104 réponses à ce sujet

[LightningPoodle]

o.O

Why would you want to treat everybody the same? They're not the same. You will talk with Vivienne in a different fashion than you will with Sera. A chat with Dorian will sound very different from a talk with Blackwall. Since when does this fall under some sort of ethical standard that you seem to invoke with the word 'acceptable'?

Rephrased from the other direction: If I want to kiss Solas, do I have to kiss every other member of my team too? Would not doing so be 'unacceptable'?

 

What?

 

What on bloody earth are you on about?

 

I'm talking about the option to remove only Sera, via a dialogue selection. Ah. You know what? Screw this. I cannot be bothered to continue trying to explain what was once a simple response.

 

I hate you all! (don't really).

[Terodil]

I hate you all! (don't really).

I like your avatar. (really.)

[LightningPoodle]

I like your avatar. (really.)

I like your avatar (really).

[Ghost Gal]

Stab in the dark here, but I think it's because Sera is the most "unprofessional."

 

For all the other characters' vices, most of them carry themselves with a level of professional decorum (or stay harmlessly out of the way like Cole) for a prestigious religious military/political organization. Cassandra is the Inquisition's unofficial leader before you take up the mantle, Solas is your Fade expert, Dorian is your Venatori expert, Blackwall is your Grey Warden representative, Vivienne is your Orlesian Court representative, as well as the head of the last Circle mage loyalists (all ten of them), the Iron Bull and Chargers are professional mercenaries on your payroll, etc. Most of them are able to lend their knowledge, sword, and/or contacts to benefit the Inquisition as a whole.

 

And most of all, as individuals, most them know how to get along in a large organized group. (Even creepy little Cole tries to stay out of the way, help in little ways, then erase people's memories when he makes them uncomfortable.)

 

Meanwhile, Sera represents the Red Jennies, an organization that makes it clear they're borderline anarchists and domestic terrorists. They have a very clear agenda of ticking off human nobles and nothing else (since they have no long-term goal of changing things), which make up the majority of your donations and political support. Sera herself also makes it clear that she's just as interested in what the Inquisition can do for her as what she can do for you, and isn't quiet about it. She makes it clear that she also wants to have fun, stir up trouble, and make coin off of you first and help out second. Many of her war table missions mainly use the Inquisition for Red Jenny operations, extending Inquisition resources to scare nobles and/or aid human commoners, which is good for the latter but doesn't really contribute to the Inquisiton's large-scale job of fixing the world.

 

As an individual too, Sera doesn't pretend to want to get along with a group or carry herself professionally. She's brash, loud, stubborn, and unapologetically rude and selfish (even Vivienne knows how to cloak her barbs behind a veneer of icy politeness, and her ambition and selfishness behind a front of aiding the Inquisition politically). She can't find a single shirt without mustard stains on it (as Josephine says), and constantly causes petty mischief like stealing from the larder, playing pranks, leaving notes with pictures of butts everywhere, disrupt day-to-day operations, etc.

 

While I'm also annoyed that you can only fire her and no one else, in a way it makes sense. She refuses to try to get along in the big organization, so the big organization ejects her.

[RenAdaar]

They knew she would be to awesome for some people to handle.

[Patricia08]

I don't get why you can't kick Viv out once you recruit her. She literally can't provide anything she promised, trolls people that actually contribute, and is just riding your coattails to help her self. Sera even contributes more to the cause than she does.

 

Just do what i do don't invite her anymore in the beginning to your Inquisition you do not miss out on much so for me no more Vivienne.

[sjsharp2011]

Well if your on PC you can always just install a mod. Otherwise your just going to have to get a general estimate. The most common way to do that is simply by knowing the 'greetings' they use and what they correlate to in terms of approval.

 

For instance, with Cassandra her approval-based greetings are along the lines of

"Shouldn't you be doing something?" (low approval)

"What do you need, my friend?" (high approval)

 

Every companion has unique approval base greetings that depend on how the Inquisitor treats them, but overall it should be easy to guess how they view you based on how they greet you. Their tone and word choice reveals much.

yeah that's kind of how I judge it too. But then I try to be diplomatic with most if not all of my squad in one way or another so have a pretty high rating with all of them. 

 

Also OP I think you can kick Cole out as well if you wish I don't think Sera is the only one. Most of the time I rotate between Sera  and Varric anyway so both get to see some action. I only tend to take one of the 2 though

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Yes, and I do not find that realistic at all. I fire people and kick out unruly individuals all the time. Why should the Inquisitor not be able to enjoy the same privileges?

[SolNebula]

That's the most beautiful thing in the entire game for me especially the very threatening way. Doing it in each campaign. She is just a nuisance. They did that with her because they knew that opening the insane asylum was a bad idea to begin with.

[Serza]

o.O

Why would you want to treat everybody the same? They're not the same. You will talk with Vivienne in a different fashion than you will with Sera. A chat with Dorian will sound very different from a talk with Blackwall. Since when does this fall under some sort of ethical standard that you seem to invoke with the word 'acceptable'?

Rephrased from the other direction: If I want to kiss Solas, do I have to kiss every other member of my team too? Would not doing so be 'unacceptable'?

 

So you're saying it's cool she's the only one who can be booted at any time?

[Dorrieb]

 For Sera, all is just some kind of socio-romantic game to save the poor and downtrodden from the evil ruling castes.

 

How silly! Practical people should uphold authority. I don't know where she gets the idea that peasants are people.

 

 

 

 

She's brash, loud, stubborn, and unapologetically rude...

 

 

 

All excellent qualities!

[Shechinah]

All excellent qualities!

 

Ah, you must be an admirer of the Orlesian nobility then!

[Dorrieb]

Ah, you must be an admirer of the Orlesian nobility then!

 

Hardly. Nor am I a fan of puritans.

[CoM Solaufein]

Viv needs to get back in the kitchen and make some sandwiches.

[Serza]

I'll shove her into the kitchen. I'll make an exception, just for her.

[straykat]

Stab in the dark here, but I think it's because Sera is the most "unprofessional."

 

For all the other characters' vices, most of them carry themselves with a level of professional decorum (or stay harmlessly out of the way like Cole) for a prestigious religious military/political organization. Cassandra is the Inquisition's unofficial leader before you take up the mantle, Solas is your Fade expert, Dorian is your Venatori expert, Blackwall is your Grey Warden representative, Vivienne is your Orlesian Court representative, as well as the head of the last Circle mage loyalists (all ten of them), the Iron Bull and Chargers are professional mercenaries on your payroll, etc. Most of them are able to lend their knowledge, sword, and/or contacts to benefit the Inquisition as a whole.

 

And most of all, as individuals, most them know how to get along in a large organized group. (Even creepy little Cole tries to stay out of the way, help in little ways, then erase people's memories when he makes them uncomfortable.)

 

Meanwhile, Sera represents the Red Jennies, an organization that makes it clear they're borderline anarchists and domestic terrorists. They have a very clear agenda of ticking off human nobles and nothing else (since they have no long-term goal of changing things), which make up the majority of your donations and political support. Sera herself also makes it clear that she's just as interested in what the Inquisition can do for her as what she can do for you, and isn't quiet about it. She makes it clear that she also wants to have fun, stir up trouble, and make coin off of you first and help out second. Many of her war table missions mainly use the Inquisition for Red Jenny operations, extending Inquisition resources to scare nobles and/or aid human commoners, which is good for the latter but doesn't really contribute to the Inquisiton's large-scale job of fixing the world.

 

As an individual too, Sera doesn't pretend to want to get along with a group or carry herself professionally. She's brash, loud, stubborn, and unapologetically rude and selfish (even Vivienne knows how to cloak her barbs behind a veneer of icy politeness, and her ambition and selfishness behind a front of aiding the Inquisition politically). She can't find a single shirt without mustard stains on it (as Josephine says), and constantly causes petty mischief like stealing from the larder, playing pranks, leaving notes with pictures of butts everywhere, disrupt day-to-day operations, etc.

 

While I'm also annoyed that you can only fire her and no one else, in a way it makes sense. She refuses to try to get along in the big organization, so the big organization ejects her.

 

Yeah, I still don't see the problem.

 

Do people buy games to NOT have fun or what? For heaven's sake. Professionalism?

 

No wonder why DA2 is unpopular too. It's full of these Rogue-ish elements. I didn't realize it before, but a large part of BSN must have a gigantic stick up it's.. you know what.

[Terodil]

So you're saying it's cool she's the only one who can be booted at any time?

That depends on the 'why' of this question.

Cool despite 'social justice concerns'? Yes... well... I don't even see how those would be an argument, see above. Unless you manage to explain to me why Sera would represent a notable minority and how a game-inherent choice would have an impact on real life behaviour towards said minority, I consider it a complete non-issue.

Cool from a gameplay/RP viewpoint? Well... I've said before that I'd have liked more companions to be bootable. Bioware hasn't implemented such options, just as Bioware hasn't implemented a lot of choices and features I would have liked in DA:I, but such is life. At least I *can* still remove some people from the inquisition, albeit in a slightly more involved manner.

How silly! Practical people should uphold authority. I don't know where she gets the idea that peasants are people.

So are nobles who deserve a trial for their misdeeds, and not having their heads bashed in by a thuggish Robin Hood wannabe who was told by random anonymous, unverifiable sources that they deserved having their faces stomped.

Heaven forbid that your inquisitor could wish for an order based on justice. As if the only alternatives were despotism and anarchy. *rolleyes*

Viv needs to get back in the kitchen and make some sandwiches.

... and we're done. Good job.

[Dorrieb]

So are nobles who deserve a trial for their misdeeds, and not having their heads bashed in by a thuggish Robin Hood wannabe who was told by random anonymous, unverifiable sources that they deserved having their faces stomped.

Heaven forbid that your inquisitor could wish for an order based on justice. As if the only alternatives were despotism and anarchy. *rolleyes*
 

 

A 'trial' presupposes the existence of laws designed to protect everyone equally, enforced by authorities actually invested in preventing oppression. When the laws give a few people rights over others, and the authorities themselves are the oppressors, a 'trial' is an utterly ridiculous idea. Since you mention Robin Hood, there's a reason why Robin doesn't 'arrest' the Sheriff of Nottingham: because he's the bloody Sheriff, isn't he?

 

I don't think you understand the concept of the outlaw fighting for justice against an oppressive system, if you can go, 'Why don't they just call the police, duh?'

 

I also don't think you quite understand what Anarchy is. You ought to read a little about Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, and Flores Magon, rather than use the word in the tones of a maiden aunt frightened by boisterous riff-raff.

[In Exile]

Sera is designed to tell a lot of fan-favoured groups off, so they presumably expected fans of those groups to not like her (e.g. mages, elves, etc.)

 

A 'trial' presupposes the existence of laws designed to protect everyone equally, enforced by authorities actually invested in preventing oppression. When the laws give a few people rights over others, and the authorities themselves are the oppressors, a 'trial' is an utterly ridiculous idea. Since you mention Robin Hood, there's a reason why Robin doesn't 'arrest' the Sheriff of Nottingham: because he's the bloody Sheriff, isn't he?

 

I don't think you understand the concept of the outlaw fighting for justice against an oppressive system, if you can go, 'Why don't they just call the police, duh?'

 

I also don't think you quite understand what Anarchy is. You ought to read a little about Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, and Flores Magon, rather than use the word in the tones of a maiden aunt frightened by boisterous riff-raff.

 

Part of the issue is that the nobles aren't exactly doing something wrong to the serfs they're exploiting, so there's no recourse. To the extent they committed wrongs against each other, well, the Inquisitor actually does invoke the law (in Sera's personal quest). 

[Dorrieb]

Part of the issue is that the nobles aren't exactly doing something wrong to the serfs they're exploiting, so there's no recourse.

 

They certainly are doing something wrong, just nothing illegal. The problem lies precisely in those who can't tell the difference.

[In Exile]

They certainly are doing something wrong, just nothing illegal. The problem lies precisely in those who can't tell the difference.

 

Sorry - it's not uncommon in legal parlance to use wrong interchangeably with illegal (in the sense of breach of a duty of a legal obligation, it being simply easier to reference it as a wrong). 

[Secret Rare]

From what i remember Dorian can leave as well

[Terodil]

[snip]

Spare me the lecturing tone.
 

A 'trial' presupposes the existence of laws designed to protect everyone equally, enforced by authorities actually invested in preventing oppression.

1- The laws in Thedas universally aren't? Citation needed. I just see quite a few noble d!ckheads doing whatever they want because they can get away with it, not a legal system designed to oppress.
2- My point was that the inquisitor could try to actually shape the inquisition (or other existing/new institutions) into such an authority. With Sera part of it that's a ridiculous notion doomed to failure.

Also, you are completely failing to recognise the fact that Sera is acting on hearsay only. Or have you seen Sera actually hold a trial? So who are you to say that Sera was, in fact, preventing oppression? If anything, she was taking revenge for perceived or actual wrongs -- she herself even professes to not care all that much which ones they are, as long as she gets to 'stick it to those pissbuckets'.

Sera is the antithesis of justice almost as much as those corrupt nobles are.

Or is this your ideal of a just proceeding upon which all future legal action in Thedas should be modelled?

[Dorrieb]

Spare me the lecturing tone.
 

1- The laws in Thedas universally aren't? Citation needed. I just see quite a few noble d!ckheads doing whatever they want because they can get away with it, not a legal system designed to oppress.

 

You'll have to explain to me how one is not the other. It's a feudal system, with all that that implies.

 

 

2- My point was that the inquisitor could try to actually shape the inquisition (or other existing/new institutions) into such an authority. With Sera part of it that's a ridiculous notion doomed to failure.
 

 

That is the fallacy into which all messianic heroes fall, that they do not seek to abolish authority, but to replace it. The idea is that the system works, but the wrong people are in authority; replace them with the right people (themselves, obviously) and problem solved! It never occurs to them that it is the position of authority itself that is corrupt, or that a benevolent despot is still a despot. It doesn't matter who occupies it: you could put a plastic duck in charge, and you would have a despotic plastic duck. It isn't that authority corrupts, it is that authority IS corrupt.

 

 

Also, you are completely failing to recognise the fact that Sera is acting on hearsay only...

Or is this your ideal of a just proceeding upon which all future legal action in Thedas should be modelled?

 

Legal action, no, justice, sure. You'll notice that Harmond doesn't deny anything. Hearsay? He had that peasant murdered right in front of us. He clearly fears no 'legal action', and why should he? He is acting well within his rights as a member of the nobility. Magistrates and judges work for him. At worst he could be brought before a higher member of the court, probably a cousin or in-law, and reprimanded most strongly for wasting peasant labour and behaving in an uncouth manner. How embarrassing! He wouldn't be able to show his face in public for weeks! He would have to exile himself to his summer home on the coast, and spend a holiday taking the hot spring waters.

 

I find it much more fair to have his head kicked in. It is only a small measure of the suffering that he has inflicted on others, but at least it wiped that smug look off of his face, and it serves as a warning to other so-called 'rulers' that they can't get away with doing whatever they want just because their own laws say that they can, because someone, somewhere, isn't going to put up with it.

[Terodil]

You'll have to explain to me how one is not the other. It's a feudal system, with all that that implies.

Your measure of 'oppression' is... what exactly? It seemed to me that you were predominantly focused on little people getting hurt, which is what motivates Sera at least. That is not inherent to a feudal system. As we see these days, so-called 'modern' models of civic and economic governance can hurt people just as well >.>

Simply because somebody holds power in a political system, it does not mean that s/he abuses it. Conversely, simply because a political system looks good on paper, that does not mean that the authorities tasked with upholding it are acting honourably.

Your conclusion that some d!ckheads are being mean to the small people, ergo the system is oppressive, is unwarranted. You don't need to replace a system if the people putting it into practice are the problem. Also, what system would you replace it with? No system is immune to corruption.

Besides, you're fighting the wrong battle here. Sera is no noble revolutionary. She's a vigilante. She has no inclination to change the system, she just wants to get back at those who she believes -- correctly or incorrectly, doesn't matter to her -- abuse it. The sole requirement to qualify for her sh!t list is: a- be a noble, b- somebody is badmouthing you.
 

It never occurs to them that it is the position of authority itself that is corrupt

Um. Are you saying that authority itself is evil and hence, we should abolish all authority? If so, we can stop discussing right here because it'd be pointless. I for my part do not wish to live in a society 'governed' by the law of the jungle.

Authority needs to be subject to oversight, which is why most modern states have a system of checks and balances. Sadly, even those are prone to corruption, but at least we're trying until we discover a magical solution to prevent people from going bad.
 

Legal action, no, justice, sure. You'll notice that Harmond doesn't deny anything. Hearsay? He had that peasant murdered right in front of us. He clearly fears no 'legal action', and why should he? He is acting well within his rights as a member of the nobility. Magistrates and judges work for him. At worst he could be brought before a higher member of the court, probably a cousin or in-law, and reprimanded most strongly for wasting peasant labour and behaving in an uncouth manner. How embarrassing! He wouldn't be able to show his face in public for weeks! He would have to exile himself to his summer home on the coast, and spend a holiday taking the hot spring waters.

Ah come now. It's a lynching, plain and simple. I refuse to call a lynching a form of justice. TBH for all your talk of how power corrupts etc., I'm surprised you see no wrong in giving a random person in the street a rope to turn people into tree ornaments.

Yes, Harmond indeed was guilty and deserves a trial, possibly (in the moral system of DA:I) a death sentence. I understand your reluctance to hand him over to a court that has his cousin as the judge, but that's the opening for the inquisition to do better. It's hard to turn things around, and as I said, no system is safe from corruption, but that's basically the leitmotif of the human condition. We try.

Handing Sera the rope is not trying. That's giving up.
 

I find it much more fair to have his head kicked in. It is only a small measure of the suffering that he has inflicted on others, but at least it wiped that smug look off of his face, and it serves as a warning to other so-called 'rulers' that they can't get away with doing whatever they want just because their own laws say that they can, because someone, somewhere, isn't going to put up with it.

Good lord. I'm grateful you're no judge (I hope).

It's curious to see how similar the system you seem to support and the system you seem to cricise are. Ad-hoc unlawful killings at least are a common denominator.