I'm so glad to find someone who sees Aveline as the shitty cop she is rather than the lawful good paragon she's supposed to be. In DAO and DAI it makes sense to have people you dislike in your party because you're trying to save the world so you need all the help you can get, but in DA2 it's basically a group of friends hanging out together for years. Since we can't "fire" companions in DA2, idk why my Hawke would keep Aveline around. So how do you justify your Hawke putting up with her?

I don't justify it - my Hawke does not consider Aveline a friend. She's only ever around when she inserts herself into Hawke's life.

oh my god anders and aveline's banter is golden “not every mage can be trusted” “nor every guard” my little savage king he sees right through this bullshit.

And there’s the banter where Aveline admits she influenced the guards to not hire Carver. Lovely. Because a Fereldan in a city that’s already discriminating against Fereldans, whose primary skill is martial prowess, has a lot of options for work. It seems pretty obvious to me that Carver and Aveline butted heads at least a couple of times. And the reason for that is pretty obvious: if Carver thinks you’re wrong, he’s going to say so. Carver doesn’t hide his opinions of people, for better and for worse. And Aveline doesn’t respond to criticism well.

Genuinely, Aveline buys into her own hype about the idea that she’s this bastion of good sense and compassion, ignoring all her judgmental ways, and her refusal to see mages as people, rather than as threats. And despite that hype, she’s just a bad person. - Mod Alistair

Where is that post that argued Aveline should've not become the guard-captain and instead was stuck in a low-level position all the game, watching as the guard remains corrupt and useless? I am doing her quest in Act I and it's all I can think about but I can't find it

sebastian is a more valuable member of the kirkwall crew than aveline you cannot change my mind

also the fucking audacity of aveline to call merrill stupid, when merrill is the person in the group that has received the most education out of all of them, aside from maybe varric

obviously not reblogging but the audacity??? miss i-didn't-investigate-the-string-of-similar-murders please do tell us why Hawke is mourning. go on tell us.

I fucking hate Aveline and can't wait to eviscerate her (verbally) in my longfic.

I've also had a few glasses of wine.

hawke should’ve had the option to stick up for carver when aveline refuses to give him a chance in the city guard. i feel like it’d really bother them that aveline sees how desperate their family is for coin and still won’t give their brother a job he may well be good at, all because she...what? assumes he’ll buckle under the pressure of answering to somebody? we know that he won’t because if he goes on to join the wardens, carver thrives. i think he could’ve thrived in the kirkwall guard, too.  

oghren, aveline, cullen... i'm not saying i'm biased, but who will be a warrior character i absolutely can't stand in dreadwolf?

On sexuality assumptions in Sherlock (part 2)

So, I literally forgot this was supposed to be a two-parter and what I was even going to write about in part two, but then I remembered. This is about examining some TJLC/Johnlock evidence that is potentially actually problematic and regressive if taken as fact. Not all of them are ProblematicTM, some are just... weird. These are in no particular order and some are possible stretches, but hey, I am allowed to have meta fun too.

Number 1: Mycroft making the sarcastic comment about John and Sherlock's engagement is proof Sherlock is gay.

The reason why this feels regressive to me is because it implies that you can only make quips about your brother dating a man if your brother is gay. But... why? Why is it only acceptable to make this comment if the men in question date other men? It's not a joke about the concept of homosexuality itself.

The 'joke' is "You have been very close to my brother, moved in with him, and are spending a lot of time with him. What's next, marrying him?" That's the point of the comment. It has nothing to do with anyone being gay.

Mycroft doesn't mean they are actually a couple. I fully believe that if Sherlock had a female flatmate, he would have made the exact same comment. All this tells us is that Mycroft doesn't think being gay is a big deal or possibly that being gay in this world isn't that big of a deal.

First of all, let's entertain the possibility that Mycroft believes or knows that Sherlock is gay. If this implies that Sherlock is gay, isn't telling that to John, whom Mycroft just met, and can't be certain that they ever even discussed the topic, basically outing Sherlock to his flatmate?

Now I talked about the fact it's very possible Mycroft made this comment and the later one hinting about possible John/Sherlock sex in the future (which is much better evidence, but people focus much more on the first one since it's more apparent) is testing the waters to see how John feels about gay people and how he feels about being mistaken for a couple with another man or being accused of having feelings for a man.

If John reacted in a very defensive and/or homophobic manner, it's possible Mycroft would have made sure John stayed far away from his little brother. This in itself doesn't have to mean Mycroft believes Sherlock is gay, just that he is being cautious because bigots are unsafe to be around (let alone live with!) for anyone who isn't a bigot themselves.

Number 2: If Sherlock isn't gay, why doesn't he ever correct the people who think he is or that he's dating John?

Because he doesn't care what they think of him. Related to number 1. It's okay to wish people not to mislabel you. Not wanting people to think you're gay if you're not is not homophobia. But Sherlock just doesn't care. This is in contrast with John, who does correct people and doesn't want newspapers calling him a confirmed bachelor.

Number 3: Sherlock got a case wrong and accused a gay man of being a murderer because he was feeling bad about his Unrequited Gay Love for John, who was dating someone else at the time and he thought gay relationships were doomed to fail (this is about a case on John's blog)

This one is just... why. Sherlock is the Great Detective. He's the world's only consulting detective. Why would a man's sexuality influence his decision solely because he's hoping for a gay relationship for himself and is salty about it? Gay or not gay, there's no indication sexual orientation plays any factor in how he views or treats people. This assumption is just straight-up homophobic. I can't see it any other way. Sherlock thinking a man is a murderer because he's gay... is homophobic. Even if you believe Sherlock is gay, internalized homophobia is a thing. It would also make him look quite incompetent, unprofessional, and just straight-up Bad at his job, the one thing he is unquestionably Good at.

Now we get into the weaker ones, at least according to me.

Number 4: Sherlock knowing purple apart from lilac or making serviettes makes him Camp Gay.

I think this is just Sherlock being Sherlock. He knows the color because he knows and notices the things others don't while ignoring those he deems unimportant. As for the serviettes? Why? Because planning a wedding is a gay stereotype? Sherlock is most likely hyperfocused on the wedding because he's nervous about things changing.

Number 5: John was definitely about to make a Move on Sherlock during the stag night and that was the perfect time to do it

I sincerely hope this idea only extends to fiction (because I don't want to be one of these "if you support this in fiction you support it in real life too!!! people) but if it does not, hopefully none of these people ever become someone's Best Person at the wedding if they think seducing the groom right before a wedding is a good idea. Do they think John was about to make a move and if it didn't work just Mary marry anyway as a consolation prize? Do they think that's what happened in TSO3? We or John had no idea she was an assassin yet, so that would be really shitty.

Number 6: John lied about being bisexual

He didn't. The only way this would be true is if someone asked John if he's bisexual and he said no. Unless you think John being closeted and potentially hiding the truth about his sexuality and being purposefully vague about it is lying. It's not.

Number 7: Mycroft believed Sherlock was about to kiss John in front of Mary when asking for time alone

This one is just strange. A confession is one thing, especially if you are not directly confessing. But why would Sherlock do this? He was going to his death and had nothing to lose? Why would he do it in front of Mary? And Mycroft? And the other agents who I think were also still there? Why? Was he sure John would kiss him back? Did he even care?

Miscellaneous: John didn't want Sherlock looking at his laptop because he has a bunch of Gay Porn there

Or... because it's an invasion of privacy? This one isn't Problematic, it's just a stretch.

i cannot get over pro anders argument of him sexually harassing aveline as a "coping mechanism" for her being part of the city guard & him being in the circle. blegh.

TLDR at the bottom, as I know this became very long. My apologies.

I would really like to clarify first that I am not arguing with you or attempting to make you like her and am just attempting to explain my stance since you seemed confused about specifically this: as someone who is very solidly for mage rights in the Dragon Age games and also really likes Vivienne, I do think you overestimate how many fans she has? Which is completely understandable as fandom has cooled a little bit in the last few years, which means there’s less discourse posts floating around, but it used to be that if I found Vivienne content it was vitriolic towards her—she has a canonical Ao3 tag labeled “Vivienne (Dragon Age) Is A Bitch” for example.

We’re not prone to criticizing her character on the regular because she already gets a lot of it, on about the same level as Anders (whom I also am very fond of) and most of it has already been said before.

For examples though, her arguments about mages are genuinely infuriating and make little sense.

She is fantastically racist in the game, which is also very frustrating, though to be fair to her, I’m having trouble thinking of a companion who isn’t at some point or another without ability to correct them (Dorian supporting slavery and his “elven harpy” comment towards, Cole’s “Never trust half an elf” comment which is bad regardless of if they were intending it to be about Michel, Solas and Sera’s everything unfortunately, etc. all come to mind.) Maybe Bull, Leliana, or Josie? I can’t remember them being so off the top of my head.

These things do suck and most Vivienne fans (except for a few, but typically fans who support the fantasy Catholic Church aren’t going to be the type of fans who will bother caring about a Black woman—they’ll usually go for Cullen, the white straight man who is anti-mage and who the narrative actually cares about) are very aware of her flaws, but generally we think it was a very stupid idea to have the first Black companion (that they will actually admit to being Black anyway, unlike Isabela who got whitewashed and Morrigan and Cole, who never really have the fact that they are mixed Black acknowledged or shown in the games) support the oppressive system and use her as a mouthpiece for a conservative agenda.

(Using characters as a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the devs are trying to push with little regard to their actual characters is a very common thing in Inqusition—ex. at one point they have Cole say Cullen was a “good Templar who remembered the mages are people” when Cullen literally has a line in 2 saying “Mages aren’t people like you and me.” which is a direct quote from him, and even though Cole should by all rights be terrified by Cullen. Also, all of Varric’s Inquisition characterization.)

I mean, her companion quest is just there to have you distrust her briefly (the quest is named after a classic villain line and the youth potion paper) before “surprising” the player with the the fact that she… has layers? Cares about someone? Which is so… incredibly stupid on the Dev’s parts for a variety of reasons that if I talk about now I will start getting genuinely angry over.

I also think she has some very redeeming qualities. I personally found that she was very compassionate towards an Inquisitor she was friends with. It doesn’t stop her from being opportunistic, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily. I think this bit specifically is probably something we won’t agree on however, since we have very different readings on these moments, so I’m going keep it at that.

None of this is meant to convince you to like her at all, but I wanted to explain my perspective in doing so since you seemed confused about it.

TLDR: I, and many other pro-mage Vivienne fans, are aware of her flaws, but we think that was a terrible writing decision and do see several redeemable qualities in her character. None of this is meant to sway you in your dislike of her, but I wanted to explain my perspective since you said you didn’t understand how someone could like Vivienne and be pro-mage.

(P.S. I am very sorry if any of this comes off as condescending or if this was completely unwelcome. I’m autistic and have a hard time with tone, both reading it and delivering it. I’m working on it, but I’m still not good at tone over text.)

I. I understand all of this. I’ve criticized the fact they made the first black companion a huge bitch and a bigot against her own kind from the second it became clear that was her personality? But her being the first black companion also doesn’t innately make her a good character. Being a minority doesn’t make what a character does automatically ok or less bad, and idealization is dehumanization as much as villainizing is. It makes BioWare’s writers and their decisions gross, and their agenda gross, any anyone who uses her sucking as an excuse to be racist or disproportionately hateful to only the black companion horrible, but it at the same time doesn’t just…make her good, or ok.

She’s written stupidly, but the character they made is a bigot given no real character growth who tries to ruin the advances for mage rights even if you put forth the best possible outcomes (Lelianna Divine, allied Mages) and befriended Vivienne. She straight sucks. She does. She is a bad, selfish, emotionally manipulative person with no empathy for those of her kind less privileged than her, and a species traitor. (Or whatever? Can’t think of a better thing to categorize Mages as. Class??) It’s not like I only complain about her. I’ve been just as liberal complaining about Doriana and Sera and every other fucked up choice the Devs made. If you’ve seen anything I posted the past week, you’ve probably seen me having a meltdown over how utterly unsalvagable Inquisition is as a game. As for Viv herself, she’s not devoid of good qualities. She’ll be nice if she’s your friend, you’re right, but you have to be kind of terrible to befriend her at all, and so? So is everyone on the planet. That’s what fair weather friends /are/. But beyond that, yeah. She’s not all evil. She cared about the guy she was mistress to. She’s not a monster. But she high key is a terrible person and sucks. You’re right, the devs making her quest a quote from the Queen from Snow White of all things, to encourage a player to lie to her, is fucked up. So is literally everything they did to her. So is how they treated Bull, and Dorian, and Sera, and all kinds of things. But that doesn’t make the character good.

From your own description, you don’t actually like canon Vivienne. You like the HC version you rewrote in your head. And that’s fair, and it’s a fair way to say fuck you to the devs—I do the same with Solas. But you’ll never see me not absolutely accusing the shit out of canon end game Trespasser Solas—he’s a racial supremacist genocide intellectual dude bro, which is a horrific choice for the devs to make esp considering his preTrespasser characterization, but that’s still what he was. I can ignore that and make my HCs, but I’m not going to pretend canon wasn’t what it is. It was. And I wasn’t complaining I see alternate takes on Vivienne, but that I see people talk about Canon Viv like she’s a girlboss while claiming to be pro mage, and those things just concretely do not and cannot go together. And that complaint absolutely stands. It’s cool and even good to hc and rewrite her as a different person. But that’s not canon Viv anymore then, it’s an OC that should have been in the game.

hawke: i love all my companions equally

later

hawke: i dont care much for aveline

good christ aveline's act 3 personal quests are so fucking boring. other things i have done for companions this act include: finally killing the man that enslaved fenris, watching all of merrill's hard work unravel and being forced to kill her keeper, and unknowingly planting a fucking bomb in the chantry for anders, an action with such dramatic consequences that is catalyzes kirkwall's inevitable collapse.

but with aveline! i just- WHY am i taking a break from the big important shit going on to defend her pride? HOW does this warrant the attention it gets!? i could go on and on about how the whole thing is bureaucratic copaganda bullshit — and i would be right — but it's just so boring!!! the entire questline is SUCH a drag beginning to end. i could not be forced to care rn!! i miss my morally grey law-breaking besties! they're gay and they're fun and you have shown me that you literally cannot do your job without me. which is my problem,,, how?

Put Aveline in the bin. <3