It's interesting that nobody ever seems to mention the murder that happened to spark this war.
Adrian is another of Fiona's failures.
Well, I did, a few pages back. Adrian was more like, in my opinion, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. This thread is about Fiona, her mistakes, and what she did to facilitate the conflict. So in that regard, I've been keeping most of my posts about her. Adrian would merit a thread all her own.
Well, I did, a few pages back. Adrian was more like, in my opinion, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. This thread is about Fiona, her mistakes, and what she did to facilitate the conflict. So in that regard, I've been keeping most of my posts about her. Adrian would merit a thread all her own.
She isn't worth a used tissue little lone a thread.
First and foremost, one should take into account that, mayhaps, on this instance it wasn't a matter of the system needing reforms so much as the mages needing to purge their more violent elements who seemed more interested in blowing up people in the name of freedom than in seeking continued coexistance.
Second, give how Wynne, an extremely influential Enchanter, was working alongside the most mage-friendly Divine to diffuse tensions and introduce reforms, there is certainly no reason to believe this was an "now or never, all or nothing situation", especially since neither normal people nor mages are going anywhere. So, maybe bloody revolution in the wake of assassination attempts on the Divine was very ill-timed.
Kennedy spoke of mages and Templars? I had no idea he played Dragon Age.
Never mind the fact, of course, that Circles are wealthy institutions that provide mages with a quality of life in many ways superior to what 99% of the Thedosian population enjoys with acess to free shelter, food, education, clothing, etc; that religion does not equal fanatism; that mages are in no more danger from Templars than normal people are from guardsman; and that mages have the capacity to kill people with their minds when they aren't busy enslaving them or starting Bligths.
Personally, I am more concerned over the possibility of mages with a taste for murder and rape living in communities where the nearest Templar is two days of hard ride away.
That the Divine couldn't simply order reforms is testimony enough to how entrenched views were in the Templars. She's the frelling Divine! She clearly has that authority. What was stopping her was the potential backlash from the fanatics. Ill-timed or not, the Libertarians saw the only real chance in centuries of breaking the deadlock, all the while the proposed reforms are stalled at the first hurdle. I cannot blame someone for taking that chance.
What have we here, a god-damned comedian? Kennedy spoke about reform and revolution. "He who makes change impossible makes revolution inevitable" applies directly to the Templars here.
The comfort of your imprisonment hardly matters, mages were stopped from doing the most basic and natural things in life. A Circle mage was forbidden to see their family and from starting a family of their own, forbidden from interacting with society freely, forbidden from travelling without permits, surveilled every moment of their lives... If someone did those things to you, would you just let it happen? That the peace lasted so long is evidence of the effectiveness of the indoctrination of the mages.
The situation is more complex than "the mages were right" of course, but it's certainly more complex than "the Templars were right" as well.
She isn't worth a used tissue little lone a thread.
Oh I disagree. I could fill an entire thread with my fury over what she's done. 
But that is neither here nor there.
Oh I disagree. I could fill an entire thread with my fury over what she's done.
But that is neither here nor there.
Do you have a need to do so?
People getting very upset over someone locked in a cage with a bunch of religious fanatics, some of whom have a taste for murder and rape, deciding they'd rather not be locked up in a cage... that is something to talk about. Fictional or not, it's fairly telling to judge such people harshly.
It's not. Why? Because you do not know people and you base your judgement on how they would react to a non-fictional conflict in the real world by how they react to a fictional conflict that has different factors to it that do not have real life counterparts.
You also seem to be painting everybody who dislikes Fiona and criticises her way of carrying out the rebellion with the same brush. It may surprise you to learn that some of the people who criticises Fiona and the mage rebellion are people who believe in absolute freedom for mages or a better alternative than the current Circles.
The reason some of them criticise Fiona and the mage rebellion is because they consider Fiona a terrible leader and the mage rebellion poorly thought out by it's leaders: To them, Fiona and the mage rebellion did more harm to the mages' cause than good.
Let me remind you that Fiona would have ended up putting her own people into slavery if it had not been for the arrival and interference of an outside party. She even stayed by her deal with Alexius even after learning he had changed the terms of their arrangement without her consent and that her people would be conscripted into the military regardless of wishes. Note that this was after the Inquisitor had arrived meaning she could have tried to see if the deal with them was a better alternative.
It's not. Why? Because you do not know people and you base your judgement on how they would react to a non-fictional conflict in the real world by how they react to a fictional conflict that has different factors to it that do not have real life counterparts.
You also seem to be painting everybody who dislikes Fiona and criticises her way of carrying out the rebellion with the same brush. It may surprise you to learn that some of the people who criticises Fiona and the mage rebellion are people who believe in absolute freedom for mages or a better alternative than the current Circles.
The reason some of them criticise Fiona and the mage rebellion is because they consider Fiona a terrible leader and the mage rebellion poorly thought out by it's leaders: To them, Fiona and the mage rebellion did more harm to the mages' cause than good.
Let me remind you that Fiona would have ended up her putting her own people into slavery if it had not been for the arrival of an outside party.
I find it amazing that some people cannot sympathise with a woman opposing a system that forbids people to found families and generally be human beings... or elven beings... whatever. People have violently and justly rebelled over far less.
As for those who support mage freedom and criticise Fiona, I've pointed out time and again that there's a great deal of Captain Hindsight-ing. The vast majority of the complaints seem to dismiss the facts that she isn't a prophet and that she can't just tick off a Tevinter magister on a whim after taking a deal.
Temporary indentured work is not slavery. Large numbers of American colonists of European origin were indentured labourers. It is not the same thing at all.
I find it amazing that some people cannot sympathise with a woman opposing a system that forbids people to found families and generally be human beings.
Really?
Its a fairly popular stance, even among those who favor the mage cause.
I'm fairly sure that all happened after Asunder, yes?
But if "what-if" scenarios are what we're going with... if I was the Grand Enchanter at the time...
Independence from the Chantry is a secondary priority; first priority is to eliminate the templars. Thankfully, Lambert is unstable, and if I was to keep the Conclave on-topic, he'll snap at the wrong moment anyway; I can then accurately claim that Lambert is the one in violation of the law, and furthermore that this is a systematic problem within the Templar Order, one that demonstrates its unfitness to guard the Circle. If it's at all possible to get the templars to rebel first, that would be ideal, but if not, our political position is still relatively strong.
No, not necessarily. Gaspard was already trying to persuade Wynne to his side (presumably to replace Lienne Montsimmard). Also, the gates of Val Royeaux were closed. Pretty sure, we also heard that Celene was already holed up in Halamshiral as well. (I'm gonna fact check that last sentence when I get to my kindle shortly.)
@Xil: Found what I was looking for. The quote I was thinking of actually referred to the first time Celene was in Halamshiral, when she was dealing with the elven rebellion, which is what Evangeline overhears in the very beginning of Asunder. However, based on when the gates are closed in Val Royeaux when Evangeline and Co. returns, Celene's in Halamshiral the second time, after getting spat out by the mirror.
Really?
Its a fairly popular stance, even among those who favor the mage cause.
I'm getting that impression, yeah.
I find it amazing that some people cannot sympathise with a woman opposing a system that forbids people to found families and generally be human beings... or elven beings... whatever. People have violently and justly rebelled over far less.
For some, that's not really the problem though. It's that she did it violently, and from a place of weakness, when she could have gotten much more advancement for mages if she had proposed independence from a position of strength.
I'm getting that impression, yeah.
Yeah, I can't really fault the logic myself, I mean Fiona was a horrible leader among a other nasty list of traits. I can understand why she's unpopular.
I find it amazing that some people cannot sympathise with a woman opposing a system that forbids people to found families and generally be human beings... or elven beings... whatever. People have violently and justly rebelled over far less.
As for those who support mage freedom and criticise Fiona, I've pointed out time and again that there's a great deal of Captain Hindsight-ing. The vast majority of the complaints seem to dismiss the facts that she isn't a prophet and that she can't just tick off a Tevinter magister on a whim after taking a deal.
Temporary indentured work is not slavery. Large numbers of American colonists of European origin were indentured labourers. It is not the same thing at all.
It was highly unlikely the deal would have been honored and Fiona seems to catch onto to that in the tavern in Redcliffe;
Inquisitor: "What does the Imperium gain from taking rebels mages under it's wing?"
Geron Alexius: "For the moment, the Southern mages are an considerable expense. After they are properly trained, they will join our legion."
Fiona: "You said not all my people would be military. There are children. Those not suited-"
Geron Alexius: "And one day I am sure they will all be productive citizens of the Imperium when their debts are paid."
Indentured servitude has always, to my knowledge been ripe for abuse especially as some courts have neglected to recognise the freedom guarantee. Now consider the country in question and the vulnerability of the mages in question: What would happen if Alexius decided to change the terms of the arrangement when they are in Tevinter?
Perhaps he'll change the terms so the mages' living necessities will be added to their debt, perhaps he will change it so the indentured servitude will last until the debts have been paid which the last line of the quotes seem to imply he has already done or perhaps he'll change the terms so that the indentured servitude becomes slavery.
What would Fiona's options be then? She can try to legally protest it but whose side would the courts of Tevinter be in favor of? Geron Alexius, a respectable citizen of Tevinter and an academically accomplished magister or Fiona, a foreign slave? She can try to rebel and be swiftly put down as rebellions are in the Imperium. She can try to escape and be hunted as would any of her people who might try the same.
Perhaps Fiona had a document stating the terms of the arrangement? That would only be of use as long as the document remains and even then it might be contested. If she tries to present it in an aforementioned court scenario as evidence, well, it would not be the first piece of submitted evidence to be lost before or during a trial.
This is all considering that they do not arrange an "accident" for Fiona or toss her somewhere where she might be of use to them but without her having a chance of causing trouble.
The Tevinter Imperium is known for corruption and slavery.
Note that Alexius was changing the terms of their agreement without her consent and that Tevinter is known for corruption and slavery meaning it does not require prophetic vision or retrospective knowledge to predict or consider the possibility that Alexius might not keep his word.
I'm getting that impression, yeah.
Basically, Fiona made a series of rather poor decisions when it came to starting the mage rebellion. Now, personally, I don't care one way or the other about Fiona; the fact that the rebellion's cause was just is all that I need to justify my actions in Inquisition (though I do have more than that).
Note how Alexius was changing the terms of their agreement without her consent.
With death still hanging over her head, with Tevinter mages and combatants in their midst to cause havoc among the vulnerable mages and citizens of Redcliffe should the deal be repudiated, before the Inquisition is known as an overwhelming force, with no idea bout Corypheus or Venatori.
Sure, she could have done it, perhaps should have done it, but not doing it was hardly a cowardly decision when the possible consequences of immediate repudiation are considered as they should be.
Basically, Fiona made a series of rather poor decisions when it came to starting the mage rebellion. Now, personally, I don't care one way or the other about Fiona; the fact that the rebellion's cause was just is all that I need to justify my actions in Inquisition (though I do have more than that).
I don't think she could have acted any other way in starting the rebellion without betraying her cause, but fair enough.
I find it amazing that some people cannot sympathise with a woman opposing a system that forbids people to found families and generally be human beings... or elven beings... whatever. People have violently and justly rebelled over far less.
Oh, I can sympathise with her and her cause but that does not mean I cannot and should not question her methods and the competence of her leadership.
I understood Anders' motivation but that did not mean I was at all onboard with his methods nor how he wanted to accomplish his goal especially giving that his intent was to force mages into a conflict regardless of whether or not they wanted to be a part of it partially because he considered it better to die that way than in the Circles.
Intent does not always excuse action.
I get the feeling that many people complaining about Fiona taking the initiative and pushing for independence would have been the sort to let British rule or slavery continue in America, simply because blood might have to be spilled to resolve the matter. It's bizarre conservativism from the collective mouths here. The mages, whether you like it or not, had been shown the true face of the system after Kirkwall. The possible consequences of rebellion held them off from splitting as long as possible. The Templars then screwed the pooch further.
You're all speaking with a huge degree of retrospective knowledge too. It's all very well to say that it should have all been done more smartly, but that's a very detached view. What happened might have been the only chance for mage freedom for centuries.
I don't think she could have acted any other way in starting the rebellion without betraying her cause, but fair enough.
I would say that it was unwise to change the Conclave's topic. Had she not done so, she could have used Lambert's extreme heavy-handedness as proof that he was both abusive to the mages and a loose cannon to the Chantry, and could potentially have struck a major political blow against the templars.
With death still hanging over her head, with Tevinter mages and combatants in their midst to cause havoc among the vulnerable mages and citizens of Redcliffe should the deal be repudiated, before the Inquisition is known as an overwhelming force, with no idea bout Corypheus or Venatori.
While I know Alexius was keeping her person close to assist with his son and I expect the presence of the Venatori to be a silent threat, Fiona could have send someone else to secretly meet with the Inquisition's party and assess whether or not they presented a better alternative than Alexius did and if she thought they did, she could have tried to work out a plan with them to deal with the Venatori.
As far as I remember, she never tried any of that.
If Im a revolutionary fugitive on the run, I wouldn't ****** off Canada after taking me in by throwing out a governor and then letting a bunch of Afghani soldiers move in Quebec. Lol, so why would she do the same to Teagan and his lot, and let in friggin Tevinter? She didn't just side with Tevinter, she made an enemy of Ferelden after they helped her, as well as Southern Thedas. The rest of Thedas may not have been friends to the mages, but they were.Bad for whom? Once again she didn't know that Corypheus existed or that Alexius was anything but a Magister looking for a bunch of magicians that he could use to get the upper hand over the other magisters. Assuming that Alexius's offer was honest, something that would have been not at all impossible or unlikely, then the deal of 10 years of servitude followed by actual freedom would have been a way better deal for her followers than being wiped out by the Templars. It would have even been way better than a future of being confined for life to a Circle under the new rules that were being put in place when they rebelled. She made a wrong call in accepting the deal...obviously but it's obvious because of things that she could not have known at the time
It's beyond silly to compare the two. This issue is far more complicated, as mages come from all over and are a group that goes beyond borders in Thedas. I'm actually all for revolution and revolting, I'm a stormcloak fan through and through in the Elderscrolls. Hell, I'd have supported mages, if they weren't known for screwing up so bad and starting revolts with no real plan other than (I'm tired of this, time to shake things up and get people killed so they'll listen to me), which is pretty much terrorism.
Oh, it almost certainly was terrorism from the perspective of the Templars and Chantry. To the mages, it's freedom fighting.
But it is a good comparison. Would you beat, tar and feather a man for collecting taxes? That was terrorism to the British. It was patriotism to Bostonians in the 1770s.
Oh, I can sympathise with her and her cause but that does not mean I cannot and should not question her methods and the competence of her leadership.
I understood Anders' motivation but that did not mean I was at all onboard with his methods nor how he wanted to accomplish his goal especially giving that his intent was to force mages into a conflict regardless of whether or not they wanted to be a part of it partially because he considered it better to die that way than in the Circles.
Intent does not always excuse action.
Intent does not excuse action, true, but the actions in this case are essentially the last resort after the failure of political change.
That the Divine couldn't simply order reforms is testimony enough to how entrenched views were in the Templars. She's the frelling Divine! She clearly has that authority. What was stopping her was the potential backlash from the fanatics.
A leader making unilateral decisions despite them going against the will of the people whose lives will be affected.
Yes, nothing wrong with that.
Ill-timed or not, the Libertarians saw the only real chance in centuries of breaking the deadlock, all the while the proposed reforms are stalled at the first hurdle. I cannot blame someone for taking that chance.
Ill timed, ill prepared, ill advised and with nefarious intentions all around. I can and will.
And of course, the rebellion failed.
What have we here, a god-damned comedian?
Oh, a badass, I better be careful how I speak around you.
If you couldn't tell, that was sarcasm.
Kennedy spoke about reform and revolution. "He who makes change impossible makes revolution inevitable" applies directly to the Templars here.
Add this to the list of horribly mangled quotes taken out of context that get tossed around on internet debates.
You understand, I hope, that the number of revolutions that were avoided are literally innumerable. Or that revolution is not inherently a positive thing.
The comfort of your imprisonment hardly matters,
Really? So you're telling me that the people in Darktown wouldn't trade their positions with the mages of the White Spire which just so happened to be Emperor Drakon's former palace?
A Circle mage was forbidden to see their family
Not true, actually. For instance, Gamlen visits Bethany and Feynriel's mother tried to visit him but he didn't want to see her.
However, we are talking about a medieval society where mobility was extremely limited. Someone from Denerim can't just travel on weekends to Lake Calenhad to visit a mage relative.
from starting a family of their own, forbidden from interacting with society freely, forbidden from travelling without permits, surveilled every moment of their lives...
True but these restrictions were placed for extremely good reasons. Freedom is not the ultimate, defining characteristic of a good life or the most important goal of living beings.
Our own society has accepted plenty on circunstaces under which the freedoms of citizens can be restricted for an indefinite period of time.
In fact, society itself, the very concept of it, is centered around the restricting the freedoms of people so that we can coexist. From the moment we are born, people see their freedoms restricted by the rule of law due to the simple fact that we are dangerous to each other. Naturally, mages who represent a much greater danger, require greater restrictions. It's only logical.
If someone did those things to you, would you just let it happen?
My lack of willingness for allowing these things to happen to me would only prove that I was dangerous to other Thedosians.
On the other hand, I know I wouldn't want my neighbor to be able to summon demons on a whim.
That the peace lasted so long is evidence of the effectiveness of the indoctrination of the mages.
Right, because a true mage could never possibly disagree with you.
Like Fenris says "As if a smart mage couldn't think of anything but rebellion."
The situation is more complex than "the mages were right" of course, but it's certainly more complex than "the Templars were right" as well.
No arguments there.
I draw the line at killing innocent old ladies personally. Honestly, I laughed the first time it happened because it just seemed soooo uncalled for, and I hate the chantry anyway. But, that along with kicking people out of Redcliffe was not freedom fighting, it was just stupid.Oh, it almost certainly was terrorism from the perspective of the Templars and Chantry. To the mages, it's freedom fighting.
But it is a good comparison. Would you beat, tar and feather a man for collecting taxes? That was terrorism to the British. It was patriotism to Bostonians in the 1770s.
I draw the line at killing innocent old ladies personally. Honestly, I laughed the first time it happened because it just seemed soooo uncalled for, and I hate the chantry anyway. But, that along with kicking people out of Redcliffe was not freedom fighting, it was just stupid.
And the British were idgit a, so, lol. I think we can all agree kicking friends out of their land and nuking churches isn't freedom fighting.
Terrorism is a tactic, freedom fighting is a cause, what you call it depends on your perspective. It was both, to my mind. Soldiers of the most righteous causes have committed atrocities equal to or greater than that over the centuries, on Earth and on Thedas.
Can't really argue the British weren't eejits though.
Retour en haut