645 réponses à ce sujet

[Kevin Lynch]

ipgd wrote...

Again: What dialogue within the game indicates that, say, Merrill, cannot be interested in women when she is with a male player, or interested in men when she is with a female player? She does not mention anything about her sexual history. Conclusive statements like this cannot be made without conclusive evidence.

That would go both ways, however. With the only evidence provided being whatever is shown to the player within the context of their current game, that is all the PC knows. The player can grab metadata from elsewhere and make assumptions, but if you use only evidence provided in-game to the current PC, then you can't make the suggestion that all are bisexual. Taking that angle, all characters could be considered bisexual until they say otherwise (although they could be lying, so that still proves nothing). Bottom line is that it's going to be the writers that determine the characteristics of the NPCs; what is offered to the PC as "evidence" is all you can use to make up your mind. Something like real life. After all, everyone on the planet could be considered bisexual if you consider the lack of conclusive evidence to be your guide.

[ipgd]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

That would go both ways, however. With the only evidence provided being whatever is shown to the player within the context of their current game, that is all the PC knows. The player can grab metadata from elsewhere and make assumptions, but if you use only evidence provided in-game to the current PC, then you can't make the suggestion that all are bisexual. Taking that angle, all characters could be considered bisexual until they say otherwise (although they could be lying, so that still proves nothing). Bottom line is that it's going to be the writers that determine the characteristics of the NPCs; what is offered to the PC as "evidence" is all you can use to make up your mind. Something like real life. After all, everyone on the planet could be considered bisexual if you consider the lack of conclusive evidence to be your guide.

That is my point.

Alistair, for instance, makes no comments pertaining to his interest in men or lack thereof. We can make a reasonable assumption that he is straight because he is not available as an LI for a male player. We can't definitively (yes, yes, "straight until proven otherwise" is the reasonable default assumption, but speaking in absolutes) say Alistair is straight identified using in-game information alone since the game does not let you ask, but metagame information fills that gap. Without that information it's still an assumption, even if it's an assumption you'd be right about 95% of the time.

Similarly, I can make the assumption that Merrill is bisexual because she is available as an LI for both male and female players. Metagame information is the only information we have about Merrill's sexual preferences. It is still an assumption, but so is the assumption that she is gay or straight depending on the player's gender, because she says absolutely nothing about her sexual history.

And, no. Everyone on the planet should be considered to have undefined sexual preferences until they are, well, defined. Going exclusively off in-game information, if that is the argument, characters like Merrill and Fenris can be at most said to have "incomplete" descriptors of their sexual preferences, because the game does not let you ask. If you want to fill out those gaps by interpreting these characters as having quantum sexualities, the writers obviously left the door open for that. But it isn't "foolish" to interpret them as bisexual, considering there is exactly as much evidence (read: absolutely none, outside of metagame conjecture) for that hypothesis as the other.

Modifié par ipgd, 19 juin 2011 - 08:29 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

no I dont want any beastulaity in my dragon age


edit Oh! bisexuality, ah! well I don't care as long as its not everyone

Modifié par DinoSteve, 19 juin 2011 - 08:40 .

[whykikyouwhy]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

Hawke possesses the cult of personality. Or charisma +20.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 19 juin 2011 - 08:45 .

[Sutekh]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

Hawke possesses the cult of personality. Or charisma +20.

Hey, not that far-fetched, actually. I knew a guy once whom everyone and their sibling wanted to get in bed with. He wasn't particularly handsome, just extremely charismatic. Happens a lot with leaders (or movie/rock stars and the like). Maybe Hawke has the same power?

[Wulfram]

All of the LIs have something which at least suggests they find members of the opposite sex other than Hawke attractive. So I don't really buy the Schroedingers Sexuality thing.

I also don't really see what the point of it is. It's much easier to just accept they're all bi.

Modifié par Wulfram, 19 juin 2011 - 09:23 .

[Kevin Lynch]

ipgd wrote...

Similarly, I can make the assumption that Merrill is bisexual because she is available as an LI for both male and female players. Metagame information is the only information we have about Merrill's sexual preferences. It is still an assumption, but so is the assumption that she is gay or straight depending on the player's gender, because she says absolutely nothing about her sexual history.

This is where you go wrong, though. You shouldn't be using any metagaming information at all. You are supposed to be roleplaying the PC and the PC only knows what is in the game. From Hawke's perspective, they will only go on the evidence they have within the world as they know it. In the case of Merrill, she isn't "available" as love interest to both sexes within a single game, so there is no reason for Hawke to make any assumption that she is bisexual. However, it is safe to say, if she is a love interest of Hawke that Hawke is able to make some assumption of her sexuality at that point. It may not be the correct assumption but at least it would be based on some evidence (even if it could be misleading, as it can be in real life).

My opinion is, of course, that players can roleplay the game however they choose; if they want to think that everyone is bisexual, that is their perogative and it doesn't affect me one way or another. I certainly didn't feel that way in any of the replays I made because I'm thinking of each game as an isolated case.

[Well]

Sutekh wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

Hawke possesses the cult of personality. Or charisma +20.

Hey, not that far-fetched, actually. I knew a guy once whom everyone and their sibling wanted to get in bed with. He wasn't particularly handsome, just extremely charismatic. Happens a lot with leaders (or movie/rock stars and the like). Maybe Hawke has the same power?

No.You can respect someone as a leader or whatever but that doesn't have to mean that your attracted to them sexualy.

[Wulfram]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

In the case of Merrill, she isn't "available" as love interest to both sexes within a single game, so there is no reason for Hawke to make any assumption that she is bisexual.

Unless they're Lady Hawke and hear Merrill commenting on how "easy on the eye" the Qunari were.

[whykikyouwhy]

I have made reference to Merrill's admirimg glances in the past but really, that may be all they are. Just appreciation of form and physique. I may find Hugh Jackman hunky but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to bed him. He's quite simply nice to look at.

[Sutekh]

Well wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

Hawke possesses the cult of personality. Or charisma +20.

Hey, not that far-fetched, actually. I knew a guy once whom everyone and their sibling wanted to get in bed with. He wasn't particularly handsome, just extremely charismatic. Happens a lot with leaders (or movie/rock stars and the like). Maybe Hawke has the same power?

No.You can respect someone as a leader or whatever but that doesn't have to mean that your attracted to them sexualy.

That's really not what I was saying. Really not. I was taking a real life example that I personally witnessed. I'm confused about how you read "leaders only have groupies and no mere followers who only respect them" in "some charismatic people are sex magnets, Hawke might be one of those".

[22nd MadJack]

You cannot create a fantasy realm based on feudal society and inject modern morality into it. Well ... you can, but it is inadvisable. Modern morality is one of the reasons we do not still have a feudal society, thus, its incorporation is jarringly inconsistent to say the least.

Bisexuality/homosexuality ... the problem is not so much its presence, but more its depiction and what the characters in the world think of it. Some of the ... staggeringly liberal ... opinions expressed make me feel as if I had just charged into battle, sword drawn, only to be shot by a man with an M8-Avenger. Simply put, in comparison with a world that voted through Proposition 8, the liberal consensus demonstrated in Kirkwall is quite literally futuristic.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 20 juin 2011 - 07:03 .

[Cutlass Jack]

22nd MadJack wrote...

You cannot create a fantasy realm based on feudal society and inject modern morality into it. Well ... you can, but it is inadvisable. Modern morality is one of the reasons we do not still have a feudal society, thus, its incorporation is jarringly inconsistent to say the least.

You can't add fantasy to a feudal society and assume it would develop exactly the same as the mundane version. Well you could, but it would just be silly to do do so. People have far more important things to worry about. Such as demons, blood magic and darkspawn.

[22nd MadJack]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

You can't add fantasy to a feudal society and assume it would develop exactly the same as the mundane version. Well you could, but it would just be silly to do do so. People have far more important things to worry about. Such as demons, blood magic and darkspawn.

Actually, you can often assume exactly that.  The existence of Darkspawn, demons or bloodmagic does not presuppose that the denizens of Thedas will spontaneously  leap-frog a thousand years of ethical and philisophical debate.   The only force that can make them do that is the writer and that act taints his world.  It becomes 'contemporary' (I say contemporary in the same way I say cess-pit).   Initially it's just the odd phrase or reference.  Grammar which could not be, like people using 'rollercoaster' as a descriptor.  Then it is situations which we describe - a unequal and brutal feudal society emphatically embracing it's LBGT community.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 20 juin 2011 - 09:18 .

[Well]

Sutekh wrote...

Well wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

IMO, the whole "Schrodinger's sexuality" thing is sort of problematic because it stretches credibility that Hawke just happens to be traveling with a group of people who all find him/her attractive. Who knows, maybe Varric's just a shipper.

Hawke possesses the cult of personality. Or charisma +20.

Hey, not that far-fetched, actually. I knew a guy once whom everyone and their sibling wanted to get in bed with. He wasn't particularly handsome, just extremely charismatic. Happens a lot with leaders (or movie/rock stars and the like). Maybe Hawke has the same power?

No.You can respect someone as a leader or whatever but that doesn't have to mean that your attracted to them sexualy.

That's really not what I was saying. Really not. I was taking a real life example that I personally witnessed. I'm confused about how you read "leaders only have groupies and no mere followers who only respect them" in "some charismatic people are sex magnets, Hawke might be one of those".

I probably should of been more clear but leaders tend to have charisma.Which draws people to them.There are rockers,actors and regular folks who may be highly charismatic people but I think it is the exception more than the rule of thumb that someone would be attracted to them if they didn't have the same sexual inclination.Talk about tip toeing thru the mine field.Only on my second cup of coffee so any gibberish may be the result from lack of caffeine..

[Sutekh]

Well wrote...

I probably should of been more clear but leaders tend to have charisma.Which draws people to them.There are rockers,actors and regular folks who may be highly charismatic people but I think it is the exception more than the rule of thumb that someone would be attracted to them if they didn't have the same sexual inclination.Talk about tip toeing thru the mine field.Only on my second cup of coffee so any gibberish may be the result from lack of caffeine..

Ah, I see Well, if you follow the quotes, you'll see that it wasn't about orientation, but the fact that all characters are Hawkesexual. I wasn't implying people would go against their orientation to sleep with a leader. Most people wouldn't because the attraction wouldn't exist to begin with (there could be exceptions, though).

[Selene Moonsong]

ipgd wrote...

That is my point.

Alistair, for instance, makes no comments pertaining to his interest in men or lack thereof. We can make a reasonable assumption that he is straight because he is not available as an LI for a male player. We can't definitively (yes, yes, "straight until proven otherwise" is the reasonable default assumption, but speaking in absolutes) say Alistair is straight identified using in-game information alone since the game does not let you ask, but metagame information fills that gap. Without that information it's still an assumption, even if it's an assumption you'd be right about 95% of the time.

Similarly, I can make the assumption that Merrill is bisexual because she is available as an LI for both male and female players. Metagame information is the only information we have about Merrill's sexual preferences. It is still an assumption, but so is the assumption that she is gay or straight depending on the player's gender, because she says absolutely nothing about her sexual history.

I fail to understand logic of your assertions here, other than misusing a single word. 

Scenario 1 DAO : Alistair says nothing about sexual preference and is not a romantic interest for your male character: This does not lend credence to the idea that Alistair is straight, only that he is not a romantic interest to male characters.

Scenario 2 DAO: Alistair says nothing about sexual preference and is a romantic interest for your female character. This does not lend credence to the idea that Alistair is straight, only that he is a romantic option for your female character.

Your two unrelated characters in their own separate story experiences have no means of comparing notes, either story is correct for the PC's perspectives. As a player, however, it is easy enough to assume that Alistair is straight.

Scenario 1 DA II: Merrill says nothing about sexual preference and is a romantic interest for your male character. This does not lend credence to the idea that is straight, bisexual, or lesbian, only that she is a romantic option for your male character.

Scenario 2 DA II: Merrill says nothing about sexual preference and is a romantic interest for your female character. This does not lend credence to the idea that is straight, bisexual, or lesbian, only that she is a romantic option for your female character.

Again two separate characters in two separate events that have no relationship with each other, only their own experience to draw from.

As a player, you have learned that Merrill is a romantic interest for both male or female player characters. This does not lend any credence to the assertions made that she is bisexual; the topic of sexuality is not discussed in the game and therefore bears no relevance. 

Between DAO and DA II there is a total of 2 known bisexual female characters if you play a male, and 1 bisexual female character if you play a female. Only 1 is a companion and from the female perspective she is a lesbian, while the non-party member suggest she goes either way. 

In DA II, there is 1 lesbian and 1 bisexual female character from the story line information.

Drawing upon detailed player information, one simply cannot conclude that simply because a particular character is available as a romantic interest for either gender character that the characters can be defined as bisexual. To do so is to take the characters and the word completely out of proper context of the characters and  from the classic definition of the term. 

Outside those individual character experiences, everything else is unknown by any of the characters; they know only what they have experienced in the game.

That is why I refer to them as being interested in the PC and refer only to the revealed bisexuals as such.

Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say on the subject.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Am I the only one who finds the "Hawke-sexual" thing to be creepy in a truman show way? DA:O did it better by making up its mind on the characters' sexuality, IMO.

[Well]

Sutekh wrote...

Well wrote...

I probably should of been more clear but leaders tend to have charisma.Which draws people to them.There are rockers,actors and regular folks who may be highly charismatic people but I think it is the exception more than the rule of thumb that someone would be attracted to them if they didn't have the same sexual inclination.Talk about tip toeing thru the mine field.Only on my second cup of coffee so any gibberish may be the result from lack of caffeine..

Ah, I see Well, if you follow the quotes, you'll see that it wasn't about orientation, but the fact that all characters are Hawkesexual. I wasn't implying people would go against their orientation to sleep with a leader. Most people wouldn't because the attraction wouldn't exist to begin with (there could be exceptions, though).

Okay got it.I'm having a Homer Simpson moment.Well quite a few.I stand corrected.

[FieryDove]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

snip

Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say on the subject.

Excellent post. 

[Cutlass Jack]

22nd MadJack wrote...

Actually, you can often assume exactly that. The existence of Darkspawn, demons or bloodmagic does not presuppose that the denizens of Thedas will spontaneously leap-frog a thousand years of ethical and philisophical debate. The only force that can make them do that is the writer and that act taints his world. It becomes 'contemporary' (I say contemporary in the same way I say cess-pit). Initially it's just the odd phrase or reference. Grammar which could not be, like people using 'rollercoaster' as a descriptor. Then it is situations which we describe - a unequal and brutal feudal society emphatically embracing it's LBGT community.

You should be careful about assumptions for the usual reasons. You can't assume anything to be true in a world with magic in it. A world that does have magic in it would not be as inclined to follow the same technological path our world has. So you simply can't place a timeline on it based on visuals you see. Who said they leap frogged thousands of years?

Again the key word is 'fantasy' not 'reality.' Earth rules don't apply. They can be futher ahead of us on certain issues and wildly behind on others. Perhaps if we lived on a world with magic, demons, and competed with multiple fully sentient humanoid races our priorities would be just a tad different.

That's without even getting into the specific environments that the four bisexual characters came from. Why would dalish elves follow shem opinions on sexuality when they disagree on everything else? Would a slave raised in a decadent society that forbids nothing really have the same perspective as a chantry brother? How about a mage who lives nothing resembling a normal human life at all?

That just really leaves Pirates, which I'll admit there's just no excuse for. Everyone knows that when it comes to romance, no one holds more traditional values than a Pirate.

[ipgd]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

[snip]

Again, if the argument is that metagame information is off-limits, the assertion that they are definitively gay or straight has as little foundation as the assertion that they are bisexual. Going strictly by the information posited ingame, their sexualities can only be accurately labeled undefined, or partially defined at most. Any complete label requires inference that may not necessarily be true, be it through an isolationist "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" interpretation or an extrapolation based on metagame information.

My point is that the gay/straight dichotomy is equally as foundless based on the very rubric you use to discount the bisexual interpretation. They are player focused, yes, but that says nothing more than that they are player focused. Their sexualities are not conclusively or exclusively defined by that. Their sexualities are not defined, be it gay or straight or otherwise, period. Any conclusive statement regarding their sexualities whatsoever is based on information that is not literally stated in the text, so to discount one and not the other for that reason does not make sense to me.

My other point is that the sexualities of these characters are obviously designed to allow for varying interpretations and extrapolations based on that non- or loosely defined sexual framework, making the labeling of such interpretations as "foolish" kind of an unwarranted **** statement.

Modifié par ipgd, 21 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[22nd MadJack]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
You should be careful about assumptions for the usual reasons. You can't assume anything to be true in a world with magic in it. A world that does have magic in it would not be as inclined to follow the same technological path our world has. So you simply can't place a timeline on it based on visuals you see. Who said they leap frogged thousands of years?

Again the key word is 'fantasy' not 'reality.' Earth rules don't apply. They can be futher ahead of us on certain issues and wildly behind on others. Perhaps if we lived on a world with magic, demons, and competed with multiple fully sentient humanoid races our priorities would be just a tad different.

We understand fictional realities based on our experiences within our own.  In essence, within a fictional world, truth is by default what is true in our own reality.  For example, you assume people will adhere to gravity and walk around using their legs.  In order to form the fictional world, the creator demonstrates to you what is different to our reality.  The creator may demonstrate that gravity can be circumvented through Magic.  A fictional world is essentially the sum of these differences.

In a world of magic ... would our priorities be different?  I am going to go with no.  We are human beings and human beings have a fairly standard set of priorities. Survival,  Reproduction, Territorialism, Competition, Social Interaction, Happiness. etc.  Dwarves, Elves, Qunari - these are all based on humanity and inherit most if not all of their characteristics with the exception of appearance.

We are human beings.  We are homophobic, racist and mysogynistic.  We lie, we cheat, we steal, we murder.  No amount of magic is going to change that.

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That's without even getting into the specific environments that the four bisexual characters came from. Why would dalish elves follow shem opinions on sexuality when they disagree on everything else? Would a slave raised in a decadent society that forbids nothing really have the same perspective as a chantry brother? How about a mage who lives nothing resembling a normal human life at all?

That just really leaves Pirates, which I'll admit there's just no excuse for. Everyone knows that when it comes to romance, no one holds more traditional values than a Pirate.

That is a different argument.  Whether someone's sexuality is defined by their environment or by their biology.  'Born bi' you could call it.  I have no expertise in this area.  Frankly I don't think it matters one way or the other.  I have nothing against Bisexual characters, it is a trait which did indeed suit Isabella.  Questions are raised when bisexuality appears to be the leading sexuality.  Because it isn't.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 21 juin 2011 - 06:48 .