1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And how would you propose to solve this given resource constraints?

Depends. I would prefer to try to dispense with the impression that everyone is bi by creating more and more significant gender-dependent elements in the interactions of LI companions with the PC *outside* of romance content, reinforcing the idea that "this is a different universe with a different version of this companion". Sure, that takes some resources, but it still leaves everyone available regardless of gender, much easier than to add new LIs.

So they'd express different attractions to other people or something depending on which gender you play? It's an interesting idea, but you seem to be outvoted by those people who want the characters to be consistent and not warped by which character you play.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

reinforcing the idea that "this is a different universe with a different version of this companion". 

That would certainly create it's own level of dissonance in people who don't see content that way. I know we explored this earlier; That it would be interesting for Bioware to begin defining how such content should be engaged, but I believe you made the point that we aren't there yet.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And how would you propose to solve this given resource constraints?

Depends. I would prefer to try to dispense with the impression that everyone is bi by creating more and more significant gender-dependent elements in the interactions of LI companions with the PC *outside* of romance content, reinforcing the idea that "this is a different universe with a different version of this companion". Sure, that takes some resources, but it still leaves everyone available regardless of gender, much easier than to add new LIs.

So they'd express different attractions to other people or something depending on which gender you play? It's an interesting idea, but you seem to be outvoted by those people who want the characters to be consistent and not warped by which character you play.

It's a matter of perception. I don't see any warping. That implies they're changed from they should be. The idea is an extension of the way stories with choices are told by games. It's not one story. It's a tapestry of different stories. It's very plausible that your PC isn't the only thing that's different in each version.

Anyway, for me it's much preferable to adapt my mindset to that idea, to say nothing that I like it for more reasons than this problem of LIs' sexual orientation. I can't take "they're all bi" for granted. Humans aren't like that.

[daaaav]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And how would you propose to solve this given resource constraints?

Depends. I would prefer to try to dispense with the impression that everyone is bi by creating more and more significant gender-dependent elements in the interactions of LI companions with the PC *outside* of romance content, reinforcing the idea that "this is a different universe with a different version of this companion". Sure, that takes some resources, but it still leaves everyone available regardless of gender, much easier than to add new LIs.

So they'd express different attractions to other people or something depending on which gender you play? It's an interesting idea, but you seem to be outvoted by those people who want the characters to be consistent and not warped by which character you play.

This is why I suggested that in order for the illusion to be preserved, the player should be able to "tell" the game certain aspects of their character as early as possible (origin story for example). This would allow the game the greatest freedom for characterising NPC's.I would still prefer consistent characters however.

[-leadintea-]

I'm personally not a fan of DAII's system. Changing the sexuality of a person depending on the player's sex is like changing their race depending on the player's race. At a certain point a character has to have their own defining traits or else they should just let players create their own world filled with their own characters. Now if everyone was bi, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it despite how improbable it'd be since it would be a character trait and not a personal trait that is defined by the player's choices.

[Ziggeh]

daaaav wrote...

I don't think we're doing a good enough job of articulating just exactly why we have an issue with DA2 style NPC's, but I'm glad that the discussion is moving away from generalisations such that all who dissent merely want to exclude people from game content.

I think part of the problem is that we're comparing something which is objective (access to content) to something that's subjective (immersion). You're not necessarily making the same points, because it's dependant on perspective.

Ieldra2 wrote...

No rationalization of the asari omnisexuality will ever convince me as long as they look like human women and there isn't an explanantion, not even a discussion, in-world, of this clearly almost impossible state of things. 

That's a bit curious, they do have an in universe explanation: They have no gender, and the nature of their sex makes the distinction meaningless. 

[Ziggeh]

Thunderbringer wrote...

Now if everyone was bi, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it despite how improbable it'd be

We have no evidence that they're not.

[Ieldra]

Ziggeh wrote...

daaaav wrote...
I don't think we're doing a good enough job of articulating just exactly why we have an issue with DA2 style NPC's, but I'm glad that the discussion is moving away from generalisations such that all who dissent merely want to exclude people from game content.

I think part of the problem is that we're comparing something which is objective (access to content) to something that's subjective (immersion). You're not necessarily making the same points, because it's dependant on perspective.

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs. 

Ziggeh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
No rationalization of the asari omnisexuality will ever convince me as long as they look like human women and there isn't an explanantion, not even a discussion, in-world, of this clearly almost impossible state of things. 

That's a bit curious, they do have an in universe explanation: They have no gender, and the nature of their sex makes the distinction meaningless.

Slighty OT, but: the issue is that they look attractive to humans. Genders co-evolve to look attractive to each other, and this is very, very species-specific. We don't even look attractive to our closest relative species on Earth.

I'm sure you can see the similarity: there are, after all, reasons why not all humans are bi....

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 12:49 .

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs.  

That's fair enough, but as I say, immersion is wholely subjective.  The tipping point will differ for almost every person, so you can't point to a given element and suggest it's crucial on the basis that it's crucial for you. 

[The Red Onion]

*chomp*
-----------------------------------------
From my imperfect reading of this thread (which is open to critique), the dialectical tension mainly centre around four topics:
 
[1] The question of equity

[2] The question nature

[3] The question of art

[4] The question of marketing (not going to touch for now)

 FWIW, my view on the first three issues are as follows:
 
----------------------------------------

Equity:

1a) As some other people have mentioned, it is important to ask which equities do we mean to pursue (LarryDavid’s post, page 46). However, we cannot automatically infer from this plurality that one equity is as good as the next.

 1b) As is with many discussions with equity, there is some fuzzy overlap between the notions of equity and parity. It is problematic to assume that parity amounts to equity, because it negates historical and societal context. To be precise, I mean this in the realm of the real, and not just in the realm of the narrative.

Nature:

 2) I’ll phrase this open-endedly in the form of a question: how might one substantiate the charge of authorial
laziness once the dogma of static orientation is removed?

 Art:

3a) What is good art, and what constitutes good writing? In a traditionalistic aesthetical vacuum, this section should be the only on-topic portion of my post (see opening post, page 1). But as is, I would not be alone in contending that it is actually not so. As far as the arena of reasonable and constructive debate is concerned, this is a central hidden conflict-of-premise that operates under many if not most disagreements: can aesthetical judgement be divorced from issues of equity and nature? When every companion is bisexual, why does it in fact amount to a reduction of agency in the player? If a natural narrative must feel “consistent,” what is the nature of narrative? Is agency in sexuality of equal value to agency in adornments and mechanics? etc… In short, my answer to the question is no.

 3b) The Dragon Age universe is always already a pluralistic universe. At the very beginning, the multiple origins of the Warden are already mutually conflicting, and this largely discredits the dogma that multiple replays in either game ought to be mutually consistent. The only salient doubt that remains, is whether it is bad art that the orientation of each companion in DAII is retroactively contingent on the ontology of Hawke. Without getting deeper into an even more pedantic discourse, I will simply propose that there is quite a lot of room for contention – far more than what some are willing to stomach.

Modifié par alexbing88, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:12 .

[Kallimachus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs. 

To put it even more bluntly - would you still found immersion so much more important than equality in access to desired content if YOU were the one denied access to said content and not someone else? And we're not talking about any single LI, but probably to all of them? Remember, you may have lacked access to a specific character in ME2, but gay men had access to none.

It's very easy to make such statements, when you will not be seriously affected by them.

[Ieldra]

Kallimachus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs. 

To put it even more bluntly - would you still found immersion so much more important than equality in access to desired content if YOU were the one denied access to said content and not someone else?

Haven't I just said that I did exactly that? The only reason I played maleShep instead of femShep in ME is because of Miranda.

And we're not talking about any single LI, but probably to all of them? Remember, you may have lacked access to a specific character in ME2, but gay men had access to none.

It's very easy to make such statements, when you will not be seriously affected by them.

Perhaps I should have qualified (I did that in earlier posts): ...as long as there are options for every sexual orientation. I'm also for including exclusively gay/lesbian options like ME3 did. Traynor and Cortez were great characters and IMO they would've been lessened had they both been bi. Apart from that, I think some people could do with a little more flexibility regarding the genders they play.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:16 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote? I'm perfectly fine with things being different - as long as at some time I get an explanation. Instead, DA2 expects me to take things for granted while my reaction is "humans aren't that way". I have a dissonance exactly because I think about this while the game tells me "just accept it."

And all these people, who would naturally be at odds; even Merrill and Anders have a distaste for each other to say the least. The only reason given for these people to come together and not killing/fighting each other is "because Hawke". And that is good enough for you, while it's not good enough for four, no, two persons' sexualities?

[Ieldra]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote? I'm perfectly fine with things being different - as long as at some time I get an explanation. Instead, DA2 expects me to take things for granted while my reaction is "humans aren't that way". I have a dissonance exactly because I think about this while the game tells me "just accept it."

And all these people, who would naturally be at odds; even Merrill and Anders have a distaste for each other to say the least. The only reason given for these people to come together and not killing/fighting each other is "because Hawke". And that is good enough for you, while it's not good enough for four, no, two persons' sexualities?

That's an in-world explanation, right? Hawke brings all these improbable people together because they're all his/her friends. Hawke doesn't turn people bi though... heh, it would be immensely funny if they did that and it would be a topic in the story. Much more acceptable, actually, than expacting me to take "everyone is bi" for granted.

I get the impression people still don't understand when I say it's an immersion and worldbuilding issue.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:21 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's an in-world explanation, right? Hawke brings all these improbable people together because they're all his/her friends. Hawke doesn't turn people bi though... heh, it would be immensely funny if they did that and it would be a topic in the story. Much more acceptable, actually, than expacting me to take "everyone is bi" for granted.

I still have to disagree on your assertion that there have to be some consistency between sexuality in the real world and sexuality in Thedas.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I get the impression people still don't understand when I say it's an immersion and worldbuilding issue.

And do you not believe me when I say it doesn't affect my immersion in the slightest? Or doesn't my opinion matter?

[Kallimachus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs. 

To put it even more bluntly - would you still found immersion so much more important than equality in access to desired content if YOU were the one denied access to said content and not someone else?

Haven't I just said that I did exactly that? The only reason I played maleShep instead of femShep in ME is because of Miranda.

And we're not talking about any single LI, but probably to all of them? Remember, you may have lacked access to a specific character in ME2, but gay men had access to none.

It's very easy to make such statements, when you will not be seriously affected by them.

Perhaps I should have qualified (I did that in earlier posts): ...as long as there are options for every sexual orientation. I'm also for including exclusively gay/lesbian options like ME3 did. Traynor and Cortez were great characters and IMO they would've been lessened had they both been bi. Apart from that, I think some people could do with a little more flexibility regarding the genders they play.

You didn't just say that exactly, because I qualified statements and you chose to seperate the qualifier from the initial statement.

So basically, if I understand the whole of your statement correctly, you are saying that you wouldn't be making that statement in the conditions that I described.
Well, let's face it, the conditions I described is reality. Perhaps in an imaginary world, where potential-theoretical games are made what you described could be ideal for some players (though I still have not heard a single compelling argument why the LIs in DA2 should be considered bisexual, except for Isabela, and possibly Anders), but that is not the reality in which we live.
In regards to Cortez and Traynor, well... Cortez is a sweet character, obviously written to be likeable, but his character is rather pale and one dimensional. I never romanced Traynor, so I don't know how she comes across in a romance, but without it she is barely memorable. Those characters were clearly written just in order to BE gay LIs. And as I said earlier, any LI not written as a companion could not help become a lopsided character, where the majority of serious interaction with them would be the romance itself (and BTW this is also true in regards to Allers).
So unless you are talking about hypothetical games made in realities that you and I do not live in, what you say simply tantamounts to the restriction or exclusion of gay LIs.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:38 .

[Ieldra]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
That's an in-world explanation, right? Hawke brings all these improbable people together because they're all his/her friends. Hawke doesn't turn people bi though... heh, it would be immensely funny if they did that and it would be a topic in the story. Much more acceptable, actually, than expacting me to take "everyone is bi" for granted.

I still have to disagree on your assertion that there have to be some consistency between sexuality in the real world and sexuality in Thedas.

Not if it's a theme, no. But if it's to be taken for granted, then yes, I think there should be some consistency. Or would you be ok with a scenario where everyone is omnisexual with no explanation? We differ only in how much consistency we consider enough.

[Gotholhorakh]

ReallyRue wrote...

Personally, I like the all-bi thing.

I'd say the same in terms of choice, even though me doing homosexual relationships in an escapist RPG just ain't gonna happen, the idea of choice being there for everyone seems sensible RPG design to me, as long as it is well implemented. The more choice for everyone, the better, given the obvious caveats.

I think it's understandable that some people do not want to be flirted with in-game (by whoever) - in fact I'd prefer this didn't happen, myself, as it feels a little bit seedy to me, which itself spoils the escapism a bit.

It also seems understandable that to some, player-sexual NPC sare blatant nonsense from a believability standpoint.

I think the thing we fall foul of is romance the player did not ask for - frankly if the narrative and mechanics can avoid soliciting the player's affections to a greater or lesser extent, this stuff will not be a problem for anyone. Then if the game makes it clear what you're getting into when you flirt/whatever, you can at least not legitimately complain if you pinched someone's bum or bought them a necklace with a heart-shaped pendant, and they consider that the start of a beautiful, beautiful thing.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:53 .

[daaaav]

Kallimachus wrote...


You didn't just say that exactly, because I qualified statements and you chose to seperate the qualifier from the initial statement.

So basically, if I understand the whole of your statement correctly, you are saying that you wouldn't be making that statement in the conditions that I described.
Well, let's face it, the conditions I described is reality. Perhaps in an imaginary world, where potential-theoretical games are made what you described could be ideal for some players (though I still have not heard a single compelling argument why the LIs in DA2 should be considered bisexual, except for Isabela, and possibly Anders), but that is not the reality in which we live.
In regards to Cortez and Traynor, well... Cortez is a sweet character, obviously written to be likeable, but his character is rather pale and one dimensional. I never romanced Traynor, so I don't know how she comes across in a romance, but without it she is barely memorable. Those characters were clearly written just in order to BE gay LIs. And as I said earlier, any LI not written as a companion could not help become a lopsided character, where the majority of serious interaction with them would be the romance itself (and BTW this is also true in regards to Allers).
So unless you are talking about hypothetical games made in realities that you and I do not live in, what you say simply tantamounts to the restriction or exclusion of gay LIs.

Err, no one is advocating for a return to ME2... And the issue in DA2 is not bisexual characters  (as there is nothing wrong with bisexuality), but characters whos sexualities depend on the player, not their own natures.

[Ieldra]

Kallimachus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

To put it bluntly: I find immersion more important than equality in access to desired content, and yes, I would say the same if I met a character I wanted to romance but couldn't because my current character is the wrong gender. In fact, I have done so in the same "accessibility of LIs" discussion about ME2's LIs. 

To put it even more bluntly - would you still found immersion so much more important than equality in access to desired content if YOU were the one denied access to said content and not someone else?

Haven't I just said that I did exactly that? The only reason I played maleShep instead of femShep in ME is because of Miranda.

And we're not talking about any single LI, but probably to all of them? Remember, you may have lacked access to a specific character in ME2, but gay men had access to none.

It's very easy to make such statements, when you will not be seriously affected by them.

Perhaps I should have qualified (I did that in earlier posts): ...as long as there are options for every sexual orientation. I'm also for including exclusively gay/lesbian options like ME3 did. Traynor and Cortez were great characters and IMO they would've been lessened had they both been bi. Apart from that, I think some people could do with a little more flexibility regarding the genders they play.

You didn't just say that exactly, because I qualified statements and you chose to seperate the qualifier from the initial statement.

So basically, if I understand the whole of your statement correctly, you are saying that you wouldn't be making that statement in the conditions that I described.
Well, let's face it, the conditions I described is reality. Perhaps in an imaginary world, where potential-theoretical games are made what you described could be ideal for some players (though I still have not heard a single compelling argument why the LIs in DA2 should be considered bisexual, except for Isabela, and possibly Anders), but that is not the reality in which we live.
In regards to Cortez and Traynor, well... Cortez is a sweet character, obviously written to be likeable, but his character is rather pale and one dimensional. I never romanced Traynor, so I don't know how she comes across in a romance, but without it she is barely memorable. Those characters were clearly written just in order to BE gay LIs. And as I said earlier, any LI not written as a companion could not help become a lopsided character, where the majority of serious interaction with them would be the romance itself (and BTW this is also true in regards to Allers).
So unless you are talking about hypothetical games made in realities that you and I do not live in, what you say simply tantamounts to the restriction or exclusion of gay LIs.

Untrue. I did offer an alternative solution: keep "everyone is available for anyone" but reinforce the idea that every playthrough is an AU by introducing more and more significant differences based on gender outside of romance content. This would make LIs more explicitly "playersexual", but adversely affect NPC consistency between playthroughs, which I find a totally acceptable sacrifice.

But if character consistency between playthroughs is a dogma, yes, then I admit that would find it more acceptable that the game limits the options for different sexual orientations (as long the number of options isn't zero) rather than giving me a world I can't believe in by making everyone bi.

Edit:
As for the minimum approach of having only one option per gender and sexual orientation, I'd likely be a tad disappointed, but I wouldn't have those immersion issues. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 02:04 .

[Ieldra]

daaaav wrote...
And the issue in DA2 is not bisexual characters  (as there is nothing wrong with bisexuality), but characters whos sexualities depend on the player, not their own natures.

For me the issue is exactly that every LI is bisexual. I find it more acceptable that the game world adapts itself according to the PC's gender, because I think NPCs aren't necessarily the same characters between playthroughs.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 01:59 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

I still have to disagree on your assertion that there have to be some consistency between sexuality in the real world and sexuality in Thedas.

Not if it's a theme, no. But if it's to be taken for granted, then yes, I think there should be some consistency. Or would you be ok with a scenario where everyone is omnisexual with no explanation? We differ only in how much consistency we consider enough.

Let me amend: I have to disagree that there have to be any sort of consistency between the real world and Thedas.

And "sexuality isn't an issue in Thedas" isn't a worse explanation than "because Hawke" for the cooperation between the companions.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

daaaav wrote...
And the issue in DA2 is not bisexual characters  (as there is nothing wrong with bisexuality), but characters whos sexualities depend on the player, not their own natures.

For me the issue is exactly that every LI is bisexual. I find it more acceptable that the game world adapts itself according to the PC's gender, because I think NPCs aren't necessarily the same characters between playthroughs.

And that right there is the key. You have an issue one way, he has an issue the other. Despite the fact it can be read either way - that you are provided with the tools to avoid the problem - you are conditioned to read it the way you read it and thus are presented with the problem. 

You cannot design to account for such conflicting subjective measures, can't account for the infinite ways in which narratives will be approached. If such conflicts are the only reason not to provide people with options and content, then they're not really reasons at all.

I empathise, because they're all valid perspectives, but they're impractical to consider in design. 

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 juillet 2013 - 02:28 .

[Kallimachus]

daaaav wrote...

Err, no one is advocating for a return to ME2... And the issue in DA2 is not bisexual characters  (as there is nothing wrong with bisexuality), but characters whos sexualities depend on the player, not their own natures.

1. Well, effectively you are, because Bioware (or any other company) would not write in this reality we live in, a full blown, fully developed exclusively gay romance, especially a male gay romance.

2. The issue with DA2 is not about bisexuality because excpet for Isabela (an arguably Anders) there are no bisexual characters in it.

3. As for their natures, well... they don't really have sexual natures. They are characters, and their characteristics remain the same (as they should) regardless of the sexual "preference" of the specific version of that character you are currently playing. So in effect they are true to their nature. Would Cortez's character really be different had he lost a wife instead of a husband? Would Traynor's character be any different had she not been available to men only? Or to both sexes? Having not played a woman, I never even suspected she was Lesbian, nor even an LI. Only later did I read online that she was those things. Now, it is possible that what you want is for those characters to have more content that reflects their supposed sexual orientation, but really, what would that even look like? The character would join in the Denerim Pride Parade? Suffer homophobic attacks in the backstreets of Orzammar? Have religious figures denounce it? We already know that such homophobia does not exist within the circles (Anders says as much in game), we also know that it doesn't really exist within the chantry (David Gaider said as much off game), and without homophobia any of those things are extremely unlikely to even exist. Now one could say that in practice homophobia exists within the Qun, but that society is so personality-crushingly oppresive, that I suspect a Qunari character would not be able to express gay thoughts even remotely (regardless of race - unless exposed to outside ideas) even to itself. So basically the only gay characterizations one could add to such characters would be A) A coming out of the closet story - which I doubt would be very interesting in a society devoid of homophobia, unless we're talking about a Tal Vashoth character, which could be potentially interesting but would have zero chance of being implemented (because, see 1) or Add "gay personality characteristics", such as perhaps have the character join a glee club, or be obsessed with fashion or rave about the great bard-diva passing through town. (I'm being sarcastic if you haven't noticed by now). Because what would "straight personality characteristics" even be? And if they do not exist why would their gay counterpart exist? And that's where we get to the core of this discussion - stereotypes, and the aforementioned element supposedly lacking in Thedas (because why aren't you upset that the NPCs are playersexual in regards to hair color, or - in the case of DAO - species?).

Edit: OK there's another possible gay plotline - parents pressuring a gay character to marry a different gender in order to have kids (especially in a noble family, where the line must go on), but that would again not happen because see 1, plus the added potentially unhappy end of the romance.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 02 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[nightscrawl]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

And "sexuality isn't an issue in Thedas" isn't a worse explanation than "because Hawke" for the cooperation between the companions.

Slight digression here.

You know, I think that was one benefit of the DAO Blight plot. There was the huge crisis that brought the team together, so even if everyone hated each others guts, they were all working against the Blight.

With DA2 it was as you say "because Hawke," which always seemed a little thin to me, especially if you're going the rival route with some people.

I'm reminded of this exchange between Sebastian and Fenris:

Sebastian: It's our duty to tell the templars.
Fenris: Then why haven't you done it?
Sebastian: I guess I was hoping they'd come to it on their own.
Fenris: And then you wouldn't have to betray Hawke's friends, right?
Sebastian: That's not reason enough to allow a maleficar to walk free.
Sebastian: Which of us should do it? Shall we draw lots?
Fenris: Uh-uh. You want to turn them in, you work it out with Hawke.

Because Hawke. XD