2858 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Dalism is fundamentally elven exceptionalism, even supremacism. I think that Sera's disapproval when a Dalish Inquisitor says "an elf will stand for us all" is because that is how she interprets it.

It's about as exceptionalism as the faiths of the humans and the dwarves, yet she only has a problem with the elven option.

Sera has other irons in the fire too, her negative view of Briala is about Briala's being one of those nobles, not about elves.

Briala isn't a noble at that point. I don't see much to dislike about an elf fighting for positive change for the Orlesian elves.

[robertthebard]

It's about as exceptionalism as the faiths of the humans and the dwarves, yet she only has a problem with the elven option.


Briala isn't a noble at that point. I don't see much to dislike about an elf fighting for positive change for the Orlesian elves.

How she goes about it, maybe? She's not on the front lines, she's sending the servants to do her "dirty work", which Sera sees as Punching Down.

Does an Qunari Inquisitor say he/she's going to put the Inquisition under the Qun? That would be the religious option. *oops

What religious option does a dwarf bring? Seriously, I doubt I'll ever play one.

Why would she object to Andrastianism from a human, seeing that she's Andrastian?

[Nathair Nimheil]

Relax. It's ok to laugh at yourself.

I'll... keep that in mind?

[LobselVith8]

How she goes about it, maybe? She's not on the front lines, she's sending the servants to do her "dirty work", which Sera sees as Punching Down.

With her network, and taking action directly, as we see when she physically gets involved in the events unfolding.

What religious option does a dwarf bring? Seriously, I doubt I'll ever play one.

Why would she object to Andrastianism from a human, seeing that she's Andrastian?

I never saw the elven option when becoming Inquisitor as religious, but I think you might have mistook what I said; I was addressing that the faith of each race is geared towards their respective people, which is why the Andrastian faith sees non-humans as farther away from the Maker and prohibits them from becoming priests.

[Nathair Nimheil]

It's about as exceptionalism as the faiths of the humans and the dwarves, yet she only has a problem with the elven option.


Briala isn't a noble at that point. I don't see much to dislike about an elf fighting for positive change for the Orlesian elves.

I get the feeling you're wilfully missing the point here. Sera disapproves of the "And an ELF WILL RULE!" comment from a Dalish Inquisitor because she interprets that as an expression of Dalish supremacism which, we already know, she particularly loathes. There is no real parallel here with a Cadashian surface dwarf or Vashoth Qunari. She likes the dwarven/qunari assertion because it stamps rather directly on both human hegemony and elven supremacism.

Likewise, quibbling about Briala's current status as nobility is completely missing the point. Briala has a history of abusing power in exactly the way that Sera most despises. Why would we expect her to ignore that because Briala is suddenly and conveniently the self-proclaimed champion of the Elves.

The thing is not that you have to agree with Sera. The point is that her actions and opinions in these matters are reasonable and consistent with her principles.

[Karai9]

She, with no metaphor involved, risks her life for this stuff but you still say it costs her nothing. So unless she actually dies for the little guy she's being selfish? That's setting the bar pretty high. What should it cost her, other than her time, energy, commitment and, perhaps, life? Sera doesn't appear to have anything in the material sense. "Sera was never quite the wealthiest girl - Some say she lives in a tavern."
 
No, she doesn't have to but she does anyway. This is one of the things we know about Sera.
 
Let me get this straight... you are saying that what Sera really likes is shooting people with arrows and that if someone is helped that's a happy little bonus? You realize that that directly contradicts what we, the players, are told about Sera, right? We know exactly what she approves of, we know exactly what she doesn't approve of. We know, as well, that she is not some sort of sociopath filling people full of arrows more or less at random just because it gives her a giggle.

I'm considering this in the setting of DAI, where it was written, and in which if you choose to pick up a weapon, or even if you don't, you risk your life every single day. For me, the loss of ones life doesn't even come into consideration when I say she is risking nothing, because that is simply every day life. 

 

You're saying that she absolutely hates filling people full of arrows? I can assure you that that sentiment is entirely incorrect as she does show joy when the 'bad people' die by her hand. I never said she was a sociopath, that is your word of choice.

 

Since you seem to be forgetting, or you've just chosen to ignore what I said, I'll say it one more time: Sera's goals are admirable, but untimely self-fulfilling. Sera 'helps' the little people because she feels that it is right, but also because it makes her feel good, makes her feel empowered. Self-fulfillment is inherently selfish. Every living being is naturally self-fulfilling and therefore, in someway selfish.

[robertthebard]

With her network, and taking action directly, as we see when she physically gets involved in the events unfolding.


I never saw the elven option when becoming Inquisitor as religious, but I think you might have mistook what I said; I was addressing that the faith of each race is geared towards their respective people, which is why the Andrastian faith sees non-humans as farther away from the Maker and prohibits them from becoming priests.

It's not religious, it's proclaiming your elfyness, as I explained earlier. One of the things that she totally doesn't support, elven elitism. She's not even thrilled to be identified as an elf, as can be demonstrated by her disapproval to "It's nice to talk to another elf" in Haven, right after you recruit her. She sees it as you trying to start some exclusive club, and she doesn't play that.

[Nathair Nimheil]

I'm considering this in the setting of DAI, where it was written, and in which if you choose to pick up a weapon, or even if you don't, you risk your life every single day. For me, the loss of ones life doesn't even come into consideration when I say she is risking nothing, because that is simply every day life.

Let me understand you here. Sera, the full time vigilante avenger who volunteers to join the Inquisition and take on The Breach and eventually The Elder One is not taking any more risk than all those unarmed peasants and farmers she is working to protect and avenge? Seriously? That's like saying fire fighters don't take any special risks 'cause anybody's house could catch fire; soldiers take any risks 'cause lots of people have guns.
 

You're saying that she absolutely hates filling people full of arrows?

Nope.
 

she does show joy when the 'bad people' die by her hand.

But the key to all of that is "bad people". Sera's definition of "bad person" means that the welfare of the proles is what makes the "bad people" "bad". It's not a happy coincidence it is the sine qua non of Sera's arrows.
 

Every living being is naturally self-fulfilling and therefore, in someway selfish.

If that is your standard ridiculous standard for "selfishness" then why in the name of the Elder Gods did you point it out in Sera as if it were in some way objectionable?

[Karai9]

Let me understand you here. Sera, the full time vigilante avenger who volunteers to join the Inquisition and take on The Breach and eventually The Elder One is not taking any more risk than all those unarmed peasants and farmers she is working to protect and avenge? Seriously? That's like saying fire fighters don't take any special risks 'cause anybody's house could catch fire; soldiers take any risks 'cause lots of people have guns.
 
Nope.
 
But the key to all of that is "bad people". Sera's definition of "bad person" means that the welfare of the proles is what makes the "bad people" "bad". It's not a happy coincidence it is the sine qua non of Sera's arrows.
 
If that is your standard ridiculous standard for "selfishness" then why in the name of the Elder Gods did you point it out in Sera as if it were in some way objectionable?

I never said she wasn't taking more risk. I said she chose to pick up a weapon, therefore endangering her life.

I never said her killing the bad people was a happy coincidence, I said her own desire to kill the bad people coincides with helping people.

I felt the need to point out selfishness in Sera because you seem inclined to advocate that Sera is a saint, which she is not.

 

Maybe if you stopped twisting every-one-who-disagrees-with-you's words, their opinions wouldn't seem so ridiculous to you. But silly me, I forgot this is the BSN.

[XvAegisFangvX]

Long time lurker here, I thought I would put my opinion into this.

 

I find Sera vulgar, rude, selfish and childish. Vulgar and rude are self explanatory if you've talked to her or had party banter with her so i'll jump right to the selfish aspect of her character. The main reason, as Sera herself states when you first talk to her in Haven, for why she has volunteered her 'services' is so the world can go back to being normal so she can play again. There is no greater justice for the people mentioned in her statement, it is just simply 'I want my playground back because it's not fun anymore'. 

 

The childish aspect is shown when she says that the templars and mages need to be 'sat down' and told to stop fighting. This isn't preschool where two children are calling each other names and pushing. Sera thinks that all the problems can be fixed by sitting people down or poking them full of arrows. In a child's eyes that might be possible but not in the grown up world.

[Nathair Nimheil]

I never said she wasn't taking more risk. 

I'm considering this in the setting of DAI, where it was written, and in which if you choose to pick up a weapon, or even if you don't, you risk your life every single day. For me, the loss of ones life doesn't even come into consideration when I say she is risking nothing, because that is simply every day life.

You did.
 

I said she chose to pick up a weapon, therefore endangering her life.

Yes she did. She chose to endanger her life to help people. I'm glad we're on the same page... in some of your sentences.
 

I never said her killing the bad people was a happy coincidence, I said her own desire to kill the bad people coincides with helping people.

Right. You didn't say "happy coincidence", you said "a bonus". To be exact what you said was "All she has to do is fill the offending party full of arrows, which makes her incredibly happy in her own personal desires, and it seems that it's a bonus that it helped someone out." But "helping someone out" is the reason why she (in her Red Jenny hat) is filling the offending party full of arrows. They didn't commit this offence against her, but against some "faceless" prole. It's not "a bonus", it's the entire motivation for, as you say, endangering her life.
 

I felt the need to point out selfishness in Sera because you seem inclined to advocate that Sera is a saint

By your standards even "saints" are selfish. So maybe Sera is one after all?
 

Maybe if you stopped twisting every-one-who-disagrees-with-you's words

If I have misrepresented your words, please point out to me where and how I did that an I will gladly offer a retraction and apology. If, on the other hand, I have used your own words to show your position in an unflattering or self-contradictory light, then maybe you should be the one considering a retraction.

[Hazegurl]

Which brings us right back to the crux. You still think Sera is wrong. She still thinks you are wrong. Your phrase "open to understanding" makes this quite clear. You want Sera to "understand" that you are right, end of story.

 

Wrong. She doesn't have to understand me and I don't think she is entirely wrong. Her problem is her need to wallow in ignorance and her desire to have company along for the ride. I prefer to question what is going on, and I like people who do the same, which is why I like Dorian.  Dorian's love for his country does not change no matter what the Inquisitor or his companions think. But he does question certain issues in his country that he never did before i.e slavery.  When he received new information, he processed it, and tried to figure out how it could help his people.

 

Sera was the one trying to change my mind.  She was the one begging, not me.  I stuck to my opinion that I think there could be some truth in it and left it at that. If she wants to giggle about elves shytting in the woods then she can do that on her own time.
 

That's tripe. Demonstrably untrue. We know Sera's feelings on these issues. We know that she genuinely does care about justice for the downtrodden common folk. We know that she is considerate of the feelings of other people in her actions (even if her standards in this regard don't exactly match yours.) These are things we, the player, are explicitly told about Sera, the character. They cannot be wished away to fit your own preferred narrative.

 

I disagree, You saw a fighter for justice. I saw a scared and angry girl lashing out at things she hates and/or fears (Nobles, elves[mostly Dalish], and mages). Joining the Red Jennies is a ruse, just an excuse to torture nobles more than aid commonfolk. Perhaps she has convinced herself otherwise.  She claims she cares for the little people yet lashes out at the Dalish, and why? Is it really because she just wants people to be people or is it all about her past mental abuse and inferiority complex?   She wants equality through assimilation, but it seems that should only apply to the Dalish. And why? Because they look like her. And if they remain "different" than it reflect on her being "different" that's not caring about people, that's not being considerate. It's being selfish and only thinking about how others reflect on her.

[robertthebard]

Long time lurker here, I thought I would put my opinion into this.
 
I find Sera vulgar, rude, selfish and childish. Vulgar and rude are self explanatory if you've talked to her or had party banter with her so i'll jump right to the selfish aspect of her character. The main reason, as Sera herself states when you first talk to her in Haven, for why she has volunteered her 'services' is so the world can go back to being normal so she can play again. There is no greater justice for the people mentioned in her statement, it is just simply 'I want my playground back because it's not fun anymore'. 
 
The childish aspect is shown when she says that the templars and mages need to be 'sat down' and told to stop fighting. This isn't preschool where two children are calling each other names and pushing. Sera thinks that all the problems can be fixed by sitting people down or poking them full of arrows. In a child's eyes that might be possible but not in the grown up world.

...and yet, the Divine tried to do just that, sit everyone down to talk about it, twice.

[Nathair Nimheil]

The main reason, as Sera herself states when you first talk to her in Haven, for why she has volunteered her 'services' is so the world can go back to being normal so she can play again. There is no greater justice for the people mentioned in her statement, it is just simply 'I want my playground back because it's not fun anymore'.

That is true but Sera is both glib and, in technical terms, an unreliable narrator of her own motivations. We know this because, as I have mentioned earlier, we can literally read her mind in the form of the companion approval messages in the game and BW/writer supplied analysis out of the game.
 

The childish aspect is shown when she says that the templars and mages need to be 'sat down' and told to stop fighting.
This isn't preschool where two children are calling each other names and pushing.

Actually Sera is saying that the templars and mages are behaving like children. She's explicit in that. "That's the point right? [The breach]is weird and right there and they still want to punch each other. They're too busy to look up to where the real questions are." That is not a childish interpretation that is an appraisal of childishness.

Sera thinks that all the problems can be fixed by sitting people down or poking them full of arrows. In a child's eyes that might be possible but not in the grown up world.

And yet here we are doing exactly that. Fill some full of arrows, sit some down, fix the problem. You'll notice that Sera with her "child's method of fixing problems" decided to come to the Inquisition as the proper solution: "First things first, right? I help you - march, march, arrow, kick - then people stop being stupid" That's not intended to be literal, it's a pretty good sketch of the Inquisition.

[Karai9]

*snip*

[Nathair Nimheil]

I don't think she is entirely wrong. Her problem is her need to wallow in ignorance

How is she doing that? She listens, then she rejects the reliability of the evidence and explains why. How is that "wallowing in ignorance"? And how can she be "wallowing in ignorance" and yet not entirely wrong? Is she not-quite-entirely wallowing in ignorance but also kinda sorta wallowing in being right at the same time?
 

Joining the Red Jennies is a ruse, just an excuse to torture nobles more than aid commonfolk.

No. Some things are not open to question. We, the player, know that Sera wants to aid the proles because we, not the Inquisitor but the player, get to read her mind on these issues.
 

She claims she cares for the little people yet lashes out at the Dalish, and why? Is it really because she just wants people to be people

Yes. She is explicit in disdaining Dalism and in providing her exact reasons for it. Bioware has also been kind enough to provide canonical support for her reasons. If your "reading between the lines" contradicts both in and out of game information then you are misreading between the lines.

[XvAegisFangvX]

That is true but Sera is both glib and, in technical terms, an unreliable narrator of her own motivations. We know this because, as I have mentioned earlier, we can literally read her mind in the form of the companion approval messages in the game and BW/writer supplied analysis out of the game.
 
Actually Sera is saying that the templars and mages are behaving like children. She's explicit in that. "That's the point right? [The breach]is weird and right there and they still want to punch each other. They're too busy to look up to where the real questions are." That is not a childish interpretation that is an appraisal of childishness.
And yet here we are doing exactly that. Fill some full of arrows, sit some down, fix the problem. You'll notice that Sera with her "child's method of fixing problems" decided to come to the Inquisition as the proper solution: "First things first, right? I help you - march, march, arrow, kick - then people stop being stupid" That's not intended to be literal, it's a pretty good sketch of the Inquisition.

I stated at the beginning that this is my opinion. I read these forums to enjoy some friendly banter, I have read many of your replies to others on this topic specifically and I am not going to open a can of worms for you to take my words and twist them to fit what you want to "prove" is right. I stated my opinion of her and her ways and gave proof to those accusations. I am not looking to start a fight, unlike some in this topic. Get right down to the grain of it, it is just a video game and by the way you attack people for their opinions, you would think Sera was your sister or lover. I think it is fun to debate but when people start giving blood and a heartbeat to a fictional character that's when things get silly and out of hand. 

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I have no problem with Sera being anti supremacy, I do have a problem when she gets mad at the Inquisitor for making the hard choices to gain allies, even if that means favoring nobles - is she so stupid that she thinks commoners will win the fight w/o the support (and money) Nobility brings? You can't even explain it to her. She just assumes you're an asrse if you try to win over the nobles, then dumps you for thinking history might be important. Hello rule one, forget history and you are doomed to repeat it.

[WildOrchid]

I think it is fun to debate but when people start giving blood and a heartbeat to a fictional character that's when things get silly and out of hand. 

 

Indeed... i mean have you seen posters here wanting so passionately to kill a character.

[hairlessOrphan]

Indeed... i mean have you seen posters here wanting so passionately to kill a character.

 

Hey, I didn't want to kill her, I wanted to raise her. Like I would any delinquent child.

[Heimdall]

I have no problem with Sera being anti supremacy, I do have a problem when she gets mad at the Inquisitor for making the hard choices to gain allies, even if that means favoring nobles - is she so stupid that she thinks commoners will win the fight w/o the support (and money) Nobility brings? You can't even explain it to her. She just assumes you're an asrse if you try to win over the nobles, then dumps you for thinking history might be important. Hello rule one, forget history and you are doomed to repeat it.

Sera fundamentally disapproves of living in the past.  Its one of the many things she dislikes about the Dalish.  They spend all their time going on about how great the elves used to be to the point of elven elitism, what has it gotten them?  Seven centuries of wandering in the woods?

 

As to the nobles, without the specific circumstance I can't say much about this, but Sera hates specific nobles for abuse, not nobles in general

[Nathair Nimheil]

I stated at the beginning that this is my opinion. I read these forums to enjoy some friendly banter

The thing about opinions is that, by definition, they are uncertain and open to analysis and discussion. Personally I read these forums to enjoy some friendly discussion about the posted opinions. Nice how that comes together, innit*?
 

you to take my words and twist them to fit what you want to "prove" is right.

Is that an accusation or just an inflammatory hypothetical aside? If you think I've misrepresented your words, please say so.
 

I stated my opinion of her and her ways and gave proof to those accusations.

Yeah, see, that's the problem. An opinion is not the same thing as a fact. What you did was give your opinion and then offer some of the reasons that you hold that opinion. That's not the same thing as giving proof.

If you don't want to get into a discussion of the significance or validity of the support you offer for your opinion, other interpretations, contrary opinions and their supporting elements or any of the rest of it then... don't. Just ignore those of us who are more interested in literary and character analysis.
 

when people start giving blood and a heartbeat to a fictional character that's...

...for your thesis defence.



*</sera>

[Nathair Nimheil]

I do have a problem when she gets mad at the Inquisitor for making the hard choices to gain allies, even if that means favoring nobles - is she so stupid that she thinks commoners will win the fight w/o the support (and money) Nobility brings?

Do you have specific incidents in mind? (Video?) There are so many paths through the dialogue trees that I'm sure even thousands of posts into the thread we've only seen a fragment of the Sera interactions.

[XvAegisFangvX]

The thing about opinions is that, by definition, they are uncertain and open to analysis and discussion. Personally I read these forums to enjoy some friendly discussion about the posted opinions. Nice how that comes together, innit*?
 

Is that an accusation or just an inflammatory hypothetical aside? If you think I've misrepresented your words, please say so.
 

Yeah, see, that's the problem. An opinion is not the same thing as a fact. What you did was give your opinion and then offer some of the reasons that you hold that opinion. That's not the same thing as giving proof.

If you don't want to get into a discussion of the significance or validity of the support you offer for your opinion, other interpretations, contrary opinions and their supporting elements or any of the rest of it then... don't. Just ignore those of us who are more interested in literary and character analysis.
 

...for your thesis defence.



*</sera>

You are not interested in literary and character analysis. All you are doing is trying to prove that your opinion is the only one that matters. If you had the comprehension to actually read what I said you would've comprehended that I said I have read many of your replies to others on this topic specifically and I am not going to open a can of worms for you to take my words and twist them to fit what you want to "prove" is right. I never said you were twisting anything I said but thank you for providing me with an example of you *snip* *snip* only certain text from people's opinions and twisting them to benefit you. Opinions are like butt holes everyone's got one, if you would just accept that instead of lashing out so immaturely with your reply to me than maybe you wouldn't have to twist other's opinions. 

[Nathair Nimheil]

You are not interested in literary and character analysis.

Well hell, all that college time wasted! Where were you when I was young and needed someone to tell me what I was and wasn't interested in? Thanks friend!
 

I never said you were twisting anything I said but thank you for providing me with an example of you *snip* *snip* only certain text from people's opinions and twisting them to benefit you.

No but you were kind of ambiguous so I asked for clarification. If that's what you think constitutes "twisting people's opinions" then I can see why you have your knickers in such a tight twist here.
 

Opinions are like butt holes everyone's got one, if you would just accept that instead of lashing out so immaturely with your reply to me than maybe you wouldn't have to twist other's opinions.

Yeah, I am totally the one that's immaturely lashing out here.