677 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Strongly disagree with the bolded, and I feel it absolutely would need to be addressed in the narrative if it's to matter. That's the purpose behind this, yes?  Else, what's the point? 

The point is generalized acceptance and acknowledgement that they exist, and that it isn't (nor should it be) a big deal. That's actually the thing I want to see most in these sorts of representations - that such people do not only exist, but that they're perfectly normal and acceptable people.

My favorite depiction of a lesbian character on TV to date is FBI Agent Diana Barrigan from White Collar. Why? Because her sexual identity isn't the focus of a Very Special Episode, it isn't something she has to explicitly mention and make a big deal of, and it isn't something used to titillate the audience. It's just a part of who she is and it's treated by the other characters on the show as if it's entirely ordinary. This generalized acceptance and normality is something hugely lacking in underrepresented minorities, and it's something I would love to see more of in general.

Wade and Herren make an excellent example of this in the Dragon Age world. Why not extend that same treatment to a trans character as well?

I understand and completely agree with your overarching logic here, but there's a difference between sexual orientation and chosen gender orientation.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Do you have the same criteria for cisgendered characters?

]Because I don't recall you having ever asked what purpose there was in Ser Thrask being male, or Jethann being an elf, or Bethany having brown hair.

Why, of all the various attributes a person can have, does this specific one need to be addressed in the narrative?

Because it needs to be addressed to convey that necessary information, else we're simply working with men and women.  Refer to Dave of Canada's comment about the matter.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any way to address it because people would blend in seamlessly as many want. Unless you want tokenism, that is.

[Plaintiff]

CynicalShep wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Characters need justification for being in the story. They do not need justification for being LGBT, or black or female.

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

What if it's the villain? The villain absolutely has to be a straight white male.

No, it doesn't, and a lot of the time, it's actually not. In most Disney films, the villains are predominantly single, older women. And it's been famously well-documented that many, many villains in classic films were 'coded' as gay through the use of symbolism, since the Motion Picture Production Code forbade any direct reference to 'sexual perversion'.

The Call of Duty franchise repeatedly pits a heroic 'team' of all-or-mostly-white American males against basically every other country in the world. DA2's final antagonist was a woman.

And here, have an extensive list of female supervillains from the comic industry.

[Petedj06]

You could always just bring back the gender belt from the BG series, that was always fun to play with... anyway, in all seriousness, I agree that this should happen. Transgender people exist, this is a fact. They have always existed, also a fact. They exist in every culture, a fact. Why not here. No one is asking for dozens or even a few. But a single, well written character is NOT too much to ask for. It's been three games now, one of your characters should have at least run into a transgender person by now. (the one in DAII does not count, she was confirmed to be a drag-queen on this very forum, drag-queens are NOT necessarily transgender)

[Maria Caliban]

J. Reezy wrote...

If it isn't how would the players it matters to know otherwise?

The same way we knew Serendipity was biologically male.

There are no estrogen pills or testosterone gels in Thedas.

If we're dealing with a mage or desire demon who can shapechange at will, then that's a different story.

dreamgazer wrote...

Because it needs to be addressed to convey that necessary information, else we're simply working with men and women.  Refer to Dave of Canada's comment about the matter.

Again: Serendipity.

Dragon Age had *already* done this. The only problem was that, yet again, Seredipity was a prostitute. Make her a blacksmith, baker, thief, or town guard, and you have a transgender character without the narrative having to 'address' that aspect of them.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 06 décembre 2013 - 03:27 .

[General TSAR]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dear Writers,

Please don't make token characters, make good characters.

Love,
Maria



Dear Maria,

We were right in the middle of making a bunch of shallow, token characters whose only contribution to the story was loudly announcing what minority group they were part of.

You really saved our ass on this one!

Love,
The Writers

As a Mage once said; "Your glibness does you no credit."

But thank you none the less.

[Petedj06]

Maria Caliban wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

If it isn't how would the players it matters to know otherwise?

The same way we knew Serendipity was biologically male.

There are no estrogen pills or testosterone gels in Thedas.

If we're dealing with a mage or desire demon who can shapechange at will, then that's a different story.

This is true, however, there is magic, which works much, much better. 

[General TSAR]

Here comes another Sermon about Inequality.

[Petedj06]

General TSAR wrote...

Here comes another Sermon about Inequality.

Inequality exists, there is no reason for it, and no one should be happy or content with it. It is not outragious to ask for equality, it should not even be controversial. Equality is a good thing, not something to be feared.  

[CynicalShep]

Plaintiff wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Characters need justification for being in the story. They do not need justification for being LGBT, or black or female.

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

What if it's the villain? The villain absolutely has to be a straight white male.

No, it doesn't, and a lot of the time, it's actually not. In most Disney films, the villains are predominantly single, older women. And it's been famously well-documented that many, many villains in classic films were 'coded' as gay through the use of symbolism, since the Motion Picture Production Code forbade any direct reference to 'sexual perversion'.

The Call of Duty franchise repeatedly pits a heroic 'team' of all-or-mostly-white American males against basically every other country in the world. DA2's final antagonist was a woman.

And here, have an extensive list of female supervillains from the comic industry.

That was a joke. I played DA2

[General TSAR]

Petedj06 wrote...

Inequality exists, there is no reason for it, and no one should be happy or content with it. It is not outragious to ask for equality, it should not even be controversial. Equality is a good thing, not something to be feared.  

Ahh... Naive Idealism.

I remember believing that crap too.

[dreamgazer]

Maria Caliban wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Because it needs to be addressed to convey that necessary information, else we're simply working with men and women.  Refer to Dave of Canada's comment about the matter.

Again: Serendipity.

Dragon Age had *already* done this. The only problem was that, yet again, Seredipity was a prostitute. Make her a blacksmith, baker, thief, or town guard, and you have a transgender character without the narrative having to 'address' that aspect of them.

I suppose I'm thinking about something on a larger scale, such as a squad member.

If we're talking about "throwaway" NPCs, then sure, this is fine. 

[Petedj06]

General TSAR wrote...

Petedj06 wrote...

Inequality exists, there is no reason for it, and no one should be happy or content with it. It is not outragious to ask for equality, it should not even be controversial. Equality is a good thing, not something to be feared.  

Ahh... Naive Idealism.

I remember believing that crap too.

Wait, what was crap? The part where I said inequaitly is bad, or the part where I said equality is good?

[CynicalShep]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

Bu- but....getting the girl and riding off in the sunset.

You talk about women like they're some kind of trophy to be won. Stop objectifying women!

[DeinonSlayer]

Petedj06 wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Here comes another Sermon about Inequality.

Inequality exists, there is no reason for it, and no one should be happy or content with it. It is not outragious to ask for equality, it should not even be controversial. Equality is a good thing, not something to be feared.

When it gets to the point where the main cast of any production must consist of characters x, x, x, x, and x to satisfy "equality" or face condemnation for not doing so, there's a problem.

I'm not opposed to including such characters in media; I'm opposed to the idea that they have to be. There is no plastic surgery or hormone treatment possible in a medieval setting. Does it fit in the story universe without forcing it?

[Br3admax]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

Bu- but....getting the girl and riding off in the sunset.

You talk about women like they're some kind of trophy to be won. Stop objectifying women!

Right. It's the woman getting the hero. 

I see no problem with that scenario. 

[CynicalShep]

Br3ad wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

Bu- but....getting the girl and riding off in the sunset.

You talk about women like they're some kind of trophy to be won. Stop objectifying women!

Right. It's the woman getting the hero. 

I see no problem with that scenario. 

But then she comes off as weak and helpless. She can't exist without a strong hero to protect her. That is a bad stereotype!

[Petedj06]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Petedj06 wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Here comes another Sermon about Inequality.

Inequality exists, there is no reason for it, and no one should be happy or content with it. It is not outragious to ask for equality, it should not even be controversial. Equality is a good thing, not something to be feared.

When it gets to the point where the main cast of any production must consist of characters x, x, x, x, and x to satisfy "equality" or face condemnation for not doing so, there's a problem.

I'm not opposed to including such characters in media; I'm opposed to the idea that they have to be. There is no plastic surgery or hormone treatment possible in a medieval setting. Does it fit in the story universe without forcing it?

I completely agree. No one wants a "quata character," no one wants a "tacked-on" character. What I want (opinion) is a world that realistically shows a wide range of demographics. This includes all races, sexualities, and gender identities. I am saying that, over the course of 3 games, a transgender character probably would have crossed the path of at least one of your characters. Heck, I know 3 transgender people, and I never left the midwest!

[General TSAR]

[quote]Petedj06 wrote...

Wait, what was crap? The part where I said inequaitly is bad, or the part where I said equality is good?

[/quote]there is no reason for it, [/quote]

Modifié par General TSAR, 06 décembre 2013 - 03:45 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

CynicalShep wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

There's little to no reason at all why any particular role in a given story must be fulfilled by a straight, white cisgender male.

Bu- but....getting the girl and riding off in the sunset.

You talk about women like they're some kind of trophy to be won. Stop objectifying women!

Right. It's the woman getting the hero. 

I see no problem with that scenario. 

But then she comes off as weak and helpless. She can't exist without a strong hero to protect her. That is a bad stereotype!

Well if you phrase it as "the woman getting the hero" that implies that it's the man that comes off as weak and helpless who can't exist without a strong hero to protect him. Of course, if there was an actual story about that, people like you would whine about an insidious, radical femi**** agenda meant to make men an inferior gender. Now stop trolling -- you're not clever. 

[SlottsMachine]

Over/Under on 50 pages for this thread. Taking the over.

[The Hierophant]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...


But then she comes off as weak and helpless. She can't exist without a strong hero to protect her. That is a bad stereotype!

It's the hero that is weak. He needed love all along. The woman really saved him. 

nice

[CynicalShep]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...


But then she comes off as weak and helpless. She can't exist without a strong hero to protect her. That is a bad stereotype!

It's the hero that is weak. He needed love all along. The woman really saved him. 

Ah, then it's fine.

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

Well if you phrase it as "the woman getting the hero" that implies that it's the man that comes off as weak and helpless who can't exist without a strong hero to protect him. Of course, if there was an actual story about that, people like you would whine about an insidious, radical femi**** agenda meant to make men an inferior gender. Now stop trolling -- you're not clever. 

Too obvious? But mom said I was clever. Moms don't lie.