8 réponses à ce sujet

[Exaltation]

I liked Serendipity in DA2/MOTA,i wonder if there will be more transgender characters in DA:I and with better roles? Serendipity was just a prostitute >.>

[David Gaider]

I'll just say a couple of things with regards to this topic, and some of the conversation in general that seems to arise whenever this topic (or ones similar) appears on our forums:

With regards to Serendipity, I think we mentioned when this was first brought up that the "that was awkward" comment following meeting Serendipity in MotA was actually a bug. It was meant to be a reaction if Hawke had slept with Serendipity at the Blooming Rose, not a reaction to Serendipity simply being there.

But our intention was irrelevant. The bug was there, and thus it was a short trip to interpret it in a way that made it look like Serendipity herself was meant to be the joke. It's also irrelevant that she was intended to essentially be a drag queen. She didn't appear that way, and she was yet another sex worker and a character included to be humorous. So, point taken. We can do better than that. Maevaris Tilani was written into the DA comic as a personal attempt regarding how I could include a transgender character without that being the entire point of her inclusion--because her role in the story was not simply "the transgender character". She was made first, and the transgender aspect came up later.

The last point above is important. Any character whose sole concept is their sexual identity or their race or what have you stands a good chance of being pretty boring. People who say "[the writers] should focus on making good characters!" are correct... that is what we should do. It does not follow, however, that simply asking the question "why not?" can't come up at some point in that character's creation. We're perfectly comfortable with creating our good characters and also asking why they couldn't also be transgender or gay or black (or an elf or a dwarf or... you get the picture?).

There seems to be an impression that the default of any character is to be white and male and straight, and that said character must go to great lengths to justify being anything else... and that, in becoming anything else, would also have to make them completely about that thing. It's not so. Just because we took an interesting male warrior and made him female doesn't suddenly mean we have to write him as the most female female to have ever femaled. That would be bad writing, and to assume that it's an automatic result is reductio ad absurdum.

So relax. There's no harm in asking to see more transgender characters or any other kind of minority character. We're not going to put them into places where they don't fit, but it doesn't follow that there are no places at all where they will fit... because there very likely are. That's a conversation that we and more creators should have, and if it seems like having it is a very deliberate action that's because deliberateness is evidently required--or it's forgotten entirely. And the fact that's so easy to do is sad, as diversity makes characters and settings more interesting and not less.

And if one's response is that, no, the very existence of such characters is "shoving them down your throat" no matter how much in the minority they still might be... well, that's too bad. This isn't an escapist fantasy for straight white folks to pretend they're the only people who exist--it's a fantasy for everyone to be part of, and it's not too much to ask for the game to acknowledge that fact occasionally. Acting like DA is "going too far" just by considering having a few or even one character that's a little different, as if that makes us some radical bastion of equality unable to do anything other than make characters which are soulless soap-boaxes-- I mean, come on. We can do better. I can do better. If doing better in this one small thing is so untenable, then I'd suggest moving onto one of the many other games out there which wouldn't bother.

Seeing as you have such a choice available to you. Which is a rather nice thing to have, isn't it?

[David Gaider]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
This. Wanting characters made from the bottom up over chsracters made for quota appeal will always yeild better results. Always.

I myself would really like less white male standard characters. But I would be offended if they made one so lackluster and so obviously put in just to shut people up, made for quota with less content, less personality, and defined by "I'm the token X character". 

Doesn't mean I endorse a whiter then a snowy winter malescape, but if they make more interesting and diversed in personality and arcs, then i don't mind bearing thst for the sake of good writing from writers working hard to write such a story.

Read my response.

Some people seem to assume that the only way such a character could be included is for "quota appeal", as you put it, or that doing so would rob the character of all personality. Which it would, if that were the only inspiration behind such a character, but why does that need to be the case?

Not that the generous forbearance of us writers making more interesting and diverse characters isn't totally appreciated.

[David Gaider]

Br3ad wrote...
Yes, but I also do not appreciate be called things like: racist, sexist, elitist, and homophobic, simply from expressing this view point. You guys can make whatever character you want. However, no one requests good characters. They request a character of a certain trait and then quality second. I'm responding more to them than you. Why can't quality come first?

If you imply that making a character transgender (or gay, or what have you) makes them of low quality by definition, then you are not just "expressing a viewpoint". If you are suggesting that such a character has to jump through more hoops in order for you to consider their concept still interesting, even not knowing a single other thing about them, then what response do you expect?

Don't sit there and shrug and say "I was just saying a thing." Consider your words for a moment. Privilege doesn't mean you're racist, sexist, elitist and homophobic... it just means you're in a position where you don't have to consider how such things affect you because they don't. If you think that means the only response is "political correctness", like that's a box you're being restricted into, consider what you're trying to break out of.

People request things by trait all the time. "Qunari love interest." "More elves." "More dialogue." "Deathblows." And so forth. Isn't it assumed that they want those things done in an interesting manner as well? If, in this one case, it's assumed that unless the request is made with certain conditions attached that writers could only produce it in a soulless manner... then why?

Just think about it, that's all.

[David Gaider]

Silfren wrote...
I don't really understand the charge of it only being okay to put in LGBT characters where they fit. 

That raises the question...in what ways would they not fit? What's being said here, seriously? That it wouldn't be okay for a Meredith character to have been a transwoman?  That it wouldn't have been okay for Bethany to have been canonically hard-line gay?  It's a valid question, since sexuality and gender expression are independent character traits from a person's interests and personality and professions they may go into.  By saying that LGBT characters only belong where they "fit" are you not somehow saying that they are only appropriate for certain, specific roles?

That seems to venture close to saying that LGBT characters only make sense in brothels...

Please don't put words into my mouth. My point was not to suggest there are more places to where such an exploration wouldn't fit, but to suggest that the examination of where such an exploration might take place would still leave plenty of places where that would be just fine.

[David Gaider]

Silfren wrote...
I wasn't directing that at you as if you'd said it; rather I was addressing the idea you yourself brought up of people seeming to think that LGBT characters can only be allowed in if they properly fit.  Sorry for the confusion.

Well, it's not going to always fit. With regards to LGBT characters specifically, their inclusion would need to be in the context of their sexuality being relevant--or how would you even know? Such relevancy can occasionally be engineered, and sometimes comes up as a matter of course, but not always--and there's only so often you'd want to try to force it in the context of a game that isn't actually about sexuality.

That's all I meant.

[David Gaider]

Abraham_uk wrote...
I guess you have to be deliberately vague about all characters in Dragon Age Inquisition because...

http://t3.gstatic.co...ijXOzVnMeM9OXSA

...because we aren't discussing anything about DAI which hasn't already been announced. Sorry.

[David Gaider]

Silfren wrote...
Well, I see nothing wrong with with putting in a throwaway reference that establishes a character as having  a non-straight identity (perhaps more accurately a non-heteronormative one).  You do this with NPCs all the time with just a meaningless reference to a spouse, which establishes them as at least being perceived as straight, even though it may have zero bearing on the story, or even that characters's relevance to the plot.  See what I mean?

Yes-- hence why I said such context could occasionally be engineered. If every character had a throwaway reference to their sexuality that didn't fit their context, however, that would not work. So it's fine, it's just not going to fit everywhere and in every circumstance. I don't think we're saying different things.

Modifié par David Gaider, 05 décembre 2013 - 07:56 .

[David Gaider]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Mr. Gaider, your post does make rather broad generalizations against those who have criticisms, and seems to come close to endorsing the McCarthian-esque behavior of your fans. Mainly being to label everyone not 100% on board as racists, bigots, or terrible people, all of which could very well be construed as endorsing personal attacks of others on this site, and giving them a sense of righteousness and validation. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that was the result, and I hope you can re-read and understand that. As I re-read my previous post and understood that there were elements of it that went over the line and were uncalled for.

I actually meant the opposite. I'm not suggesting anyone is a racist, bigot, or terrible person. All I'm suggesting is that not understanding why someone might want characters that resemble themselves present in our world or how their lack affects them is a circumstance you can't avoid by virtue of who you are. Recognizing that, and perhaps cutting them some slack for making the request and not implying (if not outright stating) that their request needs to go match greater criterion than other sorts of content simply because it has no direct relevance to you, would go a long way to understanding why people get upset when you totally didn't mean to be upsetting.

Hopefully that doesn't come across as accusatory. I'm not on a McCarthy-esque witch hunt to stop people from espousing their opinions--I'm just suggesting they think about them a little more.