993 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

You do realize that because of the alteration to the timeline, those choices come was done in a different environment ? Actually, she didn't have the option of going to the Inquisition in the alternate timeline. In the alternate timeline, Alexius manipulated the situation so that he reaches Fiona first, immediately after the explosion, to offer aid, with templars hot on the rebel mages' heels. Fyi, Inquisition has not been formed yet because it took a few days for Inquisitor to wake up, to close the Breach, to wake up again, and for Cassandra to start the Inquisition.

 

In the timeline where Fiona meets us in Val Royeaux, Alexius never approached her and the Templars were either not hot on the heels of the rebel mages or the rebel mages had managed to securely escape. Its how Fiona could come to Val Royeaux in the first place while leaving the rebel mages in Redcliffe in the original timeline.

 

I recognize the difference in environment. I dispute that the environment is an excuse in the context of ALexius. Fiona had the opportunity to seek out information and make an informed decision to judge Alexius's proposal. The fact that he appeared suddenly did not mean she had to make her decision suddenly, or that she should not have known better.

 

Alexius making an offer does not compel Fiona to accept his offer. Nor does it prevent Fiona from making other decisions. Alexius could have used time travel and Fiona could still have decided to consider her options and go to Val Royeaux instead. Or, if Alexius was blocking external travel, she could have not made a deal and stayed aligned with the Arl of Redcliffe. Or she could have kicked Alexius out and then gone to Val Royeaux.

 

Just because someone appears with an offer when you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight doesn't mean you have to make a decision while you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight. It's called patience. Good leaders exercise that skill all the time.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I recognize the difference in environment. I dispute that the environment is an excuse in the context of ALexius. Fiona had the opportunity to seek out information and make an informed decision to judge Alexius's proposal. The fact that he appeared suddenly did not mean she had to make her decision suddenly, or that she should not have known better.

 

Alexius making an offer does not compel Fiona to accept his offer. Nor does it prevent Fiona from making other decisions. Alexius could have used time travel and Fiona could still have decided to consider her options and go to Val Royeaux instead. Or, if Alexius was blocking external travel, she could have not made a deal and stayed aligned with the Arl of Redcliffe. Or she could have kicked Alexius out and then gone to Val Royeaux.

 

Just because someone appears with an offer when you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight doesn't mean you have to make a decision while you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight. It's called patience. Good leaders exercise that skill all the time.

 

True but when you have to choose death by Templars over slavery by Tevinter, I think people who value self-preservation, would choose life over death, even if it means slavery. Its not morally right and not very sensible but given the situation, the rebel mage either had to fight with these templars they were told coming to the death or becomes slaves to a nation that is not anti-magic.

[In Exile]

I recognize the difference in environment. I dispute that the environment is an excuse in the context of ALexius. Fiona had the opportunity to seek out information and make an informed decision to judge Alexius's proposal. The fact that he appeared suddenly did not mean she had to make her decision suddenly, or that she should not have known better.

 

Alexius making an offer does not compel Fiona to accept his offer. Nor does it prevent Fiona from making other decisions. Alexius could have used time travel and Fiona could still have decided to consider her options and go to Val Royeaux instead. Or, if Alexius was blocking external travel, she could have not made a deal and stayed aligned with the Arl of Redcliffe. Or she could have kicked Alexius out and then gone to Val Royeaux.

 

Just because someone appears with an offer when you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight doesn't mean you have to make a decision while you're panicked and confused and not thinking straight. It's called patience. Good leaders exercise that skill all the time.

 

I don't think it's an excuse, nor was it my intention to suggest it as a justification. Rather, I simply don't think it makes sense to just strip away the experiences as being formative. You and I are differently people - we would likely react differently to different situations. But the "you" who experiences a situation is not the same "you" who doesn't - those choices and experiences form part of the backdrop in which you make future choices. 

 

The Fiona that wanted to reach out to the Inquisition in Val Royeaux is the "same" one that reached out Alexius, but the fact of her experience - the shell game that Alexius suckered her with - influenced her decision. Same person, different environment, different choice. 

[Vit246]

I forever hate the poorly-thought-out lazy cheap casual time magic Bioware used as a device and excuse in this damn game. They actually cannot write for shite without resorting to some version of mind control. They couldn't come up with a real reason for Fiona to do the the things she does without warping the fabric of reality itself to make it work.

Modifié par Vit246, 01 avril 2016 - 06:24 .

[Gervaise]

Please don't forget that Redcliffe Castle was the most defensible castle in all Ferelden, with amply opportunity for the mages to lay in supplies against a prolonged siege.   Rhys believed they could have held Andoral's Reach, a ruin, against ten times their number, so I'm pretty sure the mages could have done so in Redcliffe Castle.   Hence the monarch offering it as a refuge in the first place.  Remembering that whether that monarch is Alistair or Anora, they have very publically backed the mages, so I assume would at least give them some sort of support against hostile forces if Templars started an Exalted March on Redcliffe.  So to say that in the aftermath of the Conclave they were facing certain death by Templars is not true.   There was still enough contact with the outside world to know that the Templars were just as disorganised as everyone else.   There was no sign of an approaching Templar army, nor were the people of Redcliffe turning on the mages in their village, as they could walk about quite freely.    Fiona was clearly able to leave the village and travel all the way to Val Royeaux without trouble.    What had Fiona planned on doing if the Conclave hadn't gone her way?   (Assuming no explosion).   These things were true whether Alexius turned back time or not.

 

When I turned up at Redcliffe to talk with Fiona and she realised we were making friendly overtures, why did she persist with her agreement with the Magister?  Why didn't the mages who were unhappy with the arrangement ask to leave with me?   The sole surviving tranquil (the fellow doesn't know how lucky he was) asked to leave with us, so why not the mages too?    As has been pointed out above, time magic did not take away their free will.     The mages had previously decided they would rather die than surrender their freedom; then Alexius turns up and apparently the opposite is true.   

[Dean_the_Young]

True but when you have to choose death by Templars over slavery by Tevinter, I think people who value self-preservation, would choose life over death, even if it means slavery. Its not morally right and not very sensible but given the situation, the rebel mage either had to fight with these templars they were told coming to the death or becomes slaves to a nation that is not anti-magic.

 

This false delimma is why Fiona was suckered, is incompetent, and deserves to be responsible for her own bad judgement.

 

There was no imminent attack by the Templars. There wasn't even a major Templar force that could overrun Redcliffe castle, because the Templars were recalled after the Conclave and weren't even in the area. The only Templars left were the rogue faction in the Hinterlands, and they didn't have the numbers of equipment or means to storm Redcliffe. The threat was a fabrication spread by the Venatori to exploit her fear and desperation.

 

It's also something Fiona could have verified, and disproven, had she tried to. When Alexius arrives by time travel and goes 'there's a bunch of Templars right over those hills, and they'll kill you unless you sell yourself into slavery to me,' Fiona's response should have been 'let me go check,' not 'well, let's dicker on the terms.'

 

What makes it worse is that selling into slavery with Alexius doesn't actually safeguard the mages in Redcliffe. The moment Alexius did anything  but lead them away, the scam should have been obvious. If the Templars had numbers to overwhelm Redcliffe, a few Venatori mages and bodyguards of a magister weren't going to stop that. And holing up in the caste itself was doomed when the Ferelden army comes to reclaim it. Even if Alexius was sincere, staying in Redcliffe was a deathtrap, and Alexius's offer of protection dubious from the start- especially since Fiona already had a proven patron in the Ferelden monarchy who had let her stay in the first place.

 

 

 

I don't think it's an excuse, nor was it my intention to suggest it as a justification. Rather, I simply don't think it makes sense to just strip away the experiences as being formative. You and I are differently people - we would likely react differently to different situations. But the "you" who experiences a situation is not the same "you" who doesn't - those choices and experiences form part of the backdrop in which you make future choices. 

 

The Fiona that wanted to reach out to the Inquisition in Val Royeaux is the "same" one that reached out Alexius, but the fact of her experience - the shell game that Alexius suckered her with - influenced her decision. Same person, different environment, different choice. 

 

Didn't mean to imply you had. You just entered a conversation where that point- 'it's not her fault because it wasn't the same person because context' was the position being defended.

[vbibbi]

I don't think that's a complete description, because we do react differently based on situations. Sure, the Fiona who joins the Venatori to attack the Inquisition is the "same" Fiona as the one who becomes red lyrium fodder, but these two Fionas face very different circumstances, which quite clearly impact their choices and their decisions. 

 

But she's ultimately the same person. To quote Buffy "You have a choice. You don't have a good choice, but it's a choice." We are defined in part by the decisions we make when backed into a corner. I will make different choices now than if I were starving and homeless and had to steal to survive. But that doesn't mean the vbibbi I am now is not capable of stealing.

 

The Fiona that ends up as Red Lyrium, the Fiona that joins the Venatori and the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux are different people. Genetically similar but different in every other way. Its like the the Star Trek reboot and the Flash.

 

We have 2 Spock in the Abrams Star Trek reboot and they might be genetically identical, they are different people with different life experiences. Yes the Spocks are from different universe but alternate timeline is a lot like that too. The easiest example is the Flash. The Pied Piper in season 1 is not the Pied Piper in season 2 because Flash messed with the timeline. Same people genetically different in every other way.

 

This is true of the other characters as well. Leliana we meet in the Dark Future is not the Leliana we know in the Inquisition. The Cassandra we meet in the Dark Future is not the Cassandra we know in the Inquisition. Alternate timelines cause genetically similar people to have very divergent experiences that essentially make them different people or to use Cisco's term (who is a character from the Flash) - A Doppleganger.

 

The only reason we did not see an alternate Dorian or an alternate Inquisitor in the Dark Future is because both of them were presumed dead. By dead I mean they time traveled.

 

They're not different people, they're the same person with different viewpoints and experiences. If anything, the future Fiona is slightly different since she's turning into red lyrium. But the Fiona we meet in Val Royeaux and the one we meet in Redcliffe are the difference of maybe a few weeks worth of experience.

 

You do realize that because of the alteration to the timeline, those choices come was done in a different environment ? Actually, she didn't have the option of going to the Inquisition in the alternate timeline. In the alternate timeline, Alexius manipulated the situation so that he reaches Fiona first, immediately after the explosion, to offer aid, with templars hot on the rebel mages' heels. Fyi, Inquisition has not been formed yet because it took a few days for Inquisitor to wake up, to close the Breach, to wake up again, and for Cassandra to start the Inquisition.

 

In the timeline where Fiona meets us in Val Royeaux, Alexius never approached her and the Templars were either not hot on the heels of the rebel mages or the rebel mages had managed to securely escape. Its how Fiona could come to Val Royeaux in the first place while leaving the rebel mages in Redcliffe in the original timeline.

 

But Alexius arriving in Redcliffe had no effect on templar forces. He just lied to Fiona about templars being ready to attack. Nothing changed except Alexius arrived before the Inquisition was formed. Everything else in the world remained the same.

 

Please don't forget that Redcliffe Castle was the most defensible castle in all Ferelden, with amply opportunity for the mages to lay in supplies against a prolonged siege.   Rhys believed they could have held Andoral's Reach, a ruin, against ten times their number, so I'm pretty sure the mages could have done so in Redcliffe Castle.   Hence the monarch offering it as a refuge in the first place.  Remembering that whether that monarch is Alistair or Anora, they have very publically backed the mages, so I assume would at least give them some sort of support against hostile forces if Templars started an Exalted March on Redcliffe.  So to say that in the aftermath of the Conclave they were facing certain death by Templars is not true.   There was still enough contact with the outside world to know that the Templars were just as disorganised as everyone else.   There was no sign of an approaching Templar army, nor were the people of Redcliffe turning on the mages in their village, as they could walk about quite freely.    Fiona was clearly able to leave the village and travel all the way to Val Royeaux without trouble.    What had Fiona planned on doing if the Conclave hadn't gone her way?   (Assuming no explosion).   These things were true whether Alexius turned back time or not.

 

When I turned up at Redcliffe to talk with Fiona and she realised we were making friendly overtures, why did she persist with her agreement with the Magister?  Why didn't the mages who were unhappy with the arrangement ask to leave with me?   The sole surviving tranquil (the fellow doesn't know how lucky he was) asked to leave with us, so why not the mages too?    As has been pointed out above, time magic did not take away their free will.     The mages had previously decided they would rather die than surrender their freedom; then Alexius turns up and apparently the opposite is true.   

 

Exactly. Once she realized her people were going to be on the front lines of combat, and if they survived they would be indentured servants for ten years, she should have broken off the agreement immediately. She was in a tavern with few Tevinter/Venatori troops surrounding her, and the Inquisitor there for assistance. Instead, she meekly acquiesces and retreats to an impenetrable castle filled with Venatori, where there is no chance of having her people escape enslavement.

 

Why would she continue with this plan, since it still results in the mages being on the front lines of combat? At least if she abandoned Alexius and took her chances on her own, any surviving mages would not be indentured servants.

[Medhia_Nox]

I never saw a reason in game for why they (the mages) had left Andorall's Reach... a fortress that was, by all accounts, still defensible. 

 

And... HOW did they get all the way across Orlais and to Redcliff? 

 

Fiona... you got some s'plainin to do. 

[Master Warder Z_]

I never saw a reason in game for why they (the mages) had left Andorall's Reach... a fortress that was, by all accounts, still defensible. 

 

And... HOW did they get all the way across Orlais and to Redcliff? 

 

Fiona... you got some s'plainin to do. 

 

 

This was basically Fiona in game.

[Iakus]

True but when you have to choose death by Templars over slavery by Tevinter, I think people who value self-preservation, would choose life over death, even if it means slavery. Its not morally right and not very sensible but given the situation, the rebel mage either had to fight with these templars they were told coming to the death or becomes slaves to a nation that is not anti-magic.

Fiona tried to declare mage independence in the White Spire,  surrounded by an army of Templars and a half-crazed Lord Seeker.  She is someone who would very much prefer to die on her feet than live on her knees.  I don't care for her character very much, but I do give her that much credit.

 

At least, I did before she met Alexius.  Then she decided it was better to sell herself and her fellow mages into slavery than die on Templar blades (despite there being no significant Templar forces in the area and her allies holding a highly defensible keep)

[Xilizhra]

Fiona tried to declare mage independence in the White Spire,  surrounded by an army of Templars and a half-crazed Lord Seeker.  She is someone who would very much prefer to die on her feet than live on her knees.  I don't care for her character very much, but I do give her that much credit.

 

At least, I did before she met Alexius.  Then she decided it was better to sell herself and her fellow mages into slavery than die on Templar blades (despite there being no significant Templar forces in the area and her allies holding a highly defensible keep)

There was a whole templar army there before the envy demon ordered them all to withdraw.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Iakus:  That part in the mage rebellion where their leader sells them is my FAVORITE.  

 

I have a perverse expectation of being able to purchase some southern mages in DA4. 

 

My Altus:  Those, over there.  The bony ones in the torn, dun colored robes.  

 

Slaver:  All the way from the southern Circles m'lord!  Mages!  They may look malnourished, terrified and totally confused... but I assure you, it took all my resources to gather these few.  Normally, I would charge a premium for such exotic fare, but for you my lord... we can settle on ten gold per. 

 

My Altus:  *regards the mages for a moment*  I'll give you ten gold for all of them.  All your resources... phah!  It took a loaf of bread and a waterskin to round up this sad lot.  And they're from the south... so they're hardly of any use as mages and they're ALWAYS confused.  Yes, ten gold for the unit of twenty... and I won't have you flogged publicly for duplicitous business practices. 

 

Oh... PLEASE Bioware... 

 

EDIT:  Medhia Nox or his affiliates do not condone the flogging of slave traders or the selling of southern mages.  Any similarity to persons living or dead is strictly coincidental.  No mages were harmed in the making of this dialogue - okay, some were.. but they were from the south.

[Xilizhra]

@Iakus:  That part in the mage rebellion where their leader sells them is my FAVORITE.  

 

I have a perverse expectation of being able to purchase some southern mages in DA4. 

 

My Altus:  Those, over there.  The bony ones in the torn, dun colored robes.  

 

Slaver:  All the way from the southern Circles m'lord!  Mages!  They may look malnourished, terrified and totally confused... but I assure you, it took all my resources to gather these few.  Normally, I would charge a premium for such exotic fare, but for you my lord... we can settle on ten gold per. 

 

My Altus:  *regards the mages for a moment*  I'll give you ten gold for all of them.  All your resources... phah!  It took a loaf of bread and a waterskin to round up this sad lot.  And they're from the south... so they're hardly of any use as mages and they're ALWAYS confused.  Yes, ten gold for the unit of twenty... and I won't have you flogged publicly for duplicitous business practices. 

 

Oh... PLEASE Bioware... 

A. I think that your prices are off, and B. Calpernia would never send slaves acquired by the Venatori into regular Tevinter markets anyway.

[Steelcan]

There was a whole templar army there before the envy demon ordered them all to withdraw.

the withdrew after the Conclave, and Alexius arrived after the Conclave, so either she didn't notice the massive host leaving or didn't check

[Vit246]

I never saw a reason in game for why they (the mages) had left Andorall's Reach... a fortress that was, by all accounts, still defensible. 

 

And... HOW did they get all the way across Orlais and to Redcliff? 

 

Fiona... you got some s'plainin to do. 

 

Replace the word "Fiona" with "Bioware writers" and it'll make sense. In the sense that the writers did not care.

When are you people gonna get it in your heads that this is Bioware's fault? That Bioware does not care about details like

 

"HOW did they get all the way across Orlais and to Redcliff?" 

"How do we get Fiona to give up Redcliffe, the best castle ever, and join Alexius without warping the fabric of reality itself via time travel?"

"Why doesn't Fiona and the mages simply join us once we make friendly overtures? There's nothing really stopping her,"

 

Watch Smudboy's DA:I Analysis Part 7.

[Master Warder Z_]

But seriously think about it.

 

That video depicts Fiona quite well.

 

Lucius: Come out or we'll blast our way in!

 

Fiona: Ha! I'm safe behind my walls! I'm invulnerable! *maniac laughter*

 

Lucius: I'll carve you to little pieces!

 

Fiona: Nooooooo! You can't harm me in here, I'm invincible!

 

Lucius: *Inserts lightsaber*

 

Fiona: Aiiiiiieeeee!

[Xilizhra]

the withdrew after the Conclave, and Alexius arrived after the Conclave, so either she didn't notice the massive host leaving or didn't check

The templars' "after" was after Alexius' "after."

[Steelcan]

The templars' "after" was after Alexius' "after."

got any proof for that?

[Iakus]

There was a whole templar army there before the envy demon ordered them all to withdraw.

So?  Defensible keep.  Better to die free than live a slave.  None of that has changed.

 

Except, apparently, it has.

[Xilizhra]

got any proof for that?

Got any proof of the opposite, which would require more evidence because it makes things make less sense?

 

 

So?  Defensible keep.  Better to die free than live a slave.  None of that has changed.

 

Except, apparently, it has.

Ten years vs. eternity, and there's no guarantee the arl would allow them into the keep.

[Steelcan]

Got any proof of the opposite, which would require more evidence because it makes things make less sense?

 

If the Templars left after Alexius showed up it doesn't help her either way.  She either no longer needs his help since the vast majority of the templars have left, or she still thinks they are out there in which case she's incompetent/far too trusting of the Magister.

[thesuperdarkone2]

 

 

Ten years vs. eternity, and there's no guarantee the arl would allow them into the keep.

Not to mention just how long do people think the mages would stay in Redcliffe? Do people really just think the mages should just stay and live in Redcliffe forever? That's the impression I'm getting from some people

[Iakus]

 

 

Ten years vs. eternity, and there's no guarantee the arl would allow them into the keep.

Ten years if you believe what Alexius says, which is very much in doubt.  Especially after he meets the Inquisitor and he's suddenly "altering the arrangement".  If Fiona had two brain cells to rub together, she'd know (even without the knowledge of time travel) that Alexius was playing her for a fool and his offer was not in good faith.

 

Not to mention just how long do people think the mages would stay in Redcliffe? Do people really just think the mages should just stay and live in Redcliffe forever? That's the impression I'm getting from some people

The king and/or queen of Ferelden offered them sanctuary.  They'd be pretty fair-weather friends if they cut the mages loose so easily.

[Barquiel]

Not to mention just how long do people think the mages would stay in Redcliffe? Do people really just think the mages should just stay and live in Redcliffe forever? That's the impression I'm getting from some people

 

This. In addition, Ferelden is a relatively small country (we know you can get to Denerim from Redcliffe in 2 days), and the templars are not only present already in Ferelden, they are there entrenched and in large number. We also see how their entire army marched from Therinfal Redoubt to Haven if you sided with the mages... and Ferelden did absolutely nothing, they couldn't even warn Haven. And Teagan? I doubt the Redcliff militia would have made any difference. I mean, they couldn't even stop the mess in the Hinterlands. 

 

An yes, the Mages were never inside the castle, they were in the village (as evidenced by the elderly mage in the tavern). And the village is not some invincible stronghold. They were basically as defended as Haven was (a wall and some wooden palisades), and we see how that turned out....

[MisterJB]

Not to mention just how long do people think the mages would stay in Redcliffe? Do people really just think the mages should just stay and live in Redcliffe forever? That's the impression I'm getting from some people

Which is further evidence of how the rebellion didn't have a defined goal from the beginning that could be achived through military or political means.