585 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

jillabender wrote...

Could you elaborate on that? With respect, I've read in multiple historical sources that common-law marriages were actually very common in the Middle Ages, and were considered legally binding.

I was counting them as well. Marriages were typically a "do it yourself" affair, for the most part, and weren't tremendously elaborate things outside of those with the money to burn on ceremony.  The other poster was in the middle of a goalpost move between "political marriages" and "loveless marriages" and was presenting a confused, inconsistent argument that at the time stated that peasants simply didn't get married at all.  I'm sure she'll pretend this wasn't the case, but she can safely be ignored without consequence.

Anyway, the link Tasmen provided later in the thread goes on at some length as well.

All that said, I don't really think what marriage was like in the Middle Ages matters as to whether or not they ought to be included for the PC and their LI in future DA installments, so it's kind of a tangent.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:34 .

[Emzamination]

MinttyMint wrote...


No I wasnt, but oh Maker I need to get Mass Effect now... Reading on the wiki it actually sounds similar to the Gorim situation... The bastard.

^ Indeed

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


I was counting them as well. Marriages were typically a "do it yourself" affair, for the most part, and weren't tremendously elaborate things outside of those with the money to burn on ceremony.  The other poster was in the middle of a goalpost move between "political marriages" and "loveless marriages" and was presenting a confused, inconsistent argument that at the time stated that peasants simply didn't get married at all.  I'm sure she'll pretend this wasn't the case, but she can safely be ignored without consequence.

Anyway, the link Tasmen provided later in the thread goes on at some length as well.

All that said, I don't really think what marriage was like in the Middle Ages matters as to whether or not they ought to be included for the PC and their LI in future DA installments, so it's kind of a tangent.

bold faced lie, I'm appauled at your integrity, wait...no I'm not.This forum has a quote system, you should be able to quote me saying just that or similar.

[upsettingshorts]

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:47 .

[wsandista]

ohhh emz and angry pants, this ought to be fun. *starts eating popcorn*

On topic: I believe that Bioware should respect traditional marriage.I want to pay a dowry for my significant other's hand, preferably goats, but chickens and sheep will do.

[upsettingshorts]

wsandista wrote...

ohhh emz and angry pants, this ought to be fun. *starts eating popcorn*

 

She's like a less coherent CoS Sarah Jinstar, it's fantastic.

Anyway, to address Trista... don't try to mod your own thread.  If it goes too far off the fails the actual mods will do something about it.

I'm not sure what else there is to discuss though.  Some people want marriage in the game, other people only do with cavaets that it isn't played straight, and some people don't want it at all.  Without more information about the game, it can't get much more detailed than that, can it?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:50 .

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Beginning

[Il Divo]

MinttyMint wrote...

No I wasnt, but oh Maker I need to get Mass Effect now... Reading on the wiki it actually sounds similar to the Gorim situation... The bastard.

It's really not as good as it sounds. Conceptually, a character cheating on the protagonist could be interesting. The problem is that the Jacob romance does not allow the player a realistic range of reactions and some suspect was done more out of the character's lack of popularity.

[upsettingshorts]

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Beginning

Right, exactly as I said in my alleged "bold faced lie."  We're done here.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[jillabender]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

jillabender wrote...

Could you elaborate on that? With respect, I've read in multiple historical sources that common-law marriages were actually very common in the Middle Ages, and were considered legally binding.

I was counting them as well. Marriages were typically a "do it yourself" affair, for the most part, and weren't tremendously elaborate things outside of those with the money to burn on ceremony.

[…]

All that said, I don't really think what marriage was like in the Middle Ages matters as to whether or not they ought to be included for the PC and their LI in future DA installments, so it's kind of a tangent.

That makes sense – thanks for clarifying.

I think it would have been cool if Bioware had shown the "Royal Wedding" with either Alistair or Anora, but when it comes to the romances in general, I don't think it's necessary for the PC to be able to marry his or her love interest – it's just not something I see as a big deal either way. Of course, I'd have no problem if Bioware decided it was appropriate to include weddings in some of the romances.

Modifié par jillabender, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Beginning

Right, exactly as I said.  We're done here.

Me and Rinji were arguing about political marriages from beginning to end.A political marriage is that in which the parents marry off their children for land or other gain.It did not happen amongst peasants because there was nothing to gain.There is no such thing as loveless marriage in and of itself.When I said loveless marriage, I was speaking on the lack of love in a political marriage.Who would love someone they were traded to as compensation? Fail more

Modifié par Emzamination, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:57 .

[Tasmen]

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Beginning

Right, exactly as I said.  We're done here.

Me and Rinji were arguing about political marriages from beginning to end.A political marriage is that in which the parents marry off their children for land or other gain.It did not happen amost peasants because there was nothing to gain.There is no such thing as loveless marriage in and of itself.When I said loveless marriage, I was speaking on the lack of love in a political marriage.Who would love someone they were traded to as compensation? Fail more

Uhhhhhhh... that happened all the time.  The middle class and peasants married for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with love.  Sometimes marriages were arranged simply to keep the bloodlines from getting too incestuous.  Sometimes marriages were arranged to marry into a family with a particular skill (boy marrying girl to apprentice to blacksmith father, for example).  

And you contradicted yourself there.  First you say there is no loveless marriage.  Then you ask why would someone love someone they were traded to for compensation?  

2 + 2 = potato

[upsettingshorts]

When your counterargument is essentially "I am terrible at consistently explaining my own position" you forfeit the right to label others as having "failed more."

[MelRedux]

Emzamination wrote...

Me and Rinji were arguing about political marriages from beginning to end.A political marriage is that in which the parents marry off their children for land or other gain.It did not happen amongst peasants because there was nothing to gain.There is no such thing as loveless marriage in and of itself.When I said loveless marriage, I was speaking on the lack of love in a political marriage.Who would love someone they were traded to as compensation? Fail more

*ahem* "Rinji and I..."

[2leggywillow]

Tasmen wrote...
2 + 2 = potato

This is the most concise description of Emzamination's thought process that I've seen yet.

Modifié par 2leggywillow, 21 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[wsandista]

Mel_Redux wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Me and Rinji were arguing about political marriages from beginning to end.A political marriage is that in which the parents marry off their children for land or other gain.It did not happen amongst peasants because there was nothing to gain.There is no such thing as loveless marriage in and of itself.When I said loveless marriage, I was speaking on the lack of love in a political marriage.Who would love someone they were traded to as compensation? Fail more

*ahem* "Rinji and I..."

Don't bother. Actually when he was arguing against vancian casting a while back, he couldn't even spell it properly.

[slimgrin]

Jesus christ.

[Iakus]

 Look, people are always complaining hwo shallow romances are in games.  "x number of conversations and awkward love scene" sound familiar?

So what's wrong with adding some new/different material tied to the romance?  Including the possibility of a wedding?  Stuff that adds a level of immersion to the game, seperates it further from the standard dungeon crawler?

Romances are already optional content.  What's wrong with exploring new ways of presenting them?

[wsandista]

slimgrin wrote...

Jesus christ.

That just about sums up this thread.

[Emzamination]

Tasmen wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

appauled 

Your spelling of this word is getting even worse.

Here's the link, but the last time I posted it you claimed to have been saying something else, because you can't even remember where you left your own goalposts.

Beginning

Right, exactly as I said.  We're done here.

Me and Rinji were arguing about political marriages from beginning to end.A political marriage is that in which the parents marry off their children for land or other gain.It did not happen amost peasants because there was nothing to gain.There is no such thing as loveless marriage in and of itself.When I said loveless marriage, I was speaking on the lack of love in a political marriage.Who would love someone they were traded to as compensation? Fail more

Uhhhhhhh... that happened all the time.  The middle class and peasants married for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with love.  Sometimes marriages were arranged simply to keep the bloodlines from getting too incestuous.  Sometimes marriages were arranged to marry into a family with a particular skill (boy marrying girl to apprentice to blacksmith father, for example).  

And you contradicted yourself there.  First you say there is no loveless marriage.  Then you ask why would someone love someone they were traded to for compensation?  

2 + 2 = potato

That's great but notice I said "Amongst" peasants.A peasant boy marrying a girl to learn her fathers blacksmith trade is not a political marriage.There are no Dowrys, lands, title ect being exchanged for the hand.What you are talking about is an Arranged marriage.Also I said there was no such thing as a loveless marriage in and of itself

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

When your counterargument is essentially "I am terrible at consistently explaining my own position" you forfeit the right to label others as having "failed more."

You haz yet to prove me wrong.I'm just watching your wounded ego fester