110 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamerM]

I know there's an ANCIENT thread already about this but the Maker frowns on necromancy and I don't want to get in trouble with the local Templars.

So here's the question: How the hell was Fiona in Val Royeux? Was she just playing dumb? Pretending to know nothing just because she didn't want anyone else in Redcliffe knowing what she'd done? Was she being mind-controlled? Alexius wants to set a trap for the Inquisitor, but he doesn't need Fiona to do that if the Inqusitor needs mages. A letter would work just as well.

There's the time travel theory, where somehow this is a Fiona from the future going back in time, maybe with help from a repentant Alexius if he's kept alive .... but keep in mind, if you conscript the mages, or pursue the Templars instead, Fiona is still there. And she has a much more casual attitude then the worried ma'am we meet in Redcliffe.

 

So... In some banter with Solas, Dorian talks about how in Tevinter it's common to bind spirits to your will, and says "The things they can be made to do are remarkable." And we know certain spirits can impersonate a human (or elven) appearance.

... Is it possible DORIAN... or Felix ...  sent the vision to the Inquisitor? In an attempt to draw him/her out in time to stop Alexius? 

I remember reading somewhere that Felix was a mage but not a particularly gifted one. There was only one kind of magic he was any good at. What kind of magic was that? Was it visions?...

[Lord of War]

The implication is that Fiona visits the Inquisition for support before Alexius approaches her. Alexius alters time to produce the situation he needs in Redcliffe, though, and so the Fiona that visited the Inquisition was erased.

[Gervaise]

That was indeed Fiona.   The explanation for why she subsequently doesn't remember the encounter is supposedly time magic but if you think about it too much it makes your head hurt.   Time wasn't altered everywhere, just in Redcliffe.    So Fiona travelled to Val Royeaux, invited you to Redcliffe and returned to the castle.   Alexius turns back time in Redcliffe, making it so he arrived only a couple of days after the explosion, convinces Fiona that an army of Templars is raging towards her forces and he is her only hope.   So in Redcliffe Fiona never travels to Val Royeaux but elsewhere she did.   Confused?  

 

Even more odd is the fact that when you remind her of this, she acts as though her memory is being repressed (through blood magic manipulation perhaps) rather  than it doesn't exist at all.   The mage alongside her looks pretty vacant as well.    So you would be forgiven for thinking that the whole time magic thing was a red herring and Alexius is really manipulating her mind, except of course Dorian and Felix seem convinced that the time travel thing is genuine.  Then blow me, if you do Hushed Whispers, it turns out that Alexius really can manipulate time, with nothing more than an amulet.   Dorian can do it too. (Interestingly enough the amulet is never mentioned again - may be the effort of returning us to the present destroyed it but it would have been nice to be assured of that fact). 

 

So there you have it.  That was the real Fiona in Val Royeaux.   Impossible but that is the explanation given for the oddities when you reach Redcliffe.

[PapaCharlie9]

Gotta be one of the writing team's biggest regrets. Totally fails as exposition about time travel and just confuses everyone.

Particularly when there is also lore in the game about how blood magic can be used to control a person and erase their memory of what they did! That's the conclusion I jumped to the first time around, not time travel.

Therein lies the heart of one of blood magic's most potent and dangerous abilities: to influence, and even take control of, the actions of other beings.

[thats1evildude]

Imagine a bubble around Redcliffe. Outside of the bubble, events proceeded as they should; the Herald went to Val Royeaux and met with Fiona. Inside the bubble, the Venatori arrived within the first days after the Breach and convinced the mages to ally with them.

[LobselVith8]

The implication is that Fiona visits the Inquisition for support before Alexius approaches her. Alexius alters time to produce the situation he needs in Redcliffe, though, and so the Fiona that visited the Inquisition was erased.

 

That would explain her comment about feeling unusual when the Inquisitor mentions meeting her in Orlais, which wouldn't be the case if someone or something was simply impersonating her.

[Gervaise]

The thing is you can't have simply a time bubble in Redcliffe.   If you change time it happens everywhere or you get this sort of paradox.   If time is turned back in Redcliffe then Fiona never travelled to Val Royeaux, you never meet her there and so there is no invite.    The stupid part is that Alexius wants you to go to Redcliffe, so he would want Fiona to invite you.    It would make more sense that he still let her go to Val Royeaux but that he had manipulated her mind into not revealing the alliance with the Venatori.  Then when you turn up and she reveals the arrangement, it is still a surprise to you.   Meanwhile Alexius has messed with her mind again, so she has forgotten she even went.   That would then make sense.   But this is not how it is explained.

 

Of course Solas throws another thought into the mix when you get back, was it a trick of the Fade?   It is interesting that if you say that Dorian thinks the whole time travel thing is genuine, Solas disapproves but if you say you are pretty sure you could tell the difference, he is okay with it.    Still the idea that someone could have messed with your mind to make you think you had travelled in time is clearly a possibility or Solas wouldn't have asked.

 

To be honest I wish they had simply made it the result of blood magic mind manipulation because that would have been consistent with what we know about Tevinter and Dorian helping you to escape it would also be consistent with his stand against it.    It would also have mirrored the plot on the Templar path where you are fighting  possession with the aid of Cole.     Time magic on its own as an explanation really messed with the lore of the setting and stretched credibility of the plot beyond breaking point.

[thats1evildude]

The thing is you can't have simply a time bubble in Redcliffe.   If you change time it happens everywhere or you get this sort of paradox.   If time is turned back in Redcliffe then Fiona never travelled to Val Royeaux, you never meet her there and so there is no invite.

 

If the bubble was created AFTER Fiona returned from Val Royeaux, then the meeting between her and the Inquisitor could still have occured. In fact, Alexius probably waited for that to occur.

 

But yes, this is a paradox. It's only made possible by the giant tear in the Veil that is collapsing reality.

[Gervaise]

The bubble was created after she returned from Val Royeaux but the fact is you can't change time in that way.    The moment he took them back in time, history is reset.  It is why the whole plot is so ridiculous.    It is not just a case of shifting things a few minutes, which is what Dorian is claiming is going on in the Chantry.   He has taken it back weeks.    So if they are in a time bubble then they are out of sync with the rest of the world.   Sorry but it is daft plot that doesn't make sense on any level, other than doing as the Inquisitor objects to Dorian.  "It's time magic, go for it."

[thats1evildude]

The bubble was created after she returned from Val Royeaux but the fact is you can't change time in that way.

 

You can't? Forgive me, your understanding of time magic is obviously greater than mine.

[Lulupab]

It seems the time magic used by Alexius is location based, it distorts time in a location without affected other locations. The time in Redcliff was changed but no one in Haven was affected by that. It just makes it more confusing in the end, though it makes sense.

[DreamerM]

The producer of "Back to the Future" said the secret to a good time machine story is to remember that time travel is always the problem, never the solution.

 

Seriously, if Alexius has TIME TRAVEL... and he uses it to get to a place before someone else does? Go back to the First Blight and stop Tevinter from falling in the first place! Go kill baby Andraste in her crib. Go into the future where someone has invented a cure for Blight sickness and bring it back with you. Go to the day your family was attacked and stop it from happening!

Seriously. A time machine is wasted on this guy. Bad show, Alexius. Bad show.

[thats1evildude]

 

Seriously, if Alexius has TIME TRAVEL... and he uses it to get to a place before someone else does? Go back to the First Blight and stop Tevinter from falling in the first place! Go kill baby Andraste in her crib. Go into the future where someone has invented a cure for Blight sickness and bring it back with you. Go to the day your family was attacked and stop it from happening!

 

He can't travel to before the creation of the Breach.

 

This appears to be Alexius' journal. This is the final entry:

 

Nothing works. I have tried countless times to go back before the Conclave explosion, before Felix's caravan was attacked by darkspawn, before the Venatori first arrived in Minrathous - without success. The Breach is the wellspring that makes this magic possible, and travel outside of its timeline is impossible. The Elder One's demand that I change the events of the Conclave can never be fulfilled. He may kill me for failing him, but I must protect Felix from his wrath.

 

http://dragonage.wik...lexius'_Journal

 

As for a "future cure" for the darkspawn taint, you have to remember that an unsealed Breach will eventually destroy the world. The remnants of civilization struggling to survive in a demon-ravaged wasteland are unlikely to come up with a cure on their own.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The thing is you can't have simply a time bubble in Redcliffe.   If you change time it happens everywhere or you get this sort of paradox.   If time is turned back in Redcliffe then Fiona never travelled to Val Royeaux, you never meet her there and so there is no invite.    The stupid part is that Alexius wants you to go to Redcliffe, so he would want Fiona to invite you.    It would make more sense that he still let her go to Val Royeaux but that he had manipulated her mind into not revealing the alliance with the Venatori.  Then when you turn up and she reveals the arrangement, it is still a surprise to you.   Meanwhile Alexius has messed with her mind again, so she has forgotten she even went.   That would then make sense.   But this is not how it is explained.

 

Of course Solas throws another thought into the mix when you get back, was it a trick of the Fade?   It is interesting that if you say that Dorian thinks the whole time travel thing is genuine, Solas disapproves but if you say you are pretty sure you could tell the difference, he is okay with it.    Still the idea that someone could have messed with your mind to make you think you had travelled in time is clearly a possibility or Solas wouldn't have asked.

 

To be honest I wish they had simply made it the result of blood magic mind manipulation because that would have been consistent with what we know about Tevinter and Dorian helping you to escape it would also be consistent with his stand against it.    It would also have mirrored the plot on the Templar path where you are fighting  possession with the aid of Cole.     Time magic on its own as an explanation really messed with the lore of the setting and stretched credibility of the plot beyond breaking point.

 

The bubble was created after she returned from Val Royeaux but the fact is you can't change time in that way.    The moment he took them back in time, history is reset.  It is why the whole plot is so ridiculous.    It is not just a case of shifting things a few minutes, which is what Dorian is claiming is going on in the Chantry.   He has taken it back weeks.    So if they are in a time bubble then they are out of sync with the rest of the world.   Sorry but it is daft plot that doesn't make sense on any level, other than doing as the Inquisitor objects to Dorian.  "It's time magic, go for it."

 

Exactly. I really genuinely do not understand how the writers could possibly have written something so stupidly nonsensical as that time travel explanation for Fiona's Redcliffe amnesia.

[Vit246]

Exactly. I really genuinely do not understand how the writers could possibly have written something so stupidly nonsensical as that time travel explanation for Fiona's Redcliffe amnesia.

 

In order to make Fiona do the things she does in DAI, they had to warp the fabric of reality itself. Think about it.

 

And you may want to watch one of Smudboy's DAI analysis videos on the time travel.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

If Alexius ensured Fiona never went to Val Royeaux, the Inquisitor never met her. So the scene should have never happened. That's how causality works. If Alexius's time travel doesn't undo the Inquisitor meeting Fiona, then why does the Inquisitor traveling back in time to defeat Alexius undo the Dark Future?

[nightscrawl]

There are some really good replies in this thread, more so than I've seen in the past on this issue.

 

Of course Solas throws another thought into the mix when you get back, was it a trick of the Fade?   It is interesting that if you say that Dorian thinks the whole time travel thing is genuine, Solas disapproves but if you say you are pretty sure you could tell the difference, he is okay with it.    Still the idea that someone could have messed with your mind to make you think you had travelled in time is clearly a possibility or Solas wouldn't have asked.

 
I think in this case he's just irritated that you're going on the word of someone else, which is why he likes it if you say you could tell on your own as it's showing your critical thinking skills. Or you could just be blowing smoke up his arse. How is he to know, really?

 

But you know, Dorian comes across as so trustworthy and genuine during the whole thing that it's difficult not to just go along with what he says. Also, the response where you state that you would know the difference seems more appropriate for a mage than a non-mage, but I believe it is available to everyone.

[Zero]

If Alexius ensured Fiona never went to Val Royeaux, the Inquisitor never met her. So the scene should have never happened. That's how causality works. If Alexius's time travel doesn't undo the Inquisitor meeting Fiona, then why does the Inquisitor traveling back in time to defeat Alexius undo the Dark Future?

 

I've always asking me that. We can say that is the effect of the time bubble in Redcliffe, but doing that would create more problems that it solves, like the possibility of creating two Fionas in the same timeline (the one who went to Val Royaux and the other who not), or invalidating the changes done by the Time Magic when you leave the bubble. 

 

That's the epitome of bad writing in DA:I. Really, they wasted the concept of Time Magic in this game. 

[Lazarillo]

I feel like this is neither as confusing or paradoxical as people are making it sound (that comes later, when you go to the future).
Think of it similar to a decisions-based cutscene you can cancel out of. You make a "bad" decision, cancel out, and replay the scene to make a better choice. Obviously, the characters in the cutscene act like nothing ever happened, even though from the perspective of you, the player, it did. The difference is that Alexius' magic lets him as a character gain the perspective of a player, so to speak. Of course, since you already know what's going to happen in that cutscene, you also fast forward the non-decision bits, so in the end, you don't really spend any extra time on it compared to just sitting through it.

You could also visualize it in steps if that makes it easier (days might not be exactly right, they're just used to help visualization):

---Everyone---
Day 1: Breach Happens
Day 4: Mages lock themselves in Redcliffe and prepare for a siege

---Outside Redcliffe---
Day 6: Fiona leaves Redcliffe to meet with the Inquisitor. She is now outside Redcliffe.
Day 15: Fiona meets with the Herald
Day 23: Fiona returns to Redcliffe
Day 24: Fiona is inside Redcliffe

---Inside Redcliffe---
Day 6: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 15: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 23: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 24: Fiona is back inside Redcliffe, awaiting the Herald

---Everyone---
Day 26: Alexius rewinds time to Day 4, but the magic has limited range, so it only affects events "Iinside Redcliffe". "Inside Redcliffe" gets a new timeline, but the outside timeline does not change.

---Inside Redcliffe (moving in "fast forward" to sync back up with the Outside timeline)---
Day 5: Alexius arrives and convinces the Mages he can help
Day 7: Fiona decides to stay inside Redcliffe, and does not leave
Day 15: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, the Mages are serving the Magister
Day 23: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, the Mages are serving the Magister
Day 24: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, serving the Magister
Day 26: Redcliffe is now back to the same point in time it was before.

---Everyone---
Day 27: The Inquisitor arrives and finds a time-altering Rift at the city gate.

From the "outside" perspective, Fiona is still walking out the city gates on Day 6 and walking back in on Day 23. The Rift appears on Day 26. But "inside" was rewound, and the fast-forwarded along its new "history"

[ArcadiaGrey]

I feel like this is neither as confusing or paradoxical as people are making it sound (that comes later, when you go to the future).
Think of it similar to a decisions-based cutscene you can cancel out of. You make a "bad" decision, cancel out, and replay the scene to make a better choice. Obviously, the characters in the cutscene act like nothing ever happened, even though from the perspective of you, the player, it did. The difference is that Alexius' magic lets him as a character gain the perspective of a player, so to speak. Of course, since you already know what's going to happen in that cutscene, you also fast forward the non-decision bits, so in the end, you don't really spend any extra time on it compared to just sitting through it.

You could also visualize it in steps if that makes it easier (days might not be exactly right, they're just used to help visualization):

---Everyone---
Day 1: Breach Happens
Day 4: Mages lock themselves in Redcliffe and prepare for a siege

---Outside Redcliffe---
Day 6: Fiona leaves Redcliffe to meet with the Inquisitor. She is now outside Redcliffe.
Day 15: Fiona meets with the Herald
Day 23: Fiona returns to Redcliffe
Day 24: Fiona is inside Redcliffe

---Inside Redcliffe---
Day 6: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 15: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 23: Fiona is outside Redcliffe, while the Mages await her return.
Day 24: Fiona is back inside Redcliffe, awaiting the Herald

---Everyone---
Day 26: Alexius rewinds time to Day 4, but the magic has limited range, so it only affects events "Iinside Redcliffe". "Inside Redcliffe" gets a new timeline, but the outside timeline does not change.

---Inside Redcliffe (moving in "fast forward" to sync back up with the Outside timeline)---
Day 5: Alexius arrives and convinces the Mages he can help
Day 7: Fiona decides to stay inside Redcliffe, and does not leave
Day 15: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, the Mages are serving the Magister
Day 23: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, the Mages are serving the Magister
Day 24: Fiona is still inside Redcliffe, serving the Magister
Day 26: Redcliffe is now back to the same point in time it was before.

---Everyone---
Day 27: The Inquisitor arrives and finds a time-altering Rift at the city gate.

From the "outside" perspective, Fiona is still walking out the city gates on Day 6 and walking back in on Day 23. The Rift appears on Day 26. But "inside" was rewound, and the fast-forwarded along its new "history"

 

Wow, thanks for that.  I can actually get my head round it.

[Gervaise]

Good explanation but a couple of questions:

Why then do they have Fiona rubbing her head as though she has some sort of vague memory of the events of the old time line?    If he reset it inside Redcliffe, then Fiona is entirely in the new timeline with no memory of the old.  

 

How come when he sends us forward in time, we don't end up in the throne room?    Did he send those guards through with us?    Why is the dungeon locked when they should have been no one in there until we arrived?   If Alexius has been repeatedly resetting time since we were projected forward, how is it possible to get any sort of fix on a point in the past to which we can return?  (Okay that's more than two questions but they are all on the same topic of the future time)

[Lazarillo]

Good explanation but a couple of questions:
Why then do they have Fiona rubbing her head as though she has some sort of vague memory of the events of the old time line?    If he reset it inside Redcliffe, then Fiona is entirely in the new timeline with no memory of the old.

Alexius doesn't exactly "reset" as much as "rewind". So there was a point for Fiona where she went to leave Redcliffe, and where she came back from talking to the Herald, so from her perspective, everything still happened, but it also "un-happened".
 

How come when he sends us forward in time, we don't end up in the throne room?    Did he send those guards through with us?    Why is the dungeon locked when they should have been no one in there until we arrived?   If Alexius has been repeatedly resetting time since we were projected forward, how is it possible to get any sort of fix on a point in the past to which we can return?  (Okay that's more than two questions but they are all on the same topic of the future time)

The travel to the future part is, as I noted previously, way more wontzy than the Fiona stuff. Alexius doesn't simply change time's flow like he did before, he actually opens up a hole with the intent of tossing the Herald outside time completely. At that point, the Herald was lucky to get to re-enter the fabric of space and time at all, I suppose. But yeah, I've no particularly satisfying answers for this part.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

But Fiona can't be outside Redcliffe if she never went outside. The cutscene analogy doesn't really work because it means most other characters in the world still experience the cutscene you reloaded. 

[Lazarillo]

But Fiona can't be outside Redcliffe if she never went outside. The cutscene analogy doesn't really work because it means most other characters in the world still experience the cutscene you reloaded.

If the cutscene analogy is hard to follow, then think of it as rewinding a video instead. The key is that she did go outside. That actually happened. And then it un-happened, from the perspective of the people in Redcliffe. The un-happening didn't happen outside of Redcliffe, however.

[Dai Grepher]

My theory is and continues to be that the Fiona we met in Val Royeaux was actually the Envy demon impersonating her. The Lucius we see in Val Royeaux was the real Lucius.

Lucius and Envy then left Val Royeaux together and went to Therinfal.

The real Fiona was always in Redcliffe, and the reason why the Herald's claim sounds somehow familiar to her is because the Envy demon invaded her mind during the confrontation with the templars (likely led by Lucius).

So Fiona was copied, threatened by Lucius and his templars, "saved" by Alexius, and was taken back to Redcliffe while Lucius continued on to Val Royeaux with Envy Fiona. The plan was for Lucius to deter the Herald from seeking the templars, and for Envy Fiona to encourage the Herald to visit Redcliffe and thus fall into Alexius' trap.