596 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

I won't say brilliant, because I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing to showcase a society that considers homosexuality deviant in any way, for the problems of marginalization I've already mentioned. 

I do, however, think it's an interesting choice that they would have given this role to Tevinter.  I suspect that your reasons for thinking it a brilliant choice and mine for thinking it interesting are somewhat similar, however, so I'd be interested in reading your explanation of why you consider it brilliant.

Tbh this is a lame stereotypical development for the Tevinter as nearly everyone from that country minus the slaves are depicted as one dimensional cartoon villains. All this does is further typecast their culture and citizens.

I hope they don't, but  i wouldn't be surprised if the Imperial Chantry spreads this view while having a male dominated clergy like the Catholic Church, and that the writers will use this as a vehicle to criticise Cristianity.

I don't actually see them as being cast as one-dimensional or cartoonish in any way.  I think we've been presented with the perspectives of people who think of Tevinter only in terms of its history as a ruthless and brutal conquerer, not unlike the way that Orlais has been rather heavyhandedly presented as concerned with fashion and intrigue to the point of seeming ludicrously frivolous.  It's not unrealistic for people outside of Tevinter, who've grown up on tales of Tevinter's history of slavery and uncontrolled blood magic to have a one-sided perspective, especially since many of the tensions between Tevinter and other states are relatively recent (the conflict begun when the Imperial Chantry split from the Orlesian Chantry, etc.)  People in Ferelden, and especially in Orlais, who have had no cause to experience Tevinter on its own terms, would naturally be biased toward their prevailing cultural opinion. 

So I don't think they've been typecast.  I think players have a responsibility to differentiate between the opinions of characters, and what authorial intent means for players to determine for themselves.  Personally I have said several times in other threads that I'd like to know more about Tevinter because its obvious that they have more advanced methods for controlling magic, and by all appearances are more advanced in general because they do not apparently restrict magical research in the same or for the same reasons as the White Chantry.  I would also consider that it CANNOT be as one-dimensional as characters have believed, because, a society which was 100% about blood magic and magical domination, would not have spawned a mage like Adralla, who was actually so convinced of the teaching that blood magic was evil that she created the blood magic-negating Litany. 

I think we've already seen plenty of criticism, not necessarily of Catholicism, but of organized, politicized religion; the Chantry as we've seen it is similar enough that the parallels to Catholicism cannot be denied (we don't need the Imperial Chantry for this--the White Chantry is similar in many concrete details).  But I'm not sure that the Bioware team would ever consciously write criticisms of an existing religion.  It's only fair to point out that they've provided plenty of content that players consider to be sympathetic to the concept of the Chantry--and to the Qun philosophy, for that matte.  If the writers were aiming to make a social critique against either, we wouldn't see ANY other side in the narrative.

I understand Silfren but the portrayal of Tevinter's citizens has done a disservice to the country. Feynriel who spent his whole life in fear of Kirkwall's Templars said that he understood their pov in his letter to Hawke about his new life in Tevinter. I know that the only characters we've met from Tevinter were Fenris, his sister, Caladrius, Danarius, Hadriana, and various slavers but the positive to negative depictions of it's citizens seem lopsided. 

Don't forget that Adralla was targetd for assassination multiple times for her beliefs thus making her a pariah, and that the Archon who attempted to abolish slavery was killed as Tevinter's economy is heavily reliant on slavery. Lambert the Seeker Commander holds his current views on mages because his friend the Black Divine became corrupted with power. I know that every citizen is not evil, but you have a society where slavery is the norm for it's populace for nearly 2,000 years and depends on it to the point that a previous ruler was killed for trying to abolish it.

On the subject about the Black Divine's stance on sexuality i'll hold off on it as there's nothing that's been mentioned about it yet. I still got a bad feeling about this...

Modifié par The Hierophant, 21 mars 2013 - 09:49 .

[Hazegurl]

esper wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Tootles FTW wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.

I...what?  When was this?  As I recall Fenris pretty much denies having been used sexually by Danarius - he says to Hawke that he's never been with anyone, and states to Isabela during party banter that he was strictly Danarius's bodyguard (and Isabela was questioning specifically on whether Danarius took liberties with his "glistening body").  

I think they mean the scene when you confront Danarius and he implies that Hawke is jealous (if you pick "He doesn't belong to anyone") and he notes that he is jealous because of Fenris' "skills". Fenris immidiately wants to shut him up, if he was nothing but a guard then why try to quiet him so quickly? Plus the " his little wolf" stuff and the way Danarious' eyes trail over Fenris' body if you sell him back to him implies some form of sexual abuse going on. Mind you, it's all implied and never outright stated in game. I However, also believe there was sexual abuse between them. Danrius just looks like a straight up rapist. 

In the Male Hawke playthrough there is no mention of Fenris not having sexual relations before. This seems to only exist in the female Hawke playthrough. I've romanced him several times as a male and Fenris being a virgin convo never comes up but it did when I played a female Hawke...unless I keep on missing it in my male playthroughs.

Also Fenris could have denied molestation (glistening) claims simply because that's not something he would want to talk to Isabela or anyone about. Especially in front of all their friends and in public. Oh yeah and the whole lack of memory thing...that seems to only come back during a moment of sex. Not uncommon for sexual abuse victims.

But no matter if Danerius used Fenris like that or not, does it really say anything about Fenris' sexuality? I doubt that Fenris' consent was anything Danerius cared about.

I wasn't implying that his abuse defined his sexuality. Just stated how it is implied in the game that he was sexually abused.

[Pasquale1234]

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

I'd suggest you make the effort to read the content of the book under discussion before you start stuffing your strawmen.

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

I'd suggest you make the effort to read the content of the book under discussion before you start stuffing your strawmen.

...And maybe you should stop trying to look for confrontation where there is none.  I merely said that I considered the Tevinterian attitude unfounded and unnecessary.  I'm stating nothing but my opinion of that mindset.  There's no strawmen to be had.

[Hazegurl]

hhh89 wrote...

@esper, Tootles FTW and Renmiri. If you read the enire post, and not stop at the first part and the unpleaseant thought of Fenris having sex with Danarius, you would've read:

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.

I explicitely said that the relationship was probably forced (I believe so, though we don't know what was Fenris's personality before the lyrium experiment). With my post I argued the thought that Fenris never was intimate with someone.

Right, I know what you meant when I read your post. I was actually going to defend you when I saw this. I think people jump to conclusions far too quickly.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 21 mars 2013 - 11:01 .

[Pasquale1234]

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

I'd suggest you make the effort to read the content of the book under discussion before you start stuffing your strawmen.

...And maybe you should stop trying to look for confrontation where there is none.  I merely said that I considered the Tevinterian attitude unfounded and unnecessary.  I'm stating nothing but my opinion of that mindset.  There's no strawmen to be had.

Your response was related to the fertility of persons who might engage in same-sex sexual relationships - which was never in question.

The content of the book under discussion (should you bother to read it) is very clear about the perceived need for nobility to procreate.

Typically, one’s sexual habits are considered natural and separate from matters of procreation, and only among the nobility, where procreation involves issues of inheritance and the union of powerful families, is it considered of vital importance.

Yet even there, a noble who has done their duty to the family might be allowed to pursue their own sexual interests without raising eyebrows.

Yet you seem to be arguing with me for suggesting that the reason for this:

The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. <snip>  In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves

may have something to do with the nobles being expected to produce heirs.

What I find interesting is that they encourage same-sex liasons with favored slaves - which suggests to me that they don't have any issues with same-sex relationships EXCEPT when they are between nobles.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 21 mars 2013 - 10:41 .

[brushyourteeth]

Somewhere in the world, the tone of this conversation is making a baby seal cry.

... I hope you're happy, Biofans.

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There could be a lot of reasons for that. I would imagine that the nobility's need to create heirs and maintain bloodlines may be chief among them.

Which would be unfounded and unnecessary.  History proves that non-heterosexual relationships have never been an obstacle for creating heirs or maintaining bloodlines, especially for nobles accustomed to doing what they want with and to whomever they want.

Being sexually oriented in some way other than hetero- does not make a person infertile.  Nor does it prevent them from having "proper," official marriages while keeping as many concubines/mistresses/catamites/etc as they wish.

I'd suggest you make the effort to read the content of the book under discussion before you start stuffing your strawmen.

...And maybe you should stop trying to look for confrontation where there is none.  I merely said that I considered the Tevinterian attitude unfounded and unnecessary.  I'm stating nothing but my opinion of that mindset.  There's no strawmen to be had.

Yet you seem to be arguing with me for suggesting that the reason for this:

The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. <snip>  In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves

may have something to do with the nobles being expected to produce heirs.

What I find interesting is that they encourage same-sex liasons with favored slaves - which suggests to me that they don't have any issues with same-sex relationships EXCEPT when they are between nobles.

And I'm saying only that I don't think this would be the reason, because to me it doesn't make much sense, since having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is NOT an obstacle to producing heirs with an opposite-gendered marital partner with whom you can produce appropriately bloodlined heirs--and the very first thing you quoted refers to this, the whole thing about a person being pemitted to pursue their lusts once their familial obligation has been fulfilled.  So yes, I find it strange that you seem to think that Tevinter would condemn the behavior as deviant and selish because of obligations to produce heirs right after you acknowledge the lore that points out nobody cares about a person's personal habits so long as they do their duty regardless. 

I am allowed to disagree with you, and I don't think I've been argumentative--I don't have to be arguing with you to state disagreement, after all, and I haven't raised any strawmen.  Nor am I going to run out and buy a book I can't currently afford just because you think I'm required to.  I think my assessment of the quoted bits is sufficient.

Thus ends any actual usefulness of this bit of thread drift.  I'm done with it.  Ciao.

[Pasquale1234]

Silfren wrote...
And I'm saying only that I don't think this would be the reason, because to me it doesn't make much sense, since having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is NOT an obstacle to producing heirs with an opposite-gendered marital partner with whom you can produce appropriately bloodlined heirs--and the very first thing you quoted refers to this, the whole thing about a person being pemitted to pursue their lusts once their familial obligation has been fulfilled.  So yes, I find it strange that you seem to think that Tevinter would condemn the behavior as deviant and selish because of obligations to produce heirs right after you acknowledge the lore that points out nobody cares about a person's personal habits so long as they do their duty regardless.

Based on the very limited information provided by Brother Genitivi - it was a simple stab at a guess, nothing more.  There isn't much other information offered beyond the apparent importance of nobles having heirs.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what makes sense to me - it is Tevinter's culture and mindset, not mine.

I also mentioned that the behavior is considered "deviant and selfish" only among nobles; while actively encouraged with favored slaves.  Based on that, I'm not convinced that there is any sort of condemnation of same-sex acts in general, but that it is specific to same-sex sex acts between nobility - and only in Tevinter.  It doesn't make much sense to me, either - but there it is.

Nor am I going to run out and buy a book I can't currently afford just because you think I'm required to.

I've no plans to buy the book, either.  The portion that has been under discussion in this thread is a transcript of an image from amazon that was presented in this thread (and to which I provided a link).  I don't think it's been released yet.

Since then, small parts of it have been quoted out of context, and I've tried to correct that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Somewhere in the world, the tone of this conversation is making a baby seal cry.

May I put it out of its misery and make myself a hat?

[brushyourteeth]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Somewhere in the world, the tone of this conversation is making a baby seal cry.

May I put it out of its misery and make myself a hat?

As that appears to be the poor thing's inevitable conclusion, yes.

BUT we will not squabble with one another over whether it is, in fact, a men's hat, a men's hat that women wear anyway, a women's hat, a women's hat that men wear anyway, a unisex hat, or a wishy-washy/noncommital/*boring* hat, and furthermore won't argue over what kind of hat it ought to be if the world were a perfect place and our resources were unlimited.

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
And I'm saying only that I don't think this would be the reason, because to me it doesn't make much sense, since having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is NOT an obstacle to producing heirs with an opposite-gendered marital partner with whom you can produce appropriately bloodlined heirs--and the very first thing you quoted refers to this, the whole thing about a person being pemitted to pursue their lusts once their familial obligation has been fulfilled.  So yes, I find it strange that you seem to think that Tevinter would condemn the behavior as deviant and selish because of obligations to produce heirs right after you acknowledge the lore that points out nobody cares about a person's personal habits so long as they do their duty regardless.

Based on the very limited information provided by Brother Genitivi - it was a simple stab at a guess, nothing more.  There isn't much other information offered beyond the apparent importance of nobles having heirs.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what makes sense to me - it is Tevinter's culture and mindset, not mine.

I also mentioned that the behavior is considered "deviant and selfish" only among nobles; while actively encouraged with favored slaves.  Based on that, I'm not convinced that there is any sort of condemnation of same-sex acts in general, but that it is specific to same-sex sex acts between nobility - and only in Tevinter.  It doesn't make much sense to me, either - but there it is.

Nor am I going to run out and buy a book I can't currently afford just because you think I'm required to.

I've no plans to buy the book, either.  The portion that has been under discussion in this thread is a transcript of an image from amazon that was presented in this thread (and to which I provided a link).  I don't think it's been released yet.

Since then, small parts of it have been quoted out of context, and I've tried to correct that.

I did notice that some people had excised relevant bits of what was quoted.  I actually doubt that we'll ever see this played out in any game, because there's far too much potential for objectionable and offensive content and I sincerely hope that Bioware would know better than to make that gamble, but I find it interesting that the Devs decided to spell out (however briefly) this facet of Tevinter social norms, of same-sex relations being highly discouraged among nobility but not favorite slaves; my first guess is that it would have something to do with power dynamics, and I reaaaaaaally don't wanna go there. 

Modifié par Silfren, 22 mars 2013 - 04:46 .

[Ryzaki]

esper wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Just read that Tevinter considers homosexuality deviant and selfish (if that's what the text says)... first time since I purchased Dragon Age 2 that I've raised a brow in total pleasure at the direction Bioware would take the DA universe.

Bravo - and brilliant. If we go to Tevinter though - I want to SEE this opinion in action.

Now - commence with utterly misinterpreting "why" I find that a brillaint choice.

Only amoung the nobility it seems. It's encouraged among slaves.

I read it as Master-slave. Doesn't the favoured slave line suggest that?

Hm it could. COuld also suggest it be with other slaves (given the whole it being looked down upon if the nobility does it).

[DarkSpiral]

Silfren wrote...

I did notice that some people had excised relevant bits of what was quoted.  I actually doubt that we'll ever see this played out in any game, because there's far too much potential for objectionable and offensive content and I sincerely hope that Bioware would know better than to make that gamble, but I find it interesting that the Devs decided to spell out (however briefly) this facet of Tevinter social norms, of same-sex relations being highly discouraged among nobility but not favorite slaves; my first guess is that it would have something to do with power dynamics, and I reaaaaaaally don't wanna go there. 

Do you mean politics, when you say power dynamics?  Or do you mean the power a master has over a slave, in which case I completely agree with you.

[Parmida]

Nope, I liked the way it was in DA2.
<3Equal love for everyone.<3
'nuff said. 

[Momiji.mii]

Since I don't have time to read all 24 pages of the discussion, I hope I'm not repeatings something that's been said several times before, but I have thought a lot on this topic since DA2.

I personally prefer to have all LI be bisexual, and DA2 proved that this works excellent. It gave the game some extra replayability for me, and I was very happy with how the romances was written. I don't mind that Merril or Fenris seem "straight" when romanced by a Hawke of the opposite sex and "gay" when romanced by a Hawke of the same sex.

What did bother me though is that when the un-romanced companions beging to hook up (officially or impled) later in the game, they all hooked up with another companion of the opposite sex. I was actually disappointed by this. If at least one of the (implied or otherwise) couples had been a same-sex couple (or at least one companion had a same-sex boyfriend/girlfriend outside of Hawke's merry old gang), it'd have made a huge difference for me, and probably for many other gamers as well. I realize that this was probably avoided in order to protect some gamers' headcanon, but it definitely hurt mine and I don't think my particular headcanon is worth less than other gamers'. :/

Modifié par Momiji.mii, 22 mars 2013 - 10:00 .

[Harle Cerulean]

Silfren wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
And I'm saying only that I don't think this would be the reason, because to me it doesn't make much sense, since having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is NOT an obstacle to producing heirs with an opposite-gendered marital partner with whom you can produce appropriately bloodlined heirs--and the very first thing you quoted refers to this, the whole thing about a person being pemitted to pursue their lusts once their familial obligation has been fulfilled.  So yes, I find it strange that you seem to think that Tevinter would condemn the behavior as deviant and selish because of obligations to produce heirs right after you acknowledge the lore that points out nobody cares about a person's personal habits so long as they do their duty regardless.

Based on the very limited information provided by Brother Genitivi - it was a simple stab at a guess, nothing more.  There isn't much other information offered beyond the apparent importance of nobles having heirs.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what makes sense to me - it is Tevinter's culture and mindset, not mine.

I also mentioned that the behavior is considered "deviant and selfish" only among nobles; while actively encouraged with favored slaves.  Based on that, I'm not convinced that there is any sort of condemnation of same-sex acts in general, but that it is specific to same-sex sex acts between nobility - and only in Tevinter.  It doesn't make much sense to me, either - but there it is.

Nor am I going to run out and buy a book I can't currently afford just because you think I'm required to.

I've no plans to buy the book, either.  The portion that has been under discussion in this thread is a transcript of an image from amazon that was presented in this thread (and to which I provided a link).  I don't think it's been released yet.

Since then, small parts of it have been quoted out of context, and I've tried to correct that.

I did notice that some people had excised relevant bits of what was quoted.  I actually doubt that we'll ever see this played out in any game, because there's far too much potential for objectionable and offensive content and I sincerely hope that Bioware would know better than to make that gamble, but I find it interesting that the Devs decided to spell out (however briefly) this facet of Tevinter social norms, of same-sex relations being highly discouraged among nobility but not favorite slaves; my first guess is that it would have something to do with power dynamics, and I reaaaaaaally don't wanna go there. 

Given that they seem to be heavily based off various periods of Rome, I find the bolded to be quite likely, given that that's how it was in Rome (with male homosexuality, at least).  A man being on the recieving end of anal sex was considered degrading (even moreso than our society currently does), so slaves or the lower classes were used for it by the nobility, and the nobility, if they wanted that, kept it secret.  Of course, that doesn't match the 'selfish' line from the book, but.  Who knows?

I'm not particularly disturbed by the idea that not all cultures in Thedas are sexually egalatarian, personally.  Presenting a culture with problematic aspects doesn't mean Bioware supports those problematic aspects, and thinking that it does is very problematic in and of itself.  It's saying that one can never depict something problematic, ever - when that's not helpful at all.  Problematic things can damn well be depicted if they're going to be properly handled, which is to say, the fact that they're problematic is clear in the text and it's not gratuitous.  If that culture was all there was - if the rest of Thedas didn't exist -, it'd be more iffy, because then we'd run into the issue of dealing well with with problematic things versus making the player feel uncomfortable, and player comfort is important.  

However, we do have the rest of Thedas, and at least so far, operate in those areas, meaning that we as players don't have to deal with our PCs being confronted with it on a personal level, which could be upsetting since a lot of us have to deal with problematic attitudes in real life on a personal level.  

Similarly, this is where the arguments against throwing sexism into the games more, which is something I've argued before myself, comes from.  Essentially, if a culture we haven't really seen before was introduced that had a lot of sexist values, that'd be one thing - making the entire world sexist, which is what proponents of more sexism in the games have wanted (particularly given the usual argument for is 'because it's realistic'), is another, even if it's well handled.

tl;dr, problematic issues don't need to be avoided just because they're problematic.  How they're presented and how universally present they are make a big difference.

[esper]

[quote]hhh89 wrote...

@esper, Tootles FTW and Renmiri. If you read the enire post, and not stop at the first part and the unpleaseant thought of Fenris having sex with Danarius, you would've read:

Actually, Fenris had a sexual relationship with his master (hinted in DA2, confirmed later by Bioware devs). The fact that he doesn't remember, and that the relationship was probably forced mean that this doesn't conclude which are his preferences, but regardless, he was intimate (in a sexual way) with someone in the past.[/quote]

I explicitely said that the relationship was probably forced (I believe so, though we don't know what was Fenris's personality before the lyrium experiment). With my post I argued the thought that Fenris never was intimate with someone.

[/quote]

Well, my whole point in bringing the point up in the first place was that I thought that the discussion about wherever Danerius had sex with Fenris or not was misplaced in this thread as the point of this thread was to discuss the companions/Li's sexuality.

Yes, it was 'intimacy', but since it was forced it is not a sexual history that gives any point in regards to wherever Fenris has any sexual history to reveal about his preferences for man and women thus making the budding discussion more fitting for the fenris thread.

I certainly did not mean to offend you.

Modifié par esper, 22 mars 2013 - 11:38 .

[Renmiri1]

I now believe that no one here meant Fenris rape was a "sexual relationship" or preference.

Just raised my hackles when I read posts talking about rape in a thread about sexual inclination UGH.

[legbamel]

Here's my take on the sexuality of NPCs:
If I play a different role in each run through the game then why can't they? If I play as a gay man or a straight woman, why would I make assumptions as that caharacter about the people whom he or she has not yet met?

Much as I admit to metagaming in a alot of ways, I don't see sexuality as this monolithic, unchangeable aspect of an NPC's personality, much like I don't see it that way IRL. I'm perfectly willing to accept that, in one run Fenris is entirely hetero and in another he's gay. Neither changes his personality or his back story.

Also, LOL at Anders "pings like an aircraft carrier". I thought the same the first time I played Awakenings.

[David Gaider]

Seeing as we've now wandered well off topic and are heading quickly into territory ripe for badness, I'm shutting it down. Anyone who wants to start their own separate discussion should start a different thread for it: but tread carefully. You all know this sort of thing is a charged topic.