601 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

Seriously.

The argument against blood magic is "There is nothing in the game the says or even implies that it is blood magic"
This isn't a theory that needs to be proved. It is a fact. There is nothing in the game that says blood magic.
The argument for blood magic is "I don't think Fiona would do that."
Many reasons have been given to explain exactly why she would make the choices she does given her history and the situations she faces in game.
The counter argument is "Well, I still don't think Fiona would do that."

But somehow we're the ones who are irrational and won't see reason.

 

The Venatori are using blood magic in rituals that are forbidden even in the Imperium, that is established by a Venatori diary in the Hissing Wastes. At Adamant, we see that Erimond is using blood magic in his ritual to mess with the Wardens and bring them under Corypheus' control. And with Calpernia, the way to cause her to abandon Corpyheus is to show her evidence that he was intending to use blood magic to take control over her mind.

 

So yes, while this does not prove that they used it at Redcliffe on the Rebellion to create a brainwashed army, we still see that Corypheus and the Venatori are perfectly capable of using blood magic as a tool and in order to control people.

 

Fiona's history with the Architect and how she was so opposed to him in the Calling makes any involvement with Corypheus extremely unlikely. It's a stretch and requires a huge suspension of disbelief that she would willingly have serve him... and frankly, I'd like to hear what reasons she would have agreed, if it's so certain she would have done so?

 

The Mage Rebellion was never on the offensive for the entire Mage-Templar war from what it seems, that the Templars were kicking them to the curb repeatedly and forcing them to having to seek refuge in Ferelden and attempt to find peace via the Conclave, seems to bear this out.

 

Even if we go with that they were given a "Cake or Death" choice into joining the Venatori, that they'd suddenly become a fully loyal fighting squad for the Venatori overnight capable of organising such a co-ordinated attack seems extremely dubious from how much they were getting their backsides kicked beforehand. Especially since even if this was a last desperate attack on their part, they'd be going up against an Inquisition allied with the very Templars who were beating them until only recently, something that would have given them pause even if they were riled up?

 

Let's face it, the situation makes no sense and there is a metric ton of plot-holes here, but the brainwashing theory at least follows suit with how the Wardens and Templars were compromised and turned into a slave puppet-army for Corypheus.

 

Otherwise... well, what do you guys think happened, save for everyone switching to "evil for the lulz" mode for some reason?

[Sifr]

So, because some Templars and mages somewhere who are unnafiliated with either group were about to kill each other, that suddenly mean the internationally recognized and sanctioned Templar Order was about to breach the sovereignity of Ferelden?

 

Hey... anyone else remember that Nevarran Accord that was broken, where the Templars declared "Screw you guys, we're hunting mages" to everyone, including the Chantry who held their leash and kept them in order?

 

Yeah, I don't think that they are internationally sanctioned anymore. They're basically a rogue NGO now, much like the Inquisition.

[MisterJB]

Hey... anyone else remember that Nevarran Accord that was broken, where the Templars declared "Screw you guys, we're hunting mages" to everyone, including the Chantry who held their leash and kept them in order?

 

Yeah, I don't think that they are internationally sanctioned anymore. They're basically a rogue NGO now, much like the Inquisition.

They only have ownership of forts and the surrounding lands and nobles families of Orlais try to pressure them to fulfill their duty. Duty being an important word here.

Furthermore, we don't know the situation of the Templars in the Anderfels, Nevarra and Rivain.

[Sifr]

 

They only have ownership of forts and the surrounding lands and nobles families of Orlais try to pressure them to fulfill their duty. Duty being an important word here.

Furthermore, we don't know the situation of the Templars in the Anderfels, Nevarra and Rivain.

 

You mean the same duty they abandoned to - as Rylen so aptly puts it - "go off barking at the moon" and declare open-season on the mages?

 

If the Chantry in the Free Marches, Orlais or Ferelden cannot tell them what to do, what makes you think that nobles would have any luck?

 

As I recall, the only incident we hear about where the nobility in Thedas managed to get the Templars to stop what they were doing and listen to what they had to say, was when the Inquisitor rocked up at Therinfal with an entourage... which was only allowed because Envy intended it to be a trap.

[MisterJB]

 

Otherwise... well, what do you guys think happened, save for everyone switching to "evil for the lulz" mode for some reason?

Seriously? Me and Dean have said this before, no?

 

First of all, Connor says how every city in Thedas but Redcliff has forbidden mages from entering. Lysas says that everyone is calling it the "Mage Rebellion" because they are the ones people hate. Finally, Fiona says that everyone is blaming the mages for Justinia's murder and that they are losing the war. This is evident considering how the entirety of the mages' participation in DAI is them following someone's orders with the alternative being death. Alistair, Venatori and (possibly) the Inquisition.

So, by allying with Tevinter, they have burned all bridges. Ferelden doesn't want them anymore and neither does anyone else.

 

This, of course, indicates why Fiona would obey Alexius' orders, not matter how despicable because the alternative is the mages being entirely alone in an hostile world. Basically, they either help the Venatori fight the Templars and their allies, the Inquisition or the mages will be fighting them anyway, except by themselves.

 

Furthermore, the attack on Haven makes sense. The Inquisition has allied with the Templars. Therefore, Fiona has reasons to believe they are hostile. It makes sense to attempt to destroy it before they fully join their forces with the Templars.

The Venatori provided the mages with reinforcements. In fact, judging by the enemies we encounter during the battle, the majority of the attacking force was Venatori. As such, it is likely this would have lifted the spirits of the mages, made them believe in victory and the prospect of vengeance would have appealed to a great number of them.

 

In conclusion, we have Fiona who can't refuse Alexius' orders being ordered to do something that it is in her best interests.

 

Without meeting Corypheus face to face, what reason would she have to refuse?

Besides, it's not entirely impossible she would have sided with Corypheus himself if the alternative is for all the mages under her care to be either killed or made Tranquil.
 

[MisterJB]

You mean the same duty they abandoned to - as Rylen so aptly puts it - "go off barking at the moon" and declare open-season on the mages?

 

If the Chantry in the Free Marches, Orlais or Ferelden cannot tell them what to do, what makes you think that nobles would have any luck?

 

As I recall, the only incident we hear about where the nobility in Thedas managed to get the Templars to stop what they were doing and listen to what they had to say, was when the Inquisitor rocked up at Therinfal with an entourage... which was only allowed because Envy intended it to be a trap.

 

Missing the point.

How did the world react to the Templars breaking the Nevarran Accord? Did they hunt them down like brigands?
The Clerics were desperate to have them back on their side and the nobles were attempting to pressure them to do what they wanted. So, both religious and secular authorities recognized and courted the Templars.

 

Meanwhile, the mages were forbidden from entering cities with the exception of Redcliff. Nice.

[Sifr]

Seriously? Me and Dean have said this before, no?

 

First of all, Connor says how every city in Thedas but Redcliff has forbidden mages from entering. Lysas says that everyone is calling it the "Mage Rebellion" because they are the ones people hate. Finally, Fiona says that everyone is blaming the mages for Justinia's murder and that they are losing the war. This is evident considering how the entirety of the mages' participation in DAI is them following someone's orders with the alternative being death. Alistair, Venatori and (possibly) the Inquisition.

So, by allying with Tevinter, they have burned all bridges. Ferelden doesn't want them anymore and neither does anyone else.

 

When did Connor say that, I've not heard him mention anything about them being perma-banned from anywhere in Thedas? I know that Lysas does comment that the Templars broke the Accord but the Mages are getting scapegoated as the bad guys (preaching to the choir, mate) and Fiona does indeed state that they are losing the war and that she accepted Alexius' deal because it was the only way to save her people.

 

But I don't exactly see how allying with Tevinter burn all bridges as you keep saying, when the alliance was intended to get them out of Ferelden, something you'd imagine would bring a sigh of relief to everyone in Southern Thedas as they are now out of their hair and Tevinter's problem?

 

This, of course, indicates why Fiona would obey Alexius' orders, not matter how despicable because the alternative is the mages being entirely alone in an hostile world. Basically, they either help the Venatori fight the Templars and their allies, the Inquisition or the mages will be fighting them anyway, except by themselves.

 

Furthermore, the attack on Haven makes sense. The Inquisition has allied with the Templars. Therefore, Fiona has reasons to believe they are hostile. It makes sense to attempt to destroy it before they fully join their forces with the Templars.

The Venatori provided the mages with reinforcements. In fact, judging by the enemies we encounter during the battle, the majority of the attacking force was Venatori. As such, it is likely this would have lifted the spirits of the mages, made them believe in victory and the prospect of vengeance would have appealed to a great number of them.

 

In conclusion, we have Fiona who can't refuse Alexius' orders being ordered to do something that it is in her best interests.

 

The flaws in this assumption is that it's predicated by Fiona believing the Inquisition to be a hostile power out for the Mage Rebellion, something that even if they believed them to yet another rogue arm of the Chantry as the Templars have become, has never actually been shown to be the case.

 

Thus far, the Inquisition has neither engaged in any kind of hostile action against the rebellion and indeed, even if they sided with the Templars, they might have attempted to gain the Rebellion's aid and enter diplomatic talks with them at first.

 

So far, all the Inquisition has they served to do is bring the Templars to heel, as bring to light that the upper echelons of the Templar command structure had been impersonated by a demon, as well as corrupted by Red Lyrium. Assuming that this information became publically known (to prevent the rise of the Red Templars elsehwere), this means the Mage Rebellion would likely be aware as well that the Templar Order has lost a lot of their command structure and have been left with only middle-management.

 

While a pre-emptive attack might have been considered under those circumstances, given that they were aware that Haven was not well-defended and that the Order was weaker than believed previously, coupled with the desire for some kind of retribution after all they had suffered at the Templars hands, it would still be odd that the rebellion would consider launching such an attack instead of using the time given to them to just get out of Redcliffe and head to Tevinter.

 

Even with Alexius ordering them to attack or risk the alliance being called off, the entire reason that they had allied with him in the first place was because they had believed that an attack by the Templars are imminent... something that has been proven false.

 

The only terms of the alliance that might still appeal to them is the offer of safe haven in Tevinter now that they are unwelcome in Ferelden. While you are correct that Ferelden doesn't want them anymore and are obviously hacked off with them, that the mage's intention was to no longer treat Redcliffe like a doss-house is reasonable and something that even Anora, Alistair and Teagan would understand when looking at it with cooler heads.

 

Point being, that they have time to consider their options and even if Ferelden orders them out, they don't have to worry about the Templars for the meanwhile while they look for someone else to go?

 

Without meeting Corypheus face to face, what reason would she have to refuse?

Besides, it's not entirely impossible she would have sided with Corypheus himself if the alternative is for all the mages under her care to be either killed or made Tranquil.

 

Even if she had agreeing to the attack, that Corypheus makes zero attempt to hide who or what he is during the attack on Haven, as well as his little pet dragon, is a good enough reason as any that someone like Fiona would have turned coat (again) once realising who the new boss was.

 

That Corypheus has punched a hole into the Fade and wants to become a God, a plan that is far worse for all of Thedas than the one concocted by the last talking Darkspawn mage she encountered, does not seem like a reason why she'd jump onboard the crazy train.

 

Even if he was threatening her people with death or Tranquility, that Corypheus is actually the devil incarnate from the Chantry tales and someone who is trying to enter the Fade to become a God for the second time - even despite the last time leading to the Blights and turning his face into a rockery - strikes him as someone who can be trusted for even a moment?

 

She's already seen that Alexius is fully prepared to screw her over, what makes you think she'd think the opposite when it comes to Corypheus?

 

I could accept perhaps that those who were in the Rebellion who weren't killed, fled and wanted to get even, might have agreed to such an attack. I could even perhaps believe that the primary force we see are Venatori mages with the remaining number of Rebels who did join them making up the rest.

 

But I find it dubious that Fiona would have agreed to such a plan... given how siding with the Venatori not only puts her people in danger during said attack, but makes them part of a military force against her own wishes and the terms of the deal, would further lead to the demonisation of mages in the eyes of everyone in Thedas, especially with the revelation that they are following Corypheus.

 

I dunno, I just don't buy her being in Haven and a willing participant of the battle. Comes across more to me as Orsino all over again where they needed a boss to battle and decided to fill it by having the leader of the mages suddenly acting extremely out-of-character for ill-defined reasons?

 

Missing the point.

How did the world react to the Templars breaking the Nevarran Accord? Did they hunt them down like brigands?
The Clerics were desperate to have them back on their side and the nobles were attempting to pressure them to do what they wanted. So, both religious and secular authorities recognized and courted the Templars.

 

Meanwhile, the mages were forbidden from entering cities with the exception of Redcliff. Nice.

 

Given that the Templars are the primary means of controlling the Mages who have also rebelled and are feared by most of the population far more, then does it strike you as perhaps why they'd let the Templars have their way with the mage rebels, to get rid of that problem before they attempt to bring their lyrium-addicted and smite-happy prison guards back into line?

 

Where did anyone say that the mages were forbidden from entering any foreign city, can you provide a codex or dialogue where Connor states that to be the case, I've never heard it in any playthrough thus far. That and we see Fiona and a mage Inquisitor (who is also a declared heretic) be allowed to enter Val Royeaux without any such problems or being clapped in chains, seems to suggest otherwise?

[Master Warder Z_]

Missing the point.
How did the world react to the Templars breaking the Nevarran Accord? Did they hunt them down like brigands?
The Clerics were desperate to have them back on their side and the nobles were attempting to pressure them to do what they wanted. So, both religious and secular authorities recognized and courted the Templars.

Meanwhile, the mages were forbidden from entering cities with the exception of Redcliff. Nice.

Templars are important

[TK514]

There's nothing in-game to suggest Blood Magic was used on the mages.

Fiona has already made several decisions directly counter to her previous 'freedom or death' propaganda.

It is clear from the exchange in Redcliffe that Alexius has broken her.  He changes the deal as she understands it, she makes a token show of disapproval and then slinks into the corner to let the grown-ups talk.

Ultimately, aside from one moment before the godawful time travel plot device (Time Travel?  Seriously?), Fiona did nothing in DAI but alienate potential allies and bow to the whims of others.  Whoever you think she was in the past, who she is now is a beaten woman.  And, given her complete lack of spine in DA:I, I have no issue whatsoever with her allying with Corypheus and attacking Haven at his command.

 

If you absolutely must have some coercive angle to all this, though I don't think one is necessary, there's a far simpler solution than Blood Magic.  Fiona seems particularly concerned about the children before Alexius sends her slinking off with her tail between her legs.  There's your motivation.  The Venatori are obviously more than willing to murder folks to get what they want.  No reason to think they would blink an eye at threatening a bunch of kids to get the adults to fight.

[Sifr]

What's odd though about her change in behaviour is that the Fiona encountered in Val Royeaux was far more upbeat and confident in her chances, especially allied with the Inquisition, than the rather broken women we meet in Redcliffe who is kept around as a puppet-figure for Alexius to dictate terms to at whim.

 

Which suggests that time travel in Dragon Age operates on a mutable timeline that is capable of being overwritten by incursions into the past, so that part of the danger that Dorian warns us about is due to the resultant paradoxes when it comes to drastic changes being made to the timeline.

 

The Fiona from Val Royeaux had not allied with anyone at that point, since she was free to offer the mages to the Inquisition and made no indication that if the Venatori had approached her in her version of history, she was willing to accept their terms.

 

The reason that Fiona looks so despondent and broken when we meet her again in Redcliffe, is because this Fiona was the one whom Alexius went back to offer a deal to when things looked at their worst for the mages. With the Conclave destroyed, her people blamed and the Templars gearing up for an attack... yeah, you can see why she agreed to sign the dotted line without reading the fine print, particularly the key clauses that allow for the contract holder to change terms suddenly on the spot and as they see fit.

 

When the Templars were recalled, the attack never came and the Inquisition began looking for allies to help them close the Breach, no doubt she realised what a horrible mistake she'd made and felt like a complete putz for having fallen into Alexius' trap.

 

While it is hard to argue that Fiona didn't make an obvious error, it should be seen in context, as one made by a victim of shenanigans that manipulated both her and events to screw her over. Rather than as some have suggested, that she made an idiotic mistake simply because she's just a moron.

[TK514]

While it is hard to argue that Fiona didn't make an obvious error, it should be seen in context, as one made by a victim of shenanigans that manipulated both her and events to screw her over. Rather than as some have suggested, that she made an idiotic mistake simply because she's just a moron.

 

Except that it's stated in game that there was never a Templar attack, it was always a lie.  An easily disproven one, at that.  Had she bothered even a cursory verification of the force supposedly ready to completely invalidate any Templar goodwill in Ferelden as well as waste itself  trying to attack one of the most defensible fortresses in southern Thedas, she'd have found nothing there, and Alexius' lie would have been exposed.  She's a moron because she didn't even look.

[MisterJB]

When did Connor say that, I've not heard him mention anything about them being perma-banned from anywhere in Thedas?

 

But I don't exactly see how allying with Tevinter burn all bridges as you keep saying, when the alliance was intended to get them out of Ferelden, something you'd imagine would bring a sigh of relief to everyone in Southern Thedas as they are now out of their hair and Tevinter's problem?

 

That may have been so had there been an agreement for that effect. Instead, we have Fiona inviting Tevinter without permission, them occupying a portion of the South, evicting people from their homes, etc. And when that fails, what? Is everyone supposed to go "Ok, so you helped the avowed enemies of Andraste occupy land in the very country she was born thus validating nearly a millenia of Chantry preaching in but lets let bygones be bygones. We'll help you."

Under these circunstances, they have to be opposed on pure principle.

Cassandra and Solas say as much.

 

The flaws in this assumption is that it's predicated by Fiona believing the Inquisition to be a hostile power out for the Mage Rebellion, something that even if they believed them to yet another rogue arm of the Chantry as the Templars have become, has never actually been shown to be the case.

 

Thus far, the Inquisition has neither engaged in any kind of hostile action against the rebellion and indeed, even if they sided with the Templars, they might have attempted to gain the Rebellion's aid and enter diplomatic talks with them at first.

 

The mages rebelled under the pretext that Templars are violent fanatics who hate mages. They have been fighting a war because the Templars wish to see the return of the Circle.

Why would they ever think the Inquisition wouldn't be against them now that they have allied with the Templars? What would they even be offering the Templars if not support in their endeavors against the mages?

And of course, Alexius will tell Fiona precisely this. He has already convinced her they were amassing their forces for an assault while they were moving to Val Royeaux. Convincing her the people who allied with the Templars are now against them as well will be significantly easier.

 

So far, all the Inquisition has they served to do is bring the Templars to heel, as bring to light that the upper echelons of the Templar command structure had been impersonated by a demon, as well as corrupted by Red Lyrium. Assuming that this information became publically known (to prevent the rise of the Red Templars elsehwere), this means the Mage Rebellion would likely be aware as well that the Templar Order has lost a lot of their command structure and have been left with only middle-management.

 

While a pre-emptive attack might have been considered under those circumstances, given that they were aware that Haven was not well-defended and that the Order was weaker than believed previously, coupled with the desire for some kind of retribution after all they had suffered at the Templars hands, it would still be odd that the rebellion would consider launching such an attack instead of using the time given to them to just get out of Redcliffe and head to Tevinter.

 

Even with Alexius ordering them to attack or risk the alliance being called off, the entire reason that they had allied with him in the first place was because they had believed that an attack by the Templars are imminent... something that has been proven false.

Even if Fiona wished to back out of an attack, she has no means to do so.

Tevinter won't just accept them backing out of their contract. Tevinter, at this point, is the only offer of help they have left. The last thing they want is to turn them into enemies too. Really, disagreeing with Alexius at this point in time would mean the mages would have absolutely no allies when the Templars had formed a powerful new alliance. She can't do it.

 

This added to other factors like:

 

-As you pointed out, the fact the Templars have lost numbers to infighting.

-The fact Alexius is the one providing Fiona will all her intel.

-The fact the mages have no reason to believe the Inquisition won't aid the Templars in hindering the mages, perhaps even making it impossible to reach Tevinter.

-The fact it makes sense to destroy the Inquisition now before they can grow further and join forces with the Templars

-The fact their spirits would be lifted seeing the power and numbers of the Venatori on their side and may be convinced to take some revenge.

-The fact that Fiona's agreement with Tevinter specifically stated some of the mages would be serving in the military to begin with. What does it matter if they are supposed to fight the Inquisition before they go against the cow-men from their point of view?

 

Means Fiona does not need any mind control to agree to attack Haven.

Even if she had agreeing to the attack, that Corypheus makes zero attempt to hide who or what he is during the attack on Haven, as well as his little pet dragon, is a good enough reason as any that someone like Fiona would have turned coat (again) once realising who the new boss was.

 

It's a battle involving thousands. Corypheus can easily go unnoticed.

And even if she noticed the dragon was Tainted; which she might have not considering she can't feel it anymore; at that point the mages are divided amidst Venatori squadrons and engaging the Inquisition. She can't retreat at that point.

 

Even if he was threatening her people with death or Tranquility,

I was thinking more along the likes of "You either fight the Inquisition and Templars alongside us or they are going to attack you at which point you fight them alone. Choose, rattus."

 

That Corypheus has punched a hole into the Fade and wants to become a God, a plan that is far worse for all of Thedas than the one concocted by the last talking Darkspawn mage she encountered, does not seem like a reason why she'd jump onboard the crazy train.

 

The Architect wished to Taint the entire world, there was no benefit for her then.

Corypheus wants to make the world bow to himself and mages. Fiona's people benefit. Can we say for sure she wouldn't have been tempted?

 

would further lead to the demonisation of mages in the eyes of everyone in Thedas,

Well, at this point she has basically given up on Southern Thedas anyway and is moving North.

 

I dunno, I just don't buy her being in Haven and a willing participant of the battle. Comes across more to me as Orsino all over again where they needed a boss to battle and decided to fill it by having the leader of the mages suddenly acting extremely out-of-character for ill-defined reasons?

Orsino was in-character when he made that choice. I can and will explain this in either a different post or thread.

 

 

[Dai Grepher]

First I'm going to reply just to the issues that there was confusion on to get that cleared up. Then my next post will be on the other topics.

 

Deztyn, before I start I have to set the context of the discussion as a preface to this.

 

At the beginning of this particular line of discussion there was the theory that Alexius could have told Fiona that the Inquisition/Templar Alliance was coming to kill the rebel mages. MisterJB and Dean_the_Young always held the position that Alexius would have told Fiona that the Alliance would seal the breach first, and then attack the mages. Just making that clear.

 

From here I retorted with a critique of my own. Which was that Fiona had common sense, and would know that the Alliance attacking the mages first would be the most tactical option for them. Since they didn't bother going after the mages, it would show Fiona that the Alliance did not care about attacking them. Attacking from Haven after sealing the breach would make no sense for the Alliance. This was my main argument. At the end of this I also made a point that all the rebel mages had to do at this point was leave Ferelden and go to Tevinter to avoid conflict.

 

JB made a point about Alexius framing the argument in a certain way. Dean asked how sealing the breach first would dispel the notion that the Alliance would attack the mages. Dean also added that sealing the breach first could be seen as the templars upholding their end of the bargain first.

 

I replied writing that JB's suggestion is only reason for Fiona to demand Alexius take them to Tevinter before the breach is sealed. This is where the discussion diverged into two different lines of argument.

 

1. Fiona doesn't believe Alexius' claim that the Alliance will seal the breach first and then attack the mages. She would use common sense, and believe that if the Alliance was going to attack the rebels at all, it would do it before sealing the breach. Upon seeing the Alliance not bother with the mages and instead return to Haven to seal the breach, Fiona would conclude that the Alliance was no threat to them.

 

2. Fiona is an idiot who believes Alexius' illogical explanation. She thinks the Alliance will seal the breach first and then attack the rebels. They'll gain influence or whatever and stop the rebels from reaching Tevinter. My counter here is that this is only cause for Fiona to demand that Alexius uphold their bargain and take the mages to Tevinter quickly. So yes, idiot Fiona would indeed fear the Alliance in this scenario, but that fear would move her to flight, not fight.

 

So there are the main arguments I had against JB and Dean's notion that Alexius told Fiona that the Alliance would seal the breach first and then attack the rebels.

 

From here, a few minor issues were piled on, such as motive of the templars to seal the breach, or what Fiona thought the Inquisition and templars made a bargain over.

 

Then you made the point that Fiona would consider sealing the breach to be more of a priority for the Alliance. I countered that the breach was stable, and pointed out how you claimed Fiona would consider the breach a priority, but not enough to help close it herself.

 

Then you wrote that it was stable for the time being. To which I wrote that Fiona would observe the Alliance pass them up in favor of going after a stable breach. She would question Alexius' story in that case.

 

Then you asked why the Inquisition would help the templars if they've done nothing to help the Inquisition. I replied asking if the Inquisition actually was helping the templars do anything. They went right for the breach. So if the Inquisition was going to help the templars kill all the mages (for example) it would have been after the breach was sealed.

 

I think this is where the confusion started to come in. The instance I was referring to at this point was after the Alliance passed up the mages and went to the breach. So by then it would have been obvious that the Inquisition was not helping the templars do anything to the mages. In this case, option 1 no longer applies because they didn't go after the mages first. Only option 2 can apply in this case, which is the theory that the Inquisition would help the templars kill the mages after the breach was sealed. And this is why I jumped to my argument against option 2, which is that the Inquisition could renege on any promise to the templars, or they could uphold it, but even that would require time to turn the Alliance north toward the rebels. In which case Fiona would push for a retreat to Tevinter.

 

So then in post #396 you replied that you weren't suggesting "that", I suggested "that". Now, perhaps I misread something of yours or mistook which "that" you were referring to, but you wrote that I was suggesting Fiona would have no cause to fear the templars unless the Alliance attacked the mages before closing the breach. To which I replied in post #415 that this would be redundant. Fiona fears the Alliance only when it is attacking them? So I rejected that, and then I tried to explain the point I had just made to you.

 

And I think things got more confused here. I was reiterating the scenario under option 2. Looking back on this, it seems you may have been asking about option 1. But I was focused on option 2 at the time, and I thought that's what you were referring to. So I replied that Fiona would only think they would attack the mages after sealing the breach. The reason I wrote that is because in option 2 the Alliance had already passed the mages up to go seal the breach. So attacking the mages before sealing the breach was no longer on the table in option 2.

 

Now, of course I stated that Fiona would fear the Alliance attacking the rebels before sealing the breach in option 1, but this is before the Alliance chooses to return to Haven. Once they choose to return to Haven, option 1 is off the table, Fiona has no reason to fear, and only option 2 can be chosen. And in this case, which I reiterated in the same post, idiot Fiona would fear the Alliance, but urge Alexius to take them to Tevinter in response.

 

So maybe I misunderstood you, or you didn't follow what I was saying, or I wasn't clear enough, or some combination of all these. But I thought you misunderstood option 2, so I was trying to explain that to you. Option 2 does not involve going after the mages first, which is why I shot it down in my explanation.

 

Also, when I wrote that Dean first posted "that theory" I wasn't referring to option 1. I was referring to something else entirely which had to do with motives and what Fiona believed the Alliance would do. Again, I didn't understand what theory you were referring to. Maybe you were referring to option 1, but if so I didn't pick up on that.

 

The one place where I did in fact screw up was when I wrote, "Your side made the claim that she would think they would come after her before sealing the breach."

 

I don't remember what I was thinking when I wrote that. My attention was divided among other things going on at the time, and I wasn't able to devote my sole focus to replying to this topic at that time, so maybe I misread something of yours, thought you were referring to what motive the Inquisition would have to help the templars, or maybe that was a sentence I typed as a different point and then meant to delete but forgot, or maybe it was just kneejerk contrarianism on my part.

 

I think I was just still so focused on option 2, which had nothing to do with the Alliance going after the mages first, and so I replied saying that this wasn't what I wrote (not so clearly referring to option 2), which was factually correct. But then I wrote that your side wrote it, which was factually incorrect. Obviously your side did not argue that the Alliance would have went after the mages first. That was indeed my argument for option 1. I never denied that I wrote it (or at least I didn't mean to deny it). I was denying I wrote that as part of option 2.

 

But whatever the case was during that little mix up, I should have taken better care in articulating my case. I was in error. I apologize.

 

If everything is good, I will move on to the other issues. I will reply later, as I have another point I want to add to this.

[dragonflight288]

I just spent a great deal of time reading 20 pages.

 

I kind of want to make a reply now, but I'm now too tired to. Ah well. 

 

I think Fiona was not handled well as a character, both in the books as well as the massive shift in personality between Val Royeaux and Redcliff.

 

The whole time-travel thing makes for a huge plot hole, and I only apply suspension of disbelief because of Dorian's line on "It's not really travelling through time so much as punching a hole through it and dropping it in the privy." 

 

Unstable time elements can be expected from that line. I just wish we got to see more of them rather than that one line. Say the templars got more War Table Missions, so the Mages get more altered time missions where people see someone do something, but the person in question doesn't remember doing it, because as far as they were concerned, it didn't happen, yet it happened anyway like Fiona inviting the Inquisitor to parlay with the mages, and then she never did that despite the fact she did. 

[Sunnie]

Makers breath!

 

Just agree to disagree about everyone's opinion, nobody is changing it any time soon.

[Deztyn]

None.

Here is the unfamous ritual that can be blood magic (Leliana section): http://dragonage.wik...edcliffe_Castle

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Time Magic

Really, why shouldn't it be safe to assume it's a form of magic we've actually seen in use at that location before and capable of causing the same confused, conflicting accounts?

Oh. Right. Because then it's not "evidence" of blood magic.

The Venatori are using blood magic in rituals that are forbidden even in the Imperium, that is established by a Venatori diary in the Hissing Wastes. At Adamant, we see that Erimond is using blood magic in his ritual to mess with the Wardens and bring them under Corypheus' control. And with Calpernia, the way to cause her to abandon Corpyheus is to show her evidence that he was intending to use blood magic to take control over her mind.

Yes. There are Venatori who were capable of using blood magic. The Hissing Wastes Venatori is using it to summon powerful demons. Erimond convinces the wardens to sacrifice each other entirely through mundane manipulation. Not blood magic. It's only after the mage wardens complete the rituals, which they do willingly, that they become slaves. Calpernia is actually an irreplacable part of Corypheus's plans. She's worth the effort of controlling. Fiona is not. Random mage #27 is not.

So yes, while this does not prove that they used it at Redcliffe on the Rebellion to create a brainwashed army, we still see that Corypheus and the Venatori are perfectly capable of using blood magic as a tool and in order to control people.

Yes, they are. But not easily and not without good reason.

They also use more standard forms of manipulation to achieve their goals. Much as we see in Redcliffe, where Alexius used spies, paranoia and desperation to bend Fiona to his will. No blood magic required to get her to sign her people away. Just a little time travelling edge to allow him to meet her a few days early.

We've already seen Fiona sacrifice her morals when under duress for the sake of her people. What makes this instance so different?

The Mage Rebellion was never on the offensive for the entire Mage-Templar war from what it seems, that the Templars were kicking them to the curb repeatedly and forcing them to having to seek refuge in Ferelden and attempt to find peace via the Conclave, seems to bear this out.

Even if we go with that they were given a "Cake or Death" choice into joining the Venatori, that they'd suddenly become a fully loyal fighting squad for the Venatori overnight capable of organising such a co-ordinated attack seems extremely dubious from how much they were getting their backsides kicked beforehand. Especially since even if this was a last desperate attack on their part, they'd be going up against an Inquisition allied with the very Templars who were beating them until only recently, something that would have given them pause even if they were riled up?

They are one part of the army at Haven. They are not the majority and they are certainly not the ones planning or coordinating anything. They showed up to follow orders and fling fireballs.

Much as they were already expecting to do in Tevinter.

Let's face it, the situation makes no sense and there is a metric ton of plot-holes here, but the brainwashing theory at least follows suit with how the Wardens and Templars were compromised and turned into a slave puppet-army for Corypheus.

Except we were explicitly shown the wardens and the templars compromised. In fact, their entire missions revolved around stopping the people/beings responsible for them being compromised. The mage mission revolved around wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.

Otherwise... well, what do you guys think happened, save for everyone switching to "evil for the lulz" mode for some reason?

Question: Aside from the Wardens, which required each of them to willingly sacrifice one of their compatriots in a blood magic ritual that bound them to Corypheus's will... when have we ever seen blood magic used to manipulate people en masse?

Show me an example.

Just one.

Seriously.

Because I'm pretty good with the lore and I can't think of one.

But I don't exactly see how allying with Tevinter burn all bridges as you keep saying, when the alliance was intended to get them out of Ferelden, something you'd imagine would bring a sigh of relief to everyone in Southern Thedas as they are now out of their hair and Tevinter's problem?

No.

Joining a hostile foreign power is never going to endear you to the people who made sacrifices and burned bridges themselves just to help you. Half a year persuading the nobles. Trade sanctions from Starkhaven. Even if they hadn't taken over Redcliffe it was as good as spitting in the face of the crown.

The flaws in this assumption is that it's predicated by Fiona believing the Inquisition to be a hostile power out for the Mage Rebellion, something that even if they believed them to yet another rogue arm of the Chantry as the Templars have become, has never actually been shown to be the case.

Thus far, the Inquisition has neither engaged in any kind of hostile action against the rebellion and indeed, even if they sided with the Templars, they might have attempted to gain the Rebellion's aid and enter diplomatic talks with them at first.

This is the same woman who believed the Templars killed the Divine and created the Breach just to make people hate the mages--when the mages were already pariahs and templars already had the support of the public.

"The Inquisition joined the Templars, they might come for us next." is actually a reasonable assumption by comparison.

So far, all the Inquisition has they served to do is bring the Templars to heel, as bring to light that the upper echelons of the Templar command structure had been impersonated by a demon, as well as corrupted by Red Lyrium. Assuming that this information became publically known (to prevent the rise of the Red Templars elsehwere), this means the Mage Rebellion would likely be aware as well that the Templar Order has lost a lot of their command structure and have been left with only middle-management.

I don't know why you would expect any of this information would be available to the Mage Rebellion. Even if it was information that was quickly made public (which is doubtful) They are holed up in Redcliffe and we already know they don't have reliable communication channels. (See: The mythical Templar army getting ready to siege Redcliffe and kill them all)

If they were aware that the Order was weakened, it would likely make attacking them more appealing, not less.

The only terms of the alliance that might still appeal to them is the offer of safe haven in Tevinter now that they are unwelcome in Ferelden. While you are correct that Ferelden doesn't want them anymore and are obviously hacked off with them, that the mage's intention was to no longer treat Redcliffe like a doss-house is reasonable and something that even Anora, Alistair and Teagan would understand when looking at it with cooler heads.

Point being, that they have time to consider their options and even if Ferelden orders them out, they don't have to worry about the Templars for the meanwhile while they look for someone else to go?

The mages don't have anywhere to go. The crown is not going to forgive them. This was an act of treason. Not a simple social faux pas. And if no one else was willing to give them refuge before Redcliffe, what makes you think that now other nations are going to open their arms?

"You know, I had my doubts about you guys before, but now that we've seen how graciously you treated your last hosts, we'll be glad to have you!"

Tevinter is their only option once the Inquisition is off the table. That means Alexius/Calpernia.

I was in error. I apologize.

Let's just move on, yes?

[Dai Grepher]

Man, Sifr is crushing all opponents. Well done. But I have to disagree with you slightly on one minor thing...

 

...which was only allowed because Envy intended it to be a trap.

 

I don't think that was a trap. The normal templars had to let the nobility in because they wanted respect and recognition. Denying them would have hurt their cause. Envy didn't have a choice there anyway, but Envy willingly went along with this because it fell prey to its own nature. It was covetous of the Herald's popularity, it wanted the Herald's position and face. It wanted to impress the Elder One when next they met. So it allowed the entourage in so it could copy the Herald. It completely abandoned it's role as Lord Seeker Lucius and turning the templars into Red Templars because it was envious of the Herald.

[Boost32]

Man, Sifr is crushing all opponents. Well done. But I have to disagree with you slightly on one minor thing...

Lol, thats funny.

 

This thread should die, the only thing worth in the last pages was my post that I did while drunk.

[Dai Grepher]

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

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."

 

Sera made two separate statements. 1. That templars were filling up Haven. 24 to 36 are not enough to fill up Haven. This proves the main force was arriving to fill Haven to capacity. 2. She recognized that the best of them were going to help seal the breach. So this does prove that the main templar force from Therinfal was in Haven. Thus, Fiona would not have willingly attacked Haven because there were too many templars.

 

However, let's assume that your side is correct, and only 24 of the best templars were in Haven. The main force is still on its way to Haven. Which means, even if the rebel force could take Haven, the rest of the templar force would be arriving behind them. They would deplete most of their rebel army taking Haven only to be crushed by the main force. And even if they survived that somehow, they'd still be in a frozen tundra and they would likely perish to the cold or starvation.

 

Add to this the fact that Ferelden's army would still be at Redcliffe, and poised to strike.

 

So no, Fiona would not have willingly attacked Haven, even if she had been a total idiot.

 

Now, another thing I thought of while replying to you last time is what Alexius would have told Fiona. Let's assume he told her that they needed to attack Haven in order to secure their own safety. I submit that he would have told her that they need to attack the Inquisition before they return from Therinfal. If this is the case, Fiona would have rejected the idea and refused to do so, because Ferelden was already there to evict them, and fighting the Inquisition while it had some templars with them would be suicide.

 

So what is my evidence that Alexius would have them attack immediately? The breach. Alexius would want to kill the Herald before he could return to Haven and seal the breach. This is because sealing the breach undoes his master's work. It also closes off any possibility of Alexius using time magic, since time magic is based on the breach.

 

Based on these facts, I also claim that if Alexius told Fiona to attack Haven before the breach could be sealed, she would refuse him outright for the above reasons as well as she would not want to put the world at risk by leaving the breach open.

 

So your side's theory that Fiona was talked into attacking Haven is complete nonsense, and not based on anything factual or canon.

 

And yet we know that Fiona attacked Haven. So what is the explanation for this? Blood magic. Simple, based in the canon, and the most likely.

 

I honestly think your side has lost this debate.

[Master Warder Z_]

Intoxicating substances are obviously at work here.

[MisterJB]

 

Any man who needs to say "I won this debate" has won no debate.

[Dai Grepher]

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

 

Still be saved from what? Insane cultists? There is no salvation from that even if she cooperates! No, Fiona would turn on Alexius like nothin', just as she did in the mages path. She didn't think she could save the children there, except by fighting Alexius. And you're right that Alexius had no intention of aiding Fiona or the others in immigrating to Tevinter. As I well know, as you well know... as Fiona well knew. So there's no reason to stick with Alexius, and every reason to kill him for his treachery. Besides, Dorian confirms in convo with Iron Bull that the rebel mages that did not join the Venatori either ran off or were killed. So this proves Fiona made no deal to protect any of the mages. It shows that she turned on the Venatori just as she did in the mages path.

 

Her protest in the throne room was a demand, her protest in the tavern was a plea. Not same. Plus, the bad future shows the result of her protest. She fights against the Venatori and the Elder One, and ends up captured in cell as a red lyrium farm. The circumstances weren't as dire, they were the same. We're talking when Alexius betrayed her. Also, she fought in the bad future against the Elder One, which she said was more powerful than the Maker. So of course she would fight against Alexius out in the wilderness if she was willing to fight against a "god".

 

She had allies. She had her fellow mages and she still had the Inquisition, which she would realize Alexius was lying against the entire time. And besides, mages did flee or were killed by Venatori. That did happen. So your point is moot.

 

The Venatori are not an option at all because they were liars who served an insane "Elder One" who sought world conquest. No, she turns on them, the Venatori kill any mage that had not converted or was able to escape. According to what Dorian said, it sounds to me like Fiona led them against the Venatori. She was overpowered and captured while her fellow mages who fought were killed, and then she was manipulated with blood magic to do the Venatori's bidding. They used her as fodder against the Inquisition in Haven.

 

What do you mean "long distance brainwashing"?

 

No, because Alexius wasn't conducting any time traveling experiments in Redcliffe except in the bad future. He was saving the amulet for use against the Herald, either in the present or in the past. And any time travel that would have erased the memories of the servants would have been the kind that prevents Alexius from going to Redcliffe at all. In which case, the whole sequence of events would be changed. Blood magic is much simpler than time magic, and it fits the condition the servants showed.

 

Fiona isn't insignificant though. She's from a novel, she's said to be Alistair's mother, and she leads the mages. Some explanation for her presence in Haven would be important. Or at the very least, she could shout things during combat like Alexius did if you fight him. You say it would have interrupted or detracted from storyline, but this would actually be adding storyline to the mission.

 

And while we're on the subject of Denam. His appearance in Haven should have went as it did, because he was just a behemoth at that point. He wasn't an important character. And yet despite all that, if you go to Therinfal, there is... *gasp*  a cutscene with Denam! And then there's a battle with Denam where he shouts things at you pertaining to his modus operandi. And then even after you defeat him there is dialogue telling us that Denam is still alive and will be captured for questioning. So why couldn't that have been the case for Fiona in Haven?

 

You say the story would be skewed toward the mages, but I think seeing a bunch of mutated humans skews things more in favor of templars myself. Think about it. Why go after mages who willingly sign on to slavery, or could just choose to abandon the Vints and join the Inquisition right now? Why not go after templars who are duty bound to follow orders? Then in Haven, what is more tragic and violin worthy, killing willful enemies, or killing people who were corrupted into mutant freaks and have no control over themselves?

 

But to address your question, yes it would have played out something like that. And yes, we would have had the opportunity to tell Fiona to back down and such. If she was in control of herself, then it ends with her giving up after the fight, or having to be killed. If she's under the influence of blood magic, then nothing you say works and it is obvious that she is not herself. In which case she can be captured or killed.

 

Ah, strawman. Downplaying the issue. Tea and cookies are not the issue. The issue is a peace between Fiona's people and the Inquisition, and the only REAL hope of saving the children, if you think she cared about them. Inopportune or not, this was the only chance she had, and yet she chose to attack an innocent Herald. Why? At the very least, she could have refused to attack. Drawing the Herald's ire could have doomed her people for all she knew. Like, what's to say the Herald doesn't see Fiona attacking, then decides to make all mages suffer because of what she was doing? Oh but Fiona's stupid, right? So she's stupid, until she's smart to attack Haven, but then she's stupid again.

 

Your side rips on mine for suggesting blood magic, but you guys seem to have invented "stupid magic", where Fiona is afflicted with it at certain times but not others. And it always seems to be when you need to defend your theory.

 

Except the Venatori already killed them. Also, I'm asking why Fiona can't be swept along as a consequence of the Herald's strength? Why is that never a factor in her decision making? Why doesn't she ever think, "We can't beat the Inquisition. There has to be some other way"? That way being to surrender to the Inquisition and let them take you prisoner so you can explain yourself in court.

 

Corypheus lies and offers deals. Fiona was offered a deal and Alexius reneged on it. She would know not to trust any of them after that, especially a darkspawn magister.

 

It isn't irrelevant. She's an established character. And we do get some info about Samson regardless. Just not as much in the templars path. He isn't a boss, but only because he failed to properly oversee the corruption of the templars.

 

What really does matter is that Fiona appears in Haven with no dialogue. No reason for why she's attacking. The complete lack of an explanation from her in shouted dialogue, or an explanation in game based on events or even codex entries explaining her motives, it all points to her having NO REASON to attack Haven. Therefore the only option left is that she was controlled.

[Dai Grepher]

 

 

Any man who needs to say "I won this debate" has won no debate.

 

 

And who said that?
 

[Dai Grepher]

Intoxicating substances are obviously at work here.

 

And I would point out that it was someone on the "Fiona is a willing idiot" side who admitting to using those substances.

[Dai Grepher]

Seriously.

The argument against blood magic is "There is nothing in the game the says or even implies that it is blood magic"

This isn't a theory that needs to be proved. It is a fact. There is nothing in the game that says blood magic.

The argument for blood magic is "I don't think Fiona would do that."

Many reasons have been given to explain exactly why she would make the choices she does given her history and the situations she faces in game.

The counter argument is "Well, I still don't think Fiona would do that."

But somehow we're the ones who are irrational and won't see reason.

 

And that argument is wrong. There is plenty of evidence in the game that says and implies that it is blood magic. Blood magic is easy to use for those who know it (which the Venatori do), it's untraceable, and it's tested. Time magic is largely untested, and it isn't always effective.

 

The most likely explanation is that the servants were controlled by blood magic the whole time, and then when the blood mages left, their hold was lifted, and thus everything the servants did went forgotten or misremembered by them.

 

No, strawman. This isn't about what we think Fiona would do. This is about what Fiona actually did, what Fiona clearly stated she wanted out of the mage/Tevinter alliance, and what was possible from a storyline perspective.

 

The reasons your side has given don't stand up to the canon facts. Some of your reasons don't even make sense.

 

You are irrational because you are approaching this from a point of bias. You want Fiona to have willingly attacked the Inquisition because she's a total idiot. So you will make up whatever story you want to make that so. My side on the other hand only wants to acknowledge the facts and find the most likely conclusion.

 

Fiona wanted to leave for Tevinter, not attack anyone. Fact.

 

Fiona turned on Alexius in the mages path when it was revealed he had no intention of securing a place in Tevinter for the rebel mages. Fact.

 

When the Venatori took over, some mages converted. Those who did not were either killed or fled. Fact.

 

Fiona had no reason to attack the Inquisition. Fact.

 

Attacking Haven would serve no productive purpose for the rebel mages, and would actually harm their cause. Fact.

 

Conclusion: Fiona turned on Alexius in the templars path just as she is seen to do in the mages path, thus leading to the rebel mages either being killed, fleeing, or converting. Fiona was then taken control of and used as fodder against the Herald against her will.

 

That is the most logical and likely conclusion.