601 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

No, thats the fabricated answer.
The simples answer is that she is incompetent, stupid and got herself in that position.

 

How is it fabricated? I posted the evidence for it. Refute it if you can.

 

And she couldn't get herself out of it just as easily by running to the Inquisition?

 

It is erroneous to claim that just because Fiona was incompetent and foolish in some ways, regarding specific decisions, means that she would automatically be foolish enough to side with those who wronged her and those who are evil.

 

Your theory contradicts her character as seen in the game.

 

Clarel was the same way. Foolish and incompetent, but when the truth was revealed to her she proclaimed that she would never serve the blight. I think Fiona was the same way.

[Boost32]

You didn't post any evidence, there is nothing in game that says it.

[TK514]

The simplest answer is that she rebelled just like she did in the mages path, and then was quickly taken control of by the Venatori who are known to use blood magic.

 

That's not the simplest answer, it's just the most desperate apologist one.

[Master Warder Z_]

Why are you guys even bothering?

It's obviously that no impasse can be reached here, their will merely be fanon over canon here

[ComedicSociopathy]

Stupidity and incompetence do not explain her actions though. She would have to willingly go along with evil, which she has been shown to reject in a different storyline path. So while simple and obvious, it conflicts with established facts.

 

Saying Fiona agreed to lead her people into a bloody battle after striving so hard to keep them out of one, and obeying the order of a betrayer who has lied to her the whole time, and following a darkspawn magister after everything she had been through as a Grey Warden, all because she was stupid? That is far from the simplest answer. There is too much you have to explain.

 

The simplest answer is that she rebelled just like she did in the mages path, and then was quickly taken control of by the Venatori who are known to use blood magic.

 

Inquisition seems pretty determined to make both sides of the Mage-Templar War look like utterly pathetic and weak-willed fools. I mean, almost all the Knight-Commanders and senior officers of the Templar Order decided that worshiping an ancient darkspawn magister was a great idea, so why can't Fiona do the same? 

 

It's stupid of course, but since stupidity seems to be the theme for this game so it doesn't surprise me. 

[Dai Grepher]

You didn't post any evidence, there is nothing in game that says it.

 

Page 16 post #391

 

I posted evidence. I've seen you be rational in other threads, Boost32. Certainly you're willing to acknowledge the evidence and at least admit that it's possible that Fiona was being controlled during the attack on Haven.

[Dai Grepher]

That's not the simplest answer, it's just the most desperate apologist one.

 

Except that I'm not an apologist. I hate Fiona's character. It's just that I'm fair minded and fact oriented. I will give Fiona credit where it's due, and I will condemn her where appropriate.

 

Doesn't her willingly cooperating in the attack on innocent people strike you as even the least bit fishy?
 

[Dai Grepher]

Inquisition seems pretty determined to make both sides of the Mage-Templar War look like utterly pathetic and weak-willed fools. I mean, almost all the Knight-Commanders and senior officers of the Templar Order decided that worshiping an ancient darkspawn magister was a great idea, so why can't Fiona do the same? 

 

It's stupid of course, but since stupidity seems to be theme for this game it doesn't surprise. 

 

True. I suppose it has to do with Alexius' and Lucius' plans succeeding, and for that the mages and templars have to lose.

 

The difference here is obvious. The templars were taking red lyrium. Corypheus spoke to them through the taint, as Cole confirms. So for the templars it was a simple matter of making that first choice to take red lyrium (or have it forced on them in some cases). As for the rest of the templars, they were following orders. Which is what you're supposed to do when you're a knight. You are supposed to be loyal, work as a whole, and keep your word. But you should also be able to question what you're doing when it's clear that it isn't right, and many templars were realizing this. The problem was that a fish rots from the head down, and likewise the templar order was corrupted from the top down. There was no way for the lower ranks to change things, except by embracing the Inquisition, which it can and does do if the Inquisition shows up asking for their help. But even then, red templars are said to be stronger and more powerful than normal. So even then it was an uphill battle.

 

With Fiona however, she was the one leading, but she just didn't know how to respond to the situations she faced. She could lead the mages to freedom, but she didn't know how to survive with it. She didn't know how to handle outside forces. But for the charity of others, the mage rebellion would have fizzled out soon after it started. Most of the rebel mages did not want to go to Tevinter, and some even wanted to go back to the Circles. So yes, the mages' problems were mostly due to Fiona and her incompetence. But this extends only so far. Fiona's crime is not knowing how to respond to most problems. That doesn't mean she doesn't know how to respond to all problems. If Alexius betrays her, she responds by turning on him. We see this happen in the mages path. I am willing to bet that her seeing a darkspawn lead the Venatori would also be a problem she would respond to correctly, by refusing to serve the blight. Makes sense in context of her history as a Grey Warden.

 

So this is all about seeing the story in context. Yes, Fiona was stupid. But that doesn't make her stupid on every single issue. When it came to protecting her people, her heart was in the right place. So logically she would be consistent with this. She wasn't in Haven, which means there must be something more to the story. Blood magic is the most likely explanation, and it's the simplest.

 

Now, if a short story is written to where Fiona is shown to actually be a cold-hearted murderous scumbag, fine. I'll accept that explanation. I hate Fiona anyway. I delighted in her getting frozen and shattered in Haven. I took screenshots of it.

 

All I'm saying is, be fair. Only blame Fiona for the things that definitely are her fault, and in cases where her actions contradict her previous actions or statements, be aware that there may be more taking place behind the scenes that we didn't get to see.

[Master Warder Z_]

Page 16 post #391

 

I posted evidence. I've seen you be rational in other threads, Boost32. Certainly you're willing to acknowledge the evidence and at least admit that it's possible that Fiona was being controlled during the attack on Haven.

 

Your evidence amounts to a "I think"

[Dai Grepher]

You can't refute it, so you dismiss it as mere opinion. Typical.

[Master Warder Z_]

Your own lack of citations, dev comments or actual in game files, dialogue or anything tangible refutes it actually.

 

Opinion is merely opinion no matter how it is formatted.

[Boost32]

Page 16 post #391

 

I posted evidence. I've seen you be rational in other threads, Boost32. Certainly you're willing to acknowledge the evidence and at least admit that it's possible that Fiona was being controlled during the attack on Haven.

Possible? Yes, but I dont believe so.

The evidence is hardly a evidence, but we are discussing the same things now, its time to move on. Im not in the mood anymore.

[TK514]

Except that I'm not an apologist. I hate Fiona's character. It's just that I'm fair minded and fact oriented. I will give Fiona credit where it's due, and I will condemn her where appropriate.

 

Doesn't her willingly cooperating in the attack on innocent people strike you as even the least bit fishy?
 

 

No.  She had already proven to be too stupid to allow critical thinking to have any sway over her decisions.  Further, it was clear that, for all her speech making, she wasn't willing to match her principles to action.  All it took was an easily disproven lie for her to roll over and become Alexius' beaten puppy.

 

The Venetori showed up and claimed that an unbeatable Templar army was imminent, and all the mages had to do to be rescued was become slaves.  She accepted without ever checking to see if said army actually existed.

 

The Tranquil, in spite of being spiritually maimed, are mages.  She knew there was a cure for them.  And yet despite claiming to stand up for all mages against oppression, she allowed the ones who most needed protection to be abandoned.  Not only that, but those that did make it to Redcliffe with her, she allowed to be driven out or to disappear because the Venetori didn't like having them around.  To say nothing of what horrific things went on right under her nose.

 

She also allowed the Venetori to drive her actual host and protector out of his own home, and made neither protest nor took action to stop it, making her a traitor to the Ferelden crown.

 

When the Inquisitor does show up, rather than stand up for herself or even attempt to assert some control over the fate of the people who trusted her, she lets Alexius not just verbally slap her down like a child, but blatantly rewrite the terms of the deal with little more than a token protest before wilting out of the scene altogether.

 

Her entire depiction is basically spineless idiocy.  Her actions, and lack of anything remotely resembling courage, make it very easy to believe she would roll over and do whatever she was told, regardless of what it was or who was giving the orders, as long as there was some lip service given to a nebulous 'better future' for at least some of the mages. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

You can't refute it, so you dismiss it as mere opinion. Typical.

Is it really so surprising? Logic can never overcome rabid Fiona hate

[diaspora2k5]

No.  She had already proven to be too stupid to allow critical thinking to have any sway over her decisions.  Further, it was clear that, for all her speech making, she wasn't willing to match her principles to action.  All it took was an easily disproven lie for her to roll over and become Alexius' beaten puppy.

 

The Venetori showed up and claimed that an unbeatable Templar army was imminent, and all the mages had to do to be rescued was become slaves.  She accepted without ever checking to see if said army actually existed.

 

The Tranquil, in spite of being spiritually maimed, are mages.  She knew there was a cure for them.  And yet despite claiming to stand up for all mages against oppression, she allowed the ones who most needed protection to be abandoned.  Not only that, but those that did make it to Redcliffe with her, she allowed to be driven out or to disappear because the Venetori didn't like having them around.  To say nothing of what horrific things went on right under her nose.

 

She also allowed the Venetori to drive her actual host and protector out of his own home, and made neither protest nor took action to stop it, making her a traitor to the Ferelden crown.

 

When the Inquisitor does show up, rather than stand up for herself or even attempt to assert some control over the fate of the people who trusted her, she lets Alexius not just verbally slap her down like a child, but blatantly rewrite the terms of the deal with little more than a token protest before wilting out of the scene altogether.

 

Her entire depiction is basically spineless idiocy.  Her actions, and lack of anything remotely resembling courage, make it very easy to believe she would roll over and do whatever she was told, regardless of what it was or who was giving the orders, as long as there was some lip service given to a nebulous 'better future' for at least some of the mages. 

Well, the big take away is that the King/Queen of Ferelden gave her and the mages refuge in one of the most defensible fortresses in Southern Thedas to protect them from the templars and she still invited in a hostile foreign power.

[Dai Grepher]

Possible? Yes, but I dont believe so.

The evidence is hardly a evidence, but we are discussing the same things now, its time to move on. Im not in the mood anymore.

 

Thanks. That's all those on my side have been saying. It's possible.

 

That's fine if you believe otherwise or don't think the evidence is good enough.

[MisterJB]

 

Just like it's possible Corypheus took her out on a date treated her right, opened doors for her and that got her on his side.

It's just not likely.

[Master Warder Z_]

Just like it's possible Corypheus took her out on a date treated her right, opened doors for her and that got her on his side.
It's just not likely.

Well Cory did wear the heels in the relationship

[Dai Grepher]

No.  She had already proven to be too stupid to allow critical thinking to have any sway over her decisions.  Further, it was clear that, for all her speech making, she wasn't willing to match her principles to action.  All it took was an easily disproven lie for her to roll over and become Alexius' beaten puppy.

 

The Venetori showed up and claimed that an unbeatable Templar army was imminent, and all the mages had to do to be rescued was become slaves.  She accepted without ever checking to see if said army actually existed.

 

The Tranquil, in spite of being spiritually maimed, are mages.  She knew there was a cure for them.  And yet despite claiming to stand up for all mages against oppression, she allowed the ones who most needed protection to be abandoned.  Not only that, but those that did make it to Redcliffe with her, she allowed to be driven out or to disappear because the Venetori didn't like having them around.  To say nothing of what horrific things went on right under her nose.

 

She also allowed the Venetori to drive her actual host and protector out of his own home, and made neither protest nor took action to stop it, making her a traitor to the Ferelden crown.

 

When the Inquisitor does show up, rather than stand up for herself or even attempt to assert some control over the fate of the people who trusted her, she lets Alexius not just verbally slap her down like a child, but blatantly rewrite the terms of the deal with little more than a token protest before wilting out of the scene altogether.

 

Her entire depiction is basically spineless idiocy.  Her actions, and lack of anything remotely resembling courage, make it very easy to believe she would roll over and do whatever she was told, regardless of what it was or who was giving the orders, as long as there was some lip service given to a nebulous 'better future' for at least some of the mages. 

 

Look, just because she made stupid choices or did things you didn't agree with doesn't mean she's automatically the type of person to go after and kill innocent people at Haven. There's a difference between stupid and evil. If you think Fiona is the type to go murder innocent people, you're not saying she's stupid, you're saying she's evil.

 

We don't know the events surrounding that claim. Maybe there was a large group of templars marching on them, and the Venatori showed up to kill them. Personally, I think Lucius coordinated with Alexius to make it seem like the templars were marching to kill the mages, and Alexius showed up just in time to "help" the mages. But that's beside the point. We don't know why Fiona thought the templars were coming to kill the mages, and for all we know she had good reason to think they were. For the record, I don't think that's a good reason to join Tevinter. It's a reason to thank them for the help and then go your separate ways. But Fiona thought it best to join Tevinter and not have to worry about repelling constant attacks. That's her call, I disagree with it, I think it's stupid, but that's how it is. Doesn't make her evil.

 

I never heard anything about Fiona knowing of the reversal process for Tranquility.  Assuming she knows, so what? She doesn't have the means to cure them. As for them being abandoned, Fiona didn't do that. She was one woman at one Circle. The abandoned tranquil were all over the place in all the various circles. They were abandoned by the mages of each circle, and that was probably only because the tranquil chose to remain there and continue their daily routines. Like Owain during the Broken Circle quest in DA:O. The tower is going to the abyss and here he is still minding the stockroom. So what were the mages to do, drag them in chains? Again, Fiona was one woman. She couldn't go to each circle and gather up tranquil. As for the ones in Redcliffe, which she helped, they were sheltered. Like Clemence, but all he says is that he was sent away from the castle because he reminds Alexius of what mages can become. The ones who disappeared, under Fiona's stupid nose or not, were because of Alexius and the Venatori. Fiona had no knowledge of that. If she did, then I'll agree that she's evil.

 

She didn't allow them to drive Teagan out. Alexius admits to doing that on his own.

 

What are you talking about? She asked if they were to have any say in their fate, and then when Alexius broke the deal she did protest. Then after that she fought back against Alexius and his Elder One, which is how she ended up in a cell in the bad future.

 

Spineless idiocy doesn't explain going to Haven to murder innocent people, and when the original deal is broken, she turns on Alexius. Which means she turns in the templars path as well. Obviously she didn't do whatever she was told.

[Dai Grepher]

Well, the big take away is that the King/Queen of Ferelden gave her and the mages refuge in one of the most defensible fortresses in Southern Thedas to protect them from the templars and she still invited in a hostile foreign power.

 

They weren't hostile. They played a protector role. Arl Wulff thought the same of them.

[Andromelek]

1-She already turned her back on Redcliffe's villagers and to her own tranquils, why she would suspect or care about innocents on Haven? she probably was more concerned about Inquisition's new Templars.

2-Tevinter is often considered hostile by all the other nations, Nevarra, Antiva and the Free Marches often have struggles with them, in fact the only thing keeping them away is Orlais, and its military power, however Ferelden is a different story, the don't have a good army, their top strategist has about ten years dead or exiled and the crown is incompetent on repairing the country from the Blight, it took a Venatori fireship to burn down Denerim, now, they are great number of Tevinters conscripting a large number of mages on the best Fereldan fortress. How the hell is not that something hostile?

[Dai Grepher]

1-She already turned her back on Redcliffe's villagers and to her own tranquils, why she would suspect or care about innocents on Haven? she probably was more concerned about Inquisition's new Templars.

2-Tevinter is often considered hostile by all the other nations, Nevarra, Antiva and the Free Marches often have struggles with them, in fact the only thing keeping them away is Orlais, and its military power, however Ferelden is a different story, the don't have a good army, their top strategist has about ten years dead or exiled and the crown is incompetent on repairing the country from the Blight, it took a Venatori fireship to burn down Denerim, now, they are great number of Tevinters conscripting a large number of mages on the best Fereldan fortress. How the hell is not that something hostile?

 

1. Do you have any examples of her turning her back on Redcliffe's villagers or tranquil? Also, turning your back on people who need help is not the same as actively killing people yourself.
 

2. Don't know if they're considered hostile, but often they are considered untrustworthy or dangerous. Often, not always. Alexius and his "Tevinters" showed up posing as allies, not aggressors, both to Fiona and to Wulff. They claimed they would take the mages back to Tevinter. Thus removing the problem of the rebel mages from Ferelden. Seemed like a good deal at first. Also, they did not have the large Venatori force that we saw in Haven during the recruitment stage. During this early point they only had enough forces to protect Fiona from the templars that she believed posed an immediate threat to them.

 

So they did not qualify as a hostile threat until they ousted Arl Teagan. But that was after Fiona made the deal. So that wasn't her fault.

[Dean_the_Young]

1. Do you have any examples of her turning her back on Redcliffe's villagers or tranquil?

 

There's a few dozen skulls in Redcliffe alone, not including the ocularum elsewhere, and there's the Arl and his retinue, and an unclear number of other mundanes also evicted.

 

So, that's... three example categories? Sounds about right.
 

 

Also, turning your back on people who need help is not the same as actively killing people yourself.

 

Turning your back on your own people is generally a lot easier than turning against people who are plausible enemies.

 

 

 

2. Don't know if they're considered hostile, but often they are considered untrustworthy or dangerous. Often, not always. Alexius and his "Tevinters" showed up posing as allies, not aggressors, both to Fiona and to Wulff. They claimed they would take the mages back to Tevinter. Thus removing the problem of the rebel mages from Ferelden. Seemed like a good deal at first.

 

 

The point that the Tevinter deal becomes suspect is when a Tevinter magister and his mage retinue argue that they can decisively protect Fiona from an imminent... anti-mage army.

 

The point that the Tevinter deal becomes a farce is when Alexius ousts the Arl to take over the castle. There is no advantage to the mages getting away from Templars derived from turtling in the castle.

 

 

Also, they did not have the large Venatori force that we saw in Haven during the recruitment stage. During this early point they only had enough forces to protect Fiona from the templars that she believed posed an immediate threat to them.

 

 

Venatori are mages.

 

Templars use anti-magic.

 

Unless Fiona believes the Venatori are going to use blood magic (in which case the question of 'whose blood' becomes immediately relevant), nothing short of an army of Venatori could plausibly protect Fiona from an army of Templars big enough to storm Redcliffe Keep.

 

 

So they did not qualify as a hostile threat until they ousted Arl Teagan. But that was after Fiona made the deal. So that wasn't her fault.

 

 

Fiona doesn't stop having agency or responsibility just because she sold herself into slavery. Standing by and allowing Alexius to oust Arl Teagan, after she invited Alexius into power in the first place, is entirely her fault as the leader supposedly responsible for the mages.

[Master Warder Z_]

It took Calenhad, Orlais and then Maric to take  Redcliffe, All of them did it with massive force.

 

Literal armies.

 

No force of Venatori this side of Fellmorrow could have stopped the thousands of upon thousands of templars required to actually take that fortress.

[Kakistos_]

That's a strange assessment, considering Fiona's assessment of the situation as being so dire that slavery and exile were preferable.

This is not my personal assessment but the very premise of the game.

 

"This war could go on forever. Both sides see this." - Cassandra

 

"They fought back. And here we now stand, on the eve of Divine Conclave, seeking peace before their rebellion destroys us all." - Knight-Commander Marteu of Montsimmard, speaking to templars attending the Divine Conclave.

 

"They envisioned the war over quickly; a single battle that would see the mages' resolve crumble, after which they would meekly return to confinement. That did not happen. This conflict could drag on forever, with advantage on neither side. Both templars and mages see this, and thus they have agreed to come to the Conclave." - Divine Justinia

 

Fiona's assessment in this case is suspect considering that she and the Mages had been infiltrated by the Venatori and were manipulated into a deal with Time Magic. When we first meet Fiona in Val Royeux, where she was confident enough to travel to alone or at least in a small group, she is not panicked or desperate having a non coerced view of the situation.