54 réponses à ce sujet

[Drasanil]

Hi all,

As you may well guess from the title of the thread, this has to do with Dragon Age's claim of being a 'dark' RPG and that relation to political correctness. Let me just preface this by saying that Warhammer was my introduction to the Fantasy genre, and Warhammer Fantasy RP 1st edition my introduction to role-playing, so I have certain expectations when it comes to an RPG and/or setting that qualifies itself as 'dark'. Secondly while I don't find this RPG overly dark, I will readily admit it's no where near the sun shine n' roses of D&D.

Any ways, down to the issue itself, after having read through a good part of the wiki and on Ferelden and other Chantry aligned countries, it strikes me as rather odd that there is appearently neither sexism nor bigotry in these societies nor in the setting as whole from the looks of it, further more the only tangible form of discrimination/racism is against a non-human group (elves) who seemingly possess no real advantages of their own, in essence making them the obvious (and in some larger sense justifiable and acceptable) slave-race/group which takes some of the edge off the issue, not mention the fact that they aren't human makes it even easier to gloss over. Further more Ferelden's strangely democratic principles simply seem to jarr further against the image of 'dark' fantasy. Peasants choosing their lords, and in turn these lords elect their king, just strikes me as a touch too enlightened for a 'dark &gritty' quasi-medival fantasy setting, where peasants should be by all accounts be ignorant and illiterate, lords should really believe themselves superior to common men, and so forth.

Now I do understand the reasoning behind this, Bioware wants to avoid offending people and loosing sales, and they want to allow you to play the character you see fit. To be frank I agree with them, you should be able to play the character you want, the way you want it and make the choices you want, one of the biggest draws of an RPG is of course choice.

How ever, this is where I think Bioware went a bit too far, they gave us all the choice we wanted when designing and playing our characters but made a setting designed to smoothly accomidate such choices with out much fuss, in essence it doesn't seem to make a whit of difference what choice you make, it will all be treated the same. A female noble will be treated the same way as a male one, a gay dwarf with a things for elves will receive no more trouble than the average human family next door etc... etc..

Part of what makes a setting 'dark' for me especially when it appears to be a quasi-medival one, is that there will be ignorance, superstition, bigotry, sexism, exploitation, religious persecution and that your character will have to deal with it and/or even exploit it to further his/her own ends. This is where Dragon Age seems to fall short in the 'dark' category, every one seems to be equal with in the set parameters and with exception of some token discrimination against a non-human subgroup everything seems to go.

In short I get the feeling that the darkness was tacked on as an after-thought rather than being an integral part of the setting and I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

PS: Hopefully this will be a serious discussion on what constitutes a dark and gritty setting, so please keep your responses mature, and lets avoid flaming each other. Any ways it's late and I'm off to bed, but I'll try to post some my ideas on how to give a darker edge to Thedas tomorrow.

[Athnamos]

That is really interesting insight on how "dark-ish" DAO currently. I've played the Witcher before, it was my first time experiencing dark medieval fantasy setting. Bigotry and sexism were in there. Neither sides are really the good guys, they claim fighting for the good cause but poised by extreme hatred for each other that they will do anything to achieve "greater good".



I do agree that the world need bit more realistic, even if the player is given freedom and choice. But that doesn't mean the world around the players has to be quite democratic.

[Varenus Luckmann]

As a fan of dark fantasy and what I'd call something of "realistic" fantasy, I can only say that I agree. TheDAS feels like a very neat, symmetrical picture with all of it's labels firmly in place. Good guys, bad guys, conformative groups, etc.

[Arconi4n03]

Of course, because there needs to be racism and biggotry to make the setting suitably 'dark', it can't be about the choices you have to make or the various shades of gray morality you come into contact with...that would be silly. The universal hatred against mages because of the Chantry can't be seen as superstisious because it's magic right? The fact that if your a dwarf and born in the wrong caste automatically makes you a worthless commoner until you can screw your way up the social ladder isn't at all predjudiced...

[TuringPoint]

You mean "ethnic," right? Dark isn't a very PC term.

[Korva]

There's bound to be plenty of wangsty and/or violent "dark" moments. Maybe you should wait to actually play the game before you write it off as "PC" just because it's not a setting where women exist only to be brutalized, degraded, dehumanized and exploited? And I might add that I for one am DAMN glad that it is not, because I wouldn't pay for sh*t like that.

Elves are definitely not in a good spot and neither are the dwarves, who also make it worse for themselves with their vicious politics and caste system. And I like the system that Ferelden has, or rather: is supposed to have. In practice, I bet you that it isn't nearly as "enlightened", that a good deal of the nobles are corrupt and oppressive, and that many of the landholders have no real choice whom to swear allegiance to.

"Dark fantasy" does not have to mean it's all constant brutality, bigotry and hopelessness for everyone but a tiny ruling caste. A grittier world with real consequences for one's actions, no convenient Detect Evil spells and no deities or other greater forces for good is quite "dark" enough IMO. Especially when you take the existing tensions into consideration. Commoners versus nobility, elves versus humans, mages versus Templar, dwarves sneering at the surfacers, lingering hate between Fereldans and Orlesians, suspicion towards the Grey Wardens -- and power-grabbing nobles creating civil war with a Blight running rampant.

Modifié par Korva, 28 octobre 2009 - 10:11 .

[Malvicus]

Ya, I think you're better off waiting to see how the story and game unfolds. I highly doubt this was tacked on at the end. It looks like a lot of thought and effort went into this story. Lets give them a chance to actually tell it. Then re-visit this topic.

[Arconi4n03]

Malvicus wrote...

Ya, I think you're better off waiting to see how the story and game unfolds. I highly doubt this was tacked on at the end. It looks like a lot of thought and effort went into this story. Lets give them a chance to actually tell it. Then re-visit this topic.

An intelligent post on a forum? Without any veiled attacks or sarcasm? You sir, are a saint.

[SwankyMcSwish]

Interesting topic, but I'm going to have to agree with Korva for the most part.

Drasanil, you mentioned the lack of religious persecution but, excuse me if I'm wrong, isn't the persecution of Elves instigated by the Chantry and their Templars? On that note, mages could also be considered persecuted - I wouldn't say mages possess too much freedom at all.

Modifié par SwankyMcSwish, 28 octobre 2009 - 10:20 .

[BluesMan1956]

Personally, I think all of those who place so much emphasis on political correctness are living in their own fantasy world....

[Drasanil]

Well first off, thank you to the people who replied and thank you for replying in a serious manner, I wasn’t certain if I had inadvertently started a flame war and I’m glad to see I didn’t.

I agree with those who said that the game isn’t out yet and that we should wait before we can decide conclusively whether it’s dark or not. It’s obvious Bioware put a lot of effort into the game and it looks very promising (heck, I pre-ordered the CE two months ago), hopefully playing it will add a great deal of context to the world as the lore is quite a bit sparse at the moment.

Korva wrote...

There's bound to be plenty of wangsty and/or violent "dark" moments.

I don’t doubt you on that, my first play through is going to be with the elf commoner, because not only does it have one of the most gut-retching stories, but it should provide a good idea of what Ferelden is like for the lower classes.

Maybe you should wait to actually play the game before you write it off as "PC" just because it's not a setting where women exist only to be brutalized, degraded, dehumanized and exploited?

I think you misunderstood me on that. I think Bioware opened up some very interesting possibilities for gender-relations in Thedas by making the Maker’s prophet a woman, and having a split between the Orlaisean and Imperial Chantrys, and by that I don’t mean a world where gender is a non-issue. Allow me to elaborate with a few examples:

-Orlais would have great potential as a matriarchal theocracy masquerading behind the remains of the pre-Andastre aristocracy, where men are largely considered the lesser sex (and not in the tacky Drow bondage fetish way, think more along the lines of the Divine=Grand Ayatollah and the Emperor=Ahmadinejad). You wouldn’t have many female Templars (as an example) not because they couldn’t cut it, but because Templars are a bunch of lyrium addicted cannon fodder for rogue mages and demons, and what woman in her right mind would put up with that when she can join the priesthood and wield real power?

-Conversely Tevinter could have a strongly patriarchal streak and male priesthood based on the fact that the Maker is masculine (as opposed to Orlais, where the thought would be the Maker favoured Andastre, therefore girls are considered more favoured than boys), turning what was originally a dispute over mages being indentured VS. mages not controlling peoples’ minds, into a fundamental doctrinal split.

-Other countries could easily fall somewhere in the middle, depending on just how much influence the Chantry wields politically in their area.

And I might add that I for one am DAMN glad that it is not, because I wouldn't pay for sh*t like that.

Neither would I, it would be overly cliché and done to death any ways. But Dragon Age is a mature title for grown up gamers, and I think it would be better served by dealing with social justice issues in a more serious way, rather than glossing them over or relegating them to the domain of demi-humans, we’re all big boys and girls here and I think we could handle it.
 

Elves are definitely not in a good spot and neither are the dwarves, who also make it worse for themselves with their vicious politics and caste system.

You’re right elves aren’t in a good spot, but the lore makes it look like they have nothing in the way of innate advantages (physically speaking) unlike humans, dwarves and Qunari. they’re the weakest and weediest of the bunch is it any wonder they ended up at the bottom of the pile? It seems kind of ham-fisted and is easily justifiable “in setting” given they really are a ‘lesser’ species from the looks of it.

As for dwarves you’re right and I do find it quite refreshing that they aren’t all happy axe wielding drunks, but given the fact they are for all intents and purposes constantly under siege the vicious political and brutal caste system is probably all that allowed them to last this long. It’s not so much a case of discrimination for discrimination’s sake, but a necessary state of affairs in order to keep their society functioning under a constant state of war.   
 
Then there is the fact that these are both demi-human groups and their situation doesn’t carry the same emotional kick as it would if they were human and much easier to identify with.

And I like the system that Ferelden has, or rather: is supposed to have. In practice, I bet you that it isn't nearly as "enlightened", that a good deal of the nobles are corrupt and oppressive, and that many of the landholders have no real choice whom to swear allegiance to.

I hope you are right on that count, Ferelden’s political system would be much more interesting if the reality of it was a distorted mirror image of its theory rather than a close match to it.

"Dark fantasy" does not have to mean it's all constant brutality, bigotry and hopelessness for everyone but a tiny ruling caste.

You’re right, “Dark Fantasy” should not be all blood and guts and constant despair. Setting wise (not necessarily adventurer/character wise), life should be fairly tedious and boring where you have more chance to die of some of disease or a bad crop harvest, than being impaled on a darkspawn’s sword.

A grittier world with real consequences for one's actions, no convenient Detect Evil spells and no deities or other greater forces for good is quite "dark" enough IMO.

True, I guess I was just kind of put off by the way the humans received the built in ‘hero’ origins (Noble & Mage) in a setting that’s supposed to be dark and humans distinctly normal.

Especially when you take the existing tensions into consideration. Commoners versus nobility, elves versus humans, mages versus Templar, dwarves sneering at the surfacers, lingering hate between Fereldans and Orlesians, suspicion towards the Grey Wardens -- and power-grabbing nobles creating civil war with a Blight running rampant.

Hopefully the game will take advantage of this to a greater extent and really flesh it out given that the current lore on DA Wiki makes it seem kind of hollow.

 

SwankyMcSwish wrote...

Drasanil, you mentioned the lack of religious persecution but, excuse me if I'm wrong, isn't the persecution of Elves instigated by the Chantry and their Templars?

From what I understood the Dales was a land grab by Orlais which later used religious reasons to justify it and bring in other nations’ help given they were losing the war. Even at that it seems kind of hollow given that Rivain is a nation of non-Andastrians some of whom have even gone so far as to convert to Qun and have received no grief for it, although this could be due to the sparseness of the lore at the moment.

On that note, mages could also be considered persecuted - I wouldn't say mages possess too much freedom at all.

It’s really easy to justify limiting the freedoms of and segregating a group of people who for all intents and purposes come equipped with built in WMD, that’s not so much dark as a reasonable precaution.

Modifié par Drasanil, 28 octobre 2009 - 06:35 .

[Maria Caliban]

dp

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 octobre 2009 - 07:27 .

[Maria Caliban]

Drasanil wrote...

-Orlais would have great potential as a matriarchal theocracy masquerading behind the remains of the pre-Andastre aristocracy, where men are largely considered the lesser sex (and not in the tacky Drow bondage fetish way, think more along the lines of the Divine=Grand Ayatollah and the Emperor=Ahmadinejad). You wouldn’t have many female Templars (as an example) not because they couldn’t cut it, but because Templars are a bunch of lyrium addicted cannon fodder for rogue mages and demons, and what woman in her right mind would put up with that when she can join the priesthood and wield real power?

The drow?

-Conversely Tevinter could have a strongly patriarchal streak and male priesthood based on the fact that the Maker is masculine (as opposed to Orlais, where the thought would be the Maker favoured Andastre, therefore girls are considered more favoured than boys), turning what was originally a dispute over mages being indentured VS. mages not controlling peoples’ minds, into a fundamental doctrinal split.

As I understand it, that's the case.

Here's the thing, you've claimed there's no sexism or bigotry. (and that this is somehow PC) I'll agree that there's no sexism on display, but I see massive amounts of bigotry and social intolerance.

First, there are the city elves, which you claim don't count because they're 'not human.' This makes no sense to me. In a world where humans and other races interact, it seems logical that we'd oppress those other races before our own.

There are the mages, who are considered inherently evil and controlled by the Chantry.

There are the dalish, who lost their second homeland in an Exalted March due to their pagan beliefs.

There are the dwarves, with a rigid caste system where those who are casteless are not considered people. We know that dwarven noble hunters will kill infants of the wrong sex in order because they're considered bothersome. Moreover, the dwarven society is falling apart, but the nobles are more interested in bloodsports, assassination, and upholding honor than solving the problems.

The Qunari (followers of the qun) are embroiled in an extensive conflict with the Imperium, which I consider a religious war (though it also has other aspects).

Yes, Ferelden has a more egalitarian social system then other countries. Orlesians have an empire where the aristocrats are considered superior, etc. However, Ferelden is a backwater country. It’s government reflects the tribal system of the clans that built it. The landsmeet is based on the Viking Althing. Calling something PC because it doesn’t fit the ideal of medieval Europe given to us by Arthurian fantasy or DnD is problematic.

It’s really easy to justify limiting the freedoms of and segregating a group of people who for all intents and purposes come equipped with built in WMD, that’s not so much dark as a reasonable precaution.

Except reasonable precautions can be dark. Dark does not mean 'unreasonable.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 octobre 2009 - 07:32 .

[CroCelzus]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

Personally, I think all of those who place so much emphasis on political correctness are living in their own fantasy world....

This is what one might call absolute truth

[MrGOH]

Good discussion! I agree with Maria and Korva that Thedas and Ferelden are darker places than Drasanil makes them out to be. In particular, I think characterizes Ferelden's politics as democratic is not accurate - it's much more of a republican system with the landed gentry having power rather than the mass of citizens - it's more akin to post Magna Carta England or a smaller early Holy Roman Empire than to modern democracies and republics. Just because some leaders are chosen by consensus doesn't mean the setting can't be dark - the political jockeying for power under such a system gives ample opportunity for intrigue. I think it's also darker for the setting to highlight the tension between so-called democratic principles and the amoral ambition driving those who come to power by those principles.

[Arconi4n03]

MrGOH wrote...

Good discussion! I agree with Maria and Korva that Thedas and Ferelden are darker places than Drasanil makes them out to be. In particular, I think characterizes Ferelden's politics as democratic is not accurate - it's much more of a republican system with the landed gentry having power rather than the mass of citizens - it's more akin to post Magna Carta England or a smaller early Holy Roman Empire than to modern democracies and republics. Just because some leaders are chosen by consensus doesn't mean the setting can't be dark - the political jockeying for power under such a system gives ample opportunity for intrigue. I think it's also darker for the setting to highlight the tension between so-called democratic principles and the amoral ambition driving those who come to power by those principles.

I agree with what you said. I don't really know what gentry means though...is that like the ruling classes? If so then you have pretty much already said what I wanted to say and anything I add to this topic will be useless until a rebuttal has come from the opposing side...In that vein ; Chocolate Pancakes with Strawberry Syrup

[Olof85]

Ehh..Electing king or chief was tradition in many parts of the world especially in europe and Scandinavia in particular. The swedish Kings for example had to be accepted during a meet for hundreds of years. This electing system is much, much older than the idea of hiers taking the crown and not at all that "sophisticated".


As for chosing thier lords....This is also something that where practiced all over the world. From Northern Europe to Mongol tribes. Warriors could often chose freely wich "chief", "Lord" or "khan" they followed.

Modifié par Olof85, 28 octobre 2009 - 08:48 .

[kuraw]

Korva wrote...

[...] just because it's not a setting where women exist only to be brutalized, degraded, dehumanized and exploited? And I might add that I for one am DAMN glad that it is not, because I wouldn't pay for sh*t like that. [...]

here lies the answer why bioware (and not only them) don't have the guts to cut with political correctness... people would not even buy it.

that's a pity because it would be fun to play a women who kicks ass despite gender discrimination, and evolves to sort of a jeanne d'arc 

[musicalfrog7]

I don't see how we need to abolish democracy and equality in the sexes along with sexual orientation to make this feel darker or less pc. In fact, I never felt like it -was- Bioware trying to be pc, but rather that they really wanted to make DA feel like it was their own world apart from other fantasies. I don't see why we need prejudice against one sex (particularly female) or sexual orientation. Is it because it's medieval esque? But DA is its own world unique from Earth. Just because we've known sexism for thousands of years doesn't mean that another planet/world's humans would have to make the same mistakes.



And they are making mistakes just in different areas. I'm glad to see we won't be having prejudice between the sexes and with sexual orientation in this game. Whenever I pick up some fantasy, I usually expect there to be some sexism towards women and for gays to just be outright not considered at all, completely ignored.



It's dark, just not in the areas that we're used to. And I'm thankful for that.

[Maria Caliban]

kuraw wrote...

Korva wrote...

[...] just because it's not a setting where women exist only to be brutalized, degraded, dehumanized and exploited? And I might add that I for one am DAMN glad that it is not, because I wouldn't pay for sh*t like that. [...]

here lies the answer why bioware (and not only them) don't have the guts to cut with political correctness... people would not even buy it.

that's a pity because it would be fun to play a women who kicks ass despite gender discrimination, and evolves to sort of a jeanne d'arc 

Did you not notice the origin where a group of elven women are gathered up by a human noble to be raped?

People by politically incorrect games, books, and movies all the time. I don't recall reading about how 300 was a boxoffice bomb or how aSoIF can't sell copies.

Yeah, BioWare doesn't have a setting where Duncan won't take female Grey Wardens, and women are only good for making babies. They didn't do so out of a sense of political correctness but because that doesn't interest them. The writers want to write about interesting and powerful women so they made a setting where they could. In no way does this take away from it being dark fantasy.

Dark fantasy tends to be far more progressive in its depiction of women than traditional fantasy. 'Traditional' fantasy likes stories of farm boys becoming noble knights and rescuing fair women while saving the world from a dark lord. The dark lords forces are all dark and stinky, and many times they rush into the idealic farm village, kill the men, burn the houses, and ravage the helpless women. In stock fantasy, the gender roles tend to be rigidly defined.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:30 .

[Drasanil]

[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...

[quote]Drasanil wrote...

-Orlais would have great potential as a matriarchal theocracy masquerading behind the remains of the pre-Andastre aristocracy, where men are largely considered the lesser sex (and not in the tacky Drow bondage fetish way, think more along the lines of the Divine=Grand Ayatollah and the Emperor=Ahmadinejad). You wouldn’t have many female Templars (as an example) not because they couldn’t cut it, but because Templars are a bunch of lyrium addicted cannon fodder for rogue mages and demons, and what woman in her right mind would put up with that when she can join the priesthood and wield real power?[/quote]

The drow?[/quote]
 
In reference to how matriarchies tend to be portrayed in a less than serious manner, and more as straw feminists and S&M fuel for youger gamers, ala D&D drow.

[quote]


[quote]-Conversely Tevinter could have a strongly patriarchal streak and male priesthood based on the fact that the Maker is masculine (as opposed to Orlais, where the thought would be the Maker favoured Andastre, therefore girls are considered more favoured than boys), turning what was originally a dispute over mages being indentured VS. mages not controlling peoples’ minds, into a fundamental doctrinal split.[/quote]

As I understand it, that's the case. [/quote]

Fair enough, I wasn't aware such was the case. I was under the impression the dispute originated over two lines of text and the fact the Black Divine had a party when the Orlaisean one died.


[quote]Here's the thing, you've claimed there's no sexism or bigotry. (and that this is somehow PC) I'll agree that there's no sexism on display, but I see massive amounts of bigotry and social intolerance.[/quote]

Agreed, but it just doesn't feel the same. That bigotry is directed outwards at beings that can generaly be regarded as alien, it is simply not the same thing as humanity being it own worst enemy and directing it inwards, which is generaly part of what makes a setting dark.


[quote]First, there are the city elves, which you claim don't count because they're 'not human.' This makes no sense to me. In a world where humans and other races interact, it seems logical that we'd oppress those other races before our own.[/quote]
 
Ah to me that's not the case, humans are lazy. It seems far more likely the ruling class would oppress their own people and use the other races as scapegoats for society's problems. Why go out of your way to find elves to oppress when it's easier to just exploit your own people, and then shift the blame for their problems to the elves.


[quote]There are the mages, who are considered inherently evil and controlled by the Chantry.[/quote]
 
Agreed, while view is in some senses justifiable it's the way it's been taken to an extreme, that makes it nice n' gritty.


[quote]There are the dalish, who lost their second homeland in an Exalted March due to their pagan beliefs.[/quote]

Yet the Rivaini who have pagan beliefs and some of whom are even starting to embrace Qun and they don't seem any worse off for it, which makes the above seem hollow. It looks more like being an elf is percieved as being evil but being a pagan is a-ok.


[quote]There are the dwarves, with a rigid caste system where those who are casteless are not considered people. We know that dwarven noble hunters will kill infants of the wrong sex in order because they're considered bothersome. Moreover, the dwarven society is falling apart, but the nobles are more interested in bloodsports, assassination, and upholding honor than solving the problems.[/quote]

They're an alien race it makes sense that they should have different values, which while unpleasant does not contribute to the darkness of the setting, any more so than say orcs make the Forgotten Realms setting dark.

I generaly measure a setting's darkness based on humanity's situation with in it, and big picture wise, things are looking good:
-Humanity only has three (presumably two after the game) more blights to go, and the darkspawn become relegated to occasional nuissance as opposed to major threat. Not mention blights are rare enough that humanity has plenty of time to rebuild and regroup.
-The Qunari are a nuissance locked down in a perpetual war with the Imperium.
-Humanity is nicely settled as top dog power wise and even has it's own convenient slave race to oppress as opposed to it's own people.
-Society is largely open and tolerant as far as humans are concerned.
-The two traditional elder races were dragged down to humanity's level, leaving humanity as "the best" there is, with nothing to really aspire to or be jealous of. 


[quote]The Qunari (followers of the qun) are embroiled in an extensive conflict with the Imperium, which I consider a religious war (though it also has other aspects).[/quote]

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScaryDogmaticAliens are not all that dark in my opinion.

[quote]


[quote]It’s really easy to justify limiting the freedoms of and segregating a group of people who for all intents and purposes come equipped with built in WMD, that’s not so much dark as a reasonable precaution.[/quote]

Except reasonable precautions can be dark. Dark does not mean 'unreasonable.' [/quote]

That's where we differ reasonnable precautions aren't dark, they're reasonnable. Excessive precautions are dark.

Modifié par Drasanil, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:32 .

[Uthenera]

Drasanil wrote...

Further more Ferelden's strangely democratic principles simply seem to jarr further against the image of 'dark' fantasy. Peasants choosing their lords, and in turn these lords elect their king, just strikes me as a touch too enlightened for a 'dark &gritty' quasi-medival fantasy setting, where peasants should be by all accounts be ignorant and illiterate, lords should really believe themselves superior to common men, and so forth.

It's about the freeholders and not every peasant is a freeholder, the political system of the vikings  was very similar to this with the Althing the oldest parliament, they were choosing captains for their adventures, whom later became noblemen, In the early history of the Scandinavian kingdoms (Sweden and Norway at least) there were cases, when the revolting "peasants" banished or even murdered their chosen kings, if this rulers didn't meet their exceptations.

Modifié par Uthenera, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:42 .

[jrastaban]

Ah to me that's not the case, humans are lazy. It seems far more likely the ruling class would oppress their own people and use the other races as scapegoats for society's problems. Why go out of your way to find elves to oppress when it's easier to just exploit your own people, and then shift the blame for their problems to the elves.

I just wanted to comment that in the case of the African slave trade it was just the opposite, people going to Africa for the express purpose of gathering slaves rather than making use of the current nation's occupants. There was to also be a human commoner origin but it was cut, that doesn't mean that there isn't  a downtrodden caste that is unplayable.

One other thing to keep in mind, there is a lot of work needed to make these things happen. To have people be sexist, you would need alternate branches for male/female, want them to react differently because you choose a female partner as well, that is a whole new branch.
Of course this could be conveyed by directing these emotions towards people who were not the PC, but then you lose immersion if you are not treated in the same way.

Modifié par jrastaban, 28 octobre 2009 - 09:49 .

[Drasanil]

jrastaban wrote...

Ah to me that's not the case, humans are lazy. It seems far more likely the ruling class would oppress their own people and use the other races as scapegoats for society's problems. Why go out of your way to find elves to oppress when it's easier to just exploit your own people, and then shift the blame for their problems to the elves.

I just wanted to comment that in the case of the African slave trade it was just the opposite, people going to Africa for the express purpose of gathering slaves rather than making use of the current nation's occupants.

 
Yes but in context it was done primarily for financial reasons, and the fact that a 'liberated' peasantry couldn't be so easily forced back into indentured servitude.

In the case of elves, it doesn't seem to make much sense considering they are sub-par physical labourers and you still have an indentured peasantry. If the slavery issue had been addressed in manner more similar to Rome's conquest of Greece, where the primary benifits of Tevinter's victory was the aquisition of knowledge and wealth from the elves (which they should have had plenty of given their back story) as opposed to aquisition of an inferior labour force it would have made more sense.

There was to also be a human commoner origin but it was cut, that doesn't mean that there isn't  a downtrodden caste that is unplayable.

True, I hope we get to see it too, humans may consider elves second class citizens, but as far as the Aristos are concerned pretty much every one should be a second class citizen.

[pharos_gryphon]

I think the 'dark' aspect of the game is not so much in a single overtone as it is in reference to other games of the same genre. The moral ambiguity, religion being fallible, alternative lifestyles, and discrimination are all things that most of the fantasy genre tends to gloss over a bit. Look at even Baldur's Gate or NWN for that matter. There's a strict moral/ethical alignment, there's obvious bad guys and obvious good guys, wounds and sex and death are either glossed over or romanticized... and the hero is always victorious at the end of the day. No, it's not entirely 'dark and realistic' in DA:O, but it's still a far cry different than most previous games.



Personally, when someone says the word 'Dark' I think of the Ravenloft setting, Lovecraft or Poe, or traditional gothic horror, so my definition of it doesn't much fit Dragon Age either. None the less, that grittier feel to the game highlights those often shied away from aspects of humanity a bit more than most other work in the genre.



A good example of this, would be comparing your standard fantasy novel to something like George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. There's not heroes and monsters, no white knights and pristine princesses. There's just people. Fallible, shades of gray, people.