Of course I can- because as a leader, Fiona should be looking at more than just the reasons to do something, but also the reasons NOT to do something, and the consequences thereof.
Even ignorring her complete lack of planning for the rebellion she midwifed, Fiona's accusation of Elthina also misses an important dynamic of Kirkwall's situation- that while Elthinca did not solve the situation, she also helped keep it from getting worse while providing the opportunity for it to get better. Thrask's coup was one such development that, had it worked, might have resolved things. It wouldn't have had the time to try had Meredith had her way far earlier. Even if Elthina didn't have the power or position to remove Meredith once Meredith was in a state to warrant removing, she remained a significant limiter on Meredith's actions (from things as basic as searching quarters to something as great as Annulment).
It's also not clear what, exactly, Fiona would have considered an acceptable solution, other than whatever aggrees with her. Seekers did investigate- and found things that were grounds for tolerating the Templars. And the Circle of Kirkwall was corrupt- as high as the Grand Enchanter- with blood mages and maleficar.
I don't think her acting as a limiter is missed by Fiona, her criticism is that nothing was resolved, which it wasn't. Elthina never promotes any attempt for it to get better barring her "providing opportunity". She trusts that the Maker will help them see reason. So she's relying on a holding tactic in the hopes that someone will swoop in and get rid of Meredith or Orsino or both, and thus resolve the situation for her?
And Cassandra also notes that the Seekers should have looked at the root causes harder, she indicates that the Seeker investigation wasn't as thorough as it should have been.
Justinia's outreach by inviting the Mages to convene to discuss reforms was absolutely a good-faith effort: so much so, that she had her own Templars murdered even after Fiona made a major transgression and insult of it. And this was after sanctioning research into resolving one of the greatest cassus belli of the Rebellion, Tranquility- which it's very unlikely the Divine and her recruited mages would have kept secret.
Fiona is also responsible for doing her best to ensure that the Divine would lose control, and turning it from a situation in which she had the Divine and a signficant part of the Chantry on her side, to a situation in which she had no one standing between her and the Templars (whom she could not beat).
'The situation is bad, so let's make it intolerable' is rarely a winning play... and it wasn't.
I'm not saying it wasn't a good-faith effort. I'm asking how Fiona was supposed to know that? The conclave wasn't to discuss reforms, it was to discuss the implications of Pharamond's research which would hopefully lead to reforms and peace. Promises that as Fiona points out had already been made and had not materialized.
But even if we are to suppose that Fiona did believe that the reforms were going to occur, she clearly doesn't believe that the Templars would ever allow it or go along with their advice on the cure - remember that Lambert had tried desperately to cover up the existence of such a cure even though he knew full well it did exist. Thus whether or not the Divine decided to enact these reforms, in her mind, the templars would never have gone with it, heck they made Pharamond Tranquil right after he was cured.
This is not unsupported, as Cole put: Lambert "made Templars see monsters instead of mages. Made them push until it all fell down." Lambert (supported by Cole's statements) also makes it clear he wants to overthrow the Divine and shift the balance of power, he was more concerned with stopping mages than protecting people. Cassandra makes it clear that the Seekers were already of the mentality where they felt that only they "could solve all the world's problems", and that they would crush problems if they felt coerced. All indicators that the Divine had already lost control. Fiona pushing for independence was her identifying that Lambert was out of control and if they didn't vote then they would never have another chance. And if they had never been allowed to meet there would have been no chance of a successful or organized rebellion.
Whether or not the Divine and the Chantry was on her side was more or less irrelevant, as Lambert points out the Chantry have nothing but words and have preached fear for too long to be able to withdraw from that position. I don't think it was "make it intolerable" so much as "it's now or never".
Except they totally did- not only when they sold themselves into slavery to Tevinter, but before that when they submitted to Ferelden's authority in return for sanctuary, and before that when the reason Fiona got her majority vote was because she backed the mages into a corner where the only security from the Templars was revolt. The entire mage rebellion was a series of points where fighting the Templars was the more secure prospect than not fighting the Templars.
Also, requirement conditions aren't the same as causal conditions. You have to breath in order to write a term paper- breathing is not responsible for you writing the term paper.
How is submitting to Ferelden's authority trading in freedoms? They took sanctuary, they were still allowed to govern themselves and Ferelden didn't ask anything of them as far as I'm aware. Similarly fighting the templars may have been the more secure prospect but it entailed a bunch of freedoms as well, namely the freedom to self-govern. Submitting to the templars would have resulted in many of them executed and others tranquil and living under the laws of the Templars (not even the Chantry who the templars had separated from by then). The only issue is slavery to Tevinter, a point I will concede. But finding any restriction too much and willing to not only die for the cause but to send hundreds of other people, some of them non-combatants or children, to their deaths is not the same thing.
I'm not saying one caused the other. But the mage rebellion set a precedent that indicated that mages want to be independent. And obviously this was noteworthy enough that even Vivienne was willing to allow some mages independence, even if only the ones she respected, and presumably deemed "safe" - note how unprecedented this is!
The Mage Rebellion was a great expression of mage disatisfaction... which was already identified, and considered legitimate, before the mage rebellion began. Causus belli were already being addressed (Tranquility as an unjust punishment), de-escalation was occuring (restoring the meetings), and reconciliation with an aim of concessions towards the mages were already on the agenda.
By the Chantry and Divine sure. By the templars and Seekers? Not so much. And it seems fairly obvious their goals have been misaligned for quite some time - for example the Seekers investigated Kirkwall and didn't reprimand templars for breaking Chantry law and making Harrowed Mages tranquil? Regardless of "shocking magical corruption" breaking Chantry law is a step in the wrong direction.
That's not the claim. The claim is that the dissenters who didn't want to go along with the rebellion were being killed.
This is manifestly true, by multiple accounts- and even repeats itself later, if/when the rebel mages join the Venatori.
Ah right. I agree then. Though if the Venatori instance you're talking about was from the Dark Future then that never happened.
Retour en haut
