midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 5:36:33 GMT
Eh, Sera doesn't only take issue with Dalish elves, but the only thing that beats her beef with "elfy elves" is her beef with nobles. That says a lot. In no way does she dislike biased humans as much as she dislikes elves who stay with the elven ways. ... Didn't you just mention that her beef with for 'nobs' beats her beef with 'elfy elves'. As far as I checked, 100% of 'nobs' are humans (with Briala being an optional exception). Also - I'm not sure how can you say that in no way she dislikes biased humans, when she admits during balcony scene that she's made the baker's life a living hell, just because she thought he didn't like her because of who she was? Or calls her adoptive mother who took her from the streets a total b*tch for making her feel bad for being an elf?? Ultimately Sera doesn't care who someone is, *so long* as they don't make a big deal out of who they are or how others are supposed to be. And she becomes *incredibly touchy* if anyone questions her "not doing things how they should be" or "not belonging" (not necessarily anything related to being an elf), as I've already mentioned before. She gets testy at Cassandra for gently questioning her faith. She gets testy at Iron Bull for assessing that she wouldn't be a good Qunari convert. She gets testy at Blackwall for ribbing her about NOT knowing how to be an elf. Sera will get testy at anyone who try and pigeonhole her, and if she herself does that in spades. You can legitimately call her a hypocrite, but I don't think you can say that her issue is just her 'elfiness' or lack thereof. But there is an explanation - she's annoyed by 'elfiness', because that's the first thing that people notice about her and treat her accordingly - which is pretty much the same issue Solas has with modern world. So does Briala and pretty much most elves we meet. Even Inquisitor - the goddamn Herald Of Andraste - gets to hear their share of disparaging comments that presume who they are based entirely on the fact that they're an elf. So to wonder why Sera gets so triggered by 'elfy elves' (not just Dalish) and being treated or judged according to certain stereotypes strikes me as a bit odd. My Inquisitors usually end up being protective of Sera (can you tell? ). She's like an annoying younger sibling you have to constantly be on lookout for, but ultimately she's a good kid that simply needs some guidance. I think it's perfectly valid to say that there are many parallels and contrasts on many levels between characters and events in DA universe. Bioware, and especially Patrick Weekes, is entirely open on that front and admits that use them as a tool to tell their stories. They help to carry a lot more information (by finding what connects and divides characters or events we can infer more from same amount of material), not to mention trigger sympathy or other emotions. However, while I think there's substance in a claim that DAI was a story in large part about Solas, I don't think we can go as far as to say that certain members of main cast were created specifically as his foil. There are as many contrasts as there are similarities between him and Sera, as they are between him and Vivienne (of all people) or Dorian or Iron Bull, and - of course - Inquisitors themselves.
|
|
inherit
Resident Diplomat
526
0
8,896
Natashina
In lurking mode, playing the ME games.
2,340
August 2016
natashina
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights
16,553
19,139
|
Post by Natashina on Jan 28, 2017 5:43:50 GMT
I want to help clear something up.
Back in spring of 2014, when Sera was revealed, I was the OP for her fan thread. Lukas came in and said flat out that Sera was a brat and not everyone was going to like her. He actually let the fans know that he wasn't kidding when he called her a brat either. I might go onto fextralife later and try to dig up his comments about her. Everything I'd read suggested that Lukas knew that some players were going to really dislike Sera.
So yeah, I'm with midnight on this one.
|
|
inherit
1923
0
6,858
Rynnju
1,417
November 2016
rynnju
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by Rynnju on Jan 28, 2017 5:57:49 GMT
midnight, I didn't say she in no way dislikes biased humans. I said she in no way dislikes biased humans (I'm not talking nobles specifically) as much as she does biased (or even non-biased, really) elfiness, considering she almost never brings up the human treatment of the elves (specifically as human bias toward elves) other than her little backstory, while she brings up "elfiness" disdainfully quite a bit. None of your other examples convince me either, honestly. I don't see Sera get nearly as heated or cruel with her conversations over the other assumed aspects of her than she does over elfiness. I think it's very obvious that elfy elves make Sera the most angry besides nobles. Nobles may be humans, but Sera shows no signs whatsoever of being against humanity and identifying with humanness because of it. Not like she does with elves. For example, in your 'becoming Inquisitor' speech, she only disapproves when you say you'll do it for elves. Being proud of who you are in every other race, faith, and even mage option doesn't get her angry. Just elves. And I still think her pride cookie background was just not strong enough to justify her level of dislike of elven culture or even simply identifying yourself by your elven heritage (not Dalish things, just being an elf in general). That will just have to be a matter of agreeing to disagree about the writing. I don't think it's odd that she dislikes elfiness because of what she went through, I just think it's odd that she hates it to the degree that she does. To me, the explanation is too weak. I see Sera as a bratty little sister type too but what I see is what I see regarding her views. To add to this (kind of), I just want to say that I'm going to stop this argument here. I appreciate reading the other long debates on here and the thought that goes into them but, honestly, just reading them makes me tired. Let alone engaging in them myself! I'm not even sure half of what I wrote makes sense because I'm half-asleep.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 5:59:12 GMT
I admit, I must ask why he needed to be A. Andrastian, and B. a sucker of Drakon's empiredick. A. Needed to be? That was his choice. And I'm pretty sure you'd find many people who'd strike it as odd to claim that someone who simultaneously worships Ghilan'nan and Andraste as if she ascended to godhood same way as Ghilan'nan as "Andrastian" per se. B. It does speak of something of a bias if your only interpretation of Ameridan's relationship with Drakon was "sucker of empiredick" - as if it wasn't possible Ameridan could be friends with Drakon, even though he's been shown to have a group of diverse friends and advocated working together to achieve common goals and secure better future (which I can't, for the life of me, interpret as a bad thing in most cicumstances). Yet... as someone who lives in the country that had - and still has in some instances - some sh*tty neighbors who invaded and slaughtered folks living here not even that long ago and has only been independent for about 3 decades, I can tell you EXACTLY why Ameridan would be inclined to ally with Drakon, even if there was no love between them: because elves stand no chance alone without tactical alliances. And history has only proven him right.
|
|
inherit
2915
0
May 23, 2017 21:44:47 GMT
564
xilizhra
398
Jan 20, 2017 17:07:55 GMT
January 2017
xilizhra
|
Post by xilizhra on Jan 28, 2017 6:05:16 GMT
I admit, I must ask why he needed to be A. Andrastian, and B. a sucker of Drakon's empiredick. A. Needed to be? That was his choice. And I'm pretty sure you'd find many people who'd strike it as odd to claim that someone who simultaneously worships Ghilan'nan and Andraste as if she ascended to godhood same way as Ghilan'nan as "Andrastian" per se. "Needed to be," as in, needed to be written that way. It's a bit like why plenty of LG people wanted there to be distinct gay/lesbian LIs as opposed to everyone being bi; he's not actually Dalish representation so much as odd hybrid representation. B. It does speak of something of a bias if your only interpretation of Ameridan's relationship with Drakon was "sucker of empiredick" - as if it wasn't possible Ameridan could be friends with Drakon, even though he's been shown to have a group of diverse friends and advocated working together to achieve common goals and secure better future (which I can't, for the life of me, interpret as a bad thing in most cicumstances). Yet... as someone who lives in the country that had - and still has in some instances - some sh*tty neighbors who invaded and slaughtered folks living here not even that long ago and has only been independent for about 3 decades, I can tell you EXACTLY why Ameridan would be inclined to ally with Drakon, even if there was no love between them: because elves stand no chance alone without tactical alliances. And history has only proven him right. There isn't exactly a lack of documentation on Drakon having been quite the asshole, so if anything, it shows that Ameridan isn't a very good judge of people. Or empires. And history's certainly proven something, at any rate--mostly along the lines of "humans are vicious warmongering untrustworthy dickheads, as a rule."
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 7:09:26 GMT
midnight, I didn't say she in no way dislikes biased humans. I said she in no way dislikes biased humans as much as she does biased elfiness, considering she almost never brings up the human treatment of the elves (specifically as human bias toward elves) other than her little backstory, while she brings up "elfiness" disdainfully quite a bit. None of your other examples convince me either, honestly. I don't see Sera get nearly as heated with her conversations over the other assumed aspects of her than she does over elfiness. I think it's very obvious that elfy elves make Sera the most angry besides nobles. It's hard to get heated over anything else as much, when Sera's 'elfiness' is a constant elephant in the room. I've already mentioned this before, so I'm surprised that's no addressed, when it was sorta-kinda my main point? Sera is touchy on the subject, because she knows that her being an elf is the first thing that is going to being noticed - and she snaps at anyone who brings it up, elf, human or Qunari alike. So no wonder she has more resentment towards the concept of 'elfiness' than those who perpetuate it, on either side - *especially* that later on it comes with the bonus of 'elfy' connection with the Fade. She never really gets over her fear of magic or unknown. ...Why should she have beef against all 'humanness' when her biggest beef with 'humanness' is pretty much represented by the 'nobs'? She's never identified herself as a human or expressed the wish to be so, and Blackwall even makes it a point to say that Sera doesn't even knows who she is, and doesn't even cares. Still, she gives more approval to dwarf or Qunari Inquisitor if they flirt with her - both elves and humans only gain slight approval. She makes no distinction whatsoever however when 'little people' happen to be. Trespasser shows that she's well-tuned to elven servants (she's the first one in Winter Palace to notice something's off) and back in Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts she's pretty distraught and angry at the slaughter in servant wing, even though the victims are pretty much all elves. The cookie story wasn't there to "justify her level of dislike of elven culture", but her dislike of categorizing people in the first place, and how since the begining she felt rejected, fist because she was an elf and later because she wasn't elfy enough. And she doesn't have a "beef with elven culture" per se - her criticism of 'elfiness' is actually the same one Solas has: 'elfy elves' claim they know what it means to be an elf and know exactly what happened in the past.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 7:37:08 GMT
A. Needed to be? That was his choice. And I'm pretty sure you'd find many people who'd strike it as odd to claim that someone who simultaneously worships Ghilan'nan and Andraste as if she ascended to godhood same way as Ghilan'nan as "Andrastian" per se. "Needed to be," as in, needed to be written that way. It's a bit like why plenty of LG people wanted there to be distinct gay/lesbian LIs as opposed to everyone being bi; he's not actually Dalish representation so much as odd hybrid representation. As an "odd hybrid representation" Ameridan is actually pretty unique, which makes him more in line with 'distinct representation' than 'everyone is this now' And why wouldn't he? Why would the Dalish or Andrastian or whatever should believe one and the same thing? And why would his syncretic beliefs deny his identity as "actual Dalish"? I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit personal - as someone who's been denied identity due to widely-held local belief that to be a "true" countryman one must strictly adhere to certain religion I find the whole idea of "believing (or not believing) wrong" as not only patently absurd, but simply damaging. With such thinking you actually give good example as to why someone would have genuine problems with "true Dalish" or "true elves" (or true whatever). Yes, because the documents found across Thedas are found to be 100% unbiased and true. And I'm not saying that Drakon didn't make decisions aren't questionable or mistakes or whatever, but hey - since when anyone in Thedas did? The point stands that elves have decided not to help everyone else with the Blight, and have definitely not gained anything from that strategy - as Ameridan has predicted. Their only chance to even gain anything politically to even start to argue their place on decidedly human map for longer than they did has been buried with him and the Archdemon the elves DIDN'T help to slay. Welp, good luck with such attitude. I prefer more balanced stance - both in terms of humans IRL, as well as humans (and elves, or Qunari, or dwarves) in my fiction.
|
|
spiritofsolace
N1
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, Neverwinter Nights
Posts: 49 Likes: 73
inherit
659
0
73
spiritofsolace
49
August 2016
spiritofsolace
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquistion, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by spiritofsolace on Jan 28, 2017 7:42:59 GMT
And she doesn't have a "beef with elven culture" per se - her criticism of 'elfiness' is actually the same one Solas has: 'elfy elves' claim they know what it means to be an elf and know exactly what happened in the past. I agree with this entirely. I think maybe because Solas and Sera express this view in an abrasive and arguably racist way that people keep overlooking it. In general the Dalish are worse about it but all the elves do it to some extent. And I think that is wrong. If you imagined the human characters going up to each other and being like "hello their fellow human" with this subtext that there is some sort of universal "humanness" people would find that really obnoxious or even offensive. That is why Solas flips out after Halamshiral and goes on about people seeing him as "just a pair of pointed ears" and that he himself could be accused of the same line of thinking doesn't really negate his point. I dunno about anybody else but I find the way "efiness" is framed to be racist, so I totally get why some characters violently reject the idea and the people who espouse it.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Sept 28, 2024 11:03:15 GMT
30,001
gervaise21
12,664
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Jan 28, 2017 9:35:59 GMT
Three things: First as I say, quite by accident the first time, I did manage to befriend Sera by taking exactly the view that you did Midnight; my male Lavellan viewed her as an annoying younger member of the clan who is constantly back chatting him, which as chief scout he had experience of, but in some ways that did make him rather patronising in his attitude because instead of trying to educate her to a more nuanced view of the world, he just ignored her outbursts or made light of them. No other race or class type has to endure the sort of gloating language and utter contempt for their sensibilities that Lavellan has to do after the Temple of Mythal. No other Inquisitor has the romance broken off for refusing to denounce their cultural heritage. I really think that a Lavellan deserved a better explanation of why this was such a crime in Sera's eyes than simply "you're being elfy".
Second: Sera is not a teenage. She has to be in her mid to late twenties because the noble she lived with was said in WoT2 to have died several years before the 5th Blight and Sera was already old enough to have joined the Red Jennies and rejected her inheritance at that time, so already a teenager. At the time we meet Sera, 11 years have passed since the 5th Blight.
Third: About Ameridan. I had no objection to him holding the views he did. It was interesting to see how an elf of the Dales could have had a different view of Andraste and incorporated her into their own beliefs. What was annoying was that the revelations about Ameridan, his memories and his friendship with Drakon were set up as showing the mainstream Dalish to be at fault. Their view that "Drakon was no better than Tevinter" was portrayed by other characters as, in Sera's words, "Pride Cookies again". It was clearly implied by Cassandra's comment on the matter that the Dalish were instrumental in their own downfall by their attitude. Drakon's imperialistic ambitions, whilst acknowledged by Ameridan to a non Dalish Inquisitor, were never questioned by anyone. Not one character suggested that may be the Dalish were right to view Drakon as they did, in spite of the fact that Drakon's purges of all other faiths and even other cults of Andraste in his striving for "simplicity" are well documented. That balancing of the approach is what was lacking in the writing concerning Ameridan. Whilst previous codices have suggested that their may have been equal blame on either side in the fall of the Dales or even that it was empire building under the guise of a religious crusade, no character actually says this in game and even a Dalish Inquisitor is not permitted to defend their own people in this respect but as with every criticism of their culture in game, has to simply endure other people's comments in silence, giving them the last word on the matter and thus making them appear as though in the right.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 9:45:16 GMT
And she doesn't have a "beef with elven culture" per se - her criticism of 'elfiness' is actually the same one Solas has: 'elfy elves' claim they know what it means to be an elf and know exactly what happened in the past. I agree with this entirely. I think maybe because Solas and Sera express this view in an abrasive and arguably racist way that people keep overlooking it. In general the Dalish are worse about it but all the elves do it to some extent. And I think that is wrong. If you imagined the human characters going up to each other and being like "hello their fellow human" with this subtext that there is some sort of universal "humanness" people would find that really obnoxious or even offensive. That is why Solas flips out after Halamshiral and goes on about people seeing him as "just a pair of pointed ears" and that he himself could be accused of the same line of thinking doesn't really negate his point. I dunno about anybody else but I find the way "efiness" is framed to be racist, so I totally get why some characters violently reject the idea and the people who espouse it. Yup - though it's not that such position isn't understandable. They've been discriminated and oppressed and that oftentimes results with stances of that kind: concentrated around pieces of glorious past or certain characteristics, or religion, or ideology, that bind people together and lets them at least somehow survive hard times and look towards the future - and be naturally skeptical of goodwill of people who so far treat them as 2nd class citizens or worse. None of this isn't that surprising or hard to understand - that doesn't mean this is the right way, or it doesn't have its problems, sometimes massive ones. Nor I can really see Bioware creating something that would ultimately favor any given race, or favor a stance that calls for separating from others. The basic tenet of not just Dragon Age, but pretty much all of BW games, is that diversity, openness, compassion, wisdom and working together are things to be valued, even if there are many obstacles or even dead ends along the way - so it's not really hard to notice that they champion accepting individuals who have mind and heart open to try and find new paths among walls that divide people (even though they give them a run for their money ). This is also why, btw. I have my doubts that the series will end with either preserving the world roughly in the shape it is or restoring it to post-Veil time - I think Bioware is basically grooming us to look beyond 'us vs. them' divisions (may not look like it, but since when they've NOT been dropping those red herrings under our feet?) and accept that it's probably best to just take the best out of everything that was, and simply move forward, together. (... gawd, that sounded corny Time to get some sleep!)
|
|
inherit
2106
0
Mar 22, 2017 11:04:48 GMT
962
javeart
621
Nov 16, 2016 10:21:58 GMT
November 2016
javeart
|
Post by javeart on Jan 28, 2017 14:17:21 GMT
Okay, here's another speculapost, because it's been something that I recalled thinking about after I finished first playthroughs, long before Trespasser and it came back to me while idly musing and scrolling through the thread. There are quite a lot of people - either here or outside of the forum - that entertain the idea that Solas has bound himself to (Fle)Mythal, based on their shared history and post-epilogue scene. I'm not convinced by that, but that's beside the point ATM. We also have enough hints to guess that Solas has sacrificed a part of himself in order to either create the Veil or trap Evanuris (Cole in Trespasser: "He broke the dreams to stop the old dreams from waking. The wolf chews its leg off to escape the trap.") But there's another possibility I don't really see being pondered much - what if Solas bound himself to something else? After all, he's created te Veil/trapped Evanuris after Mythal's death. There wasn't much left of her to bind himself to. Besides - whatever it is, it could be something way beyond Evanuris or Forgotten Ones or whatever else. Hence he may see himself as doomed, plainly because when he's done with his mission, there will be something that will demand from him to pay the price (I mean, aside from the metaphorical one)??? I know that this post is a little old now, but now that I'm a little less distracted with MEA , I want to say that, even if I'm a HUGE fan of the theory that he's thinking about a past experience when he talks with the Inquisitor about the tragedy that's being bound to someone else (spirit of wisdom and all ), I find this possibility very interesting and I could see it being something like this. But if this is the case, I hope is more, as you put it, a more-than-metaphorical price to pay in the end (I have even considered the possibility that he might turn into a super demon or abomination in an hypothetical final boss fight for DA4, though I hope is not the case ) and not that he's already being controlled by other being. As has been discussed here before, I'm not a fan at all of the idea of a puppet Solas for DA4.
|
|
inherit
2915
0
May 23, 2017 21:44:47 GMT
564
xilizhra
398
Jan 20, 2017 17:07:55 GMT
January 2017
xilizhra
|
Post by xilizhra on Jan 28, 2017 14:30:49 GMT
Second: Sera is not a teenage. She has to be in her mid to late twenties because the noble she lived with was said in WoT2 to have died several years before the 5th Blight and Sera was already old enough to have joined the Red Jennies and rejected her inheritance at that time, so already a teenager. At the time we meet Sera, 11 years have passed since the 5th Blight. To be fair, this is a blatant error on the WoT writers' part; Sera is very much not in her mid-twenties.
|
|
inherit
247
0
Apr 27, 2019 19:55:45 GMT
591
close2myheart
273
August 2016
close2myheart
|
Post by close2myheart on Jan 28, 2017 14:46:47 GMT
@midnight : I like corny without corns, there will be no popcorns and where would we be without that? .. XD nvm. I can show myself out XD
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Jan 28, 2017 17:06:28 GMT
No one said Sera only took umbrage with the Dalish. Nobody said it, but certainly implied it. All right, so no one said it, and you read something into their words that they didn't actually say. Glad we cleared that up. If the example illustrates how Bioware will go out of their way for a particular Andrastian character, then it isn't a 'wrong example', particularly given Leliana's characterization in "Faith" years after DA:O. It is entirely wrong example - Gaider's surprise at people interpreting Leliana's stance as anti-mage means that it was a singular incident where her characterization didn't come across as it was intended. Portraying it as something intentional (what does it matter that it was years after DAO? And DA2 is known to be rushed) or making it seem as if later they've used Leliana only or predominantly to underline her pro-mage stance is disingenuous. Except it wasn't a matter of Gaider saying Leliana was pro-mage like you're suggesting, it was a matter of Gaider being surprised that people were angry at all about how she was characterized at that point, where she was saying Kirkwall might fall to magic and that an Exalted March might need to be called against Kirkwall. He never said the characterization was wrong at all. Because it's an example of Bioware trying to persuade people to feel differently about a character by having her retract the very statement that made some fans dislike her. That's also why I don't understand the point behind bringing up Varric. Varric has been generally liked across Dragon Age II and Inquisition, so I'm not sure why you even brought him up; it's not like people were criticizing him before. Sera's retraction in Trespasser could be the result of the response towards her in Inquisition, since the pre-release comments about Sera seemed to indicate that the developers thought she would be liked unanimously as someone who was not being your 'typical' elf, which wasn't the case. You've given your example of Giselle to show that either characters are being changed if something in it didn't click for the audience, or that they retract their stance or apologize if the matter at hand is anything other than Dalish. As it happens, Sera modified her stance towards elves and magic and have shown signs of growth. Whether it's "retraction" or just consequence of her maturing is beside the point - she is shown to have changed in positive light and be more positive towards the Dalish and elves in particular. Which is a very different position than when some developers seemed to be treating her anti-elf characterization as if it was something they felt people would like or find interesting, as when one developer remarked: “She’s not your typical elf. ” So you tried to disagree with my point that the developers used her to change how people feel about the Chantry by saying the developers used her as someone who should elicit sympathy for the loss of the Kirkwall Chantry? That's not actually a counter-argument. It is - what I'm saying is that you've entirely ignored the context or role in the story in order to try and make it seem as if they've made some sort of bizarre retcons (what, there are no other sympathetic Chantry characters in DAO?) or to suddenly make whole of Chantry into "good guys" for no reason other than to paint them as the "good guys". As it happens, it was not the case. Elthina played a specific role in the narrative. They rectonned a very negative aspect of the lore that positioned the Chantry as using lyrium to control templars, and they created a mandatory character who they positioned as someone to like (although it's debatable how well that worked). It's a valid example. Considering Gaider posted that he felt people sided with mages 'by default', that's not really comparable. It's not a matter for debate whether some developers dislike how a lot of players sided with the mages because the former lead writer expressed that very sentiment. There's also a stark difference between incessant negativity towards the Dalish, with very little positivity, and having two ideologically opposed groups who disagree with one another, as we see with the Mage-Templar War. I have a feeling you're not reading what I'm writing... again. Well, you are the one who claimed that people said something, and then admitted they didn't actually say any such thing because you simply inferred that was what they were saying. If you actually read what wrote, you'd see that I'm not even contesting Gaider's comments. What I've pointed out that, whether Gaider felt that people sided with mages at one point, that is NOT a sentiment as prevalent as it was before and there are people who think that it's the mages who are incessantly shown in more negative than positive light, not the Dalish, never-mind if it's actually true or not. I did read what you wrote, and the issue is still that the former lead writer expressed that he felt a lot of people were siding with mages, which is why some people remark on how the dynamic has changed in the writing since Origins was released. When you're bringing up how some people feel about the depiction of mages post-Origins, I find it important to illustrate the reason why such people discuss mages post-Origins, since a number of people have brought up Gaider's comment over the years when addressing post-Origin depictions of mages. Also - you can't be serious in trying to characterize mages as just an 'ideologically opposed group', when Southern mages are a group that is dealing with TONS of oppression and discrimination ... Like, really? The mages fighting for autonomy from the Chantry controlled Circles, and the templars fighting to restore the status quo of templars controlling mages, are ideologically opposed to one another. If the only retort you have is to try and nickpick the notion that the mages are ideologically opposed to the templars, you really don't have much to say on the matter.
|
|
inherit
2915
0
May 23, 2017 21:44:47 GMT
564
xilizhra
398
Jan 20, 2017 17:07:55 GMT
January 2017
xilizhra
|
Post by xilizhra on Jan 28, 2017 17:18:08 GMT
They rectonned a very negative aspect of the lore that positioned the Chantry as using lyrium to control templars, and they created a mandatory character who they positioned as someone to like (although it's debatable how well that worked). It's a valid example. To be fair, the Chantry still does use lyrium to control the templars, a plot point that comes up repeatedly in DAI.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 17:32:38 GMT
Three things: First as I say, quite by accident the first time, I did manage to befriend Sera by taking exactly the view that you did Midnight; my male Lavellan viewed her as an annoying younger member of the clan who is constantly back chatting him, which as chief scout he had experience of, but in some ways that did make him rather patronising in his attitude because instead of trying to educate her to a more nuanced view of the world, he just ignored her outbursts or made light of them. No other race or class type has to endure the sort of gloating language and utter contempt for their sensibilities that Lavellan has to do after the Temple of Mythal. No other Inquisitor has the romance broken off for refusing to denounce their cultural heritage. I really think that a Lavellan deserved a better explanation of why this was such a crime in Sera's eyes than simply "you're being elfy". If your only idea to treat a younger sibling is to be "patronizing, instead of trying to educate her" or whatever - have at it, though I'm not sure what it has to do with how my Inquisitor treats Sera. Also - saying that "no other Inquisitor has to denounce her heritage" is like saying "no other Inquisitor can have their hearts broken by Solas" or "no other Inquisitor can romance as many characters as female elf Inquisitor". There are simply things unique to certain Inquisitor, be it good or bad - "no other Inquisitor has to deal with being member of a race that have unquestionably hostile plans towards Southern Thedas (Qunari)". Each Inquisitor has to deal with unique choices AND things they can't change. And Sera is VERY clear that she just can't do 'elfy' - if you romance her, you know what you're getting into. Besides - you're being disingenuous in characterizing Sera's demand as "denouncing elfy heritage" as a whole - most she asks is for her chosen lover is to look forward rather then back: a specific stance that has more to do with personal attitude rather than culture. It's one she's criticizing Solas for - and I think we've already established that Solas ain't Dalish or even likes them. This is a moot point. We know that Sera is a brat - she's been characterized like that even by her writer. It doesn't matter whether she's teenage or in mid twenties. So the "mainstream" Dalish CAN'T be at fault, ever? So what you're saying is that humans can be shown to be at fault, or the situation being isn't black-and-white, but humans can be shown to either f**k up or make questionable decisions - and Dalish can't? I mean, whatever "imperialistic ambitions" Drakon had, deciding NOT to help with 2nd Blight that had treated everyone is like Dalish Inquisitor arriving at Winter Palace and - seeing Gaspard's imperialistic ambition's or Celene's questionable actions - deciding "you know what? Screw Corypheus, I'm not allying with those questionable individuals in order to save Thedas from threat that is known to endanger us all". But there IS blame on both sides. Ultimately not helping with 2nd Blight is just one thing that happened, even if in itself it was a significant factor. And I don't think the game has ever portrayed Exalted March that destroyed Dales in positive light. I mean, it seems to me that if humans don't take 100% blame on whole of historical events at every turn means that elves are treated unfairly? Or maybe it should be ignored that it's not Drakon that has invaded the Dales, but Drakon's son? I'm sorry, but I can't not get annoyed by this - do we EVER see human Inquisitor defend actions of Chantry wiping contribution of elves/mages to historic events of often monumental significance? No - they can lie about it (by hiding truth about Ameridan), but I'm pretty sure that ain't have anything to do with defense. Do we ever hear human Inquisitor (or Cassandra) defend the actions of humans when we talk with Ameridan? In fact, I'm pretty sure that the options we are given are more critical of humans - as is the blame for forgetting significant information or downright falsifying the truth. I there really any defense of actions of later Seekers for hiding so much? And those are things we pretty much can't skip. The blame of later generations, and humans in particular, are clear as day - yet you have issues with optional comment while hunting Ameridan's memories, pointing out ONE, albeit big, elven mistake (also, don't tell me that documents that are found in Din'an Hanin are NOT showing that the fault was specifically on one and other side - and while the Dalish are shown to act honorably in face of new information, both humans from Red Crossing and the Chantry are shown to be petty and manipulative!). To say that it reeks of bias is an understatement.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Jan 28, 2017 17:37:49 GMT
Except mage exchange between clans was explained as a result of magic dying out among the Dalish, so it does violate established lore. Magic dying out doesn't rule out more mages then necessary occasionally born in one clan or another, or whether Minaeve's clan even had a possibility to exchange mages. It does contradict the established cultural norms of the Dalish accepting mages, viewing magic as "a gift of the Creators", and having no problem with an abundance of mages within a respective clan, as we see with numerous mages within Zathrian's clan, the DA:O Guideline referencing several mages within a Dalish clan, Ariane's clan accepting a Circle mage, and Merrill giving numerous dialogues on the matter, including finding the concept of humans discarding mages completely alien to her Dalish sensibilities. Considering that the Dalish are the remnants of the independent kingdom of the Dales, where mages were free, there's no reason for them to be positioned as having Andrastian sensibilities about mages and magic. There's not even a point to it aside from positioning the player to dislike the Dalish fairly early on by having them engage in a monstrous practice, especially in a game where we don't even meet a Dalish clan until much, much later in the game. And let's not forget that Minaeve was established from the very beginning to be a weak mage - she can't control her gift even after years spent in the Circle and didn't even try to undertaking Harrowing, to which she readily admits. She's basically a 'runt' that has no chance to become First or Second, only a person with an uncontrollable gift and higher risk of possession. It's not really that hard to imagine why a more strict clan would want to get rid of her in favor of filling the quota with someone of more significant talent. She was a child at the time - it's a story intended to position the Dalish in a very unlikable position with no redeeming features. It doesn't add anything to the story except to invalidate the Dalish as an alternative to the Chantry controlled Circles, which is already pointless when one considers how the Mage-Templar War was truncated from a continental war into a small regional conflict in the Hinterlands. The issue is the lack of balance. Easy to miss wartable operations where Clan Lavellan can easily die are very, very different from incessant, repeated negative comments, many of which are mandatory, and with certain scenes where you're cut off from saying anything while the negativity continues uninterrupted. Also - which comments about the Dalish are "mandatory" and what uninterruptible scenes that specifically attack the Dalish and no one else are you talking about? There's a surprising amount of negativity you're finding, yet a complete lack of detail or example to be seen. You are interrupted when Vivienne and Minaeve speak about the Dalish, you aren't permitted to say anything about what Harding and Iron Bull say about the Dalish, you can't remark when Cassandra tries to proselytize you into the Andrastian faith or when she says derogatory things about the elves following the Creators in the Temple of Mythal. Also, considering there are people who disagree with you about the negativity aimed at the Dalish in Inquisition, and who have voiced their reasons in detail, I'm surprised you'd claim there's a lack of detail about the matter. Also, Hawen is framed as being close-minded for not trusting your Andrastian ties or the Inquisition because the game never bothers to actually explain why his clan would be cautious about an Andrastian organization, much in the same way the introductory scene with Clan Sabrae completely ignores why the Dalish would be extremely apprehensive of strangers to instead mock them through dialogue from Varric and Fenris. It's the reason why some people still don't realize that the Dalish are nomadic as a matter of survival. This is getting absurd - how is Hawen's caution "never bothered to be explained" when you *can't* skip Harding's mandatory description of what happened on Exalted Plains where she mentions elves, we can find monuments of Exalted March on elves all over the place, the whole thing is a WAR ZONE and clan members are being shown both surrounded and fighting off the undead, demons or mentioning that soldiers are hunting their halla? You listed a number of things that don't relate to why the Dalish would be apprehensive of an Andrastian organization, and you did not address that this is never mentioned within the context of Keeper Hawen's wariness about the Inquisition. And also - are you really going to just stubbornly stick to everything that is negative, and simply not acknowledge that both Hawen and the clan warms to Inquisitor if they're alright to them and is shown to be perfectly alright towards them, going as far as sharing secrets found in ruins, gracefully accepting historical records and literally offering an olive branch to people of Red Crossing (who are indeed shown to be close-minded, and the Chantry as manipulative, if we decide to take the documents to Chantry sister)? I'm a bit concerned about this. If you're engaging in these discussions with people in the hopes that they'll feel differently about how the Dalish were poorly handled in Inquisition, you're doing so in vain. Some folks are never going to share your view on the matter. You clearly don't feel as I do, and I'm not even remotely inclined to try and change your mind, because I know such an endeavor is rather pointless. I've also never said that every single thing is negative, and neither has anyone else. Please stop making me repeat that. Most importantly, Ameridan isn't Dalish. *sigh*... Even if you'd argue that he's not Dalish in a sense that he's not 'modern Dalish' I struggle to see how he reveal that he's an original Dalish that is a hero who has saved Thedas from terrible danger not something that is tremendously positive for all modern Dalish, both from standpoint of Thedas AND player audience. It is really hard to interpret Ameridan's sacrifice as anything other than heroic and the Chantry/human records wiping of who Ameridan was as injustice to both city elves and Dalish - to deny it strikes me as bizarre, and only seems to prove that you're not just uninterested in finding anything positive - you're actively avoiding it to create a convenient narrative. With such attitude, I'm afraid that there's very little that can be written without the whole argument becoming circular again, so the response will be dependent on the response... It's simple. Ameridan is a syncretist, he isn't Dalish. I would have enjoyed having an actual Dalish hero to encounter - someone who did something other than endorse Drakon's imperialism and desire to convert everyone to his particular religion.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Sept 28, 2024 11:03:15 GMT
30,001
gervaise21
12,664
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Jan 28, 2017 18:25:50 GMT
Midnight, you have a wonderful tendency to not read posts fully and then pounce on what you don't like.
What I was saying with regard to Ameridan was not that I wanted the Dalish to be totally absolved of all blame but for someone to defend their point of view. Now if you read the On-line Core Rule Book issued by Bioware, which is based off the lore that came out originally at the time of DAO, it quite clearly states that the accusation that the Dalish did nothing to assist with the 2nd Blight only comes from the Chantry/Orlesian side of things. That is also true of the timeline in WoT. The Core Rule Book even suggests that the fact there is no elven testimony on the matter of the Dalish alleged indifference to the fate of Montsimmard may be because it is actually a falsehood spread by their enemies. It says: "That the truth cannot be known is not merely sad but suspicious". This is the sort of balanced approach we had in DAO. Then we had a specific story given to us in DAO by the Dalish where a clan was said to be in the region of the Anderfels aiding against the Blight.
Leaving aside the Dalish, I just find it sickening that no one ever calls out the Chantry on what Drakon did to all the other cults of Andraste in setting up the faith as he saw it. You'd think Solas of all people might have been able to put a little bit of nuance on the argument but not a whisper. So every atrocity that he committed is ignored and only the Dalish are shown to be at fault. I've even see people say Drakon must have not been so bad because otherwise Ameridan would not have been friends with him. Look at the history and tell me that Drakon was not as much a tyrant as the Dalish said he was.
That is what I wanted to see in JoH. Instead we have the assumption that because the Dalish were talking that way about Drakon that they in fact did nothing to aid the Blight, so confirming the Chantry version of history. Where was the person saying: "How do you know they didn't help?" or "We did help but not as part of Drakon's army." Where is the voice saying that their suspicions of Drakon were well found despite Ameridan's positive view of him as a friend. When Ameridan says: "Why didn't Drakon come looking for me?" the response is he had more important things on his mind, like darkspawn pouring out of the Anderfels, when in fact his action in that part of the world didn't take place until 10 years after Ameridan went missing. At the time of his disappearance Drakon was busily engaged in setting up the Templars order and Mage Circles. So why didn't Drakon question what happened to his friend? The inference quite clearly in JoH is that the Dalish are responsible for everything that subsequently happened to them and Drakon is absolved of all blame for why they might not have wanted to support him. I keep pointing to the fact that if the elves were watching as the darkspawn were attacking Montsimmard, they were well out of their own territory at the time, so likely were going to help but arrived too late to be of any use. Perhaps if someone could have said as much, it would not seem so biased.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Jan 28, 2017 18:28:57 GMT
Three things: First as I say, quite by accident the first time, I did manage to befriend Sera by taking exactly the view that you did Midnight; my male Lavellan viewed her as an annoying younger member of the clan who is constantly back chatting him, which as chief scout he had experience of, but in some ways that did make him rather patronising in his attitude because instead of trying to educate her to a more nuanced view of the world, he just ignored her outbursts or made light of them. No other race or class type has to endure the sort of gloating language and utter contempt for their sensibilities that Lavellan has to do after the Temple of Mythal. No other Inquisitor has the romance broken off for refusing to denounce their cultural heritage. I really think that a Lavellan deserved a better explanation of why this was such a crime in Sera's eyes than simply "you're being elfy". If your only idea to treat a younger sibling is to be "patronizing, instead of trying to educate her" or whatever - have at it, though I'm not sure what it has to do with how my Inquisitor treats Sera. It isn't as if you can change Sera's mind about her bigoted views on elves, so it's not as though you can educate her that it's wrong to generalize people within the context of the main game. Also - saying that "no other Inquisitor has to denounce her heritage" is like saying "no other Inquisitor can have their hearts broken by Solas" or "no other Inquisitor can romance as many characters as female elf Inquisitor". Considering the context, I don't find the two comparable to what Gervaise brought up. Having to denounce your religion and heritage to continue a romance isn't the same as having Solas break up with you. Besides - you're being disingenuous in characterizing Sera's demand as "denouncing elfy heritage" as a whole - most she asks is for her chosen lover is to look forward rather then back: a specific stance that has more to do with personal attitude rather than culture. It's one she's criticizing Solas for - and I think we've already established that Solas ain't Dalish or even likes them. You allege it's disingenuous, yet it's the truth of the scene. Despite your claim, Sera does not simply ask her elven lover to look forward, she explicitly asks the protagonist to say that she was just joking about believing in the elven gods. That's a very significant difference. Second: Sera is not a teenage. She has to be in her mid to late twenties because the noble she lived with was said in WoT2 to have died several years before the 5th Blight and Sera was already old enough to have joined the Red Jennies and rejected her inheritance at that time, so already a teenager. At the time we meet Sera, 11 years have passed since the 5th Blight. This is a moot point. We know that Sera is a brat - she's been characterized like that even by her writer. It doesn't matter whether she's teenage or in mid twenties. I suppose it's a matter of context. Is Sera just a young kid who doesn't know any better, or is she a grown adult? That changes things. Third: About Ameridan. I had no objection to him holding the views he did. It was interesting to see how an elf of the Dales could have had a different view of Andraste and incorporated her into their own beliefs. What was annoying was that the revelations about Ameridan, his memories and his friendship with Drakon were set up as showing the mainstream Dalish to be at fault. So the "mainstream" Dalish CAN'T be at fault, ever? I'd say that ignoring the context of Drakon conquering their human neighbors, forcing people to convert to his religion, and wiping out thousands of men, women, and children who didn't convert (like the Daughters of Song), it makes the whole situation incredibly problematic to place all the blame on the elves for not trusting Drakon. Their view that "Drakon was no better than Tevinter" was portrayed by other characters as, in Sera's words, "Pride Cookies again". It was clearly implied by Cassandra's comment on the matter that the Dalish were instrumental in their own downfall by their attitude. Drakon's imperialistic ambitions, whilst acknowledged by Ameridan to a non Dalish Inquisitor, were never questioned by anyone. Not one character suggested that may be the Dalish were right to view Drakon as they did, in spite of the fact that Drakon's purges of all other faiths and even other cults of Andraste in his striving for "simplicity" are well documented. So what you're saying is that humans can be shown to be at fault, or the situation being isn't black-and-white, but humans can be shown to either f**k up or make questionable decisions - and Dalish can't? When Drakon has committed acts of genocide and forced conversions to the populace of lands he's invaded, I'd say it's problematic to treat it as if the elves had no reason to be wary of him. That balancing of the approach is what was lacking in the writing concerning Ameridan. Whilst previous codices have suggested that their may have been equal blame on either side in the fall of the Dales or even that it was empire building under the guise of a religious crusade, no character actually says this in game and even (...) But there IS blame on both sides. Ultimately not helping with 2nd Blight is just one thing that happened, even if in itself it was a significant factor. And I don't think the game has ever portrayed Exalted March that destroyed Dales in positive light. There's not blame on both sides when JoH blames only the elves for not trusting Drakon. a Dalish Inquisitor is not permitted to defend their own people in this respect but as with every criticism of their culture in game, has to simply endure other people's comments in silence, giving them the last word on the matter and thus making them appear as though in the right. I'm sorry, but I can't not get annoyed by this - do we EVER see human Inquisitor defend actions of Chantry wiping contribution of elves/mages to historic events of often monumental significance? No - they can lie about it (by hiding truth about Ameridan), but I'm pretty sure that ain't have anything to do with defense. We had an entire game populated with numerous characters who espoused very pro-Chantry rhetoric, from advisors, companions, and even minor characters, and your example is a single wartable operation to expose the truth of Ameridan's elven heritage and a scenario of Andrastian humans erasing an elven hero while your character is surrounded by Andrastian human heroes who act as a counterbalance to that perception. You might be annoyed, but your annoyance makes little sense in context of what others are bringing up.
|
|
NightSymphony
N2
Still in Solavellan Hell.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 232 Likes: 1,407
inherit
313
0
Nov 20, 2022 17:27:46 GMT
1,407
NightSymphony
Still in Solavellan Hell.
232
August 2016
nightsymphony
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by NightSymphony on Jan 28, 2017 19:25:37 GMT
|
|
Elessara
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 1881
Prime Likes: 1812
Posts: 568 Likes: 1,255
inherit
273
0
Sept 29, 2024 3:58:56 GMT
1,255
Elessara
568
August 2016
elessara
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
1881
1812
|
Post by Elessara on Jan 28, 2017 19:26:02 GMT
Ok ... after the last few pages, I'm just going to stop coming here until this incessant bickering about the Dalish and Sera is done with. A discussion is one thing but this is really going nowhere after how many pages? I know I've derailed this thread a little bit on occasion but this is a bit much.
Maybe I'll go hangout in the MEA forums instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
2998
0
Sept 29, 2024 5:29:59 GMT
Deleted
0
Sept 29, 2024 5:29:59 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 19:28:18 GMT
With all the MEA hype I almost missed that pic that had everyone freakin' out! Funny thing is, my first thought wasn't "Solas??" but "is that the Fade?? Are we going to finally see the Black City?? Yes please!!"
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Jan 28, 2017 19:36:19 GMT
My main problem with much of the current tone is not with Sera. Sera is a good counterbalanace to Solas. Despite her discrimination towards elves, I think she's a pretty progressive character in many ways. "Screw the past, screw submission, why don't we try being ourselves for a change?" Where my problem is that there is no opposite view for the Dalish at all. Solas has almost nothing but disdain for the modern elves, especially the Dalish. Sera has her own reasons, which to be fair she starts to get over by the time Trespasser comes around. As a side note, I think the devs intended for her to grow up during the 3 years after Cory was dead all along and that fan reaction had zero to do with it. If she joined the IQ at, say, 17 and defeated Cory at 18, then by Trespasser she's 21. Four years is a long time when you're young and plenty of time to mature. There should have been a pro-Dalish party member to go along with Sera and Solas. While I loved the lore goodies that came from playing my Lavellan characters, I felt and still feel that the story suffered from a lack of a lot of balance in a point of view. That would have been wonderful. Playing as one of the Dalish does feel pretty isolating because there's no one you can talk to who really understands what it's like to be a Dalish elf in a sea of Andrastians, and there's a cultural gap when you keep having Andrastians tell you that they think the Maker ordained all this even when you've made it clear that you don't believe in the Maker (even Varric remarks on it). One of the reasons why I think Merrill would have been better suited to Inquisition as an elven adviser. She's been in that position of having to be the lone Dalish elf among a lot of Andrastian humans who simply don't understand her people. The philosophical debates she could have had with Solas, the inquiries she would have had with Sole about the Beyond, clashing with Vivienne over their different ideologies (especially given the history of the two VA actors on Torchwood), fulfilling the story arc involving her Eluvian, and even going to the Temple of Mythal where she could connect to a piece of the People's history that has been lost for centuries. That being said, I need to remember that much of this information about how awful the gods were comes from Solas. Do I think he's lying? Doubtful, but he would be willing to exaggerate the truth some for his own goals. Or at least let his own emotions get in the way a bit. I also need to remember that Mythal doesn't say anything about the pantheon one way or the other, save that she was betrayed "as the world was betrayed." The lore changes, well...yeah, they still bug me. Call it cherrypicking, call it what anyone wants to, but I don't like them. I do hope for more of a balance between the Andrastian and Dalish in future games. While touching on the elven gods in this way wouldn't have been my first choice for Dragon Age (invalidating the faith of the Dalish irks me to no end), I think it'll be a waste for the Evanuris become Corypheus-style villains - all style, no substance (which is how it comes across from Solas' version of events). The reality turning out to be an ideological rift between the Creators and Fen'Harel (that doesn't vilify either them or him) would be preferable.
|
|
midnight tea
Twitter Guru
gateway beverage
Posts: 7,982 Likes: 19,471
inherit
gateway beverage
109
0
19,471
midnight tea
7,982
August 2016
midnighttea
|
Post by midnight tea on Jan 28, 2017 20:07:38 GMT
Magic dying out doesn't rule out more mages then necessary occasionally born in one clan or another, or whether Minaeve's clan even had a possibility to exchange mages. It does contradict the established cultural norms of the Dalish accepting mages, viewing magic as "a gift of the Creators", and having no problem with an abundance of mages within a respective clan, as we see with numerous mages within Zathrian's clan, the DA:O Guideline referencing several mages within a Dalish clan, Ariane's clan accepting a Circle mage, and Merrill giving numerous dialogues on the matter, including finding the concept of humans discarding mages completely alien to her Dalish sensibilities. Oh, you mean Merril's "Dalish sensibilities" that make her work on possessed mirror and who goes against her clans'? You have to accept that some of those things you view as "universally Dalish" are either limited to an individual or a specific clan. They are established to differ between one another since DAO, that's just it. Those "Andrastian sensibilities" didn't stop Drakon have a friend in Dalish mage. Those "Andrastian sensibilities" have evolved over time, as did everything else. The fact that the "Dalish are remnants of independent kingdom where mages were free" doesn't change the fact that the kingdom of the Dales didn't exist for 800 years and many things have changed, including the Dalish. Also - really? Trying to make an evidence of perceived attempt to smear the Dalish out of optional conversation with Minaeve? Plus, since when DA games base their portrayal on first impression? If such is the case, then the Qunari are reasonable, practical people who offer us help with the crisis on the South - never mind that they've sneakily betrayed us much, much later in the game. And why do you not mention the fact that Minaeve is very clear that the village she stumbled upon wanted to have a starving child killed right away? Dalish by no means were singled out in her story, in fact she is VERY clear in saying that they simply couldn't afford to have another mage - that is not a vilifying language; just one showing a group in difficult spot, as well as how difficult it is to be a mage on the South. Minaeve's experience is how it is - it's a complex story of survival where no side is spared. She wants the Templars and Circle around, because just like Wynne she finds home and safety there, but she doesn't exactly praise them, when she tells us of mistreatment of Tranquil by both Templars and many Circle mages. We're meant to sympathize with Minaeve because of her sad story, but also be impressed that she's one of few mages that will protect the helpless Tranquil. And I don't think anyone has ever seriously considered the Dalish as an alternative to the Chantry Circles. With the exception of accepting single individuals, such possibility was never really an option, nor I see how it could be, three mage rule or not. The individual Dalish clans have no infrastructure or general standard of practices to be mentors of mages on any significant scale, hence they will never be as good alternative to Chantry Circles as, say, Imperial Circles or any other larger institution in neighboring nations. Really? You take such minor things and either misrepresent them or blow them entirely out of proportion. You will have hard time convincing many people, if you take something as harmless as Cassandra's single remark and then dropping the subject at large as 'proselytizing', or her dropping a word 'nonsense' maybe once at a moment that as very challenging to her faith being characterized as "saying derogatory things" as if it's your duty as "true Dalish" to jump at her throat for it (it's actually comical - we're in ancient temple, facing all these reveals and trying to prevent Corypheus from getting ancient elvhen sacred treasure, and apparently the major preoccupation of the Dalish Inquisitor is to take a shot at Cassandra who is clearly in distress, to try and protect the honor of ancient elves who don't really care about the Dalish. Absurd.) More and more it seems to me that if the game doesn't give you an opportunity to address in detail any perceived slight it means that Bioware is out to get the Dalish - nevermind that we would find the very same stuff for any Inquisitor from any background, if we're really going into such tiny detail to actually find things to have beef with. You miss the fact that 'voicing their reasons in detail' doesn't mean that their reasons or details are convincing - and by all means, it's not like I'm all alone here, contesting the idea that there's so much negativity thrown at the Dalish in Inquisition. In fact I'm pretty sure that what we're discussing at times aren't specifically Dalish or it isn't specifically Inquisition, so suggesting that there's an unified front here is a pretty big stretch. Yes, because there are *clearly* no clues on Exalted Plains that it's Andrastian Chantry that marched on the Dales. And Hawen *clearly* doesn't say that he has issues because "the Inquisition is human" - and till that point we already know that humans are not fond of elves, and elves have enough of reasons to treat humans with suspicion. You're making a claim about the story or its creators and you're asked to substantiate it - and if you're not here to discuss things, then I wonder what is your reason to engage with people on these boards in the first place? I never said that you make every single thing negative - only that you disproportionally focus on negative, only to ignore positive at large in an attempt to try and prove a point. You haven't done anything so far to dispel that notion - not with arguments like those presented above. No - you CLAIM that since Ameridan is a syncretist, he isn't Dalish. You give no good reason to substantiate that claim, other than it's apparently just your opinion. I mean, that's aside the point that you're attempting to counter a point I moved beyond, and do nothing to address it. Whether you claim that Ameridan "isn't Dalish" doesn't change the fact that he is a hero the Dalish can proud of (if it wasn't so, Clan Ghilain wouldn't ask for Inquisition to help them prove their claim of descent - something d'Amerides have profited of for centuries) and is an unequivocally positive portrayal that further makes Chantry and South look guilty as hell for burying uncomfortable truths in order to manipulate people into thinking that elves or mages have no significant contribution in historical events. That is, like, the major point of JOH - the main twist of the whole story.
|
|
lobselvith8
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 426 Likes: 496
inherit
581
0
496
lobselvith8
426
August 2016
lobselvith8
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by lobselvith8 on Jan 28, 2017 20:09:41 GMT
It does contradict the established cultural norms of the Dalish accepting mages, viewing magic as "a gift of the Creators", and having no problem with an abundance of mages within a respective clan, as we see with numerous mages within Zathrian's clan, the DA:O Guideline referencing several mages within a Dalish clan, Ariane's clan accepting a Circle mage, and Merrill giving numerous dialogues on the matter, including finding the concept of humans discarding mages completely alien to her Dalish sensibilities. Oh, you mean Merril's "Dalish sensibilities" that make her work on possessed mirror and who goes against her clans'? You have to accept that some of those things you view as "universally Dalish" are either limited to an individual or a specific clan. They are established to differ between one another since DAO, that's just it. The Eluvian Merrill built on isn't "possessed". There's also no cultural standard when it comes to constructing an Eluvian because it's not something modern Dalish have had to deal with; it's part of the history of their ancestors. Considering that the Dalish are the remnants of the independent kingdom of the Dales, where mages were free, there's no reason for them to be positioned as having Andrastian sensibilities about mages and magic. There's not even a point to it aside from positioning the player to dislike the Dalish fairly early on by having them engage in a monstrous practice, especially in a game where we don't even meet a Dalish clan until much, much later in the game. Those "Andrastian sensibilities" didn't stop Drakon have a friend in Dalish mage. Those "Andrastian sensibilities" have evolved over time, as did everything else. The fact that the "Dalish are remnants of independent kingdom where mages were free" doesn't change the fact that the kingdom of the Dales didn't exist for 800 years and many things have changed, including the Dalish. Drakon had an elven friend who believed in the Maker and fully supported Drakon expanding the Orlesian Empire (as per dialogue with the qunari protagonist) and converting everyone to the Andrastian faith (as per dialogue with the human protagonist). It's simple. Ameridan is a syncretist, he isn't Dalish. I would have enjoyed having an actual Dalish hero to encounter - someone who did something other than endorse Drakon's imperialism and desire to convert everyone to his particular religion. No - you CLAIM that since Ameridan is a syncretist, he isn't Dalish. You give no good reason to substantiate that claim, other than it's apparently just your opinion. Ameridan believes in the Maker, and he wants to be at Andraste's side after death; I'm not sure why you're even disputing that Ameridan is syncretist when the Dalish don't believe in the Maker and the People never elevated Andraste to someone of divine proportions.
|
|