601 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Because Ferelden is sheltering the mages and the Templars won't attack a sovereign nation. Hence the standstill.

[Dai Grepher]

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.
 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

What do you mean skulls? And I hope you would leave out the occulara, since there is no evidence showing that Fiona had any knowledge of them. As for those evicted, this happened after the alliance was made, and the eviction was done by Alexius, not Fiona. At that point there was nothing Fiona could do. She didn't turn her back, there was just nothing she could do about it.

 

Assuming she turned her back on her own people, that would be inaction to help others through their problems for whatever reasons (cowardice, ineffectiveness, not necessarily malice). That is far different from taking action against others.

 

That is not suspect. The argument was that they would lead the rebel mages to Tevinter, where after working for 10 years they would become citizens. It would have been the Tevinter Imperium protecting the mages. And that idea was plausible.

 

It doesn't even become suspect when Alexius ousts Teagan. His reasoning was that tensions were building and he forced Teagan out to prevent an incident. We never hear Fiona's thoughts on this, but according to their deal the mages would have been leaving soon anyway, and Teagan would have returned to find the mages gone to Tevinter. Forcing Teagan out strains the deal, because it puts Fiona in more desperate situation. Alexius alienated her from Ferelden's crown, which means she only had Alexius to rely on. But this doesn't make the deal suspect because Alexius explained his reason as wanting to keep the peace. The deal only becomes suspect if Alexius starts to make it obvious that he has no intention of going back to Tevinter. Like, if Fiona asks when will they all be leaving and Alexius keeps giving her excuses.

 

The deal falls through when Alexius reveals he will not honor the deal.

 

No one ever suggested turtling in the castle. Fiona wanted to LEAVE the castle and go to Tevinter, which was the agreement. Alexius knew there were no templars coming, so his only plan was to lay a trap for the Herald.

 

No, some Venatori are mages. Most are brutes, gladiators, assassins, and archers. To them, templars are just regular people in suits of armor. Again, staying in Redcliffe was never the agreement. The deal was to immigrate to Tevinter.

 

Even if you want to blame the servant for her master's action, the action did not indicate a hostile threat. And what would you have Fiona do? Kill Alexius? That wouldn't undo the fact that Teagan was ousted. So what, abandon the alliance? Then the mages would have no one. She did what she thought was best, tolerate Alexius' choice and focus on getting the mages to Tevinter safely. And for all we know, she did protest Alexius' decision.

[Sifr]

Because Ferelden is sheltering the mages and the Templars won't attack a sovereign nation. Hence the standstill.

 

Yes, because the massive amount of devastation in the Hinterlands from Mage-Templar fighting (both from those in the region who were recalled to Val Royeaux and those who ignored the order) shows that the Order obviously cares one whit about the sovereignty of Ferelden...

 

[Boost32]

Yes, because the massive amount of devastation in the Hinterlands from Mage-Templar fighting (both from those in the region who were recalled to Val Royeaux and those who ignored the order) shows that the Order obviously cares one whit about the sovereignty of Ferelden...
 

Lol, are you really that desperate?

[LOLandStuff]

*snip*

 

In short, Fiona is a clueless dumb b***h.

[Sifr]

Lol, are you really that desperate?

 

How is it desperate to point out a factual statement?

 

The Hinterlands has obvious signs of the destruction caused by both sides fighting (the codex for Fort Connor imples it was intact until very recently), while Corporal Vale tells us that there were Templars in the region and the deserters are those who refused the order to be recalled to Val Royeaux.

 

Even barring how this lines up exactly with Fiona's comments about how there were Templars at the door and gearing up for an attack in the aftermath of the Conclave, you can't deny that there is a lot of evidence that the Templars don't give a damn about Ferelden having offered sanctuary to the rebellion.

 

Cullen's initial assumption during the Red Templar attack on Haven is that the Order was attacking because you'd taken in the Rebellion, says a lot that even our resident ex-Templar believes that his former comrades would not respect national borders to launch an attack upon a mage-aligned Inquisition.

[MisterJB]

Because it's not factual. The only Templars in the Hinterlands are those who ignored the order to disengage.

[Boost32]

Yep, you are desperate.
Headcanon is not factual statement.

[Sifr]

Because it's not factual. The only Templars in the Hinterlands are those who ignored the order to disengage.

 

Yep, you are desperate.
Headcanon is not factual statement.

 

Yes, the Rogue Templars in the Hinterlands are those who refused to disengage and return to Val Royeaux, post-Conclave explosion.

 

But the logical extension of that would also mean that the Templars were engaged in military action against the mages until that order was given, or once the Temple of Sacred Ashes went up, any ceasefire in effect for the duriation of the Conclave was considered to be null and void (since the assumption for a lot of individuals was that it was an attack by the mages), leading to the war being resumed.

 

That Corporal Vale tells us that there were Templars in that region who actually heeded the order and returned (a statement both of you seem to agree with) would thus make it obvious there were Templars in that region before they splintered into those who remained loyal and those who went rogue.

 

So, how is that headcanon, these are details told to us in the actual game itself?

[MisterJB]

Templars are an international Order with chapters in every legitimate nation in Thedas (#burnthetomeofkoslun) and there is no indication Ferelden has exiled them.

The mages have been in Redcliff for six months. It's only natural the Templars would be camped nearby. To watch for any changes, account for the movements of the mages, to react should they become Abominations and to make sure the mages don't become too confortable in Redcliff.

Doesn't mean they havê attacked any Ferelden nationals.

[Sifr]

Templars are an international Order with chapters in every legitimate nation in Thedas (#burnthetomeofkoslun) and there is no indication Ferelden has exiled them.

The mages have been in Redcliff for six months. It's only natural the Templars would be camped nearby. To watch for any changes, account for the movements of the mages, to react should they become Abominations and to make sure the mages don't become too confortable in Redcliff.

Doesn't mean they havê attacked any Ferelden nationals.

 

And yet none of this was ever mentioned in the game, unlike the stuff that I pointed out, which was.

 

Odd that.

 

*Cou-Headcanon-gh*

 

(Hey, I'm all for speculation, but it has to be a two-way street, eh?)

 

[MisterJB]

We were told there were Templars in the Hinterlands.
From there, you inferred the war had resumed in force. But that was never stated.

The only ones we see fighting are those who have broken away from both groups.

[Sifr]

We were told there were Templars in the Hinterlands.
From there, you inferred the war had resumed in force. But that was never stated.

The only ones we see fighting are those who have broken away from both groups.

 

Well, that the Templars were knocking at the gates and gearing up for an attack was stated by Fiona.

 

But unfortunately, most people will dismiss it entirely simply because she happened to be the one to say it.

[MisterJB]

Which is something the Venatori wished her to believe.

It's just as likely, if not more, the Templars were gearing up because they expected an attack since, from everyone's point of view, tbe mages had just murdered the Divine at a peace gathering.

[Boost32]

So you admited that was your headcanon? Good, its at least a start.

[Sports72Xtrm]

So you admited that was your headcanon? Good, its at least a start.

There's nothing headcanon about templars pillaging, raping and killing Hinterland peasants for being mage sympathizers and assumed apostates.

[MisterJB]

And they were rogue, that is what this argument has been about.
Did you just read the last posts?

[Sports72Xtrm]

And they were rogue, that is what this argument has been about.
Did you just read the last posts?

The entire templar order is gone rogue. The templar Order should be held accountable for the action of it's members. Why is it that mages are blamed for apostates and not Templars? Who holds those accountable for the crimes they commit? Oh that's right because the entire order is corrupt. Lucius is Cory's accomplice, the officers willingly corrupt their subordinates since they see their crusade against the Chantry as righteous, and the subordinates follow every corrupt order from taking red lyrium to abandoning their charges. Who in the Templar order isn't corrupt?

[Boost32]

The entire templar order is gone rogue. The templar Order should be held accountable for the action of it's members. Why is it that mages are blamed for apostates and not Templars? Who holds those accountable for the crimes they commit? Oh that's right because the entire order is corrupt. Lucius is Cory's accomplice, the officers willingly corrupt their subordinates since they see their crusade against the Chantry as righteous, and the subordinates follow every corrupt order from taking red lyrium to abandoning their charges. Who in the Templar order isn't corrupt?

The headcanon is strong on this one.

[Master Warder Z_]

The headcanon is strong on this one.

Strong in the thread period

[Sunnie]

OMG, still going?  Just realize that none of you are going to give a micrometer in your opinions and just move on!  lol

[thesuperdarkone2]

OMG, still going? Just realize that none of you are going to give a micrometer in your opinions and just move on! lol

When has that ever changed? These threads will never change anyone's opinions Sinai don't know why people keep making them. I guess people just like arguing and insulting each other

[Deztyn]

I'm going to go ahead and continue to beat the dead horse. A few days late, but eh, I've been sick and seeing so many words was making my brain seep out of my ears. In fact, I'm still not entirely sure my words are working properly.

So I found some proof. After Champions of the Just, Sera says, "Templars filling up the place. Best of the polished helms come to save us."

Sera confirms both that Haven is being filled with templars, and that the elites have come to seal the breach.

That doesn't prove what you think it proves. Sera is likely talking about the few dozen veterens. Which is why she refers to them as the "Best of the polished helms."

Or you could post proof to back up your claim.

My claim is that there is sufficient motive for Fiona to agree to an attack on Haven that blood magic is unnecessary. This has been shown over and over and over again in this thread

Is it possible that in the future a writer will say, "Totes wuz blud magik guyz!"

Sure.

It is also possible that they might reveal in the future that Alistair is having a secret affair with Eamon and that's the real reason he passed his title on to Teagan. There is no actual evidence this is the case. At best you can say there is nothing to refute this claim. That does not mean that this is in anyway a necessary addition to the story. Nor does it mean that it is likely.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that my position and the position of most others arguing with you is not "It is completely and totally and utterly impossible that Fiona was under the influence of blood magic. It could never, ever, ever happen!" Our position is "The simplest explanation is there was no blood magic. There is nothing in game that indicates it. Fiona is stupid, but allying with the Venatori was actually the smartest thing she could do at that point."

If you want to claim it must be blood magic, the burden of proof is on you.

No, that would be redundant. Fiona would only think they came to kill the mages if they came to kill the mages first? No, my claim was this: If Fiona thought the Inquisition was going to help the templars kill the rebel mages, it would only be under the condition that the templars help the Inquisition seal the breach first. She would think she has until after the attempt was made before the two groups came for the rebel mages. Your side made the claim that she would think they would come for her before sealing the breach.

O'Rly?

Upon going back and checking this, it was Dean_the_Young who first posted that theory. My reply was to him, which is why you didn't understand the point I was making there. My point in all this, if Fiona thought the Inquisition was going to kill the rebel mages first, then the fact they didn't even bother moving in the direction of the mages proves that they weren't interested in killing the mages first. In which case Fiona had all the time in the world to tell Alexius to move them north toward Tevinter so they wouldn't have to fight.

O'RLY?

Let's go on an adventure back to page 7 and see what we find in the place where this all began!

It's not inconceivable that Alexius would have convinced Fiona that since the Inquisition has allied with/integrated the Templars, they will be coming after them once the Breach has been closed and it's better for them to preemptively attack them with the help of the Venat...I mean, his Tevinter troops.
There are some wartable missions where a group of rebel mages murder people and try to make it seem the Inquisition has done because of the alliance with the Templars.

What is this?

It is JB, saying that Alexius would have told Fiona that the Inquisition would come kill the mages after sealing the Breach.

He suggests Alexius would have convinced Fiona that they should strike the Inquisition before they could cement their alliance with the Templars and turn their gazes towards the mages.

Also, the mages would have fled while the Inquisition returned on the Lothering route from Theirinfall, thinking they might be headed to Redcliffe first instead of Haven. But after not following them and instead going to Haven, this should have dispelled any suspicion that the Inquisition would attack the mages. All they had to do was leave Ferelden at that point. But this was about the time Alexius was being ousted in favor of Calpernia.

Here you are, not saying that they would close the Breach first and she "had all the time in the world to tell Alexius to move them north toward Tevinter so they wouldn't have to fight." In fact you seem to be saying that Fiona has no cause to fear the templar alliance would attack them AT ALL because they went to Haven first, and she would only believe the Inquisition would help the templars if they attacked the mages before sealing the Breach.

Which is what I said you said!

Why would it dispell such a belief?

Haven's a much better site to gather forces for an attack on Redcliffe than Theirinfall. It's also a great place to shut the Breach, which is the Inquisition's stated goal. The Templars going to Haven doesn't imply they don't care about Redcliffe one way or the other- for paranoid mages, it could just as well be the Templars upholding their end of a bargain (sealing the Breach) in return for the Inquisition siding with them. Which would justify pre-emptively attacking Haven.

That is my One True Love saying that Fiona would think the templars would come after sealing the Breach, and so would be willing to attack the Inquisition before they could consolidate their forces and become a force that Fiona's people and the Venatori couldn't handle. Dean is most definitely not claiming that "she would think they would come for her before sealing the breach."

If the Inquisition was really going to attack the mages, they would have camped at Redcliffe, brought in forces from Haven, and then followed the mages north. But they didn't do this. Instead they went straight back to Haven and then closed the breach, just as they said they would. So the mages had no reason to think the Inquisition would attack them. Fiona had no reason to think this.

Here once again, you seem to be saying that if an attack did not come before sealing the Breach, Fiona would not think an attack was coming AT ALL. Once again, not that she "had all the time in the world to tell Alexius to move them north toward Tevinter so they wouldn't have to fight."

Just like I said you said!

Nor do you provide a convincing argument of 'would' as a substitute for 'needs to' or invalidates other campaign strategies, or provide any answer for why the Templars wouldn't be willing to address the Breach first as part of any anti-Mage Inquisition-Templar alliance. You claim that because the Templars didn't make the Mages the absolute priority in a particular marching order and lay siege to a Ferelden town immediately from across the country rather than stage from Haven- well, somehow this lack of making the Mages priority number one is somehow proof that the Mages couldn't be priority number two in turn- even though letting the Mages be priority two could bolster the Templars by having them gain political support in their campaign after, you know, saving the world first.

There is my love once again saying that Breach first, mages after sealing the Breach is a perfectly logical order of events. With the implication that Fiona and Alexius would recognize this and see a remaining threat, indeed an even greater threat.

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?

This is you once again saying that Fiona would not believe it if Alexius said an attack was coming after sealing the Breach. That she would only believe the Inquisition would help the Templars if it happened before sealing the Breach. Not saying anything that even remotely sounds like, "If Fiona thought the Inquisition was going to help the templars kill the rebel mages, it would only be under the condition that the templars help the Inquisition seal the breach first." You are saying the exact opposite. That the templars would make sealing the Breach contingent upon the Inquisition helping slaughter the mages in advance." Not that she "would think she has until after the attempt was made before the two groups came for the rebel mages." That she would not believe it AT ALL.

Like I said you said!

I'm going to leave out the parts where I said that Fiona would realize the Breach was more important than the mages, and the parts where you said she would not, implying once again that Fiona would only think a battle was coming if it came first. But we both know they're there.

My side has consistently said Fiona would fear the power of a full Templar-Inquisition alliance would turn on the mages after sealing the Breach, and joined the Venatori out of desperation, believing that a preemptive strike on an unprepared Haven would be the only way to ensure the survival of her people.

You are the one who consistently said that Fiona would believe that the Templars would prioritize attacking or sieging Redcliffe before sealing the Breach. That if there were no obvious preparations for an attack before sealing the Breach, Fiona would not believe that an attack was ever going to come. And thus would have no motive to make a preemptive strike on the alliance out of self-preservation. That she would simply run away confident that the Inquisition was not and never would be a threat.

Right up until it no longer suited your argument to continue saying it. At which point, instead of gracefully conceding that Fiona might have cause to fear an alliance, you attempted to use our position to bolster your own, while being dishonest and refusing to acknowledge that you were doing so.

"Maker damn it, they're right about Fiona having a reason to be afraid. Oh hey! Even if Fiona thinks the alliance is a threat, that just means she has more time to run if they're only a threat after the Breach is sealed, doesn't she? OMM why didn't I think about that earlier? That's a much better rebuttal! Maybe Dez won't notice if I lie and pretend that's what I was saying all along!"

Or at least that is how it seems to me.

Perhaps I missed something and truly am mistaken.

So can you explain to me again what I didn't understand?

Gently please.

I have a massive migraine and your words tend to hurt my head.

[Boomshakalakalakaboom]

I'm going to go ahead and continue to beat the dead horse. A few days late, but eh, I've been sick and seeing so many words was making my brain seep out of my ears. In fact, I'm still not entirely sure my words are working properly.

That doesn't prove what you think it proves. Sera is likely talking about the few dozen veterens. Which is why she refers to them as the "Best of the polished helms."

My claim is that there is sufficient motive for Fiona to agree to an attack on Haven that blood magic is unnecessary. This has been shown over and over and over again in this thread

Is it possible that in the future a writer will say, "Totes wuz blud magik guyz!"

Sure.

It is also possible that they might reveal in the future that Alistair is having a secret affair with Eamon and that's the real reason he passed his title on to Teagan. There is no actual evidence this is the case. At best you can say there is nothing to refute this claim. That does not mean that this is in anyway a necessary addition to the story. Nor does it mean that it is likely.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that my position and the position of most others arguing with you is not "It is completely and totally and utterly impossible that Fiona was under the influence of blood magic. It could never, ever, ever happen!" Our position is "The simplest explanation is there was no blood magic. There is nothing in game that indicates it. Fiona is stupid, but allying with the Venatori was actually the smartest thing she could do at that point."

If you want to claim it must be blood magic, the burden of proof is on you.

O'Rly?

O'RLY?

Let's go on an adventure back to page 7 and see what we find in the place where this all began!


What is this?

It is JB, saying that Alexius would have told Fiona that the Inquisition would come kill the mages after sealing the Breach.

He suggests Alexius would have convinced Fiona that they should strike the Inquisition before they could cement their alliance with the Templars and turn their gazes towards the mages.

Here you are, not saying that they would close the Breach first and she "had all the time in the world to tell Alexius to move them north toward Tevinter so they wouldn't have to fight." In fact you seem to be saying that Fiona has no cause to fear the templar alliance would attack them AT ALL because they went to Haven first, and she would only believe the Inquisition would help the templars if they attacked the mages before sealing the Breach.

Which is what I said you said!

That is my One True Love saying that Fiona would think the templars would come after sealing the Breach, and so would be willing to attack the Inquisition before they could consolidate their forces and become a force that Fiona's people and the Venatori couldn't handle. Dean is most definitely not claiming that "she would think they would come for her before sealing the breach."

Here once again, you seem to be saying that if an attack did not come before sealing the Breach, Fiona would not think an attack was coming AT ALL. Once again, not that she "had all the time in the world to tell Alexius to move them north toward Tevinter so they wouldn't have to fight."

Just like I said you said!

There is my love once again saying that Breach first, mages after sealing the Breach is a perfectly logical order of events. With the implication that Fiona and Alexius would recognize this and see a remaining threat, indeed an even greater threat.

This is you once again saying that Fiona would not believe it if Alexius said an attack was coming after sealing the Breach. That she would only believe the Inquisition would help the Templars if it happened before sealing the Breach. Not saying anything that even remotely sounds like, "If Fiona thought the Inquisition was going to help the templars kill the rebel mages, it would only be under the condition that the templars help the Inquisition seal the breach first." You are saying the exact opposite. That the templars would make sealing the Breach contingent upon the Inquisition helping slaughter the mages in advance." Not that she "would think she has until after the attempt was made before the two groups came for the rebel mages." That she would not believe it AT ALL.

Like I said you said!

I'm going to leave out the parts where I said that Fiona would realize the Breach was more important than the mages, and the parts where you said she would not, implying once again that Fiona would only think a battle was coming if it came first. But we both know they're there.

My side has consistently said Fiona would fear the power of a full Templar-Inquisition alliance would turn on the mages after sealing the Breach, and joined the Venatori out of desperation, believing that a preemptive strike on an unprepared Haven would be the only way to ensure the survival of her people.

You are the one who consistently said that Fiona would believe that the Templars would prioritize attacking or sieging Redcliffe before sealing the Breach. That if there were no obvious preparations for an attack before sealing the Breach, Fiona would not believe that an attack was ever going to come. And thus would have no motive to make a preemptive strike on the alliance out of self-preservation. That she would simply run away confident that the Inquisition was not and never would be a threat.

Right up until it no longer suited your argument to continue saying it. At which point, instead of gracefully conceding that Fiona might have cause to fear an alliance, you attempted to use our position to bolster your own, while being dishonest and refusing to acknowledge that you were doing so.

"Maker damn it, they're right about Fiona having a reason to be afraid. Oh hey! Even if Fiona thinks the alliance is a threat, that just means she has more time to run if they're only a threat after the Breach is sealed, doesn't she? OMM why didn't I think about that earlier? That's a much better rebuttal! Maybe Dez won't notice if I lie and pretend that's what I was saying all along!"

Or at least that is how it seems to me.

Perhaps I missed something and truly am mistaken.

So can you explain to me again what I didn't understand?

Gently please.

I have a massive migraine and your words tend to hurt my head.

I'm giving you a like for commitment.

[Deztyn]

Part II

"1. Oh well the children aren't being made to fight in a battle. That makes the Venatori just a bunch of great guys, doesn't it? Forget the fact that the rebel mages either fled or were KILLED by them. Fiona doesn't care about them. She just cares about the ones who already support the Venatori's evil actions and are in no danger of being killed by them if she decides to leave. No, Fiona would not think the Inquisition and templars were coming to kill them, and no she would not want to go back south and fight them on unknown terrain. Why would she choose to fight when they could have all just left for Tevinter and been "safe" from the Inquisition and their templars?

Fiona was a Grey Warden. She also met the Architect. She would know better than to ally with another crazy darkspawn who talks about changing the world."

The point was that she did it for the people who could still be saved. Like the children. And leaving for Tevinter was not an option. They had no means of actually doing so without the support of Alexius or another magister. Means which Alexius had no intention of supplying. As you well know.

"2. Potential allies are not relevant to the situation. Alexius wronged her and her people, she would make him pay for it. Besides, the Inquisition was still a potential ally to her and the mages. Anything Alexius spoke to her about the Inquisition would at that point be considered as empty as his promises. The world is ending? Where? The Inquisition sealed the breach by then."

Fiona protests in the throne room. Just as she protests in the tavern. We have no reason to believe she would do anything more than protest, especially without allies. It's only in the bad future that she does something that gets her locked up in a cell, where circumstances are much more dire. After completing Champions of the Just, Fiona has no reason to believe that the Inquisition is still a potential ally.

No allies=no chance for her mages to survive.

Alexius, or Calpernia, is the only chance any of her people have left from her point of view.

"3. It only needs to be proof that the Venatori knew how to use blood magic. That is what makes it possible for them to have used it on Fiona. Also, Redcliffe can be investigated right after Champions of the Just is complete, which means it can be done before Heart Burn."

Ah. So in that case it is simply long distance brainwashing blood magic and not long distance time-travelling blood magic. That makes it so much more likely.

Tell me, have you considered that the people in Redcliffe Castle--the place where Alexius was experimenting with localized time-travel magic-- maybe, just maybe, have conflicting memories of events because they actually experienced different events?

Nope.

Blood. Magic.

"4.

...

...

...

"Dialogue or Cutscenes would detract from the story.

Funny. Every other person here thinks DA:I's story could have benefited from more dialogue and cutscenes. Oh, question. Did the cutscene and dialogue with Grand Duchess Florianne in the courtyard detract from the storyline of Wicked Eyes, Wicked Hearts, in your opinion?

Even if you don't want that, she could have shouted things like, "I won't let you templar dogs harm my people", or "Back to the abyss with you wretched darkspawn". And you'd be like, "What?!". Or if you still think she was a willing participant in leading her people to slaughter, she could have said, "You'll never break out alliance with mighty Tevinter, Herald", or "After this we'll all be welcomed into the Imperium as full citizens. For the mages!" Ya know, something to indicate whether she was in her full wits or not."

Again. You are missing the point.

Inquisition over all would have benefited from more cutscenes, with the caveat that those cutscenes enhanced important aspects of story and character interactions. It would have made the quest givers more memorable. It would have made conversations with advisors and companions more intimate.

Florianne is an integral part of Wicked eyes, Wicked Hearts.

Fiona/Denam are NOT important to In Your Heart Shall Burn.

How exactly would In Your Heart Shall Burn be enhanced by devoting resources to a bit character? Why interrupt the trebuchet game mechanic and the flow of battle for a few lines from a character that is completely insignificant on that story path? The Elder One is important. The Dragon is important. Calpernia and Samson are important. The Avalanche is important. Fiona/Denam are not, they are meant to immediately fall upon the Inquisitor's blade and are otherwise completely irrelevent in the path not taken.

More importantly, how would the Templar side narrative have played out if they had given Fiona extra dialogue elaborating on her motives for attacking the Inquisition?

* Fiona appeals to the Inquisitor at Val Royeaux.

* Inquisitor either goes to Redcliffe but decides not to help save the mages from themselves OR ignores the invite and approaches the Templars

* Inquisitor allies with the Templars and the Breach is closed.

* Fiona shows up in Haven and tells the Inquisitor that she has no choice. She hates that it came to this but, this is the only way to ensure the survival of some of her people. Cue Fiona's tragic death by Inquisitor to the sound of a dozen tiny violins, while the players scream "Damn it, why did we have to kill her?" OR Fiona shows up and claims the Templar-Inquisition alliance is out to kill the mages. That she'll end the Inquisition first. Cue Fiona's death to the sound of a million players saying "WTF? We're not doing that. Why can't I tell her we're not doing that?"

The Templar and Mage paths are both meant to be valid ways of approaching the game. Different, but equal. Things are already skewed towards the mage side, because we are given more compelling reasons to choose them before being forced to commit to a faction. In such a situation it would create an even bigger imbalance. Give Fiona more dialogue explaining her tragic motives and her mages continue to be objects of sympathy rather than true enemies. Not allying with them, a terrible mistake made by the Inquisitor.

While the Red Templars on the mage path run around saying "Grrr... Argh!"

"I'm not saying Fiona should have necessarily appealed to the Herald during the attack on Haven from a gameplay perspective. I'm asking why she didn't do it storyline-wise. If she were herself, if there was nothing controlling her, then why didn't she do anything to make friends of the Inquisition?"

The middle of a battle to save the Inquisition's people from an overwhelming enemy force that includes Fiona is an inopportune time to invite the Inquisitor over for tea and cookies.

"5. So she's a tired and broken down old woman who gets punked by everyone, except when it comes to launching a full-scale attack on an organization full of soldiers and templars in a fort in the middle of a frozen wasteland? Why couldn't she lay down and be a punk against the Herald? Come on. She had enough in her to throw on some Archon Robes and blast with the best of them in Haven, right? No, she did what she could the whole time, up to the point where she knew everything she was doing was for nothing because there was never any deal. Yes, she made mostly bad choices, but when it came to her people being mistreated, she knew enough to do right. I think you're mischaracterizing her, and I hate Fiona."

Fiona isn't the one launching the attack. She is being swept along as a consequence of her actions. That does not mean she is incapable of fighting a battle, it means that she no longer has the drive to fight her people's dismal circumstances. Particularly when she has no cause to believe that is a fight she can win. On the other hand,
surviving an attack on the Inquisition to fight another day, while saving some of her charges, might seem like a better deal than just letting the Venatori kill her and the youngest and weakest among the mages.

We've seen several times over that Corypheus and his allies are very good at telling people what they need to hear to gain their cooperation.

"Yeah but Fiona was at least someone players learned about in Val Royeaux. And those who read the books would know of her. And those who went to Redcliffe to hear the mages out would also know. Denam, I think, is the one who punched the Chantry mother in the back of the head, but he isn't identified if it is him. And if you didn't go to Therinfal you'd have no idea who Denam is."

Her importance in other media is irrelevent. This about her importance in game. Specifically, in game a where you side with the Templars. We don't get any details about Samson in that worldstate either. Nor should we. It's unimportant.