533 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

BobSmith101 wrote...
On the other hand I will not play a female character and do a male romance, that's too weird for me.

One of the often raised criticisms of JRPGS is the male leads are too effeminate. That being the case I don't thing an openly gay lead would go down well. Lesbian lead, sure but being a guy I  have a very clear double standard there.

Now that's an odd thing. I'm a female gamer and the orientation that gives me the most trouble to role-play is the lesbian one. I prefer running a male protagonist, for starters. Maybe I've got my own biological gender issues. Always possible. Anyway, my prefered pairing is m/m, but I'll run m/f with either gender as the protagonist. So I'll do a male PC romancing either a man or a woman but I can't do a woman romancing a woman unless one of the women is Isabela. Because she's just that good.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons I prefer bi LIs. As a female gamer running a male PC, I can romance anybody I like. That really is a big deal for me. I hated the fact that I couldn't romance Alistair with my male Warden.

[AkiKishi]

slashthedragon wrote...
lol so I'll die first?
I think there would have to be a greater instance of women and/or gays in the video game industry before anything major would ever happen.  In such a male dominated profession and in such a male dominated market, things like scantily clad women and lesbians are seen as something men want on their screens.  Same with comics.  AND DAMN IF I HAVEN'T BEEN TRYING TO GET INTO BOTH FIELDS SINCE I WAS 12. </sorry>

I think the simple truth is that mainstream games are too expensive for a niche market, any niche market. And while a female protagonist can do double duty (please female and male for different reasons) A gay guy can't.

FFXIII was the very first black character in the series, so never say never.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 mai 2012 - 11:07 .

[ReallyRue]

berelinde wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
On the other hand I will not play a female character and do a male romance, that's too weird for me.

One of the often raised criticisms of JRPGS is the male leads are too effeminate. That being the case I don't thing an openly gay lead would go down well. Lesbian lead, sure but being a guy I  have a very clear double standard there.

Now that's an odd thing. I'm a female gamer and the orientation that gives me the most trouble to role-play is the lesbian one. I prefer running a male protagonist, for starters. Maybe I've got my own biological gender issues. Always possible. Anyway, my prefered pairing is m/m, but I'll run m/f with either gender as the protagonist. So I'll do a male PC romancing either a man or a woman but I can't do a woman romancing a woman unless one of the women is Isabela. Because she's just that good.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons I prefer bi LIs. As a female gamer running a male PC, I can romance anybody I like. That really is a big deal for me. I hated the fact that I couldn't romance Alistair with my male Warden.

I have similar feelings about the whole bi LI thing. I enjoy playing f/m pairings only if I'm playing the female character, and I like f/f or m/m romances, but I really don't like having to play a male character romancing a female one. There's something about it that I just don't like, so even though I'll do it for characters like Morrigan, or ME's Jack/Ashley/Tali, I can't do it more than once, even if I love those characters. With bi LIs, I can romance any character as a female, and then try a m/m romance. 

@BobSmith, he wasn't the first black character. There was Barret in VII. He was a Mr T impersonation, but he still counts as a black character.

Modifié par ReallyRue, 04 mai 2012 - 12:13 .

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...


One of the often raised criticisms of JRPGS is the male leads are too effeminate. That being the case I don't thing an openly gay lead would go down well. Lesbian lead, sure but being a guy I  have a very clear double standard there.

A gay lead would be just as bad a a lesbian one, or a straight one of either gender, because in an RPG it should be the PLAYER who chooses his character's orientation. So, if my char is a women, we have a bisexual one (because that's how I prefer my women:devil:), if I play a guy he is straight or bi. That simple.

The only one I accept predefined is asexual, if it is a game that does not allow for romances.

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


One of the often raised criticisms of JRPGS is the male leads are too effeminate. That being the case I don't thing an openly gay lead would go down well. Lesbian lead, sure but being a guy I  have a very clear double standard there.

A gay lead would be just as bad a a lesbian one, or a straight one of either gender, because in an RPG it should be the PLAYER who chooses his character's orientation. So, if my char is a women, we have a bisexual one (because that's how I prefer my women:devil:), if I play a guy he is straight or bi. That simple.

The only one I accept predefined is asexual, if it is a game that does not allow for romances.

Not a Witcher fan I take it ?

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Not a Witcher fan I take it ?

Oh I actually like the Witcher. Used to love it, even, except that it is bugged on my new PC so I cant play anymore:crying:,

But there is a huge difference insofar as the Witcher is Geralt's story, you have no character generation at all there. Cant choose the characters looks, gender, history etc.....


It would seem pretty stupid however if the Hero in a BioWare game had a predefined sexuality. Very little about them is certain, you can choose gender, looks, class, and in DAO you could even choose race and background.

It seems very odd that you can choose whether you are human or not, but not whether you prefer penises or vaginas, right?

[Karlone123]

wsandista wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

Romance is going to go at a different pace in DA3 then in DA2. Romance in DA2 evolves over the ten year span where as Romance in DA3 is probably going to be more like Romances in DAO only more improved because of the quick pace in the storyline rather then taking the time to get to know each other like in DA2.

How is taking the time to get to know each other bad for a romance?

I never wrote it would be bad, it would be better in fact as it's a romance with history. Hawke meets Merril, four years later Hawke and Meriil fall in love and move in with each other another four years later Hawke and Merril run away with each other. It's got its history, whereas in DAO it's Warden meets Alistair, a day later they fall in love and another day later they are king and queen. See what I mean. And again quck paced romance aren't bad either.

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...


If they want to explore this issue, then by all means make a gay character with straight counterpart.

But if they don't?

What if they do? DA3 is going to be about what the writers want it to be about. It's almost confirmed that Oralis and Tevinter will be visited, Orlais is more accepting of homosexuality than Ferelden( I believe someone quoted David Gaider saying that on this thread).

Having a gay character is a good way to have an insight into what being gay in Theds is like. Players feel closer to companins, even more so to LIs, so the purpose of a gay LI is to be able to have the most information on homosexulity in Thedas.

Again...they can represent homosexuality and also have a romance system that's open to gender (and allows for player choice.

Have a gay NPC that's not in the party.

Done.

Not sure why it has to be with an LI.

It doesn't HAVE to be an LI, it is just preferable that it is, since generally a PC finds out more about a LI than another companion(Isabella in particular comes to mind).

There are people who

1)  Don't replay the game or do many replays.
2)  People who do not want to play certain types of PCs (for example, I do not want to play a male PC).

There options will be limited for no good reason that I can see except 'just cuz'.

Their options will be limited because because the potential LI is simply not interested in them.

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

Sexuality is just part of who the character is, just like their race, religious views, and other bits of background or personality. A character will be incompatible as a LI with the PC because the PC is not what they want for a partner, whether it be because of their gender, race, religious views, etc.

It only rewards those that replay multiple times and don't care much about their PCs gender or the type of romance they play through.

I know, that was the point, different PC can mean different gender as well. I care very much about a PCs gender because that partially defines who they are. I'm a male heterosexual, but I like to play as a wide variety of PCs in RPGs to experience the game in different ways and provide a multitude of roleplaying experiences.

I like that the answer to this 'all bi' issue is to throw more romances into the game to cover 'gay, bi, and straight' while also providing options...you do know that this would take a heck of a lot more resources?  And that the quality of romances in general would probably suffer?

If ME3 is any indication, the homosexual-only romances would probably suffer the most.

It's not an 'everyone wins' situation.

Well, the devs don't win.

Have you heard the rumor that DA3 will have multiplayer? Assuming that is true, why don't the cancel the multiplayer and focus their resources on creating the best SP gameplay possible for DA3? If the rumor is false, then why don't the devs move more resources to character development? Yes I know resources are finite, before you jump on me for that.

If ME3 is any indication ANY new characters will suffer the most. None of the new characters were as developed as the old cast. Please if you can think of ANY new character introduced in ME3 that were as well developed as the old ones please let me know.

People who's favorite LI is unavailable to them b/c of arbitrary gender restrictions don't win.

So, if a gay man is uninterested in a woman, is it because of "arbitrary gender restrictions" or is it because he is who he is?

[wsandista]

Karlone123 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

Romance is going to go at a different pace in DA3 then in DA2. Romance in DA2 evolves over the ten year span where as Romance in DA3 is probably going to be more like Romances in DAO only more improved because of the quick pace in the storyline rather then taking the time to get to know each other like in DA2.

How is taking the time to get to know each other bad for a romance?

I never wrote it would be bad, it would be better in fact as it's a romance with history. Hawke meets Merril, four years later Hawke and Meriil fall in love and move in with each other another four years later Hawke and Merril run away with each other. It's got its history, whereas in DAO it's Warden meets Alistair, a day later they fall in love and another day later they are king and queen. See what I mean. And again quck paced romance aren't bad either.

Sorry then misread you point.
DAO takes place over a year though doesn't it?

[ReallyRue]

wsandista wrote...

People who's favorite LI is unavailable to them b/c of arbitrary gender restrictions don't win.

So, if a gay man is uninterested in a woman, is it because of "arbitrary gender restrictions" or is it because he is who he is?

That's real-life. Romances in these games are not realistic, bisexuals or no bisexuals.

[Tirigon]

wsandista wrote...

People who's favorite LI is unavailable to them b/c of arbitrary gender restrictions don't win.

So, if a gay man is uninterested in a woman, is it because of "arbitrary gender restrictions" or is it because he is who he is?

But a gay man can still love her.... Love is not necessarily coupled with sexual attraction, although it is obviously preferrable if the two go together.

[AkiKishi]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


One of the often raised criticisms of JRPGS is the male leads are too effeminate. That being the case I don't thing an openly gay lead would go down well. Lesbian lead, sure but being a guy I  have a very clear double standard there.

A gay lead would be just as bad a a lesbian one, or a straight one of either gender, because in an RPG it should be the PLAYER who chooses his character's orientation. So, if my char is a women, we have a bisexual one (because that's how I prefer my women:devil:), if I play a guy he is straight or bi. That simple.

The only one I accept predefined is asexual, if it is a game that does not allow for romances.

Not a Witcher fan I take it ?

Well, Geralt is a pre-defined character, so it's not quite the same as someone like the Warden who we make from scratch. Same with Michael Thorton of Alpha Protocol.

Wondered where you draw the line. Thornton, well you can customise his appearence, the only difference I see from Hawke is that he's got a defined first name. Granted, the Warden is a very different prospect, but it's highly unlikely that Bioware will go back to that since it does not work in a cinematic game.


I prefered all those guys over Hawke, probably because there was not the conflict of the character I wanted Hawke to be (Bioware said it was my character after all) and the character Hawke really was.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 mai 2012 - 02:27 .

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...
Oh I actually like the Witcher. Used to love it, even, except that it is bugged on my new PC so I cant play anymore:crying:,

But there is a huge difference insofar as the Witcher is Geralt's story, you have no character generation at all there. Cant choose the characters looks, gender, history etc.....


It would seem pretty stupid however if the Hero in a BioWare game had a predefined sexuality. Very little about them is certain, you can choose gender, looks, class, and in DAO you could even choose race and background.

It seems very odd that you can choose whether you are human or not, but not whether you prefer penises or vaginas, right?

If Bioware were to write a pre-defined character then it would not bother you?

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

And who decides what is an acceptable pairing? On what criteria?

I can give you reasons and motives for a Templar / Blood Mage pairing, or any opposite pairing actually. Fiction is full of those "doomed, forbidden love", Romeo and Juliet type since well... ever. And I'm not talking about having a mage hunter Templar suddenly becoming a mage lover because the PC is a mage there, but allowing players to explore venues that are a bit more out there.

Should it be more difficult to achieve? Absolutely. Should it be closed with no possibilties? No. Or if it is, for the sake of NPC integrity, we should at least have the possibility to try. And I mean really try, not just being dismissed with one casual line of dialog. That would be a failed romance, but a romance nonetheless.

Btw, assuming LIs are companions, what's a Templar doing teaming with a Blood Mage, anyway, or a racist bigot with an elf? If there's such restrictions, they should apply there in the first place, and not only to romance.

It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Modifié par Sutekh, 04 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Their options will be limited because because the potential LI is simply not interested in them.

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

Sexuality is just part of who the character is, just like their race, religious views, and other bits of background or personality. A character will be incompatible as a LI with the PC because the PC is not what they want for a partner, whether it be because of their gender, race, religious views, etc.

There are all sorts of examples of unlikely romances. The thing they have in common is they are complicated. As long as that is reflected ,then I don't see a reason to just say "This won't happen". Of course if it just comes down to clicking heart icons, then it loses its purpose.

Here is an example from Fire Emblem and how the relationship changes over the course of the game. It's not a romance as such, but it's a good example of how attitudes can change once someone is exposed to a dose of reality rather than pre-conceived ideas.

Lethe/Jill

Support C

Jill:  Um...
Lethe:  Can I help you?
Jill:  I have a q-question.  Is that all right?
Lethe:  It depends on what you're going to ask.
Jill:  Why don't half-bree...  No, that's not right...  Why don't the laguz use
weapons?
Lethe:  ...  We laguz are born ready to fight.  Weapons are something that you
powerless beorc created to counter our claws.  We have no use for them.
Jill:  I, I see...
Lethe:  Is that all you wanted to ask?
Jill:  Um...no.  There's more.  Why do you detest us... humans so much?
Lethe:  That's a good question.  But I would hear you answer first.  Why do you
beorc hate the laguz?
Jill:  It's because the half-bree...  The laguz are our enemy.
Lethe:  Enemy...?  If that's the case, we hate you, too.  As we hate all our
enemies.  We're done here.
Jill:  Wait...

Support B

Jill:  Le...Lethe?
Lethe:  Oh, look what the cat dragged in...  It's you again.
Jill:  Jill...  My name is...Jill.
Lethe:  Fine.  Jill.  What brings you here today?  More stupid questions?
Jill:  I've been thinking about things, and I haven't been able to figure
out...  See, in Daein we were taught that you attack humans indiscriminately
and without mercy.  That you are just savage animals.
Lethe:  Laguz attacking humans?  Grrrrawl!  What garbage!  We dislike even the
company of humans and want nothing to do with them.  Even mauling you would
be...unpleasant.
Jill:  But in Daein, everyone believes that to be the truth!  That's why...
That's why I never questioned it.  But when I saw you fight beside Ike and
other humans on the South Sea, I knew that something was wrong.  You were so
different from what I imagined!  Ever since I was young, they filled my head
with tales of your terrible claws and teeth...  But you stand on two legs.  And
you talk...  You even make jokes!  ...Sometimes...  You're much to us than a
beast!
Lethe:  So glad to hear it.
Jill:  I wonder why humans and sub-humans started fighting in the first place?
Maybe we're just destined for war.
Lethe:  Well, I don't know much about that.  It's not for me to say if the
goddess made us a certain way or if we're just two races that don't like each
other very much.  But I know that Gallia, Phoenicis, and Kilvas all have a
reason to hate humans.
Jill:  W-what reason?
Lethe:  ...Are you serious?  I take it humans aren't interested in passing
history down to their children...  ...Typical.  All right...  Centuries ago,
when Begnion was still a monarchy, the only countries were Begnion and Goldoa.
Goldoa was as it is today:  a reclusive nation inhabited only by dragon tribes.
All the other laguz lived in Begnion with the humans.
Jill:  Humans and sub-humans used to live together in Begnion?!  I had no
idea...
Lethe:  A human was named as the first king, although the laguz's superior
strength led us to rule more often than not.  Despite the harmony that most
felt about this arrangement, the senators watned nothing to do with it.  In the
name of the "apostle," they claimed that only a human could be the true ruler
of Begnion...and started a civil war.  Like blind, mewling kittens, the laguz
kings  underestimated the situation...  We never had a chance.  Caught by
surprise, my brothers suffered defeat after defeat in the face of superior
human weapons and magic.  ...That was the start of long, dark days...  The
start of laguz slavery.
Jill:  ...
Lethe:  After nearly 200 years, a small number of enslaved laguz managed to
escape their human captors in Begnion.  The beast tribes fled to the mountains
and unexplored forest areas-places where humans were loathe to tread.  The bird
tribes, on the other hand, escaped to the distant southern islands.  This is
how our laguz kingdoms began.  It took another eighty years, and the blood of
many brother laguz, until we were formally recognized as nations.  This is why
we fight.  Why we hate.  Humans don't want former slaves to have countries and
be treated as equals.  Laguz carry the shame of the past deep in their hearts,
and struggle still for the freedom that you take for granted.  This is the true
history of Tellius...  No wonder humans would bury it.
Jill:  I don't know wh-
Lethe:  What to say?  Idiot!  Think!  Think about what I have said.  Think
about what you have seen with your eyes and heard with your ears.  If you don't
even have the guts to do that, never show yourself in my presence again!
Jill:  Um...all right...

Support A

Lethe: ...
Jill:  Oh, Lethe!  I thought about what you said, and I deci-
Lethe:  I hear the dragon knight we fought in Talrega was your father.  Why?
Why did you stay with us?  Choosing a band of mercenaries over your own father?
Jill:  Fate works in strange ways.  Had I not known about Commander Ike and the
mercenaries...  Had I not known about you laguz...  I'm sure I would be with
Daein even now.  Taking pride in my work as Daein soldier and offering my life
for Ashnard.  I wouldn't have hesitated to smite you all.  But now I have
learned the truth...
Lethe:  ...And?
Jill:  This isn't like the time I chased your ship from Port Toha, hoping to
win fame and approval from my father.  When I joined you, I acted on my own
accord.  For the first time.  I chose what I thought was a righteous path.
Even if my decision forced me to face my own father...  It's too late to change
things now.  That's why...  I'm here.
Lethe:  Will you...shake my hand, Jill?
Jill:  Wha...?
Lethe:  I have heard of a huma...a beorc custom where the shaking and holding
of hands shows friendship.  ...I...understand you, now.  I empathize with your
choice and admire the strength it took to make it.
Jill:  Lethe...  Uh...  Yes.  Of course.  Please, let us shake.
Lethe:  If we listen to each other and are willing to compromise...  I know the
beorc and laguz can come to live with each other.  I'm sure of it.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 mai 2012 - 03:11 .

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If Bioware were to write a pre-defined character then it would not bother you?

Not necessarily.

If it is a good character, why should he not be gay? And if it is a bad one, being gay wont make a difference anyways.

[Red_Sonja]

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

And who decides what is an acceptable pairing? On what criteria?

I can give you reasons and motives for a Templar / Blood Mage pairing, or any opposite pairing actually. Fiction is full of those "doomed, forbidden love", Romeo and Juliet type since well... ever. And I'm not talking about having a mage hunter Templar suddenly becoming a mage lover because the PC is a mage there, but allowing players to explore venues that are a bit more out there.

Should it be more difficult to achieve? Absolutely. Should it be closed with no possibilties? No. Or if it is, for the sake of NPC integrity, we should at least have the possibility to try. And I mean really try, not just being dismissed with one casual line of dialog. That would be a failed romance, but a romance nonetheless.

Btw, assuming LIs are companions, what's a Templar doing teaming with a Blood Mage, anyway, or a racist bigot with an elf? If there's such restrictions, they should apply there in the first place, and not only to romance.

It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

The LI's character determines what would be an aceptable pairing. Critera is that the LI would be disgusted by the actions of the PC. Templars would be hostile to blood magic, Devout Andratians would cringe at the sight of a heathen defiling a relic of their religion, a bigot could not romance an elf because the elf would always be sub-human in their eyes, and a former slave would probably be very angry(if not outright hostile) with the PC for supporting slavery.

I agree with you that you the PC should be able to try, but the point I was trying to make is that if the PC is not wanted byu the character, the PC should not get the character as a LI. 

The option to not recruit NPCs is one I support, but if the PCs quest s extremly difficult, then they will probably be open to accepting help from those that they would normally consider enimes. (Amon Jero, Zevran, and Sarevok come to mind)

It is not my moral logic I'm basing which romances should be forbidden on, it is that of the LI in question, like a Templar who is sworn to combat blood magic, willing to be with someone who regurlarly performs blood magic. Kind of like if a Lawful Good Paladin who is compelled to strike down evil where ever he finds it was in love with a Chaotic Evil Sorcerer who allys with demons and kills innocents. 

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Their options will be limited because because the potential LI is simply not interested in them.

Should a Templar be an off-limits relationship for a Blood Mage? Should a devout Andrastian(almost certain I spelled that wrong) be off-limits to a heathen PC who attacks the Chantry? Should a former slave be off-limits to a slaver? Should an elf be off-limits to a bigot?

I believe that the answer to all of the above should be yes.

Sexuality is just part of who the character is, just like their race, religious views, and other bits of background or personality. A character will be incompatible as a LI with the PC because the PC is not what they want for a partner, whether it be because of their gender, race, religious views, etc.

There are all sorts of examples of unlikely romances. The thing they have in common is they are complicated. As long as that is reflected ,then I don't see a reason to just say "This won't happen". Of course if it just comes down to clicking heart icons, then it loses its purpose.

Here is an example from Fire Emblem and how the relationship changes over the course of the game. It's not a romance as such, but it's a good example of how attitudes can change once someone is exposed to a dose of reality rather than pre-conceived ideas.

Lethe/Jill

Support C

Jill:  Um...
Lethe:  Can I help you?
Jill:  I have a q-question.  Is that all right?
Lethe:  It depends on what you're going to ask.
Jill:  Why don't half-bree...  No, that's not right...  Why don't the laguz use
weapons?
Lethe:  ...  We laguz are born ready to fight.  Weapons are something that you
powerless beorc created to counter our claws.  We have no use for them.
Jill:  I, I see...
Lethe:  Is that all you wanted to ask?
Jill:  Um...no.  There's more.  Why do you detest us... humans so much?
Lethe:  That's a good question.  But I would hear you answer first.  Why do you
beorc hate the laguz?
Jill:  It's because the half-bree...  The laguz are our enemy.
Lethe:  Enemy...?  If that's the case, we hate you, too.  As we hate all our
enemies.  We're done here.
Jill:  Wait...

Support B

Jill:  Le...Lethe?
Lethe:  Oh, look what the cat dragged in...  It's you again.
Jill:  Jill...  My name is...Jill.
Lethe:  Fine.  Jill.  What brings you here today?  More stupid questions?
Jill:  I've been thinking about things, and I haven't been able to figure
out...  See, in Daein we were taught that you attack humans indiscriminately
and without mercy.  That you are just savage animals.
Lethe:  Laguz attacking humans?  Grrrrawl!  What garbage!  We dislike even the
company of humans and want nothing to do with them.  Even mauling you would
be...unpleasant.
Jill:  But in Daein, everyone believes that to be the truth!  That's why...
That's why I never questioned it.  But when I saw you fight beside Ike and
other humans on the South Sea, I knew that something was wrong.  You were so
different from what I imagined!  Ever since I was young, they filled my head
with tales of your terrible claws and teeth...  But you stand on two legs.  And
you talk...  You even make jokes!  ...Sometimes...  You're much to us than a
beast!
Lethe:  So glad to hear it.
Jill:  I wonder why humans and sub-humans started fighting in the first place?
Maybe we're just destined for war.
Lethe:  Well, I don't know much about that.  It's not for me to say if the
goddess made us a certain way or if we're just two races that don't like each
other very much.  But I know that Gallia, Phoenicis, and Kilvas all have a
reason to hate humans.
Jill:  W-what reason?
Lethe:  ...Are you serious?  I take it humans aren't interested in passing
history down to their children...  ...Typical.  All right...  Centuries ago,
when Begnion was still a monarchy, the only countries were Begnion and Goldoa.
Goldoa was as it is today:  a reclusive nation inhabited only by dragon tribes.
All the other laguz lived in Begnion with the humans.
Jill:  Humans and sub-humans used to live together in Begnion?!  I had no
idea...
Lethe:  A human was named as the first king, although the laguz's superior
strength led us to rule more often than not.  Despite the harmony that most
felt about this arrangement, the senators watned nothing to do with it.  In the
name of the "apostle," they claimed that only a human could be the true ruler
of Begnion...and started a civil war.  Like blind, mewling kittens, the laguz
kings  underestimated the situation...  We never had a chance.  Caught by
surprise, my brothers suffered defeat after defeat in the face of superior
human weapons and magic.  ...That was the start of long, dark days...  The
start of laguz slavery.
Jill:  ...
Lethe:  After nearly 200 years, a small number of enslaved laguz managed to
escape their human captors in Begnion.  The beast tribes fled to the mountains
and unexplored forest areas-places where humans were loathe to tread.  The bird
tribes, on the other hand, escaped to the distant southern islands.  This is
how our laguz kingdoms began.  It took another eighty years, and the blood of
many brother laguz, until we were formally recognized as nations.  This is why
we fight.  Why we hate.  Humans don't want former slaves to have countries and
be treated as equals.  Laguz carry the shame of the past deep in their hearts,
and struggle still for the freedom that you take for granted.  This is the true
history of Tellius...  No wonder humans would bury it.
Jill:  I don't know wh-
Lethe:  What to say?  Idiot!  Think!  Think about what I have said.  Think
about what you have seen with your eyes and heard with your ears.  If you don't
even have the guts to do that, never show yourself in my presence again!
Jill:  Um...all right...

Support A

Lethe: ...
Jill:  Oh, Lethe!  I thought about what you said, and I deci-
Lethe:  I hear the dragon knight we fought in Talrega was your father.  Why?
Why did you stay with us?  Choosing a band of mercenaries over your own father?
Jill:  Fate works in strange ways.  Had I not known about Commander Ike and the
mercenaries...  Had I not known about you laguz...  I'm sure I would be with
Daein even now.  Taking pride in my work as Daein soldier and offering my life
for Ashnard.  I wouldn't have hesitated to smite you all.  But now I have
learned the truth...
Lethe:  ...And?
Jill:  This isn't like the time I chased your ship from Port Toha, hoping to
win fame and approval from my father.  When I joined you, I acted on my own
accord.  For the first time.  I chose what I thought was a righteous path.
Even if my decision forced me to face my own father...  It's too late to change
things now.  That's why...  I'm here.
Lethe:  Will you...shake my hand, Jill?
Jill:  Wha...?
Lethe:  I have heard of a huma...a beorc custom where the shaking and holding
of hands shows friendship.  ...I...understand you, now.  I empathize with your
choice and admire the strength it took to make it.
Jill:  Lethe...  Uh...  Yes.  Of course.  Please, let us shake.
Lethe:  If we listen to each other and are willing to compromise...  I know the
beorc and laguz can come to live with each other.  I'm sure of it.

Well I do like me some Fire Emblem
But if I may there is a difference between a reformed bigot(yes I know I used bigot as an example, but not reformed bigot the bigot example was someone who constanly attacks other races) and someone who is sworn to combat (insert "evil" deed here). A Paladin will not love someone who sacrifices children to Cyric( or similarly horrible deed) simply because the Paladin is morally opposed to it. 

[wsandista]

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

[Red_Sonja]

wsandista wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
It's always the same thing, really. If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them, but I honestly don't see why I shouldn't just because someone has decided that A/B is forbidden based on their own moral / logic construct. It's that "I don't approve of it, so nobody should have it" thing that keeps coming back again and again no matter the topic at hand.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. Having a misogynistic NPC doesn’t make a game misogynistic any more than it reflects the views of the person who happened to write that character. NPC’s should be different; they should have different values, priorities and motivations and I don’t want to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist. You say ‘If you don't want to play this kind of romance, all you have to do is... not play them’ but it’s just as easy for me to say ‘if you want to play this kind of romance, roleplay a different character’! See how that works?

The depth, quality and consistency of characterisation is way more important to me than the ability to woo every single LI with a single character.

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

Bingo!

[Tirigon]

wsandista wrote...

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

If they change based on your character choice, they are still who they are.

Why does it lessen them if, in different playthroughs, they are different? I could see a problem only if they change during one playthrough.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...
Well I do like me some Fire Emblem
But if I may there is a difference between a reformed bigot(yes I know I used bigot as an example, but not reformed bigot the bigot example was someone who constanly attacks other races) and someone who is sworn to combat (insert "evil" deed here). A Paladin will not love someone who sacrifices children to Cyric( or similarly horrible deed) simply because the Paladin is morally opposed to it. 

New one just been released in Japan.

I think that's valid. That's judging someone on their actions , not what they are. A Templar who travels with a Bloodmage that does not conform to the stereotype though, that would fit with the Lethe/Jill theme.

[wsandista]

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Exactly my point
The NPCs should be who they are, not conform to fit the PC

If they change based on your character choice, they are still who they are.

Why does it lessen them if, in different playthroughs, they are different? I could see a problem only if they change during one playthrough.

It depends on what you mean by character choice
If you mean choices that your PC makes then yes that is fine
If they have a completly different outlook on life because of  your character gender, race, or class that isn't good because it changes who the character is