1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

Kallimachus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote... Only gamers who play the game more than once and respond in different ways to the prompts will even know this.

I do not really understand this kind of remark.

The world is immutable in some ways and characters are normally defined, no matter how we'd want to be able to do everything. Characters have a personality with which players have to deal with regardless of their way of roleplaying with their companions normally independent from the PC. So what is the relevance of this observation ? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

If I had only played DAO once, I would have never known that Morrigan could have noble intentions, only that she's selfish and could be petty. Yep, pretty much. So what ? Does that mean that Morrigan is only selfish and petty because I only  played once DAO and I would  have never known if I didn't try another playthrought? The fact that she could be noble in my friend's playthrought doesn't teach me anything about her ?

Whether I know everything about her or not, David Gaider has given her a personality, a way to behave, she's defined and she is what she is, regardless of what I could know about her and what I want from her. That's a fact.  It's up to the player to try to discover everything about her, and that means several playthroughts.

Everything and anything about the character is an element that describes what defines him overall, even if it has not occured in your playthrought.

Morrigan is a character. Nothing more. She's not a real person. Like any character in any work of fiction, be it novel, story, play, movie, poem, painting, or video game, its existence is limited to what is revealed in that narrative. What is revealed in your friend's narrative is what some versions of her have the potential to be, whether they achieve that potential is completely dependent on what you reveal in your narrative (and, even more importantly, what CAN be revealed in your narrative). Anything outside of it DOES NOT EXIST.

The templar Maurevar Carver, for example, does not exist in a world in which Hawke is not a mage. You're not just "not aware of his existance". he does not exist. Only what is revealed in the narrative exists.

And that, for example, is the reason JK Rowling's revelation that Dumbledore was gay is meaningless. It was not revealed within the narrative (except perhaps in extremely oblique and vague hints) and so it does not exist. Any literature student can tell you that.

No, what doesn't exist is the way Morrigan is behaving with my friend's warden, different with mine. But, she has only one personality, she is the same Morrigan as in my playthroughts. There are several wardens, but there's only one Morrigan. Which is what you seem to be unable to understand. All elements point out what she is, because she's defined. That's the point of roleplaying and doing several playthroughts : Picking all the dialogues and choices to form a complete idea of who is the character which doesn't change from one playthrought to another. ( Apart from the influences that can have the player on the character ) The way she reacts to any of your choices or those of your friend is based on only one personality, her personality.

Your analogy isn't really good to me. The fact that something wasn't revealed in my playthrought, only means that my warden was unaware of somes things about her, not me, the player lol.

When J. K Rowling is saying that Dumbledore is gay, it is only meaningless because there's isn't any relevance within the story. But yes, Dumbledore is gay, that doesn't change this fact. He is defined that way, and it's canon, regardless of what people think.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2013 - 10:49 .

[Qyla]

I've read some post saying that sexuality is a matter of colture. If that was gay people would have been extincted in medieval times, when Church and blabla. It isn't a matter of culture, is different for every human being in the world.

[Ziggeh]

Aleya wrote...

Very much this. I don't mind all LIs being bisexual. I mind all LIs being PCsexual.

They don't have to be. Unless they were to add dialogue that explicitly stated their change in preference it can be read as either bisexual or "PCsexual". 

It's up to the player, and while most won't make that choice conciously, it is one that's available, so it's difficult to really hold up an argument that you dislike one or the other, which is why it's such a common topic in these threads. It's a strong position.

[LadyRaena13]

I have an odd suggestion, but since they already said the LI's are going to be player sexual it will be meaningless, I'll say it any how...what if at the beginning it asks you what gender you wanted to romance male female or both, and it could be like the conversation triggers in game you like if you were a mage in DAII how they seemed to always bring it up due to your choice at the beginning? Does that make sense? Noone ever said you were a warrior because that trigger wasn't activated (I'm not sure what the terms here are) So if you chose males at the beginning then ALL of the female romance triggers were inactive.


*****I would like to add that I'm bi and don't have an issue with playersexual characters I'm just tired of people complaining about it.

Modifié par LadyRaena13, 28 juin 2013 - 10:55 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Qyla wrote...

I've read some post saying that sexuality is a matter of colture. If that was gay people would have been extincted in medieval times, when Church and blabla. It isn't a matter of culture, is different for every human being in the world.

Sexuality isn't a product of culture, no. Perception of sexuality, on the other hand, is very much so. That is, both how you perceive, and express, your own [insert aspect of personality], and how you perceive statistics, is heavily influenced by societal pressures.

[Kallimachus]

Sylvianus wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote... Only gamers who play the game more than once and respond in different ways to the prompts will even know this.

I do not really understand this kind of remark.

The world is immutable in some ways and characters are normally defined, no matter how we'd want to be able to do everything. Characters have a personality with which players have to deal with regardless of their way of roleplaying with their companions normally independent from the PC. So what is the relevance of this observation ? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

If I had only played DAO once, I would have never known that Morrigan could have noble intentions, only that she's selfish and could be petty. Yep, pretty much. So what ? Does that mean that Morrigan is only selfish and petty because I only  played once DAO and I would  have never known if I didn't try another playthrought? The fact that she could be noble in my friend's playthrought doesn't teach me anything about her ?

Whether I know everything about her or not, David Gaider has given her a personality, a way to behave, she's defined and she is what she is, regardless of what I could know about her and what I want from her. That's a fact.  It's up to the player to try to discover everything about her, and that means several playthroughts.

Everything and anything about the character is an element that describes what defines him overall, even if it has not occured in your playthrought.

Morrigan is a character. Nothing more. She's not a real person. Like any character in any work of fiction, be it novel, story, play, movie, poem, painting, or video game, its existence is limited to what is revealed in that narrative. What is revealed in your friend's narrative is what some versions of her have the potential to be, whether they achieve that potential is completely dependent on what you reveal in your narrative (and, even more importantly, what CAN be revealed in your narrative). Anything outside of it DOES NOT EXIST.

The templar Maurevar Carver, for example, does not exist in a world in which Hawke is not a mage. You're not just "not aware of his existance". he does not exist. Only what is revealed in the narrative exists.

And that, for example, is the reason JK Rowling's revelation that Dumbledore was gay is meaningless. It was not revealed within the narrative (except perhaps in extremely oblique and vague hints) and so it does not exist. Any literature student can tell you that.

No, what doesn't exist is the way Morrigan is behaving with my friend's warden, different with mine. But, she has only one personality, she is the same Morrigan as in my playthroughts. There are several wardens, but there's only one Morrigan. Which is what you seem to be unable to understand. All elements point out what she is, because she's defined. That's the point of roleplaying and doing several playthroughts : Picking all the dialogues and choices to form a complete idea of who is the character which doesn't change from one playthrought to another. ( Apart from the influences that can have the player on the character ) The way she reacts to any of your choices or those of your friend is based on only one personality, her personality.

Your analogy isn't really good to me. The fact that something wasn't revealed in my playthrought, only means that my warden was unaware of somes things about her, not me, the player lol.

When J. K Rowling is saying that Dumbledore is gay, it is only meaningless because there's isn't any relevance within the story. But yes, Dumbledore is gay, that doesn't change this fact. He is defined that way, and it's canon, regardless of what people think.

I understand your point perfectly, it is simply ill informed. I can only repeat my point - that which doesn't exist in the narrative does not exist. Thedas is not the real world. It is a fiction, everything about it is mutable based on what your character reveals within it, and yes, that includes Morrigan's (and Alistair's, and Zevran's, and Anders', and Majolaine's) characters. They all depend on what is revealed in the telling.

I agree that some things are more mutable than others, but they are still all mutable. Morrigan has no independent personality - she has a mutable script.

Same goes for Dumbledore. His reported gayness is extraneous and irrelevant for the story and therefore does not exist.

Similarly, if a gay male singer sings a love song to a woman, then within the song he is not gay. His sexuality has no bearing on the content of the song, because the song is a narrative in and of itself. It is not a lie, but simply a performance.

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp at first, but that's just the way things are. That's the way of art.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 28 juin 2013 - 11:06 .

[Ieldra]

Sutekh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since you don't want to get into RL issues, I won't go into detail about it except saying that reproduction lies at the root of sexuality, and that this remains the strongest determining factor even though we've learned to use it for other things (and I most emphatically have no issue with that at all, regardless of the genders involved). 

Sorry for going OT, but this is one of my pet peeves.

If you're implying that bisexuality hinders reproduction, I beg to differ. As a bisexual mother of three (which is, mind, one more than the national average in my country), I can assure you we reproduce just fine.

*chuckles*
Wow, a meeting of pet peeves. I'd usually say this won't end well, but I hope we can both stay mature. The matter is one of statistics. An individual can act any way they want, but on the population level, the relative frequency of individuals of certain sexual orientations has an effect on reproduction of the species as a whole. It's actually baffled evolutionary biologists that there are so many homosexuals in the human population, because you'd expect they'd be selected out, given that homosexuality is at least partly based on a genetic component. It's speculated they provide some advantage to a human community and there are some hypotheses about what that might be (I don't recall at the moment and I can't find the sources - fi you're interested, I'll try to look them up).

I would also like to stress that I don't ascribe any normative authority to biology. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, I do think that we ignore biology at our peril.

I'll give you that a world without homophobia doesn't mean everyone is bi, but it sure would change the perceived statistics for both bi- and homosexuality, since you wouldn't have as many people lying about it or repressing it. I'm pretty sure that if I had lived during the 19th century (and if they'd done statistics then), I would have been counted as straight, if only because of social pressure.

The perceived statistics, yes. But not the reality. I don't know where you live, but in my country homosexuality isn't a big thing. We have a number of gay politicians and that fact is so unremarkable that it only comes up in the media if it causes protocol difficulties when they travel to less enlightened countries. We just changed our laws to make same-sex and hetero marriages completely equal in rights and obligations, and I can't recall a single note of protest - although I'm sure Cardinal Meisner only stayed silent for fear of embarrassing himself and his organization. Still, I'm pretty sure the great majority of people understands themselves as straight. Anecdotal evidence again, right, but this is quite compatible with the hypothesis from evolutionary biology that on the population level, the necessity of reproduction limits the frequency of sexual oríentations less conducive to reproduction.  

All right, enough pet peeve time, Back to Thedas.

[Silfren]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I haven't read through this entire thread, but would like to offer a few comments.

Silfren wrote...
 I can't imagine it would be easy to write a character along the lines of, say, Aveline, with a clearly (rigidly) defined sexuality and independent romance arc if that character is also meant to be a potential romance option.

I disagree with the assertion that Aveline's sexuality was clearly and rigidly defined.  We know that she was married to Ser Wesley when the story began, and later wed Donnic - but I don't recall her ever saying anything about whether she had ever or could ever experience romantic attraction to a woman, nor do I recall her ever having stated her sexuality.

I agree with you; believe me, I already regret my choice of words in that.  I was trying to respond to a specific idea on someone else's terms, not to convey a sense of my own opinion of Aveline's sexuality, and yes, I failed badly. 

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
This isn't about the player here. 

But it is, it's entirely about the player, especially in a roleplaying game where the major draw and entire point of the genre (at least according many in this forum) is to have the world shape itself around the player's choices.

I would say that role playing games should REACT to player choice rather than be shaped by them as I firmly belive that the gameworld shouldn't always conform to the whims of the player. 

[Silfren]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
With that said...and please I do NOT want to get this discussion bogged down in real world sexual politics, so please just don't...the lore we have on Thedas does strongly indicate that real world biases toward the expression of sexuality have no place in this fictional setting.  This should matter.  Once you are informed that the lore of Thedas does not have the component of homophobia, especially not religiously-rooted homophobia, then you, frankly, need to set aside your pre-existing ideas.  I don't see why it should be such a stretch to realize that you are reading a fictional world where the assumptions and prejudices are either completely different or else just quite literally non-existent.

I do not believe that removing homophobia would result in everyone being bi. Since you don't want to get into RL issues, I won't go into detail about it except saying that reproduction lies at the root of sexuality, and that this remains the strongest determining factor even though we've learned to use it for other things (and I most emphatically have no issue with that at all, regardless of the genders involved). Anyone can have any sexual orientation, but a world where everyone is bi appears thoroughly alien to me. I'd accept it as an artificial experimental setting created, for instance, through genetic engineering, in order to explore the possiblities of such a setup, and since I don't have a preference for the natural over the artificial I think we could learn to live in such a world, but as the premise of a non-artificial world populated with humans it doesn't work for me. Or in short: "humans aren't like that".

Well fantasy is full of untenable premises; flying castles and deserts of rainbow sand and whatnot. It's certainly your choice to accept them or not on a case by case basis, but no work should be required to justify itself. In order to engage with most (if not all fantasy), you are essentially required to accept that some things in the setting simply are.

"The world is made of purple jell-o? Bull****! Explain yourself now!"

VS.

"The world is made of purple jell-o? Alright then, on with the plot."

Judging any fantasy world by real-world parameters of what can/cannot happen is rather missing the point.

The thing is: the aliens aren't supposed to be human, and fantasy gets some of its appeal through the fact some things are different. The human characters in Thedas are supposed to be human. To make them all bi - just imagine that everyone you know suddenly told you they were bi. Wouldn't you feel transferred into a very alien world? I'm hving the cognitive dissonance: "These are supposed to be human", and "real humans aren't like that".

Yet again, I know I'm supposed to treat every playthrough as an AU, but it doesn't work that way. Just like I can't remove the knowledge of other playthroughs from my mind when I replay, I cannot remove the knowledge that some characters are effectively bi. I can make an effort not to be influenced by it, but that usually doesn't work too well where emotions are involved, unlike plot decisions which often aren't that emotional.

Have you considered challening the cognitive dissonance with "Okay, this world does not have the kind of hangups about sexuality I see going on in my reality's present culture.  Obviously sexuality is treated differently here."  There is a lot of fantasy out there that does precisely this: features characters who live in a world with a radically different perspective on human sexuality, with the result that how individual characters behave, sexually speaking, is radically different from what most of us are used to.  I maintain that this hinges on far more on how we've been socially indoctrinated than actual biology. 

I can only repeat: I do not believe that sexual orientation is purely a matter of culture and perspective. *Attitudes* to sexual orientation are, and yes, they do have an influence on actual orientation, but it's a secondary factor at best.
For your perspective to work, I'd have to believe that all humans are naturally bisexual, and I do not believe that. It doesn't help that I have a passionate aversion against the opinion that gender is nothing more but a cultural construct (stress on "nothing more"). This is plainly delusional and completely ignores biology. I've spent years lambasting Bioware on their cavalier attitude to biology in ME, and I apply the same standards here.

If everyone on Thedas tells me "I don't care about anyone's sexual orientation", I can believe that because I think that yes, *atttitudes* to sexual orientation are a matter of culture and perspective (there are influences by biology, but they're minor) and Thedas can be different. When everyone is bi, I can't believe that. Not without also believing that I'm talking about a nonhuman species.

FYI, since you yourself went out of your way to stress your meaning with the "nothing more" phrase, I feel compelled to point out that at NO point did I use the word "purely" (or synonymous terms) in regards to my assertion that culture has a significant bearing on sexual expression.  I also did not ever use the word "all" in my statement that I think humans tend to be bisexual much more often than being purely one or the other.  Please do not tailor your response to me as if I ever made any absolutist claims, thank you.

[LPPrince]

daaaav wrote...

I would say that role playing games should REACT to player choice rather than be shaped by them as I firmly belive that the gameworld shouldn't always conform to the whims of the player. 

You just put words to parts of my thoughts I probably wouldn't of expressed the same way.

Approved.

[Sylvianus]

Kallimachus wrote...

I understand your point perfectly, it is simply ill informed. I can only repeat my point - that which doesn't exist in the narrative does not exist. Thedas is not the real world. It is a fiction, everything about it is mutable based on what your character reveals within it, and yes, that includes Morrigan's (and Alistair's, and Zevran's, and Anders', and Majolaine's) characters. They all depend on what is revealed in the telling.

Well, sorry, but your point of view doesn't make any sense to me. I don't get it. The character is the same. She has only appropriate responses to different kinds of behavioral based on the same personality. It isn't really about what does exist in your world and not in mine. Otherwise, it would be impossible to describe the companions, to learn what they like, what they don't like, how they think, what are their hobbies.

When Ashley says in your playthrought in Mass Effect that she loves  poetry, do you really mean that it's not the case in my playthrought because I don't get this info ? There are two Ashley ? This isn't the same character ? Better thousands Ashley since there are thousands fans ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2013 - 11:23 .

[Ziggeh]

daaaav wrote...

I would say that role playing games should REACT to player choice rather than be shaped by them as I firmly belive that the gameworld shouldn't always conform to the whims of the player.

It's certainly not always, and choosing to read it in this way is certainly optional.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvianus wrote...

When Ashley says in your playthrought in Mass Effect that she loves  poetry, do you really mean that it's not the case in my playthrought because I don't get this info ? There are two Ashley ? This isn't the same character ? Better thousands Ashley since there are thousands fans ?

That's exactly what he means.

[slimgrin]

[Inappropriate post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 juin 2013 - 11:31 .

[Sylvianus]

Ziggeh wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

When Ashley says in your playthrought in Mass Effect that she loves  poetry, do you really mean that it's not the case in my playthrought because I don't get this info ? There are two Ashley ? This isn't the same character ? Better thousands Ashley since there are thousands fans ?

That's exactly what he means.

That doesn't make any sense. Gaider himself has described Morrigan in his blog. What does that mean ? Which Morrigan it was ?

...

Ps: Actually, I think, I'm done.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2013 - 11:27 .

[Ziggeh]

[Post removed. Stopping a particular line of discussion before it goes further.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 juin 2013 - 11:32 .

[Iakus]

Kallimachus wrote...
I understand your point perfectly, it is simply ill informed. I can only repeat my point - that which doesn't exist in the narrative does not exist. Thedas is not the real world. It is a fiction, everything about it is mutable based on what your character reveals within it, and yes, that includes Morrigan's (and Alistair's, and Zevran's, and Anders', and Majolaine's) characters. They all depend on what is revealed in the telling.

I agree that some things are more mutable than others, but they are still all mutable. Morrigan has no independent personality - she has a mutable script.

Same goes for Dumbledore. His reported gayness is extraneous and irrelevant for the story and therefore does not exist.

Similarly, if a gay male singer sings a love song to a woman, then within the song he is not gay. His sexuality has no bearing on the content of the song, because the song is a narrative in and of itself. It is not a lie, but simply a performance.

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp at first, but that's just the way things are. That's the way of art.

In DAO there's a quest at Ostogar where a prisoner begs you for some food.  If you take certain dialogue options he'll tell you that he has a key that can open one of the chests in camp, and will give it to you if you feed him.  However, it is posible to go through the entire quest without ever learning that he has that key.

If he doesn't mention it, did that key ever exist?

[Ninja Stan]

Let's try and keep the real world sociopolitical arguments out of the discussion, please. Thedas is fictional.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvianus wrote...

That doesn't make any sense. Gaider himself has described Morrigan in his blog. What does that mean ? Which Morrigan it was ?

...

Ps: Actually, I think, I'm done.

All of them - I'm not trolling, I find the concept slightly fascinating and am more than happy to discuss it. It's not an intuitive concept, I'll grant you, but it does make sense.

[Ziggeh]

iakus wrote...

In DAO there's a quest at Ostogar where a prisoner begs you for some food.  If you take certain dialogue options he'll tell you that he has a key that can open one of the chests in camp, and will give it to you if you feed him.  However, it is posible to go through the entire quest without ever learning that he has that key.

If he doesn't mention it, did that key ever exist?

It depends. It can be read either way and both interpretations are valid.

[Allan Schumacher]

In DAO there's a quest at Ostogar where a prisoner begs you for some food. If you take certain dialogue options he'll tell you that he has a key that can open one of the chests in camp, and will give it to you if you feed him. However, it is posible to go through the entire quest without ever learning that he has that key.

If he doesn't mention it, did that key ever exist?

The prisoner may or may not be alive in one person's game compared to another, so we're already seeing some divergence. Although we're talking about personalities here.

It the personality of Viconia immutable and identical depending on how you play through Baldur's Gate and Throne of Bhaal? The personality of Bastila or Carth Onasi depending on your light side/dark side changes?

How about people like Handmaiden, Visas, Atton, Bao-Dur (i.e. the entire cast of KOTOR 2 barring perhaps Kreia - there's a heck of a difference between Atton the spiteful Dark Jedi and Atton the man who wishes to atone for his previous crimes)?

How about Alistair the drunk vagrant versus Alistair the hardened King versus Alistair the puppet King that wants nothing to do with being King? Can one unilaterally say that Alistair has the personality of a great leader, when 2 out of those 3 are decidedly not so awesome (assuming he's not dead, of course).


With your example, however, it's most definitely certain that you don't know if he has a key. And depending on what influence you exert on the game world, he may or may not still have the key (i.e. things can change in different ways depending on the player's choices).

[Kallimachus]

Sylvianus wrote...

I don't get it.

I can see that.

Sylvianus wrote...
The character is the same. She has only appropriate responses to different kinds of behavioral based on the same personality. It isn't really about what does exist in your world and not in mine.

No the character is not the same. Her personality exists only within the parameters which the plot reveals. That which isn't revealed doesn't exist.

Sylvianus wrote...
It isn't really about what does exist in your world and not in mine.
Otherwise, it would be impossible to describe the companions, to learn
what they like, what they don't like, how they think, what are their
hobbies.

Did you have problems finding those out before you discovered what Morrigan's nature was in your friend's playthrough? If not then it is not a problem. I never said what was revealed of her personality was drastically different from playthrough to playthrough. Only that it was different. Different enough to not be treated as the same person.  Please don't exaggerate my points ad absurdum.

Sylvianus wrote...
When Ashley says in your playthrought in Mass Effect that she loves  poetry, do you really mean that it's not the case in my playthrought because I don't get this info ?

If Ashley didn't say it in your playthrough then her love of poetry did not exist within it. Her likes and dislikes in that regard were unknown. In the same way that her love or dislike of dogs or cats or flower arranging are unknown. They simply do not exist.

That is why I always make my Wardens listen to all the different versions of Flemeth's tale, and to all of Leliana's tales. I know them all, my Wardens do not.

Sylvianus wrote...
There are two
Ashley ? This isn't the same character ? Better thousands Ashley since
there are thousands fans ?

By George he's got it! (Yes, I did just paraphrase "My Fair Lady")

In fact there are more - one for each playthrough ever played by each player.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 29 juin 2013 - 12:00 .

[daaaav]

LadyRaena13 wrote...

I have an odd suggestion, but since they already said the LI's are going to be player sexual it will be meaningless, I'll say it any how...what if at the beginning it asks you what gender you wanted to romance male female or both, and it could be like the conversation triggers in game you like if you were a mage in DAII how they seemed to always bring it up due to your choice at the beginning? Does that make sense? Noone ever said you were a warrior because that trigger wasn't activated (I'm not sure what the terms here are) So if you chose males at the beginning then ALL of the female romance triggers were inactive.


*****I would like to add that I'm bi and don't have an issue with playersexual characters I'm just tired of people complaining about it.

This would certainly ameliorate the situation somewhat. I would personally prefer that characters have natures independant of the whims of the player, but having an early in game cue that triggers certain plot and characterisation differences in NPC's would be infinitely better than the abrubt techniques used in DA2. This would also allow for characters sexuality to be explored (if required) a lot sooner as they are defined earlier. (Plaintiff: I am not saying that every character must have a nausiatingly detailed sexual history available for the player to examine minutes after they meet them... But it would enrichen the tapestry that  the character is drawn from).

Be careful though because this was also done poorly in DA2 with Anders. If the PC was male, then Anders was in a relationship with Karl but if the PC is female, Anders doesn't mention it at all. The Tapestry of the character has been dulled to appease the supposed needs of the player. I don't like this at all. 

Modifié par daaaav, 28 juin 2013 - 11:57 .

[Dave of Canada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Can one unilaterally say that Alistair has the personality of a great leader, when 2 out of those 3 are decidedly not so awesome.

Drunk Alistair semi-confirmed as great leader.