She's probably my favourite companion, after Verric. But I see lots of people hating on her. Whats the deal?
My biggest complaint was that I couldn't romance her unless I was a lesbian. Still a funny and mechanically sound companion though.
Shes fudging annoying and acts like a total child. That's why so many people hate her.... I included.
@Kefka112
In the words of Skyrim's Paarthurnax:
"What is better? To be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"
I sympathize more with the world-weary veteran who has done some nasty crap in the past and most importantly, one who is trying to overcome their flaws through great effort.
If you give me a choice between a brutally horrible person who does pretty much unspeakable acts and then does all this positive stuff afterwards, and someone who is unrepentantly annoying, I'll pick annoying every time. Blackwall is totally and utterly beyond salvation to me. I could have him in the party, make him be useful and helpful, be nice to him even, fine, but substantively, he is a husk who's value in that sense is literally zero.
I may just have a special animus towards the "do a bunch of a horrible things but hey I'm good." It seems to take advantage of psychological phenomenon such as the recency effect and all that. I mean, if Blackwall did all these good deeds (never slaughtered a family) and then he finally does slaughter a family but much later when he's in your party, I seriously doubt anyone would have sympathy for him, and yet why should the order matter?
@Kefka
Im very fond of Cassandra. I detest magic eight ball head elf.
Well ok, Cassandra is someone I see as having some, oh, don't want to use the E word, but ability to understand people, while also being sort of refined. Sera is just that minus the refined part, but adding a good amount of the understanding people part. So... I don't think her character is someone people haven't already experienced, but it seems to me the purely naked expression that seems to be a turn off people. The root of understanding people is kind of in "Screw this! I don't care about this!" But Sera just spitballs where Cassandra might find a less sledgehammer way of getting that across... I don't really care that much, I guess.
Wait, are people saying that Blackwall doesn't get a lot of hate? Because, he does.
I may just have a special animus towards the "do a bunch of a horrible things but hey I'm good." It seems to take advantage of psychological phenomenon such as the recency effect and all that. I mean, if Blackwall did all these good deeds (never slaughtered a family) and then he finally does slaughter a family but much later when he's in your party, I seriously doubt anyone would have sympathy for him, and yet why should the order matter?
The order does matter, at least in fictional entertainment. A good person or rather, a character presented in the story from the beginning as a good person but grows progressively worse and more horrible (like Loghain) comes off as very repugnant. A bad person that grows progressively better by developing stronger morals and integrity comes off as very likeable and endearing. Its the anti-hero archetype. Lots of people find the bitter, world-weary anti-hero types to be more popular and endearing compared to "heroes" who have never done any wrong and are bit too idealistic with a hint of naivety.
And your exaggerating Thom Rainier's crime. He did not kill a family without a purpose, he did so for money. He did not know the nobleman he was hired to kill was accompanied by his family. He also did not personally kill the nobleman and his family, he ordered his men to do it. Rainier wasn't even present at the scene of the massacre. If anything, his men are more of monsters than him because they could have stopped themselves from killing any further after finishing off the nobleman. Rainier's sin wasn't the direct murder of the family, his sin was ordering it and then letting his men take the fall while he ran away like a coward. Yeah, this does not make Rainier/Blackwall any better but I do wish that you do not exaggerate the nature of the events of his past just to strengthen your argument.
Wait, are people saying that Blackwall doesn't get a lot of hate? Because, he does.
I'm well aware that he's a base breaker in the fanbase. I do like to point out that even in-game, he is hated by quite a lot of people in Skyhold, at least based on his explanations (I would have preferred a cutscene showing the Skyhold people refusing to sit near him or soldiers refusing to train under him). He's lost his friendship with Cassandra, Cullen hates him but at least respects him, mocked by Vivienne and while still friends with Iron Bull, one banter (if the Chargers were sacrificed) has Blackwall calling Bull out for leaving the Chargers for dead only for Bull to point out how its different from "Rainier's" situation; Bull did not abandon the Chargers as he stayed and watch in horror at their demise, and Bull honoured their memory by giving them a funeral. Blackwall merely ending the banter with saying that he would never listen to Bull if he ordered Blackwall to hold down a hill.
Really though, I think its obvious that Blackwall was meant to have his fair share of haters, in-game and in real life just to drive home the theme that the path of redemption is an excruciatingly difficult path but in all honesty, if he was instantly redeemed and still liked by everyone, I would have definitely hated his character. The difference between him and Sera is that while Blackwall will be hated for his actions in the past, Sera will be hated for her attitude and the opinions she holds in the present.
Not a fan of Sera. I had her as a companion one time. I'm in my fifth play through and never recruit her again. She is far too immature and narrow minded for me.
It's ... complicated.
I don't like Sera. Not the way I love Vivienne or adore Solas or positively absolutely cannot live without Dorian/Varric. I find her personality abrasive, her mannerisms disgusting, and her opinions shallow and simple-minded.
But at the same time she's a very heartbreaking character and has some surprisingly perceptive lines that are really important for your PC to hear, esp as an Inquis. There is one line, I think after the Winter Palace, where she tells you that it doesn't necessarily matter who's in charge - changing one person at the top won't change anything for the people who are truly/continuously suffering. She's shortsighted insofar as she has not real plan for change or wish to create a society where her actions become obsolete/unnecessary, but she does help highlight the fact that systemic, bottom-up change is necessary for truly meaningful change to occur in Thedas. Take what she says in partnership with Dorian's perspectives on slavery. I don't agree with Dorian of course (Southern slavery apologism at its best really) but he has a point when it comes to the lifestyle of the people at the bottom of Ferelden/Orlesian society. As long as there are distinctive classes with no genuine mobility between them, the lives of the people at the bottom of society are going to continue the way it is regardless of what kind of "society" it is or who (mages/Chantry/royalty/Free Marcher noble) is in charge.
Sera isn't supposed to be viewed as a Robin Hood/freedom fighter stand in type character (also remember, Robin Hood was originally from the nobility, in fact, most Robin Hood-esque characters across cultures are actually individuals of noble origin who have a sudden "aha" moment and turn their backs on their own privileges) - she's supposed to be a victim. So I think the problem when people really hate her as opposed to just disliking or not getting along with her is that they're not viewing her within the right context (i.e. the guy in the video someone linked on the first page) - she's a victim who sees herself as a freedom fighter not an actual Robin Hood trope. We don't have to like or agree with Sera, but I think its important to listen to her and understand how she exemplifies the perspective and experiences of people we have limited interactions with in terms of our other companions.
She's also an interesting character if you consider her rejection of elfy things - because she dismisses the Dalish for being self-victimizing and laughs at them for erroneously construing much of their history, but at the same time, she still self-victimizes and utilizes much of the Dalish-human logic in her arguments/actions towards nobles. I do wish BW had given her a more meaningful growth arc and I didn't really take her anywhere because like I said, I don't like her as a person, but I do think she brings value to the cast and storyline.
(Don't fight me on Viv though I love Viv and will defend her and her bitchiness to the end of time. Viv is all my human mage Inquis wanted to be. Viv is all I want to be. Viv is life. Viv is aspirational goals. Viv is perfection.)
The order does matter, at least in fictional entertainment. A good person or rather, a character presented in the story from the beginning as a good person but grows progressively worse and more horrible (like Loghain) comes off as very repugnant. A bad person that grows progressively better by developing stronger morals and integrity comes off as very likeable and endearing. Its the anti-hero archetype. Lots of people find the bitter, world-weary anti-hero types to be more popular and endearing compared to "heroes" who have never done any wrong and are bit too idealistic with a hint of naivety.
And your exaggerating Thom Rainier's crime. He did not kill a family without a purpose, he did so for money. He did not know the nobleman he was hired to kill was accompanied by his family. He also did not personally kill the nobleman and his family, he ordered his men to do it. Rainier wasn't even present at the scene of the massacre. If anything, his men are more of monsters than him because they could have stopped themselves from killing any further after finishing off the nobleman. Rainier's sin wasn't the direct murder of the family, his sin was ordering it and then letting his men take the fall while he ran away like a coward. Yeah, this does not make Rainier/Blackwall any better but I do wish that you do not exaggerate the nature of the events of his past just to strengthen your argument.
I'm well aware that he's a base breaker in the fanbase. I do like to point out that even in-game, he is hated by quite a lot of people in Skyhold, at least based on his explanations (I would have preferred a cutscene showing the Skyhold people refusing to sit near him or soldiers refusing to train under him). He's lost his friendship with Cassandra, Cullen hates him but at least respects him, mocked by Vivienne and while still friends with Iron Bull, one banter (if the Chargers were sacrificed) has Blackwall calling Bull out for leaving the Chargers for dead only for Bull to point out how its different from "Rainier's" situation; Bull did not abandon the Chargers as he stayed and watch in horror at their demise, and Bull honoured their memory by giving them a funeral. Blackwall merely ending the banter with saying that he would never listen to Bull if he ordered Blackwall to hold down a hill.
Really though, I think its obvious that Blackwall was meant to have his fair share of haters, in-game and in real life just to drive home the theme that the path of redemption is an excruciatingly difficult path but in all honesty, if he was instantly redeemed and still liked by everyone, I would have definitely hated his character. The difference between him and Sera is that while Blackwall will be hated for his actions in the past, Sera will be hated for her attitude and the opinions she holds in the present.
No offense but while you say it's because they can't make her conform to your opinions that's exactly what "she insults you for having a different opinion than hers." She's not insulting you, she's expressing her own opinion, which is different. These two things to transform her into a demonic child in the eyes of many, dead set on ripping apart the good norms of Thedas Tea society. You can't be in favor of disagreement and then whine when someone else is truly different, that's the whole point, that's when you are actually tested.
It may seem incomprehensible to have characters disagree with the player or push back but that is what defined Bioware as a company and I shudder to think what playing the likes of BG1 or 2 would feel like, what with people like Xzar, Montaron, Viconia, Xan, etc.
And again with the double standard, if there is any thread that should exist similar to this, it's Blackwall, or possibly a Vivienne or Iron Bull hate thread. Blackwall again, basically is sociopathic deranged killer, Iron Bull does it for a living, and Vivienne is basically pure snark.
It kind of reminds me of the Mannerites from Wasteland 2, they permitted almost anything as long as people are "polite." They executed people and for doing impolite things like failing to replace the heating grate, they had mass executions, they cannibalized people for pleasure etc, but as long as you were polite, you were ok.
The whole point of that was that they were insane, and that's what a lot of this discussion strikes me as, glossing over the extreme maliciousness of the likes of Blackwall, etc, and zeroing in on Sera and her bucket or farting noises seems to be doing just that, because hey, Blackwall or Vivenne observes these norms of this or that. It's just crazy to me.
It's upside down to suggest that the content of a person matters less than the form of expression for that content, or maybe I'm just the only one that believes that now.
If I saw people willing to dismiss Blackwall for similar reasons than I might take them more seriously. I mean really, yeah, Blackwall doesn't "insult" people, he outright kills them, but somehow insults sting more? Bizzare.
The difference is that I'm not expecting, or even wishing that Sera would share my opinion, it's the manner in which she disagrees with it that I dislike about her character (and I suspect is the reason for many other people as well).
What it really comes down to is the interaction between two people, real or virtual, and how those people respond to each other. For me, I find it extremely off-putting when someone can't give me the respect of at least listening to what I have to say, instead of just immediately dismissing it and calling my thoughts stupid. It's completely fine that we disagree, life would be boring if everyone thought in the same way, but I'd much rather the person say to me "well, I don't agree, but let's agree to disagree" because that shows a much greater level of maturity, in my opinion, than just dismissing my ideas as stupid which is often what children do.
I also don't think that Sera matters less because of how she expresses herself, because like I said, I do find some of her conversations interesting, but it is hard to make the effort of finding those interesting conversations underneath all the fart noises and 'dangle-bags'. This is honestly probably why the people who think she 'matters less' feel that way about her. Not everyone is going to like how Sera expresses herself, and as a result won't want to deal with her antics to get to know her character better.
As for your points about Blackwall, I would agree that it is a very strange double standard (but then again, I'm not an overly big fan of Blackwall either, although I would rather talk to him than Sera.)
I don't hate her at all. As far as companions go, she's tied with Varric for my second favorite in DAI.
I just don't like her cause she is a hypocrite she goes on and on about "freedom" and "down with oppression" but she is totally fine with locking up mages and throwing away the key
I just don't like her cause she is a hypocrite she goes on and on about "freedom" and "down with oppression" but she is totally fine with locking up mages and throwing away the key
I just don't like her cause she is a hypocrite she goes on and on about "freedom" and "down with oppression" but she is totally fine with locking up mages and throwing away the key
Because she's completely frightened of mages.
And not just mages, but anything supernatural or paranormal.
I like your analysis of the reactions to Blackwall (also remember Solas who used to be friends with him losing all respect for him) but I disagree with your diminishing of his crime. Would you argue then, that the Nazis who carried out the actions in the extermination camps during the Holocaust were of greater culpability than the senior officers/Hitler who gave the orders? The "just following orders" defense is a weak one, I agree - it's how many Japanese war criminals were never prosecuted for their actions in China/Korea/SE Asia - and its quite horrifying, but I also believe that a greater measure of responsibility is always held by those who gave the orders or failed to properly restrain those who were within their command. It's the common saying "the buck stops here" - a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his subordinates even if they weren't explicitly ordained by him, not to mention actions that stemmed from his orders.
Moreover, it's emphasized by Blackwall himself time and time again as well as the lore that his soldiers had complete and utter faith and loyalty to him and would have followed his orders to march straight down to hell itself. Think about it in terms of the templars - many of them do terrible things throughout the game series, but only out of blind loyalty to the Order and an inability to think for themselves. Are they culpable? Yes. But more culpable are those who misused their trust and abused the power they held.Finally, we know through banter between Blackwall and Cole that he was indeed present at the time of the massacre - he heard the song the children were singing in the carriage before he gave the order to attack. (Rests her case)
Oh, no. I wasn't diminishing his crimes. I was merely trying to be more accurate with what Rainier really did but thanks for pointing out the Blackwall and Cole banter. Yes, I do agree that the "just following orders" excuse is a terrible excuse and those who carry out the order should be just as responsible as the one giving the orders. I despise the Templars for that very reason but the Kirkwall Templars take it too a new level as they were no longer serving the Order, they were serving Meredith.
Thats cos mages are dangerous to themselves & people around them
Because she's completely frightened of mages.
And not just mages, but anything supernatural or paranormal.
This is exactly the kind of viewpoint that made it easy for Templars and the Chantry to control the masses and lock up mages. Their fears are understandable but what the common folk, Templars and the Chantry do because of that fear is not justifiable i.e. mob lynching and whatever messed up **** the Templars do to mages when no one's looking.
The Dalish weren't "delusional", though - elven immortality was real, Arlathan was real, Elvhenan was real, and the Creators were real. Sera seems to have trouble with the Creators, to the point where she has to view them as "demons", and will break up with (a romanced) Lavellan unless she abandons her religious beliefs.
Sera's denigration of elven culture in general - Dalish and Andrastian elves alike - is certainly a character flaw that remains with the character, no matter what.
This is exactly the kind of viewpoint that made it easy for Templars and the Chantry to control the masses and lock up mages. Their fears are understandable but what the common folk, Templars and the Chantry do because of that fear is not justifiable i.e. mob lynching and whatever messed up **** the Templars do to mages when no one's looking.
Yes, is a horrible prison, what with them getting great education, regular meals & a constant roof over their heads, even an apprentice has a higher standard of living then the average normal person in Thedas, & not every mage is locked up either
The horror!
The Dalish are delusional because they believed in the existence of those things for the wrong reasons and were wrong about why they are now gone. Their beliefs about the Creators have virtually nothing in common with what Inquisition reveals about said Creators except for immortality.
Arlathan was the capital of Elvhenan; the elven civilization of Elvhenan existed. Immortality existed among the ancient elves. The Creators existed. Fen'Harel imprisoned the Creators. The Dalish aren't "delusional" at all.
The Dalish openly admit that they don't have all the facts (which is made clear in their story about the fall of Arlathan being explicitly cited as a "legend" and characters like Merrill talking about the limitations of the knowledge held by the People), and that they are interested in uncovering what was lost from centuries of slavery under the Imperium.
This wouldn't be so bad in itself if the Dalish weren't pieces of crap towards anyone else because of their beliefs.
The Dalish are outcasts because their religion was criminalized and they are targets of human violence (which is why Clan Lavellan travels through the territorial boundaries of the Free Marches, as a means of helping prevent attacks against them). You're also acting like every single Dalish elf behaves exactly the same way, despite this being completely untrue.
I have no problem with Sera mocking Dalish culture.
Sera's dislike of elven culture isn't limited to Dalish society, and that's made abundantly clear as early as Haven. In fact, when she addresses her issues with elves, her first example is Solas - who is distinctly not Dalish. In fact, there's no mention made by Sera that she has even met a Dalish elf before she encounters the elven main character.
How can you believe in something's existence for the wrong reason? Either it did or it didn't exist, and the elvhen gods apparently did. Nor were they wrong about Fen'Harel locking the gods away. Given that his actions had consequences that even he regrets now, the fact that they don't look kindly on losing their gods is hardly a mystery.The Dalish are delusional because they believed in the existence of those things for the wrong reasons and were wrong about why they are now gone. Their beliefs about the Creators have virtually nothing in common with what Inquisition reveals about said Creators except for immortality.
Has Sera even met a Dalish elf prior to possibly the Inquisitor? If so, where? Solas at least has actual negative experience, but somehow I doubt she met many in alleyways. So she's somehow wounded by their wanting to preserve what's left of the heritage? BS. Adults can recognize that others have beliefs that are different than their own without being threatened by that fact and throwing tantrums about it.This wouldn't be so bad in itself if the Dalish weren't pieces of crap towards anyone else because of their beliefs. Accordingly:
I have no problem with Sera mocking Dalish culture.
Yes, is a horrible prison, what with them getting great education, regular meals & a constant roof over their heads, even an apprentice has a higher standard of living then the average normal person in Thedas, & not every mage is locked up either
Because every Circle is as lenient as the Montsimmard or Ferelden Circle. They certainly did give free education and basic human rights to the mages in Kirkwall.
This is exactly the kind of viewpoint that made it easy for Templars and the Chantry to control the masses and lock up mages. Their fears are understandable but what the common folk, Templars and the Chantry do because of that fear is not justifiable i.e. mob lynching and whatever messed up **** the Templars do to mages when no one's looking.
Never said I agree with it. Besides, Sera's never known any better as far as we can tell. She grew up orphaned by the Blight, only to be adopted by a noble woman who taught her that people hate elves. Add in the education available to most people in Thedas and the prominence of the Chantry, and it's more than clear why she would think the way she does in regards to magic. She doesn't have a ton of exposure to the good mages or the benefits of magic, only the really bad mages and their bad magic.
Yes, is a horrible prison, what with them getting great education, regular meals & a constant roof over their heads, even an apprentice has a higher standard of living then the average normal person in Thedas, & not every mage is locked up either
You forgot the rapes, beatings, frequent use of the rite of tranquility, the White Spire Circle's sadistic Templars that drown kittens for fun and leave most mages to rot in a cell without any food. Kirkwall Gallows and the White Spire are easily the worst Circles in Thedas. DAI simply reserved all the nasty stuff about the Circles for NPC conversations and codex entries which could be easily missed and ignored. The "fluff" parts about the Circles come straight out of the mouths of mages who were fortunate enough to not get sent into those hell holes.
So she's somehow wounded by their wanting to preserve what's left of the heritage? BS. Adults can recognize that others have beliefs that are different than their own without being threatened by that fact and throwing tantrums about it.
If that were true then the Dalish wouldn't be homeless nomads right now.
If that were true then the Dalish wouldn't be homeless nomads right now.
The Dalish options are pretty limited. Between forest dwellers or being servants to humans, life is pretty much **** for them.
The Dalish options are pretty limited. Between forest dwellers or being servants to humans, life is pretty much **** for them.
Life has been sh*t for elves since the beginning of time, apparently. From slave life in Ye Olde Arlathan to near-extinction from humans, to living in impoverished ghettos, to being bitter homeless nomads, elves have always had it pretty rough.
I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say Sera and Vivianne are the worse modern companions BioWare has written. Unlikeable is one thing, boring is another, unlikeable and incredibly boring together is a very bad combination.
You forgot the rapes, beatings, frequent use of the rite of tranquility, the White Spire Circle's sadistic Templars that drown kittens for fun and leave most mages to rot in a cell without any food. Kirkwall Gallows and the White Spire are easily the worst Circles in Thedas. DAI simply reserved all the nasty stuff about the Circles for NPC conversations and codex entries which could be easily missed and ignored. The "fluff" parts about the Circles come straight out of the mouths of mages who were fortunate enough to not get sent into those hell holes.
Look on the bright side...
The Chantry being blown up makes the perfect background for photo taking 
Retribution is pretty sweet
Retour en haut
