294 réponses à ce sujet

[Brodoteau]

 Thedas is supposed to be pretty stratified in the way the society is organized.  Elves are supposed to viewed as sub-human.  And yet, our companions have been a pretty enlightened bunch.  Despite Sten making a few comments, and Sebastien trying to move people to the Maker, there haven't really been a lot of intolerant companions in the DA universe.  

Not that this is a bad thing.  But would you like to have a companion that has "normal" Thedosian views of elves? 

I know that in ME, people were upset with Ashley's attitudes towards the aliens, but that helped to flesh out the character.  There are still people that are upset over Keldorn killing Viconia in BG2.  But that helped to flesh out the setting and the character. 

So what say you, more "Ashleys" in DA3?  

[XX-Pyro]

Well Leliana didn't like Morrigan much but that's cause that particular Warden was a rascal. Honestly though I'm not quite sure if I'd enjoy this or not, I suppose I'd have to see how it plays out in game! Not against it though.

[TheBlackAdder13]

I agree with this 100%. In fact, I would take this a step further and note that I was severely disappointed with the lack of options for my Hawke to be elfist. I would like more options for the playable character to be elfist, similar to the options in the human noble origin.

[mickey111]

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

[devSin]

Leliana had her speech about elven servants in Orlais that she would give to elven Wardens. It may not have come across as overtly racist, but she clearly had "normal" Thedosian views, at least on some level.

I don't think it's needed, personally—it's expressed just fine in the larger world (unlike ME, where humans were a minority, there's plenty of opportunity to see firsthand the prevailing attitudes on elves and dwarves, and both Origins and DA2 have gone to appreciable length to show it to you).

[Ninja Stan]

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

That, and adventuring types tend to be kind of aggressively weird in their own way, so they're less likely to be stupid in this fashion.  Granted, that doesn't mean they won't be stupid in other fashions.

Sten was actually the most overtly racist, and sexist, character in Origins.  But it was pretty obvious that he just didn't like anybody very much.

[mickey111]

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

And since DAII it's often assumed that player character wants said characters as companions at all, so there you go. Consider this post as support for that topic requesting a kick party member feature.

[MisterJB]

Because most of our companions are decent-ish people?

Edit: What about Vellana? She was very anti-human.

Modifié par MisterJB, 08 février 2013 - 03:08 .

[Face of Evil]

Because it's not conducive to teamwork and it's generally a drag.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 08 février 2013 - 03:19 .

[lv12medic]

(Futurama orphanage children voices)

Knife ears, Knife ears, Knife ears, Knife ears, Knife ears, Knife ears...

It'd get old real quick.

[H. Birdman]

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

All the arguments against it so far are weak.  I'm sure Bioware is anti-human-sacrifice, too, but that doesn't keep PC's from choosing human sacrifice in DAO.  Including a character with racial prejudices is no more an endorsement of racism than Oghren was an endorsement of binge drinking and abandoning one's children. 

If you think players lack the ability to discern depiction from endorsement, let me respectfully suggest that you have no business making games in which thousands of humans get murdered.

That said, how about a compromise?  Give us a boss fight with Albie the Racist Dragon.

[n7stormrunner]

yeah, you annoy the armed and armored and/or magical elf... let me know how it goes I'll be buying a shovel and be digging over here for a totally unrelated reason

[mickey111]

.

Modifié par mickey111, 08 février 2013 - 03:52 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

mickey111 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

And since DAII it's often assumed that player character wants said characters as companions at all, so there you go. Consider this post as support for that topic requesting a kick party member feature.

Our character will be human in DA 3. I don't see how this would be an issue of "companion compatability." As towards how companions get along, it provides for dramatic potential. Your companions aren't supposed to get along and agree with each other, that'd mean they'd all be exactly the same. 

And are people really stating that Bioware hasn't made elfist characters as a result of political correctness towards a fictional race? Jeez. 

The point of Dragon Age is that it's a fantasy where things like sexism, homophobia and racism based on skin color are presented as less of an issue than in the real world. Instead you graple with the philosophies behind these real world issues via fictional scenarios. Not including companions who are racist against elves, or given the PC the option to do the same, cheapens that by applying PCness to...fiction. Talk about taking PC to the next level. 

Modifié par TheBlackAdder13, 08 février 2013 - 03:59 .

[LinksOcarina]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

That, and adventuring types tend to be kind of aggressively weird in their own way, so they're less likely to be stupid in this fashion.  Granted, that doesn't mean they won't be stupid in other fashions.

Sten was actually the most overtly racist, and sexist, character in Origins.  But it was pretty obvious that he just didn't like anybody very much.

Thats why he gets away with it though, its because he doesn't like anyone that much.

As to the topic at hand...id say that it would be difficult to have a party mesh with the overtly racist character involved in the party, and done without going cliche on it. Usually when there is a racist character with a group, they are united by a common cause only. Later, the racist is saved in battle by the guy they make fun of, and show a begruding respect for that character in the future. 

I guess it can be done, but do we really need it? 

[Brodoteau]

It's not a question of need, as much as whether or not people would want it.
I dunno. I don't think it would have to define the character, but it does seem strange that all of the humans we've encountered have not held the "knife ears" in contempt -- especially those of noble birth. If people want anti-mage characters or anti-templar companions, in fitting with the setting, how is this different?

Similarly, if we play the game in Orlais, then our Orlesian companions should have a a negative view of Fereldans.

That was lacking in Kirkwall, which had strong anti-Fereldan sentiments, but none of your companions was anti-Fereldan. But then again, none of your companions in DA2 was actually born in Kirkwall.

[Conduit0]

H. Birdman wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

All the arguments against it so far are weak.  I'm sure Bioware is anti-human-sacrifice, too, but that doesn't keep PC's from choosing human sacrifice in DAO.  Including a character with racial prejudices is no more an endorsement of racism than Oghren was an endorsement of binge drinking and abandoning one's children. 

If you think players lack the ability to discern depiction from endorsement, let me respectfully suggest that you have no business making games in which thousands of humans get murdered.

That said, how about a compromise?  Give us a boss fight with Albie the Racist Dragon.

If you want a strong argument, than here it is. It would be impossible for a random bunch of hugely different people to come together as a cohesive group if they were not willing and able to put aside their personal opinions and differences.

[LinksOcarina]

Brodoteau wrote...

It's not a question of need, as much as whether or not people would want it.
I dunno. I don't think it would have to define the character, but it does seem strange that all of the humans we've encountered have not held the "knife ears" in contempt -- especially those of noble birth. If people want anti-mage characters or anti-templar companions, in fitting with the setting, how is this different?

Similarly, if we play the game in Orlais, then our Orlesian companions should have a a negative view of Fereldans.

That was lacking in Kirkwall, which had strong anti-Fereldan sentiments, but none of your companions was anti-Fereldan. But then again, none of your companions in DA2 was actually born in Kirkwall.

The only companion from Kirkwall is Varric I believe, and hes the most open guy out of the entire group. 

As to the anti-elf slant. I agree that it would be an interesting dynamic, but it would be hard to pull out properly. The reason the companions in Dragon Age II tolerated each other was, for a lack of a better word, they were the closest thing to friends and family in the entire city despite their tensions with each other, especially by the time we get to Act III. Inquisition, (based solely on speculation) I don't think will have that sort of dynamic where opposites would have a unifying cause to stay together, unless if its something that forces them together. 

[MisterJB]

H. Birdman wrote...
Oghren was an endorsement of binge drinking and abandoning one's children. 

He wasn't?! What have I been doing with my life?!

[Conduit0]

LinksOcarina wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Bioware is anti-discrimination.

I would say this. It is probably assumed that player characters aren't out to deliberately anger their companions.

That, and adventuring types tend to be kind of aggressively weird in their own way, so they're less likely to be stupid in this fashion.  Granted, that doesn't mean they won't be stupid in other fashions.

Sten was actually the most overtly racist, and sexist, character in Origins.  But it was pretty obvious that he just didn't like anybody very much.

Thats why he gets away with it though, its because he doesn't like anyone that much.

As to the topic at hand...id say that it would be difficult to have a party mesh with the overtly racist character involved in the party, and done without going cliche on it. Usually when there is a racist character with a group, they are united by a common cause only. Later, the racist is saved in battle by the guy they make fun of, and show a begruding respect for that character in the future. 

I guess it can be done, but do we really need it? 

You mean kind of like Fenris? Yeah, I'd rather avoid a Fenris 2.0.

[Danny Boy 7]

Brodoteau wrote...

It's not a question of need, as much as whether or not people would want it.
I dunno. I don't think it would have to define the character, but it does seem strange that all of the humans we've encountered have not held the "knife ears" in contempt -- especially those of noble birth. If people want anti-mage characters or anti-templar companions, in fitting with the setting, how is this different?

Similarly, if we play the game in Orlais, then our Orlesian companions should have a a negative view of Fereldans.

That was lacking in Kirkwall, which had strong anti-Fereldan sentiments, but none of your companions was anti-Fereldan. But then again, none of your companions in DA2 was actually born in Kirkwall.

I got the feeling that it wasn't the general consesus of Thedas, rather an old prejudice on it's last legs. Personally I think there would be a lot more in places like Orlais and Tevinter, but imo the Dalish are the big "racists" followed by every some human nobles. Couslands were pretty progressive according to city elves and Leandra was pretty good about elves.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Given that most of the party members in DA2 will sleep with anything that moves, I don't think they really conform to societal norms in the first place.

[nightscrawl]

MisterJB wrote...

Edit: What about Vellana? She was very anti-human.

I guess it's OK for elves >.>... Really though, Velanna does change if you increase her approval and talk to her. The ability to change is really the only saving grace that NPCs like that have.

I think the only DAO origin where those kind of responses make sense would be the human noble. Human mages are raised alongside elves, and I don't imagine dwarves care one way other the other, and just think of them as "surfacers" like they do humans; they certainly don't have the same racial history with elves to react the same way. When talking to the Dalish elves there are some antagonistic responses you can choose, so I suppose that's something.

Conduit0 wrote...

You mean kind of like Fenris? Yeah, I'd rather avoid a Fenris 2.0.

Fenris doesn't hate all mages, he is distrustful of them as a group. This is based not just on his potential relationship with Hawke, but on his own words about mages.

I will say that this is one reason I think the friendship plays out better than a rival one with Fenris. You can show total support for mages, blood magic, contempt for him personally, and support slavery, get to full rivalry, and yet the game doesn't really supply us with a reason for him to be loyal other than our help with Danarius. If that is really all it takes for Fenris, that your help with Danarius is the overriding factor, and it was written that way intentionally, then that is certainly a testament to his character and his own ideas of loyalty... which, I'll admit, I had never thought of until this instant.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 08 février 2013 - 07:09 .

[nightscrawl]

Brodoteau wrote...

I don't think it would have to define the character, but it does seem strange that all of the humans we've encountered have not held the "knife ears" in contempt -- especially those of noble birth.

Heh... there is another way of looking at it. You give nobles too much credit. It could simply be a case of having the belief, whether conscious or unconscious, that they are so far above the rest of society, this includes human peasants as well as city elves, that showing active contempt for those people would be debasing.

This is not the case with all nobles of course, there will always be those that revel in their power and ability to hurt people, no matter the race; Bann Vaughan is one such example.

A majority of the "knife ear" type comments we've heard have come from a lower class of people. Such people have power held over them by the nobles that employ them (we've mainly seen this from guards), so they turn around and use their own limited power on weaker people. It is the classic bully.