385 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

...Hear me out, we agree on a lot of things, right? We both consider the circle system to be inane, volatile, and unjust. We both consider the Templar order to be, at best, a corruption of it's intended purpose. 

 

Here's the really, really important thing: All of these scenarios are fictional, sometimes convoluted, and present no actual social consequences. If you act accusatory with every person who disagrees with you, you make us--our side, the side that doesn't think the Templar actions leading up to DAI are particularly justified--seem aggressive and unreasonable. It makes these, casual conversations about fictional lore, unnecessarily tense. There's no point, and nothing to win. 

 

This effort is appreciated.

[MisterJB]

I thought the setup for the Mage quest made more sense with the threat of a Tevinter Magister and cult moving into Ferelden. It just felt like an issue that demanded more attention than some templars who are simply acting like jerks (which isn't even unusual).

 

Why does it demand our attention? Ferelden offered shelter to the mages who then stabbed them in the back for Tevinter and they themselves were betrayed and enslaved.

I feel for the average Fereldan and mage who did not have a say in their government's decision but this is a matter for Ferelden and Tevinter to solve.

The Inquisition needs to close the Breach. The quickest and easiest way is to approach the Templars.

Afterwards, if the Tevinters have moved on, problem solved. If they are still occupying Redcliff with the Ferelden army laying siege, we have Templars who can assist.

[Toasted Llama]

I hate/dislike Fiona because she's a mary sue.

 

Her background is the most speshuliest snowflaekiest I've heard/read in a while (though people that get into contact with Theirins - or are Theirins - have a tendency to be very mary sueish). The fact that some people don't even let her make mistakes during the DA:I time period only proves that even further.

 

Oh the horror of Fiona not being a completely perfect character and making mistakes!

[Lumix19]

Why does it demand our attention? Ferelden offered shelter to the mages who then stabbed them in the back for Tevinter and they themselves were betrayed and enslaved.

I feel for the average Fereldan and mage who did not have a say in their government's decision but this is a matter for Ferelden and Tevinter to solve.

The Inquisition needs to close the Breach. The quickest and easiest way is to approach the Templars.

Afterwards, if the Tevinters have moved on, problem solved. If they are still occupying Redcliff with the Ferelden army laying siege, we have Templars who can assist.

Doesn't Dorian basically say that Alexius is tearing time apart? I mean I have no doubt that the Templars are at least moderately good at their jobs, but I doubt even they can stop that.

[Livi14]

The only issue that demands my Inquisitor's attention is the glowing hole in the fabric of reality above the Temple of Sacred Ashes. Whichever faction is more useful to me in closing it is the one I'll pick.

 

We don't know much about the breach at the beginning of the story. All we can do is speculate because we simply don't know who is better suited to close the breach. So why not choose the threat that is more pressing? Other than that, I think the templars asked for their fate while at the same time there are many innocent people in Redcliffe.

[Steelcan]

We don't know much about the breach at the beginning of the story. All we can do is speculate because we simply don't know who is better suited to close the breach. So why not choose the threat that is more pressing? Other than that, I think the templars asked for their fate while at the same time there are many innocent people in Redcliffe.

The threat that is more pressing?  The Templar Order has run off to bumf*ck nowhere, telling no one what they are doing, and you get word from a knight asking the Inquisition to come investigate.

 

Meanwhile in Redcliffe it couldn't be more obvious that you are being lured into a trap. 

 

So what's the solution, minimize the risk of the trap but still engage with the mages or just up and leave?  Both are valid answers to that question. If you want to argue about the options before you learn that its a trap to go to Redcliffe castle, its much more reasonable to get the templars imo.

 

As for the templars asking for their fate, as opposed to the non-mages in Redcliffe, that's just ridiculous,  Most of the Order had nothing to do with Corypheus's plot and many of them were executed for their troubles.

[Andromelek]

Honestly, once Dorian told you that Alexius is playing with time magic, whatever the Templars could be attempting to do barely could be as bad or dangerous, we didn't find out that the time magic only works on the Breach's time span until be stranded on the dark future, so, for what we knew, Alexius could go back in time whenever he wished, I still wondering why he didn't provoked one or two paradoxes.

[Shienis]

Alexius could go back in time whenever he wished, I still wondering why he didn't provoked one or two paradoxes.

 

You mean paradoxes like when you & your crew remember Fiona talking to you and she doesn't?

[Andromelek]

You mean paradoxes like when you & your crew remember Fiona talking to you and she doesn't?

That one only seemed to affect Fiona and Inquisitor's party, I often don't count it because that feeling Fiona had should be affecting the entire rebellion and the people around Redcliffe.

[The Baconer]

The dilemmas in Redcliffe are not only the occupation of the village by a hostile force (with time magic), but also the threat of the Venatori possibly moving to attack Haven while the Inquisitor is dispatched to Therinfal. Or before.

[TK514]

Of course, the Mage quest itself highlights the stupidity of attacking Redcliffe with no preparation or anti-Mage support.

 

The Inquisitor knows that time magic is involved, knows the place is full of mages, and yet rushes in like an idiot and in doing so dooms the entire world to becoming a demon infested hellscape that not even Corypheus or Solas can do anything with.

 

If not for the pure, dumb luck of having Dorian with you, and him having just enough knowledge of Alexius' research to make a lucky guess on how to get the portal back open, the Inquisitor would have failed in the most spectacular way possible.

[The Baconer]

Of course, the Mage quest itself highlights the stupidity of attacking Redcliffe with no preparation or anti-Mage support.
 
The Inquisitor knows that time magic is involved, knows the place is full of mages, and yet rushes in like an idiot and in doing so dooms the entire world to becoming a demon infested hellscape that not even Corypheus or Solas can do anything with.
 
If not for the pure, dumb luck of having Dorian with you, and him having just enough knowledge of Alexius' research to make a lucky guess on how to get the portal back open, the Inquisitor would have failed in the most spectacular way possible.

 

"Rushing in like an idiot" with "no preparation" is actually not what happened. That is emphatically incorrect.

 

The Inquisitor returns to Haven for the purpose of devising an effective plan, as all three advisors realize that a direct approach will not work. The alternate route into Redcliffe was reveled, agents infiltrated the castle successfully and accomplished their task as according to plan. The whole jaunt into the dark timeline was only made necessary due to custcene incompetence. Instead of resolving the threat quickly and efficiently, the Inquisitor decides to fellate themselves like some Bond villain over outplaying Alexius.

 

EDIT: Dorian's presence isn't even "pure dumb luck". It was already agreed upon that he would be accompanying us for the mission... which makes a lot of sense considering he's the reason we know of Alexius' time magic at all.

[Ryzaki]

Pretty sure that was referring more to the dumb luck of Dorian being sucked in with the Inquisitor where's the other companions are stuck in the bad future.

[X Equestris]

Could it really be worse? If she hadn't rebelled Lambert would have imprisoned the mages, executed others as an example and made others Tranquil. And he would have cracked down on mages for years to come, I'm imagining Kirkwall treatment here. In the face of that is 10 years of slavery, to a magister who is supposedly a moderate in Tevinter, all that bad? Certainly better than having every mage in Redcliffe killed down to the last man, woman and child. I think anyway.

The Lord Seeker only interceded because Fiona called for a vote of independence. He'd have had no justification for his actions otherwise.

How do you guarantee it's only 10 years? All the master has to do is pull a Darth Vader and alter the deal. What happens if he sells you? What happens if you get shipped off as cannon fodder against the Qunari? Further, there is the fact that Tevinter slaves have no rights at all. They can be abused by their masters with absolutely no legal recourse. At least under the Circle system, a Templar abusing power might possibly be brought to heel. That won't ever happen to a slaveholder in Tevinter.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

Chances are that, had he not been enthralled by Corypheus, Alexius (the guy used to be Dorian's role model after all) would have remained true to his word.

 

 

 

Alexius wasn't a thrall of Corypheus. He was a free willed agent, not a mind-controlled slave- and his reasons for coming to Redcliffe were as that agent.

 

He never would have had presence, or opportunity, to offer his word had it not been for Corypheus. Alexius's agenda was never to help Fiona and the mages escape.

 

 

 

Fiona throwing in her lot with one of the few honorable Magisters wasn't a stupid decision, just one based on outdated information.

 

 

No, it's still a pretty poor decision- because Fiona's failures are in the lead-up to the decision and the foreseeable consequences, not the unforeseeable consequences of the Venatori surprise.

 

 

The only goal that Fiona's pact with Alexius might have achieved would have been 'escape to Tevinter'- but 'escape to Tevinter' was not, and never had been, the goal of the mage rebellion. And that's without the huge qualifier of 'as slaves.' If Fiona fled to Tevinter, her Mage Rebellion ends as a catastrophic failure, and hands the Templars an even greater victory that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to achieve.

 

The Mage Rebellion wasn't an exodus movement- it was supposed to be an emancipation uprising in which the mages of Southern Thedas would break and/or reform the Circle system. To change the status quo, and give the new mages of the future a new state and slate in life. Either through a military victory against the Templars, or a political compromise that favored them. Militarily, the mages lost- hence why the last of a international rebellion was holed up in the sanctuary of Redcliffe. But politically, all they needed was to stay in the game and avoid total defeat.

 

Which is what the Redcliffe sanctuary did. Alexius, honest or not, didn't save the Mages from total eradication because the mages weren't facing total eradication: there was never a Templar host that could credibly conquer Redcliffe and the Castle, nor has there ever been any credible evidence provided that the mages wouldn't have been allowed to take sanctuary with the rest of the town in case of attack. By the time of the Conclave, the mages are in a very strong position: even though their military is defeated, the Templars can't beat Ferelden, and Ferelden's protection means the Templars can't attack the mages without attacking Ferelden as well. The mages might not get everything they wanted, but they have a security patron who's invested in defending them, and reforms are far more likely than the Chantry supporting or tolerating the sack of an Andrastian settlement by the Templars.

 

Fleeing to Tevinter abandons that. It leaves the Templars as the only force in the field- and no one left to stand in opposition to them as they lead the reconstruction of the Circle system. The Chantry can try to make some reforms, but it'll be nothing like a dedicated interest group interested in mage rights- and that's before all the political hay to be made out of the inglorious end of the Mage Rebellion.

 

Defeated, abandoning the principles of the uprising (slaverey over freedom), fleeing to the hated Tevinter, and abandoning the world in a time of crisis to save their own skins. This is the consequence of if Alexius were honest and kept the spirit of his bargain- a Southern Thedas in which the next generation of mages comes under an even more Templar-dominated Circles, in which the mage movement is deligitimized and the Templars vindicated.

 

Don't believe me? Just think of how it'd play out going by the game.

 

 

Let's assume the smallest change possible- that Alexius's son never gets the Blight. That without the need to save him, Alexius is good, not involved with Corypheus, and wants to take the mages to Tevinter out of the goodness of his heart. Maybe he has benevolent self-interest in making a powerbase out of them- he brings them north, they serve their contract in good care, and they become supporters of him.

 

So Corypheus triggers the Breach. Chaos. Alexius, sensing an opportunity to save mages/help himself, uses time magic to approach Fiona, pre-empting her going to the Inquisition. For the sake of the position, let's handwave the role of the Venatori infiltrators in convincing Fiona to sell her people into slavery. Let's say that good!Alexius simply offers better terms. Fiona agrees, and because Alexius is good and not evil, there's no coup in Redcliffe and no ousting of the Arl. The mages head north across the lake, avoid the demons, and Alexius has the means to have ships waiting for them.

 

What happens to the Thedas that's facing the demon apocalypse?

 

Well, the Inquisition's goal is to close the Breach, and to do that it needs mages or Templars. All the mages just abandoned Thedas, and while the timetravel dejavu is strange, they're gone because Alexius didn't make them stick around. Templars recruited it is.

 

The Templars close the breach. The Order, or at least the foundation of it, is preserved- but the 'mage freedom' movement is not. The Mage Rebellion is either dead, or currently serving as servants in Tevinter, meaning that it's the neutrals and loyalists- the ones most interested in the Circle of before- to represent the mages, even as the Templars are still around.

 

The Divine can try to make a difference- Circle vs. College and all that- but in order to have a viable 'mage freedom' movement you're going to need, well, mages who want mage freedom. And that movement is going to need popular support.

 

Fiona's actions, even if they don't doom the world if Alexius is honest, forfeits the argument. The Templars, and their successor organization, are the ones legitimized by helping save the world. The Templar arguments- such as that the mages can't be trusted to police themselves- is validated. And the Mage Freedom position- the one for radical reforms and to trust the mages- all it has left is the fact that it lost the war, betrayed its ideals and Andrastian norms by selling itself into slavery for security, and abandoned Southern Thedas in it's darkest hour. That's the legacy the mages of Southern Thedas will have to deal with.

 

All to save themselves in a desperate deal with a foreigner who could have been a viper at their chest... when they're lives weren't endangered.

 

That's not good leadership for Fiona, leader of the Mage Rebellion, aspiring to change the system of Southern Thedas for her people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Her behavior in Asunder was much more untenable: there she was clearly lusting for a fight she couldn't win. In Inquisition, her people were holed up in Redclife, while Templars were going on a rampage in the countryside (thus robbing her followers of the possibility to police themselves, since they'd be slain by Templars if they even attempted to leave Redclife to go after the mage supremacists burninating the peasants), the Fereldan monarch had granted asylum to the mages against the nobility and commoners' wishes*, and the last attempt at diplomacy at literally blown up in everyone's faces.

 

 

While the mage supremacists were between the Templars and Redcliffe- the Templars weren't in the way of that- your first part is correct. Fiona was unreasonable and not particularly rational from the start of her rebellion.

 

The difference between Fiona of Asunder and Fiona of DAI isn't that she's OOC. It's that the character who was prone to reckless, grand mistakes is now dealing with the consequences of reckless, grand mistakes. She's eating crow- if not exactly humbled.

[Xilizhra]

Well, the Inquisition's goal is to close the Breach, and to do that it needs mages or Templars. All the mages just abandoned Thedas, and while the timetravel dejavu is strange, they're gone because Alexius didn't make them stick around. Templars recruited it is.

Aside from the fact that this only counts against Fiona if she knows about the Inquisition as a viable force before making the deal, it's entirely possible that the Inquisition shows up before they leave. If that happens, the bargain will be struck, the mage rebellion helps seal the Breach, and then the Inquisition becomes another factor in negotiations involving the mage rebellion and Tevinter, which could go a few different ways, but it definitely might end very well; they can, either way, get credit for sealing the Breach while the templars refused to deal with the Inquisition (as shown in Val Royeaux). So what it would come down to is a question of timing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Aside from the fact that this only counts against Fiona if she knows about the Inquisition as a viable force before making the deal,

 

Incorrect. Whether Fiona knows about the Inquistion or not, the mages could have supported Southern Thedas in other ways had they stuck around and tried. Used their magic to fight demons, or their magical knowledge to try and study and address the problem.

 

Instead of trying to restore or build the mage's reputation by helping address the fallout of the Breach, Fiona's response was to flee the chaos. The Inquisition is not required for the first, nor does the lack of it mandate the second.

 

 

it's entirely possible that the Inquisition shows up before they leave. If that happens, the bargain will be struck, the mage rebellion helps seal the Breach, and then the Inquisition becomes another factor in negotiations involving the mage rebellion and Tevinter, which could go a few different ways, but it definitely might end very well; they can, either way, get credit for sealing the Breach while the templars refused to deal with the Inquisition (as shown in Val Royeaux). So what it would come down to is a question of timing.

 

 

 

Not if we go by the game and keep our changes to 'Alexius is honest about his deal with Fiona to take the mages to Tevinter, because he's not a servant of Corypheus.'

 

The only reason the mages are still in Redcliffe is because Alexius deposed Teagan and was never intending to take them north in the first place. He was waiting for the Inquisitor- because Corypheus. If we accept this hypothetical that Alexius is only using time magic to get to the mages and recruit them because he's honest, and not an agent of Corypheus, then we have to accept that he's being honest about leaving. If he's honest about leaving, then he and the mages would be able to leave well before the Inquisitor tracks them down. And if they're being honest, and capable, and it's their intent, then there's no reason for them to NOT leave before the Inquisitor arrives.

 

If we don't accept the premise that he's being honest about leaving, which entails actually leaving, then the already weak hypothetical about 'well, he could have been honest' simply enters outright fanfic territory- at which point we could just as well talk about how Corypheus's rule as the Elder One would have been benevolent and the best thing for everyone.

 

We could- but it'd be pointless, and not even remotely supported by the game.

[Xilizhra]

Eh. After some thought, it's not something I'll fight about. I can definitely agree that the mage rebellion was badly mismanaged without it making a difference to my position that the dissolution of the Circle was necessary.

[Dean_the_Young]

Eh. After some thought, it's not something I'll fight about. I can definitely agree that the mage rebellion was badly mismanaged without it making a difference to my position that the

dissolution of the Circle was necessary.

 

That's a new development from you, considering how not even a week ago you started a thread for the purpose of excusing Fiona's mismanagement of said mage rebellion as reasonable and legitimate.

 

 

What sparked this conversion?

[SlottsMachine]

... and nobody's blaming bad writing here?

 

Fiona was always a bit reckless, but she was also an uncompromising leader who detested slavery, so I would have expected that to be a hard line for her. Selling out to Tevinter doesn't make much sense given her convictions. I can understand the strain of losing the mage-templar war would force her to consider a compromise, or a weaker position, or a truce - hence the willingness to attend the conclave - but surely there must be other alternatives to indentured slavery? Surely, given the lack of options and the rise of the Inquisition, the reasonable choice would be to jump onto the back of that straight away? An organisation which rides off the back of chantry legitimacy - through Justinia's writ - without actually being part of it, in dire need of magical assistance, currently without allies? Sounds like a far better choice than Alexius.

 

Rather, I think it's much more likely that the writers needed to introduce a number of crucial elements to the plot - Tevinter, Alexius, the Venatori, and Dorian - but struggled to do so without sacrificing Fiona's character. It's sloppy.

 

I don't actually know who Fiona is tbh but this seems like a reasonable post. 

[Xilizhra]

That's a new development from you, considering how not even a week ago you started a thread for the purpose of excusing Fiona's mismanagement of said mage rebellion as reasonable and legitimate.

 

 

What sparked this conversion?

Actually, it was in part because of one bit you wrote in your story corner. The other part is that I never thought that she was terribly good, but I never thought that mismanagement equated to deserving to die, which is largely where I see unjustified hatred.

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually, it was in part because of one bit you wrote in your story corner.

 

I haven't posted anything there for some time- certainly not within the last week- and nothing about Fiona's incompetence that you hadn't repeatedly argued against over a number of months earlier this year.

 

Even now you're still inventing the argument for Fiona that she didn't think the mages would be let into Redcliffe- a position that no one in the game, at any point, puts forwards or supports. You're even still arguing the negative- that your claim has to be disproven, rather than support it yourself- in order to justify her dismissal of Ferelden's sanctuary as something other than stupid.
 

 

The other part is that I never thought that she was terribly good, but I never thought that mismanagement equated to deserving to die, which is largely where I see unjustified hatred.

 

 

 

Selective memory of your past positions aside...

[Steelcan]

Actually, it was in part because of one bit you wrote in your story corner. The other part is that I never thought that she was terribly good, but I never thought that mismanagement equated to deserving to die, which is largely where I see unjustified hatred.

What is your idea for an "appropriate" response to her mismanagement?

[Xilizhra]

I haven't posted anything there for some time- certainly not within the last week- and nothing about Fiona's incompetence that you hadn't repeatedly argued against over a number of months earlier this year.

 

Even now you're still inventing the argument for Fiona that she didn't think the mages would be let into Redcliffe- a position that no one in the game, at any point, puts forwards or supports. You're even still arguing the negative- that your claim has to be disproven, rather than support it yourself- in order to justify her dismissal of Ferelden's sanctuary as something other than stupid.

For the most part, I think that the entire Redcliffe sequence was terribly written and contained numerous gaps; issues like this should have been addressed. Given Fiona's character as previously established, I find it unimaginable that she would somehow have completely forgotten about the castle, as it's not tremendously difficult to see.

[Dean_the_Young]

... and nobody's blaming bad writing here?

 

Fiona was always a bit reckless, but she was also an uncompromising leader who detested slavery, so I would have expected that to be a hard line for her. Selling out to Tevinter doesn't make much sense given her convictions. I can understand the strain of losing the mage-templar war would force her to consider a compromise, or a weaker position, or a truce - hence the willingness to attend the conclave - but surely there must be other alternatives to indentured slavery? Surely, given the lack of options and the rise of the Inquisition, the reasonable choice would be to jump onto the back of that straight away? An organisation which rides off the back of chantry legitimacy - through Justinia's writ - without actually being part of it, in dire need of magical assistance, currently without allies? Sounds like a far better choice than Alexius.

 

Rather, I think it's much more likely that the writers needed to introduce a number of crucial elements to the plot - Tevinter, Alexius, the Venatori, and Dorian - but struggled to do so without sacrificing Fiona's character. It's sloppy.

 

Here's why I'd argue that it's 'writing you don't like' rather than 'bad writing'- Fiona's failings are thematically consistent with the themes and foilibilities of mages: that they are people, and that as people they aren't just capable of being the innocents in a situation (the general role of the 'good mages' in the previous games), but that they'd have the same flaws, and desires, and failings, of people as well.

 

The Mage Rebellion was always a movement without direction- never had a plan of the 'how' or 'what next'- and the war was the natural, even desired, consequence of that. The mages rejected the idea of oversight and responsibility for others, took it into their own hands- and, like ill-prepared people everywhere, found it wasn't so easy when they hadn't prepared for it. (Self)Righteousness and cries of FREEEEDOM and even the ability to fling fireballs weren't enough- and the flipside of being self-responsible when things are going well is that you're still responsible when things go bad. Which has always been the question, and the fear, of mages- what will they do when things aren't going well? There's any number of reasons mages might be stressed or need an edge, but the Mage Freedom argument generally boils down to 'eh, trust us, we won't do anything desperate.'

 

It's no accident that Fiona's decision to submit to servitude is the epitome of 'trading freedom for security,' a major theme of the conflict, especially in a game built around 'restoring order.' It's not supposed to be a well-reasoned decision- Fiona acts out of fear as much as anything- but that's the point- that mages, even the free sort, can be tricked and afraid of exagerated threats and become desperate. Just like regular people, because they are people, and that's the tragedy of it all. The Mage Freedom side in the previous games regularly emphasized that mages were people too, and that they wouldn't be any more of a risk or a concern as a consequence... but this was generally cast in the positive way (mages are just as moral as mundanes), not in the negative way (being just as good as mundanes means being just as bad).

 

The issue with the mages selling themselves and their ideals out for security isn't that the Inquisition was an obvious alternative (it was still the early game- but Fiona would have tried if not pre-empted). It's that Fiona and the surviving mages went along with Alexius because they were not, in the end, moral supermen- and moral supermen are generally the only sort who take all difficulties in stride without compromising themselves. That's why people of exceptional character are considered exceptional, and not routine.

 

They were people- fearful, desperate people, but still just people- and fear drives people to desperate, stupid things. You can argue that they shouldn't ever have to be afraid in the first place... but that's the sort of viewpoint that says people shouldn't change themselves to protect themselves against the world, because the world should change to not harm them. It's an idealistic viewpoint that is going to be frequently disappointed.