If you require this much 'what if' to even bring your position onto the same map as 'reasonable', maybe your position should be reconsidered. You have nothing to support any of this, in game or out. This is pure, uncut headcanon.
Or you could actually read my post. I was pointing out where Fiona went wrong, and then continuing on to address each situation and how she should have responded to them, and again, pointing out where she was wrong.
Or you could actually read my post. I was pointing out where Fiona went wrong, and then continuing on to address each situation and how she should have responded to them, and again, pointing out where she was wrong.
How convenient that your post boils down to creating what if scenarios specifically tailored to attempt to bolster your argument.
One that starts off factually incorrect (the mages didn't head to Redcliffe hoping to defect to Tevinter, that didn't become an option until Alexius arrived on the scene), meanders through various made up drivel (maybe she actually saw Alexius deal with the non-existent Templar army! Maybe she did side with Teagan and no one ever mentions it, ever, especially not in any conversation where it would be useful to defend her actions. Maybe the Venatori just decided to leave Redcliffe because the monarchy asked nicely. But we should just assume your imaginary scenarios happen, because everything you present falls apart if we don't) and finally you end up right back where this was leading all along, at the non-existent blood magic you and others have clung to with such desperation.
Nothing in the game supports the blood magic theory.
Nothing in the game supports Fiona being anything but a terrible leader of the mage 'rebellion', who compounds hypocrisy with stupidity in almost every decision.
As leader of the mages, she is responsible for the lives of all the mages she dragged into her 'war'. Except, apparently, the ones that are inconvenient, like the Tranquil, who she allows to be abandoned during the mage's flight, doesn't successfully defend when Alexius says he wants them kicked out of Redcliffe, and does nothing to follow up on to see if they've survived on their own or are being murdered to make telescopes.
Death is preferable to not-slavery...until she's told that death is a possibility, at which point actual slavery is a-ok.
Making no attempt to actually validate or refute said threat of imminent death.
Allowing, even if only through inaction, her host to be ousted from his fortress home by a hostile foreign power.
Then, in what may be the best scene to illustrate what a worthless leader she is, the Inquisition shows up, tells her they're looking for help, and when Alexius changes his deal for the worse, in front of the Inquisitor no less, she just takes it. She has the opportunity on the table, RIGHT THERE, to tell Alexius she's got a better deal, and instead she whimpers and sticks with slavery.
Fiona leads her people to ruin, allows them to be abandoned, abused, and enslaved, and finally burns every bridge until her only option is to fight the Inquisition at Haven.
Until you do more than make-up scenarios to fit your conclusions, you've got nothing.
^^^^^^
Forever bitter the writers did this for the Mages but for the Templars they have Ser Barris.
Okay I will admit that made me chuckle.
Someone seem butthurt that someone isn't a rabid Fiona haterDai Grepher,
You seem to be under the delusion that I'm still interested in debating with you. It should be obvious by how dismissive I was of you in that post where I brought up the Still Ruins, that I am not.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to equate some imprecise wording and a little deliberate mocking with your misunderstanding of a point that was argued in every post in a conversation thread for ten pages, feel free. Just don't expect me to take a 24 hour hiatus to compose a 5,000 word excuse for it.
And once again, you should be focusing on the note, not the Still Ruins. The note was both proof that Alexius (and by extension his Venatori followers) conducted time travel experiments (it's the same failure he fears he'll be killed for in the dark future) in the recent past (most logical location: Redcliffe) and proof that other Venatori are continuing his work (Likely in Redcliffe as well where Alexius would have left his work behind).
The Venatori followers who have not, by the way, been forced out by Ferelden's army as you seem to be convinced they were. Which is proven by the fact that they are still in Redcliffe Castle.
Here, let me explain it again: The note suggests he was in Redcliffe and experimented there. It does not require a convoluted explanation filled with endless speculation to arrive at that conclusion. It only requires knowing that he both A.) Researched time magic and B.) Spent most of the game in Redcliffe.
One more time with more words:
The note refers to Alexius's failure at time magic. It points to other Venatori picking up the research. This implies that the Venatori still care about researching time magic in places its been used in the past. Redcliffe is one such place, as we can clearly tell from the time-warping rifts, and is also the site of an unknown ritual. It is logical conclusion that the Venatori left behind in Redcliffe are continuing his research, and that they caused the confusion among the servants, not that they are engaged in random blood magic rituals of randomness just because blood magic is blood magic and Venatori use blood magic for stuff.
And even if they did use blood magic on the servants.... there is still no reason to believe that it was used on the members of the mage rebellion, other than you wish it to be so.
Questions: If the writers intended the answer to be "blood magic" why would they have chosen to show no direct evidence of blood magic, short of it's mere existence? Why would the only character who provides an explanation for the mages actions, specifically say that the mages either ran, joined the Venatori or died, with no mention of blood magic?
More important question: what kind author says to himself, "I have a great idea! I'll make a character's actions be entirely due to brainwashing and never mention it or hint at it anywhere ever! I will leave it entirely to the imagination of the audience! What a clever narrative device! More writers should use it!"?
Answer:
Spoiler
I am now officially done with you.
Okay. So I know Fiona made bad decisions, but should one conscript the rebel mages for it ? I mean, the rest of the mages were grumbling about what is happening.
Now I don't have a problem with conscripting mages, but I feel if I do that, then I have to banish the Grey Wardens from Orlais. Because both screwed up somewhat similarly. However, I want to keep the Wardens. So how do I justify allying with the Wardens but conscripting the mages ?
With their inaction, they allowed the Venatori to get a hold on Redcliff, they are guilt (but less than Fiona) of betraying Ferelden too.Okay. So I know Fiona made bad decisions, but should one conscript the rebel mages for it ? I mean, the rest of the mages were grumbling about what is happening.
Now I don't have a problem with conscripting mages, but I feel if I do that, then I have to banish the Grey Wardens from Orlais. Because both screwed up somewhat similarly. However, I want to keep the Wardens. So how do I justify allying with the Wardens but conscripting the mages ?
Okay. So I know Fiona made bad decisions, but should one conscript the rebel mages for it ? I mean, the rest of the mages were grumbling about what is happening.
You shouldn't ally with anyone, regardless of your choice of faction. It's bad policy to reward bad behavior.
Okay. So I know Fiona made bad decisions, but should one conscript the rebel mages for it ? I mean, the rest of the mages were grumbling about what is happening.
Now I don't have a problem with conscripting mages, but I feel if I do that, then I have to banish the Grey Wardens from Orlais. Because both screwed up somewhat similarly. However, I want to keep the Wardens. So how do I justify allying with the Wardens but conscripting the mages ?
The Wardens were lied to and manipulated by Corypheus and his agents who are subsequently dealt with.
The Mage leadership was not forcibly manipulated by the Venatori or Corypheus and they are all still around (sans the ones who died at the Conclave)
The templars were also misled by their leaders, who were actually servants of Corypheus. During Champions of the Just, you're essentially saving innocent people from being turned into monsters against their will. I see no issue with a free alliance in that case.
Someone seem butthurt that someone isn't a rabid Fiona hater
Coming from the King of Rabid Ranting.
Find that entry yet?
The templars were also misled by their leaders, who were actually servants of Corypheus. During Champions of the Just, you're essentially saving innocent people from being turned into monsters against their will. I see no issue with a free alliance in that case.
They are better under the Inquisition care, its not like you are forcing them to do it, the Inquisitor says they should disband and join the Inquisition and they all agree.
I'm not seeing how they're "better." My ideal solution is to make Cassandra Divine, rebuild the Seekers and free the Templars.
I'm not seeing how they're "better."
The templars were also misled by their leaders, who were actually servants of Corypheus. During Champions of the Just, you're essentially saving innocent people from being turned into monsters against their will. I see no issue with a free alliance in that case.
They possessed a genuine desire to save their own lives, but not a desire to uphold duty until it was nearly too late. The Templars by this point have demonstrated that they are, in fact, unable to handle the responsibility of independent operation. Someone needs to hold their leash, whether it be the Inquisition or the restored Chantry.
The Chantry is a very bad boss, the Inquisition will treat them better.
The Chantry WAS a very bad boss. The Chantry under Cassandra will be better.
The Chantry WAS a very bad boss. The Chantry under Cassandra will be better.
The Chantry WAS a very bad boss. The Chantry under Cassandra will be better.
True enough.
Nah, still think its better for them to serve the Inquisition, while Ser Barris leads them.The Chantry WAS a very bad boss. The Chantry under Cassandra will be better.
How convenient that your post boils down to creating what if scenarios specifically tailored to attempt to bolster your argument.
One that starts off factually incorrect (the mages didn't head to Redcliffe hoping to defect to Tevinter, that didn't become an option until Alexius arrived on the scene), meanders through various made up drivel (maybe she actually saw Alexius deal with the non-existent Templar army! Maybe she did side with Teagan and no one ever mentions it, ever, especially not in any conversation where it would be useful to defend her actions. Maybe the Venatori just decided to leave Redcliffe because the monarchy asked nicely. But we should just assume your imaginary scenarios happen, because everything you present falls apart if we don't) and finally you end up right back where this was leading all along, at the non-existent blood magic you and others have clung to with such desperation.
Nothing in the game supports the blood magic theory.
Nothing in the game supports Fiona being anything but a terrible leader of the mage 'rebellion', who compounds hypocrisy with stupidity in almost every decision.
As leader of the mages, she is responsible for the lives of all the mages she dragged into her 'war'. Except, apparently, the ones that are inconvenient, like the Tranquil, who she allows to be abandoned during the mage's flight, doesn't successfully defend when Alexius says he wants them kicked out of Redcliffe, and does nothing to follow up on to see if they've survived on their own or are being murdered to make telescopes.
Death is preferable to not-slavery...until she's told that death is a possibility, at which point actual slavery is a-ok.
Making no attempt to actually validate or refute said threat of imminent death.
Allowing, even if only through inaction, her host to be ousted from his fortress home by a hostile foreign power.
Then, in what may be the best scene to illustrate what a worthless leader she is, the Inquisition shows up, tells her they're looking for help, and when Alexius changes his deal for the worse, in front of the Inquisitor no less, she just takes it. She has the opportunity on the table, RIGHT THERE, to tell Alexius she's got a better deal, and instead she whimpers and sticks with slavery.
Fiona leads her people to ruin, allows them to be abandoned, abused, and enslaved, and finally burns every bridge until her only option is to fight the Inquisition at Haven.
Until you do more than make-up scenarios to fit your conclusions, you've got nothing.
How so? I put Fiona under light and heavy consequences and wrote how she should have responded regardless of how severe the pressure was. Of course I grant that she still makes the bad choice so that I can move on to the next bad choice, but that is in no way an endorsement of her behavior. Whenever I defend her, I do so with facts. She shouldn't be blamed for things she had no control over.
In Skyhold Fiona states that mages came to them from all over, and she had no way of knowing some were actually from Tevinter. She says they spread whispers of why the rebellion should ally with Tevinter. This must have started before Alexius got there because he can only go back as far at the creation of the breach, and in the tavern Alexius states he arrived shortly after the conclave.
As for the thing with the templars, I gave both options. Whether she only heard about templars allegedly coming to kill them, or whether she saw something like this with her own eyes, her choice to ally with Tevinter was dumb. But my point here is that we don't see what Fiona saw. The situation could have seemed more dire to her than it is portrayed to us in the game.
You are incorrect. The game does support the blood magic theory. I posted the proof before. In short, Fiona did not want to fight the templars and only wanted to leave and go to Tevinter where her people would be safe. Yet in Haven she's fighting the Inquisition, which has templars, and she's putting her people in danger. This is after all mages either converted, were killed, or fled. So she has no reason to help the Venatori or attack the Inquisition. She has no motive, and doing so goes against her stated desires and goals. Furthermore, the mages path shows her turning on Alexius when he reveals his true motives. So this proves that Fiona would rebel and fight against the Venatori.
I never wrote that she wasn't a terrible leader. She was a terrible leader. But that doesn't explain the above situation. That doesn't explain why she did 180 and led her remaining mages to attack the Inquisition. You know what I would argue if I were on your side? That Fiona realized how terribly she messed up and unknowingly condemned her people to death, alienation, or slavery, and for this she decided she wanted to die on Inquisition blades. Suicide by Herald. But even this would raise the question of if the Venatori would actually believe she was sincere in her pledge to serve the Venatori. And this applies to your current argument as well. If Fiona willingly served the Venatori, would they trust her not to turn on them? I doubt it. I think they would want to make sure she followed through on attacking the Herald.
I already explained how the tranquil were not her fault. It's possible she didn't know about Teagan being ousted until after it happened.
Yes, she whimpers and sticks with slavery. She was stupid. Thanks for agreeing with me. But as I wrote, stupid doesn't automatically mean evil, which she would have to be to attack Haven (unless controlled).
My conclusion is based solidly on canon fact. Your theory has no basis. You just call Fiona stupid, and hope that's enough to explain her cooperation in Haven's destruction, but it's not. She turned on Alexius in the mages path when she found out his true intentions, and she only wanted to flee fighting and go to Tevinter. Attacking Haven goes against everything she stood for.
Dai Grepher,
You seem to be under the delusion that I'm still interested in debating with you. It should be obvious by how dismissive I was of you in that post where I brought up the Still Ruins, that I am not.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to equate some imprecise wording and a little deliberate mocking with your misunderstanding of a point that was argued in every post in a conversation thread for ten pages, feel free. Just don't expect me to take a 24 hour hiatus to compose a 5,000 word excuse for it.
And once again, you should be focusing on the note, not the Still Ruins. The note was both proof that Alexius (and by extension his Venatori followers) conducted time travel experiments (it's the same failure he fears he'll be killed for in the dark future) in the recent past (most logical location: Redcliffe) and proof that other Venatori are continuing his work (Likely in Redcliffe as well where Alexius would have left his work behind).
The Venatori followers who have not, by the way, been forced out by Ferelden's army as you seem to be convinced they were. Which is proven by the fact that they are still in Redcliffe Castle.
Here, let me explain it again: The note suggests he was in Redcliffe and experimented there. It does not require a convoluted explanation filled with endless speculation to arrive at that conclusion. It only requires knowing that he both A.) Researched time magic and B.) Spent most of the game in Redcliffe.
One more time with more words:
The note refers to Alexius's failure at time magic. It points to other Venatori picking up the research. This implies that the Venatori still care about researching time magic in places its been used in the past. Redcliffe is one such place, as we can clearly tell from the time-warping rifts, and is also the site of an unknown ritual. It is logical conclusion that the Venatori left behind in Redcliffe are continuing his research, and that they caused the confusion among the servants, not that they are engaged in random blood magic rituals of randomness just because blood magic is blood magic and Venatori use blood magic for stuff.
And even if they did use blood magic on the servants.... there is still no reason to believe that it was used on the members of the mage rebellion, other than you wish it to be so.
Questions: If the writers intended the answer to be "blood magic" why would they have chosen to show no direct evidence of blood magic, short of it's mere existence? Why would the only character who provides an explanation for the mages actions, specifically say that the mages either ran, joined the Venatori or died, with no mention of blood magic?
More important question: what kind author says to himself, "I have a great idea! I'll make a character's actions be entirely due to brainwashing and never mention it or hint at it anywhere ever! I will leave it entirely to the imagination of the audience! What a clever narrative device! More writers should use it!"?
Answer:
Spoiler
I am now officially done with you.
And yet here you are trying to debate me anyway. Is it that you can't stand it when someone else gets the last word?
No, you accused me of dismissing proof that you posted within the same sentence as the accusation. And I expect no excuse from you because there is no excuse for your mistake. At least I had multiple users and posts to reply to, all with various points and arguments to keep track of. You couldn't even keep track of the issue we were debating, and then posted a baseless accusation against me.
I never disputed that Alexius conducted time travel experiments. But nothing indicates he did this in Redcliffe Castle outside the mages path.
The most logical location is outside Redcliffe, since Alexius' account is that he arrived there shortly after the conclave. Which means he used time magic near Redcliffe in the original timeline (where the Inquisition is meeting with Fiona), goes back in time to soon after the conclave exploded, arrives in Redcliffe to avert an alleged templar assault, and then gives Biff the Sports Almanac. But for him to have appeared in Redcliffe Castle via time magic, he would have had to have first infiltrated Redcliffe Castle in the original timeline, then go back in time in that location. And in that original timeline Arl Teagan was in full control of the castle.
The note only states that Alexius has failed. It does not indicate what his failure was. The rest of the note is in regard to the work that was being done at the Still Ruins. Was Servis referring to researching time magic, or was he referring to simply recovering the information and related artifacts? Regardless, "Alexius has failed" does not prove Alexius conducted time magic experiments in Redcliffe Castle.
Stop posting strawman arguments. I never wrote that every last Venatori was forced out. The ones in the Chargers' chore table operation were hiding in Redcliffe's lower chambers. This has nothing to do with Alexius and the main Venatori group being forced out by the crown.
The note suggests no such thing. You're reading your own bias into it. The letter merely states "Alexius has failed". It does not state what he failed at. It does not state what he did. In fact, the statement could simply indicate that Alexius will no longer be participating in this field of study (because he's dead), and therefore the time magic research now falls on them alone to recover and study.
Alexius wouldn't have left anything behind in Redcliffe related to time magic. He would have taken it all with him.
I don't think blood magic was used on anyone in the mage rebellion other than Fiona. I know Sifr may have been arguing for that, but I'll let him answer those questions.
Dorian is referring to the common mages. He didn't see what took place between Fiona and the Venatori. He didn't even see what took place between Felix and the Venatori. What happened to Alexius, Felix, and Fiona after they left Redcliffe is completely unknown to us at this point. Subtle clues are all we have to go on. So no, it's not a stretch to think the writers left the storyline vague and obscured. There are a few things that go unexplained. Like how the Herald sees a green female figure at the beginning of the game, yet sees the Divine in the recovered memories. Or how the explosion didn't kill the Herald. Or why Solas gave the orb to anyone else. Or what Flemeth was doing in the ending scene.
And I'm not saying it definately was blood magic. That's just the most likely explanation for her 180. Heck, maybe the Nightmare ate so much of her memory that it basically made her an emotionless killing machine. The point is to find the most likely explanation.
Writers do that all the time to leave stories open ended. They might say that the Fiona we fought in Haven was just an envy demon, just so they can bring Fiona back for something else. And like I wrote, there's plenty of stuff in Inquisition that is presented but never explained.
You're done? Good.
Thanks. Yours is a good question.
As one who hates Fiona for fair-minded reasons, I first have to point out that we should all consider Fiona's situation. Allegedly, she wanted to go to Val Royeaux and seek out the Inquisition as allies. That is, if that was the real Fiona there. Assuming it was, then Fiona was actually pretty smart in this case.
Now we get to the tavern. She has sworn allegiance to Alexius because time magic allowed him to manipulate the situation. From Fiona's perspective, mages had arrived in Redcliffe pushing for an alliance with Tevinter, Arl Wulff was also advocating for that. And then at some point she was utterly convinced that templars were coming to kill them all, and only Alexius' arrival had averted it. Maybe she actually saw this, or maybe she didn't and trusted advisors told her. Whatever.
At this point I, as Fiona, would have thanked them for their help, but I would have still declined to join them. I would stick with Arl Teagan and rely on him and his soldiers to protect Redcliffe.
Now, maybe she actually did this. And maybe this is why Alexius forced Teagan out. Who knows? We never get an explanation. But assuming Alexius did oust Teagan at this point, and thus Fiona had no Ferelden allies, then as Fiona I would have tried to patch things up with the crown by sending a letter explaining what happened and how I had nothing to do with Teagan's ousting. But lets say this failed, like my messages got intercepted.
Lets say the alliance with Tevinter seemed like the only option. If I don't pledge loyalty to Alexius, then he will leave and my people will be killed. Okay. But then the Inquisition shows up and tells me that I invited them there back in Val Royeaux. Now something's fishy here. I was going to go to Val Royeaux to seek the Inquisition's help... so... well whatever, the situation has changed. I'm now indentured to Alexius.
But here's the thing... I'm really not. Now that the Inquisition is here, I can better-deal Alexius, and just break my alliance with him. That might seem like poor form, even among those in the Inquisition. What good is her loyalty if she can break a pledge so easily? But hey, the Inquisition is desperate too because they need to seal the breach.
So that's what I would have done.
Past this point, Fiona gets dragged to the castle because of Felix. At some point Felix can meet with the Herald, so I don't see why Fiona couldn't as well.
Then assuming the Herald goes to Therinfal and the crown shows up to evict the mages, I could try to appeal to the monarch(s). If that fails, then it's off to Tevinter...
Until Alexius betrays me and tells me it was all about joining the Venatori and exalting the Elder One. At which point I turn on him, lose, then get hit with blood magic.
Then I get pwned in Haven. The end.
So all in all, Fiona was dumb, but not as dumb as some are saying. A lot of what happened to her was completely out of her hands. This is especially true if the Herald doesn't even bother going to Redcliffe to meet with the rebel mages at all.
I disagree. From what I gathered of Fiona's situation she had no promise of military aid from Ferelden, only refuge. Would Arl Teagan and his soldiers protect their homes from attacking Templars? Yes. Would the Ferelden Monarch field an army to face them? I am much less sure. I cite this conversation with King Alistair from DA2:
Here he suggests that Ferelden would be hard pressed to remove the Templars as they are still recovering from the Blight. The recovery is still on during Inquisition and we are not just talking about the Templars in Ferelden anymore but the bulk of the entire Order. He also mentions the rumblings of the civil war in Orlais and how some Orlesians, namely Gaspard, would like to resume the conquest of Ferelden.
I agree with you that Fiona is smart and I cannot see her failing to consider these factors when it comes to Ferelden aid. Perhaps the Monarch even mentioned this themselves. Ferelden is not in a favorable position, even less so with their support of the Rebellion. Fiona probably realized all the ways the current situation could go wrong and on top of that the Mages being blamed for the Divine's death. Being indentured in Tevinter for however limited a time is of course in no way an affable situation but still preferable to a multilateral war in which one's charges, some children, are stuck in the middle and could very well die.
Retour en haut