regime. The mages do stand by with nary a revolt when Tranquil are slaughtered, Arls ousted, and they themselves are sold into slavery. And the mages, repeatedly across Inquisition, are routinely moving down routes that someone else dictates on the grounds that they 'don't have a choice.' The mages acceptance of Ferelden hospitality, the mages' betrayal of Ferelden hospitality, the submission to Alexius, the submission to the will of the Inquisition, the submission to the preference of the next divine.

 

Submitting to the Venatori isn't as atypical as the 'bloodmagic' theorists would like to argue- and unfortunately, occam's razor suggests the simpler answer, not the one that requires inventing proof. Especially when the early game repeatedly points out that a great deal of the reasonable mages- ie, the ones who can claim to represent the moral moderates- jumped ship from the rebellion long ago.

 

 

 

On the Templar path, it's confirmed that Corypheus was planning to use blood magic to take control of Calpernia if she ever became too indepedent... so precisely why is it so far-fetched to believe that the Venatori didn't do the same thing to the rebellion?

 

 

 

Because there's no indication they did, despite numerous opportunities to demonstrate it, whereas every other example of 'mind control to ensure obediance' has been conveyed in explicit terms by the narrative.

 

Believing Fiona is blood-magic mind-controled at just one point, in defiance of numerous narrative conventions, reoccuring themes, previous history, and writing style across the series is far-fetched because it's pleading special exception without basis.

 

 

 

No, I was arguing that Fiona would never have gone along with the attack, not unless she was being controlled somehow.

 

She was trying to keep her people safe and was vocally opposed to having the rebellion serve as cannon fodder for the Venatori... so Corpyheus murdering some of them, as well as conscripting them into an army would have been reasons she personally would never have been in his army.

 

 

If Fiona wanted to keep her people safe above all else, she wouldn't have started her rebellion by priming it for a massacre. Or abandoned her primary (and best) security guarantee for an incredibly sketchy alliance that Alexius had no real means to carry through.

 

By the time Alexius reveals his intentions, Fiona has no power or means to not go along with him- not without dying. Which leads to...

 

 

Fiona strikes me as one of those who'd have died resisting... the only reason you'd keep someone like her alive is to mindscrew her into a slave, to send a message to the other dissenters that this would happen to them if they continued to resist.

 

 

 

Not to call you out too blatantly, but- you're reverting to the point of using blood magic to justify Fiona's earlier decisions, not just the immediate pre-Haven context. Fiona didn't need to be mindscrewed into a slave- she sold herself into that with a trick and the specter of defeat.

 

This isn't a case of Fiona being out of character. This is a strike out on your part- Fiona, as established in the core material of the Dragon Age franchise, is not the stallwart heroic revolutionary who would choose death over submission. People confuse her leadership incompetence for bravery.

[Deztyn]

Not sure how the entire mission would have played out. But as I understand it, you'd get towards the end of Champions, have a brief unusually easy battle with the Lord Seeker, a cutscene would bring you back to Haven.

Mission complete.

Only you'd actually be in Envy's realm, so it could study you while you interact with people.

[Sifr]

How do you know it was Fiona and not the Envy demon? And yes, it was her fault, she was the one who invited Alexius and she was the one who sold the rebels to the Venatori.

And thats why she would attack the Inquisition, in hopes to please Corypheus, so he would spare her fellows mages.

 

While it could have been Envy, the lack of ego on display suggests otherwise, since all our interaction with Envy make it clear he's got both an inflated ego and something of an inferiority-superiority complex... and even if you think that Fiona has those qualities, they are still far less in comparison to Envy.

 

Envy would also have had to make some excuse to the Templars he had just lead out of Val Royeaux (lost his keys?) to head back and do a costume change.

 

And no, it was not Fiona's fault, we're told that the Venatori infiltrated the Rebellion, spread talk of an alliance with Tevinter among the ranks and when Alexius showed up when things were at their worst, Fiona decided to take him up on his offer... as steep as the terms were, including indentured servitude.

 

How they would hide the bodies? The Charges interrupted the rituals, they would not have the time to do it. And they reported that they found only Tevinter mages, no bodies,blood or others mages were reported.

 

Did I not just say how they have ample places to dump all the bodies, especially given the warzone outside the gates?

 

Even so, not all blood magic requires sacrifices to work (although most do) so there doesn't have to be that many bodies, why would there be a ton of blood splattering the place, if it was used up in said rituals... and if the mages have already attacked Haven and a lot of them have gotten buried under the avalanche, isn't that a bit of a clue where you could find them?

 

[andy6915]

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.

 

Well, that's why. Knight enchaters have martial training, and templar powers actually won't do well against one because they can keep barriers up pretty much constantly and they can't really block the use of their spirit blade. KE's are basically a templar nightmare to try to deal with, templars would have a hard time killing one. So for that reason, only the most trusted are allowed such a dangerous magical style.

 

Also, from a roleplaying standpoint, this makes knight enchanter a very good choice for a mage who sides with the mages and have red templars as their main enemies.

[Dean_the_Young]

No, she sent others to the Conclave because she thought the meeting could be a trap. She says as much when you meet her for the first time ("Both of us [the Lord Seeker and I] sent negotiators in our stead, in case it was a trap"). And she was right to send others since the Conclave blew up, killing most of the top leadership of the Chantry, Templars, and her own people.

 

Not to put it too nicely, but-

 

Just like Vivienne isn't the most objective authority on Vivienne's importance, Fiona isn't the best on her leadership.

[Sifr]

Except there's no requirement they drink the cool-aid, because the objection of 'mages and Fiona would never go along with it' are... well, dependent on the assertion that the mages and Fiona would never go along with it actually being true.

 

'Fiona would never go along with an attack against the Inquisition because that would be strategically stupid.' 'Fiona would never make deals with Tevinter, because she was a Tevinter slave herself.' 'The mages would never accept slavery, because that's why they rebelled against the Templars in the first place.' 'The Circle mages would never tolerate blood magic and power-mad mage supremacists.'

 

These are all the same sort of assertions, resting on the same sort of base- the assertion of the character of those involved... and every single one of them was wrong. Fiona would make strategically stupid choices in the name of the mages, because that's been consistent both within Inquisition and before. Fiona would make deals with Tevinter slavers, because she did. The mages would accept being sold into slavery, because that's exactly what they did when Fiona cut her deal. The Circle mages do tolerate blood magic- and the massacre of dozens/hundreds of Tranq...

 

I ended that quote mid-sentence on purpose, because that's exactly when you lost both credibility and my attention, by once again dragging up that tired old nonsense about how the Circle Mages were complicit in the mass-genocide of the Tranquil.

 

Yeah, even if you don't buy the brainwashing theory, c'mon, even you know that suggesting they exterminated the Tranquil is utter drivel.

 

(I feel bad for not having given an actual rebuttal to counter your points, but this is a strike for you in return, since I really can't be bothered to argue if we're actually taking the suggestion that the rebellion were willing participants in genocide seriously)

[Dai Grepher]

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.


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.

 

So you admit that the templars at Theirinfall did not number in the thousands, right?

 

Lucius only took with him the templars who were in Val Royeaux. He stated that Val Royeaux was unworthy of their protection, and he marched them off to Theirinfall.

 

Not all her choices were wrong, just most of them, and all the important ones. But are you suggesting she witnessed a darkspawn magister threaten her people and then decided to follow him? Come on.

 

No necessarily. Remember Uldred in pride demon form and how he used blood magic on the mages? There was no blood for that process. There were only rings of light around each target.

 

Maybe Krem overlooked the blood because it was dark in the room the Venatori were found in. Or maybe Krem didn't notice blood on the floor when entering the room and then after the fight just assumed the blood all around them was because the Venatori had just been killed by the Chargers.

[Deztyn]

Maybe Krem didn't see the blood because there was no blood.

[Dean_the_Young]

I ended that quote mid-sentence on purpose, because that's exactly when you lost both credibility and my attention, by once again dragging up that tired old nonsense about how the Circle Mages were complicit in the mass-genocide of the Tranquil.

 

Sifr, perhaps you should re-read. I said they would tolerate it. The Tranquil were massacred under the mages watch. This is a fact. The mages did not stop it. This is also a fact.. There is not even an indication that they tried to stop it. It is not even a stated grievance of any mage still in Redcliffe.

 

If you want to not call that complicity, that's your perogative. But the mages in Redcliffe did tolerate it, and that tolerance does shed light on their moral convictions (or lack thereof) in any topic about why mages would or would not do something on the basis of morals.

 

Why insist that Fiona would have to be brainwashed to go along with an attack on an organization who is a credible threat in light of the Inquisition-Templar alliance, when she didn't have to be brainwashed to not make a fuss over the mass murder of her own charges?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, even if you don't buy the brainwashing theory, c'mon, even you know that suggesting they exterminated the Tranquil is utter drivel.

 

 

Sifr, there is a house in Redcliffe lined with skulls, not including the dozens of ocularem we see across southern Thedas. Ocularem are explcitly created through ritual murder of the Tranquil.

 

The Tranquil are a population group as much as the mages. They were systemically slaughtered by the mages' chosen allies on the basis of their nature- not their beliefs, not out of concern of their threat, not because of their actions. Simply their nature.

 

The mages did not stop it. The mages did not break their alliance over it. The only Circle mage to outright condemn it is Vivienne. And the only way the mages of Redcliffe would not have noticed the disappearance of their own private underclass is extremely willful ignorance.

[Silcron]

I ended that quote mid-sentence on purpose, because that's exactly when you lost both credibility and my attention, by once again dragging up that tired old nonsense about how the Circle Mages were complicit in the mass-genocide of the Tranquil.

 

Yeah, even if you don't buy the brainwashing theory, c'mon, even you know that suggesting they exterminated the Tranquil is utter drivel.

 

Except the quote says tolerate it, not do it. "The Circle mages do tolerate blood magic- and the massacre of dozens/hundreds of Tranq..."

 

I know sometimes it can be hard when reading counter arguments to you, specially if they're long, but you have to be careful to respond to what the other says, not what you think he said. Here, after everything the mages have endured and kept quiet about, if they found out about let's say other mage who they don't know to be venatori killing tranquils; do you really think they'd do something about it?

 

Personally after being through the rebellion and the recent turmoil with the outting of the arl, the treaty with tevinter at most I see the few who know telling other mages that ask about it to shut up, or warning them to not bring it up.

[Sifr]

Sifr, perhaps you should re-read. I said they would tolerate it. The Tranquil were massacred under the mages watch. The mages did not stop it. There is not even an indication that they tried to stop it. It is not a stated grievance of any mage still in Redcliffe.

 

If you want to not call it complicity, that's your perogative. But the mages in Redcliffe did tolerate it.

 

That the Tranquil died is not evidence of the mages awareness or consent in their deaths, merely that it did happen on their watch and that they should have been paying more attention.

 

The one Tranquil that is still alive in Redcliffe (at least, the only one we meet) states that Alexius wanted all non-magical people, including the Tranquil, to get out of town, so them being shown the door is reason enough for the mages to likely believe that's where they all went. Yes, this would suggest that they left them to the mercy of those who were engaged in guerrilla warfare outside the gates, but that's a far cry from watching as people fillet them.

 

 

 

Sifr, there is a house in Redcliffe lined with skulls, not including the dozens of ocularem we see across southern Thedas.

 

The Tranquil are a population group as much as the mages. They were systemically slaughtered by the mages' chosen allies on the basis of their nature- not their beliefs, not out of concern of their threat, not because of their actions. Simply their nature.

 

The mages did not stop it. The mages did not break their alliance over it. And the only way they would not have noticed the disappearance of their own private underclass is extremely willful ignorance.

 

Yeah, a locked door by the docks that no-one has any reason to go into, nor that suspicious given that there are a few other locked houses in Redcliffe, ones that are filled to the brink with storage and bits of furniture.

 

When you see a locked door, do you immediately assume it's filled with a serial killer's batcave, or just ignore it?

 

Again, there's a leap between "ignored the Tranquil" and "allowed them to die on purpose".

 

 

Except the quote says tolerate it, not do it. "The Circle mages do tolerate blood magic- and the massacre of dozens/hundreds of Tranq..."

 

I know sometimes it can be hard when reading counter arguments to you, specially if they're long, but you have to be careful to respond to what the other says, not what you think he said. Here, after everything the mages have endured and kept quiet about, if they found out about let's say other mage who they don't know to be venatori killing tranquils; do you really think they'd do something about it?

 

Personally after being through the rebellion and the recent turmoil with the outting of the arl, the treaty with tevinter at most I see the few who know telling other mages that ask about it to shut up, or warning them to not bring it up.

 

Which is why I said complicit, that the mages knew and gave consent, not that they actually murdered them themselves.

[TK514]

I ended that quote mid-sentence on purpose, because that's exactly when you lost both credibility and my attention, by once again dragging up that tired old nonsense about how the Circle Mages were complicit in the mass-genocide of the Tranquil.

 

Yeah, even if you don't buy the brainwashing theory, c'mon, even you know that suggesting they exterminated the Tranquil is utter drivel.

 

(I feel bad for not having given an actual rebuttal to counter your points, but this is a strike for you in return, since I really can't be bothered to argue if we're actually taking the suggestion that the rebellion were willing participants in genocide seriously)

 

So you're basically admitting here that you have no actual rebuttal, and trying to distract from that by claiming some superiority due to a tangent?

[Master Warder Z_]

So you're basically admitting here that you have no actual rebuttal, and trying to distract from that by claiming some superiority due to a tangent?

 

It's a pretty common tactic actually.

[Andromelek]

To be honest, when I pick the mages is often mercy for Alexius or the minion mages rather than for Fiona, she didn't made anything useful, in some war table missions is pretty clear she lost the command, the only thing that was worth about hire her was tell how I left to die her stupid son, hopefully she threw herself from Skyhold's bridge, because I didn't see her again after that.

[Boost32]

While it could have been Envy, the lack of ego on display suggests otherwise, since all our interaction with Envy make it clear he's got both an inflated ego and something of an inferiority-superiority complex... and even if you think that Fiona has those qualities, they are still far less in comparison to Envy.
 
Envy would also have had to make some excuse to the Templars he had just lead out of Val Royeaux (lost his keys?) to head back and do a costume change.
 
And no, it was not Fiona's fault, we're told that the Venatori infiltrated the Rebellion, spread talk of an alliance with Tevinter among the ranks and when Alexius showed up when things were at their worst, Fiona decided to take him up on his offer... as steep as the terms were, including indentured servitude.
 

 
Did I not just say how they have ample places to dump all the bodies, especially given the warzone outside the gates?
 
Even so, not all blood magic requires sacrifices to work (although most do) so there doesn't have to be that many bodies, why would there be a ton of blood splattering the place, if it was used up in said rituals... and if the mages have already attacked Haven and a lot of them have gotten buried under the avalanche, isn't that a bit of a clue where you could find them?
 

Envy can impersonate anyone, there is no "lack of ego".

He was their leader he can make any excuse he wants.

Yes it is, she was the leader, she made the decision, she let herself be manipularem and cornered by the Venatori.

Seriously, you dont know what you are talking about. You quoted me when I was discussing the magic ritual in the Chargers war table, there was no way to hide the bodies because the Chargers interrupted the ritual while the Venatori were doing it. Please read the conversation again.

So you admit that the templars at Theirinfall did not number in the thousands, right?
 
Lucius only took with him the templars who were in Val Royeaux. He stated that Val Royeaux was unworthy of their protection, and he marched them off to Theirinfall.
 
Not all her choices were wrong, just most of them, and all the important ones. But are you suggesting she witnessed a darkspawn magister threaten her people and then decided to follow him? Come on.
 
No necessarily. Remember Uldred in pride demon form and how he used blood magic on the mages? There was no blood for that process. There were only rings of light around each target.
 
Maybe Krem overlooked the blood because it was dark in the room the Venatori were found in. Or maybe Krem didn't notice blood on the floor when entering the room and then after the fight just assumed the blood all around them was because the Venatori had just been killed by the Chargers.

No, where did you get they dont? The Templar Order broke away from the Chantry, they heavily outnumbered the mages (who numbers in the hundreds), only a few dissents didnt join the Order.

No he didnt, he summoned all the templars who broke away from the Chantry, all of them were gathering in Therinfal.

Yes, all of her choices were wrong. Its a better explanation then blood magic, that has no in game evidence of its existence.

Its called blood magic because it use blood, there is no bloodless blood magic.

I dont deal with maybe, you are just trying to find a excuse to prove something that has no evidence.

[Dean_the_Young]

That the Tranquil died is not evidence of the mages awareness or consent in their deaths, merely that it did happen on their watch and that they should have been paying more attention.

 

Huuzah! We're getting somewhere! This is (almost) what I was saying! We can agree that the mages are responsible for what happens to the Tranquil!

 

Now all that's left is to quibble about how much they can reasonably be expected to know. Key word- reasonable.
 

 

 

The one Tranquil that is still alive in Redcliffe (at least, the only one we meet) states that Alexius wanted all non-magical people, including the Tranquil, to get out of town, so them being shown the door is reason enough for the mages to likely believe that's where they all went. Yes, this would suggest that they left them to the mercy of those who were engaged in guerrilla warfare outside the gates, but that's a far cry from watching as people fillet them.

 

And now we're back to where you're inventing arguments I didn't make again. You claim they were ignorant of murder mass murder under their own noses. I find that highly doubtful- but I'm not claiming they were watching it. The better example would be bystanders to (pretty much any) genocide- who conveniently never notice or wonder too hard about why so many people are disappearing.

 

Not, mind you, that what you propose instead exonerates the mages. This is not only a case of eggregious blindness and lack of responsibility towards the interests of their own, which hurts the case of 'Fiona wouldn't go along with things that endanger her people', but...

 

You've made an a point that the mages are actively tolerating the malevolent actions of a mage-supremacist towards mundanes and innocents who not only have not harmed the mages, but had risked themselves to help and offer sanctuary to them.

 

This wasn't an argument I had made previously- but now that you've pointed it out, why not add it to the list of reasons why Fiona wouldn't make a moral stand over Haven? Not only does she not stand for the safety of her people- not only has she already allowed Alexius to send them into danger in-mass- but she's also stood by while Alexius endangered innocent mundanes who outright sheltered her people.

 

How, in any sense, does this make Fiona less likely to go along with a plan to attack the allies of the Templars, when she's already under a good deal of coercion and little power against Alexius as-is?

 

 

 

Yeah, a locked door by the docks that no-one has any reason to go into, nor that suspicious given that there are a few other locked houses in Redcliffe, ones that are filled to the brink with storage and bits of furniture.

 

When you see a locked door, do you immediately assume it's filled with a serial killer's batcave, or just ignore it?

 

Again, there's a leap between "ignored the Tranquil" and "allowed them to die on purpose".

 

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but-

 

You're being willfully blind to to how the Mages could have been aware of something was going on. Which is what the mages stand accused of- willful ignorance as murder progressively happened.

 

Tranquil didn't just magic into the house. The house doesn't have a secret cave door. To argue that the Tranquil were smuggled in in total secrecy is ludicrous- the house is in a public area, the approach is visible, and the Tranquil were known. There's not even an argument of draconian curfews to claim the mages and mundanes were forced inside so that Tranquil could be smuggled in at night.

 

People would have known that Tranquil weren't actually leaving the city, because no one was seeing the Tranquil leave (because they weren't). People would have known if Tranquil were leaving of their own volition or otherwise, because Tranquil talk about such things and other things and make plans and such. They don't simply disappear in the middle of a night on their own. People would see Tranquil walk to the house, just as they would have noticed the new Tevinter overlords setting up shop there, and gradually people would collectively notice that while Tranquil go in, they don't come out. Much more subtle serial killers get caught for much less.

 

Things like this don't take place in a vacuum. They aren't uber-secret just because the business goes behind back doors. People watch their homes and their villages, they gossip and share, and they know people involved.

 

 

 

Which is why I said complicit, that the mages knew and gave consent, not that they actually murdered them themselves.

 

 

Consent is irrelevant. Tolerance is everything. The Redcliffe mages knew Tranquil were disappearing, knew who was responsible for them  disappearing, and had every means to learn the 'how', even as the public excuse also amounted to a near death-sentence for the Tranquil regardless. In the proudest tradition of cowed peoples everywhere, they didn't ask hard questions, and didn't look into it so that they'd have to make hard choices. Few do when people disappear- lest they disappear next.

 

 

As I said, if you wish to call them complicit, or not, that's your perogative. I accuse the Mages of Redcliffe, and Fiona in particular, to turning a blind eye as their own were targeted. And let's not mince words- whether for murder or exile they were hardly prepared to manage, the Tranquil were explicitly targeted. It was well within the abilities of the organization, and it's supposed leader in particular, to make an issue of it. The Tranquil were murdered. And it's well within reason for the mages to not only know that- but to discover why.

 

If they cared to. Which they didn't. Which is why it was tolerated.