438 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Karl being ander's friend only on female playthrough, but first love for a male playthrough, does really diminish the signifigance of his sexuality. Regardless of one's sexuality, one's "first love", especially like this, is a major and signifgant part of a person's life and character formation. Karl being just a buddy, with no hint at anything more than a bromance, does take away a signifgant portion of the personal/human dimension of that quest and impact on Ander's character. Seeing one's friend, however close, become a lobotomized mind-controlled shell of their former self, will have no where near the intense impact and gut-wrenching horror as seeing it happen to someone who was your first love. A lover has a more intimate, multi-dimensional, and intense relationship than a friend. Especially for someone like Anders.

Yet only a male hawke will get this, because for some strange reason, Anders turns straight and is just Karl's buddy. The impact of that whole quest on anders is lessened for female hawke. Why the hell is it so hard to make Anders bi uniformly? It's not like it would have been totally out of character from the Anders we knew and loved in Awakening, where his rather bohemian, carefree approach to things caused speculation on whether he might go both ways. Had Anders in DA2 been "outed" and confirmed as yes, he loves everyone equally, none of the Anders fans would have given a rat's ass.

I find the "draw your own conclusions" arguement to be a poor excuse for lazy, slapdash implmentation. It's like asking a close friend their sexuality, and them saying "draw your own conclusions". They wouldn't. If you are close enough friends with someone, you will be aware of their sexual orientation, because the subject would have come up in the course of your friendship. And it's not like Anders lives in a world of pitchfork and torch bearing rednecks to want to kill all the sodomites for their god, and has to keep his sexuality in the closet in fear of his life. It's his magic he has to closet, not his sexuality. It's pretty clear in both Origins and DA2 that no one in Thedas really give's a sh*t who you like to shag. At most, some people might think it weird. And, in the case of nobility, a gay noble would still be expected to marry the opposite sex for the sake of politics and continuing the line, but then would be free to carry on in a same sex relationship onthe side.

My point is, there is no believable reason in DA2 why Anders would not tell a female Hawke about karl as a lover. Yet he does not, because in female hawke paralell universe, anders is straight. he never makes mention or even a comment to suggest otherwise.

I mean, if Anders can tell hawke, a relative stranger, he's a near-demon possesed mage, something that WOULD endanger his life and safety if the templars ever found out, there's no believable reason he would not mention having something going on with Karl on the side. Something that few in thedas would really care about.

it's cheap. It's like sexuality can be switched from character to character and playthrough to playthrough like switching batteries. I find it insulting, really.

[esper]

Actually there is Skadi. Anders simply does not think that information is relevant for a female Hawke at this early stage in their relentionship as in he has no need to tell her. For a male he basically goes well you are not the first man I have thought of that way, remember Karl... For a female he can not draw that comperison since Karl and female Hawke is not of the same gender. Thus he focuses more on. 'I am possessed, I will hurt her'. (He generally focuses more on this with female Hawke).

Anders is bi, he does just not inform a female of this on screen (whereever he does off screen, is up the the players head canon).

[erilben]

Anders doesn't tell every male Hawkes about Karl. He only tells male Hawke to test to see if male Hawke is interested in relationships with men. If male Hawke doesn't flrit with Anders, he doesn't get it either. 

I don't get how Karl explains Anders' hatred for the Chanttry either. He hated the Chantry long before Karl was made tranquil, the entire point of joining with Justice was to fight the Chantry.

Why do people care so much to know that Anders had sex with Karl anyway? Do they think you only can care about the people you have sex with?

[esper]

Exactly he doesn't tells males either, if he doesn't think it is relevant to the conversation. He simply does not think it is relevant for females to know, and that is his call to make.
As for the chantry. Yes, he was always anti chantry. You get negative approval in da:a for doing something pro-chantry.

[J.C. Blade]

And in not telling what Karl meant to him, even after seven years of friendship with Hawke, he diminishes the impact it might have on the player in understanding whence forth all of Anders' rage comes from. My best friend getting lobotomized - I'd be in murderous mood. The love of my life getting the same treatment - I'd be blowing up buildings.

Also, in DA:A Anders doesn't like the Chantery but he's nowhere near as hostile towards it. He even says that Circles separating from the Chantery would be mad and suicidal. Curiously enough, even Justice cautions against violence and forwards forgiveness.

[esper]

J.C. Blade wrote...

And in not telling what Karl meant to him, even after seven years of friendship with Hawke, he diminishes the impact it might have on the player in understanding whence forth all of Anders' rage comes from. My best friend getting lobotomized - I'd be in murderous mood. The love of my life getting the same treatment - I'd be blowing up buildings.

Also, in DA:A Anders doesn't like the Chantery but he's nowhere near as hostile towards it. He even says that Circles separating from the Chantery would be mad and suicidal. Curiously enough, even Justice cautions against violence and forwards forgiveness.

Anders rage does not come from only Karl.Karl is not anders love of his life. He is his first lover and he has arguly have many in between. (At the very least that ugly woman in da:a who betrayed him)
 Remember Fereldan is a very liberal circle in that regard (Everyone was kissing everyone). Karl is very much 'just' (and I hate the word just here but I have none else) Anders friend, a very dear friend, but a friend. Not the love of his life. If an ex-lover of mine who I haven't talked to for years gets lobotmized I would react the same way as if a dear friend got, that is with murderous intent if it was something I had seen happen again and again.

[erilben]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Also, in DA:A Anders doesn't like the Chantery but he's nowhere near as hostile towards it. He even says that Circles separating from the Chantery would be mad and suicidal. Curiously enough, even Justice cautions against violence and forwards forgiveness.

Yes, in Awakening, Anders says he doesn't even want to help his fellow mages, and doesn't want the Circles to break away from the Chantry. And yet, the reason he joins with Justice is to fight to free the Circles. Therefore the explanation of the change can't be Karl. Anders' goal was already to free the mages before Karl was made tranquil.  Maybe you should question why it's not shown when and why Anders joins with Justice. 

Modifié par erilben, 31 janvier 2012 - 08:50 .

[J.C. Blade]

Then where does it come from? Because Anders in DA:A was (or had a potential to be) a free if arguably tainted man free from the Templars and the Chantery alike. Why else should he be so up against the establishment when there was nothing they could've done to him anymore.

Also, "everyone was kissing everyone" is not something I would take too seriously considering that most of Circle dialogues came from his humorous banters with Oghren - in fact more than half of his dialogue is about humor. Besides, I'm sure my mage would've noticed something during Origin play-through.

[J.C. Blade]

erilben wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...

Also, in DA:A Anders doesn't like the Chantery but he's nowhere near as hostile towards it. He even says that Circles separating from the Chantery would be mad and suicidal. Curiously enough, even Justice cautions against violence and forwards forgiveness.

Yes, in Awakening, Anders says he doesn't even want to help his fellow mages, and doesn't want the Circles to break away from the Chantry. And yet, the reason he joins with Justice is to fight to free the Circles. Therefore the explanation of the change can't be Karl. Anders' goal was already to free the mages before Karl was made tranquil.  Maybe you should question why it's not shown when and why Anders joins with Justice. 

If the short story is correct then he joind Justice out of accident. It had nothing to do with him wanting to free mages. And the fact that it wasn't shown in any way is major oversight. Hells, they could've used a whole different character for that part of the story and none would be the wiser.

Justice himself was against using violence. He said in one banter, "Each individual should be
judged as a separate person, you should always seek to atone, not
wallow in vengeance, you should always seek to forgive others for their
crimes, and even if they refuse your forgiveness at least you have
tried"

[esper]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Then where does it come from? Because Anders in DA:A was (or had a potential to be) a free if arguably tainted man free from the Templars and the Chantery alike. Why else should he be so up against the establishment when there was nothing they could've done to him anymore.

Also, "everyone was kissing everyone" is not something I would take too seriously considering that most of Circle dialogues came from his humorous banters with Oghren - in fact more than half of his dialogue is about humor. Besides, I'm sure my mage would've noticed something during Origin play-through.

Considering that a apprienctenes and a initiate could have a relentstionship and the mage girl were giggiling about Cullens chrush on the female mage, I would say that the fereldan circle indeed was more liberal. 

The anger was always there. Try to disagree with Anders in da:a, and you hear a lot of bitterness, and besides his words of it being insane, he gives negative approval if you do any chantry quest in da:a. In fact a lot of his snark reflects that as wel. He was simply more selfish and tried to hide his anger, but the way he is around the dead templars is not the way a person is around people the are neutral on.

In da2 he refers to the conversation he has with Justice where Justice ask why he does nothing and Anders says it is the it would be suicide. In da2 he says he could not forget that conversation.  Simply Justice convienced him to be less selfish.

[J.C. Blade]

*shrug* I never got that kind of feeling on my playthrough. But, it was perhaps due to me rolepaying a loner mage.

Again, he never liked or approved what the Chantery did to mages, he just wasn't up in arms about it and wanted to be able to use magic without the Templars coming down on him like a warth of Maker. And I'd dearly love to see or hear that dialogue because it would explain so much instead of just trowing it up in the air and saying "Well yeah, stuff happened, and I'm fighting for mages' freedom everywhere!"

[esper]

J.C. Blade wrote...

*shrug* I never got that kind of feeling on my playthrough. But, it was perhaps due to me rolepaying a loner mage.

Again, he never liked or approved what the Chantery did to mages, he just wasn't up in arms about it and wanted to be able to use magic without the Templars coming down on him like a warth of Maker. And I'd dearly love to see or hear that dialogue because it would explain so much instead of just trowing it up in the air and saying "Well yeah, stuff happened, and I'm fighting for mages' freedom everywhere!"

He hated the chantry, dehumanised templars and used sarcasm as a deflection not humor.
But this has nothing to do with his sexuality. He says very clearly that his problem with Justice is from the moment they joined which means before Karl, his short story shows that too even if it is not canon.
And none of this still does not change the fact that if Anders doesn't feel that it is relevant for female Hawke then it is his call to tell.

[J.C. Blade]

Over seven years of friendship and working together to help the mage resistance and he still didn't feel like confiding to female Hawke, romance on or not. I call that really bad writing.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Over seven years of friendship and working together to help the mage resistance and he still didn't feel like confiding to female Hawke, romance on or not. I call that really bad writing.

Exactly. After 7 years of a relationship, I think one's sexuality would have come up at some point with their lover. "head cannon" doesn't cut it, that's just lazy. Never once in a female Hawke playthrough have I ever seen any hint of any sort of tendancy for same sex relationships. The option to inquire does not even come up, to ask Anders if Karl was something more. It doesn't matter if that line is only optional in a male playthrough, the fact that it isn't even present for a female under any circumstances is ridiculous.

In Origins, Zevran and leliana were bi across every playthrough, regardless of gender. Some lines might be slightly different for gender of the Warden, but the fact was, male or female, dwarf, human, or elf, the option to inquire about their pasts and preferences was there for everyone. Because they were consistant in that regard.

The DA2 model, though? Lame.<_<

[Masako52]

I agree that Anders' relationship with Karl should have come up eventually if you romanced him as female Hawke. But that doesn't mean female Hawke is entitled to know about Anders' history with men - there are any number of reasons he might not have chosen, the first of which being naturally that it's bad class to talk about your exes with your partner.

Anders' hatred of the Chantry goes much further than only Karl. Maybe the fact that he was, oh, captured and tortured by the Templars repeatedly, and the Templars represent everything that a mage ought to fear. Furthermore, the Templars represent the Chantry, so. It's pretty shallow reading of the narrative to think Anders' disdain for the Chantry is unexplained without knowing that he was banging Karl, per se.

Anyway, what's the argument here? Is it against bi characters or not? Don't compare Anders to Zevran. They are two completely different individuals. Zevran is very sexually open, Anders is not the same. I don't recall either Leliana being open about her bisexuality at all to a male Warden, unless she's heavily pressed about Marjolaine (even then, I can't remember exactly if she says outright to a male Warden). Either way, everyone's sexuality is their personal business, even friends are not entitled to know it if the person in question doesn't feel like saying. Additionally, putting sexuality into neat boxes is a recent invention, and probably the DA cast doesn't label themselves as such.

It's like... on one hand, people are complaining that the romantic experience of male Hawke and female Hawke is the same. And then, they complain that it's different. I really don't get it.

Bi cast = good and inclusive for all players. end of discussion.

[esper]

edit out. because this is becoming to Anders-specific.

No one is obligated to share their sexually history if they don't want to. That is not bad writing, that is having a personality. For Anders he is far too busy being concerned with him potential hurting a female Hawke and controlling Justice to bring it up unpromoted.

Modifié par esper, 01 février 2012 - 05:43 .

[Myusha]

 It's nice to know that unlike our world, some battles such as sexuality have already been won, and are things of he past. 

[Kulyok]

I'm against this "everyone goes both way" thing. A man who likes to have sex with males and females is 1) a rare specimen, both in real and in fantasy world; 2) is a definite no-no for many women, myself included. Crazy terrorist in a fantasy game? Sure, any time. Got into a guy's pants? Ewww, I don't want to sleep with such a guy. Besides, it means he's got a flawed personality as a romantic partner - he seeks something in men that a women can't satisfy.

Besides, in my games, I got the impression that Anders doesn't like gays at all. In Awakening, he reacts to Oghren's "Big templar man! What are you going to do with that sword?" with "Ewww", and in Dragon Age 2, betrayed in the Fade by Hawke, he angrily tells her - "You should hook up with Merrill instead", meaning that the most hateful and disgusting thing for him would be Hawke with another woman. Oh, yes, and a blood mage, too, but that seemed like an afterthought.

[Xilizhra]

Besides, it means he's got a flawed personality as a romantic partner - he seeks something in men that a women can't satisfy.

Um. No. It doesn't.

Besides, in my games, I got the impression that Anders doesn't like gays at all. In Awakening, he reacts to Oghren's "Big templar man! What are you going to do with that sword?" with "Ewww"

It's... Oghren. Zevran himself calls Oghren slightly more appealing than a pool of swamp water.

and in Dragon Age 2, betrayed in the Fade by Hawke, he angrily tells her - "You should hook up with Merrill instead", meaning that the most hateful and disgusting thing for him would be Hawke with another woman. Oh, yes, and a blood mage, too, but that seemed like an afterthought.

Um... no... the blood mage thing isn't really an afterthought, like, at all. It is in fact the whole purpose of that line.

[esper]

Kulyok wrote...

I'm against this "everyone goes both way" thing. A man who likes to have sex with males and females is 1) a rare specimen, both in real and in fantasy world; 2) is a definite no-no for many women, myself included. Crazy terrorist in a fantasy game? Sure, any time. Got into a guy's pants? Ewww, I don't want to sleep with such a guy. Besides, it means he's got a flawed personality as a romantic partner - he seeks something in men that a women can't satisfy.

Besides, in my games, I got the impression that Anders doesn't like gays at all. In Awakening, he reacts to Oghren's "Big templar man! What are you going to do with that sword?" with "Ewww", and in Dragon Age 2, betrayed in the Fade by Hawke, he angrily tells her - "You should hook up with Merrill instead", meaning that the most hateful and disgusting thing for him would be Hawke with another woman. Oh, yes, and a blood mage, too, but that seemed like an afterthought.

Perhaps it is because it is a templar and rape is a common thing in the circle. What association do you think he got. Ogrhen is joking with rape: Rape!

As for the first thing paragraph. Entirely your problem.

[Kidd]

J.C. Blade wrote...

None of mine ever did that, and I've had several. They'd provide dozen ways to solve side quests, more than that to progress the main plot. Sure, there was improvisation, quite a lot at times but at no point did the excuse of "I'm a player and this is a roleplaying game, so I should be able to do this (whatever "this" is)" fly. The story and the accompanying NPCs were a creation of a DM. Player had no say in that beyond exploring and trying to influence that world.

Well, that's my experience at least.

Of course a player shouldn't demand it, but the point of an RPG is mutual story telling. If the player wants to play a character driven by revenge for instance, it's very likely the DM will poke and pull at this revenge plot by integrating the character's villain into the campaign.

Another, perhaps more appropriate example, is a favourite story of mine. A fighter with extremely low charisma (hey, dump stat? =D) met with a noblewoman. After thinking for a while, the player decided it was fitting his fighter would fall for this noble. After talking about it casually around the table, the DM decided to take this minor NPC he had created and made her much more pivotal to the plot. I seem to recall she even became a damsel in distress at one point.

Over time, he won her heart through actions even though his social graces and his smell were both pretty darn bad. To the player, this was a much greater victory for his character than the slaying of the large, red dragon. And I'd say the DM did a fine job, here. The beauty of an RPG is that the story can change depending on what you do, it's not a set narrative like a book or a film. Remaining flexible in things is working with the strengths of the type of narrative.

[J.C. Blade]

esper wrote...
As for the first thing paragraph. Entirely your problem.

Oh certainly. Heaven forbid that people should have different preferences in life.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Of
course a player shouldn't demand it, but the point of an RPG is mutual
story telling. If the player wants to play a character driven by revenge
for instance, it's very likely the DM will poke and pull at this
revenge plot by integrating the character's villain into the campaign.

Another,
perhaps more appropriate example, is a favourite story of mine. A
fighter with extremely low charisma (hey, dump stat? =D) met with a
noblewoman. After thinking for a while, the player decided it was
fitting his fighter would fall for this noble. After talking about it
casually around the table, the DM decided to take this minor NPC he had
created and made her much more pivotal to the plot. I seem to recall she
even became a damsel in distress at one point.

Over time, he won
her heart through actions even though his social graces and his smell
were both pretty darn bad. To the player, this was a much greater
victory for his character than the slaying of the large, red dragon. And
I'd say the DM did a fine job, here. The beauty of an RPG is that the
story can change depending on what you do, it's not a set narrative like
a book or a film. Remaining flexible in things is working with the
strengths of the type of narrative.

Again, I do not have that kind of expirience because my DMs didn't do that. We had a really big worlds to play in but we couldn't alter them beyond what he had already written. I don't know if he was a bad DM but I did enjoy his stortelling a lot

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 01 février 2012 - 08:10 .

[Kidd]

J.C. Blade wrote...

Again, I do not have that kind of expirience because my DMs didn't do that. We had a really big worlds to play in but we couldn't alter them beyond what he had already written. I don't know if he was a bad DM but I did enjoy his stortelling a lot

In the end, that's all that matters and it was good, I suppose! =D

I just happen to really like that kind of reactive plot lines (big reason why I tend not to plan very far ahead when I DM, myself - laziness aside of course). And to me, characters' sexual tastes being fluid like that is much the same =)

[esper]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...

None of mine ever did that, and I've had several. They'd provide dozen ways to solve side quests, more than that to progress the main plot. Sure, there was improvisation, quite a lot at times but at no point did the excuse of "I'm a player and this is a roleplaying game, so I should be able to do this (whatever "this" is)" fly. The story and the accompanying NPCs were a creation of a DM. Player had no say in that beyond exploring and trying to influence that world.

Well, that's my experience at least.

Of course a player shouldn't demand it, but the point of an RPG is mutual story telling. If the player wants to play a character driven by revenge for instance, it's very likely the DM will poke and pull at this revenge plot by integrating the character's villain into the campaign.

Another, perhaps more appropriate example, is a favourite story of mine. A fighter with extremely low charisma (hey, dump stat? =D) met with a noblewoman. After thinking for a while, the player decided it was fitting his fighter would fall for this noble. After talking about it casually around the table, the DM decided to take this minor NPC he had created and made her much more pivotal to the plot. I seem to recall she even became a damsel in distress at one point.

Over time, he won her heart through actions even though his social graces and his smell were both pretty darn bad. To the player, this was a much greater victory for his character than the slaying of the large, red dragon. And I'd say the DM did a fine job, here. The beauty of an RPG is that the story can change depending on what you do, it's not a set narrative like a book or a film. Remaining flexible in things is working with the strengths of the type of narrative.

While it is a good story it is impossible to incorperate in a game, because the DM isn't there and the campaing is already written out and set in stone. Sure we may have option a,b,c but it is impossible for bioware to predict that someone wanted option ab1. It is simply the limit of a game such as this.

[esper]

J.C. Blade wrote...

esper wrote...
As for the first thing paragraph. Entirely your problem.

Oh certainly. Heaven forbid that people should have different preferences in life.

People preferences are fine. They are welcome to them, I don't care. But it was enitirely the writer of the original's comment problem if s/he can't romance someone because that person goes both way not the character's.
S/he can just pick Fenris who can't remember his previous sexual encounters and thus is not sure which way he swings because he has first settles down enough by the time he meets Hawke to even begin to think about it.

It is entirely her/his problem as it is her/him who chooses to make it a problem, just as it is enitirely my problem that I can't romance Isabella because her personlity rubs me the wrong way. If someone chooses to say, if a person does, x, y and z then I won't like them that way, they have problem if they still wants a romance.