677 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[Hellion Rex]

Legbiter wrote...

Dragon Age needs a tranny otherkin (zebra) with a dash of homonormative tumblrpansexuality thrown in.

Ticks more boxes.

Totally unnecessary. <_<

[Lebanese Dude]

Silfren wrote...

Beyond that, I would also have to ask, again, why the assumption is that LGBT characters in the game AREN'T characters first.  Seems to me the idea that they are representatives for a certain cause or group and nothing more, stems from you, and not the character themselves.  It almost seems like you're saying that any reference at a;; to that character's being LGBT, whether direct or alluded, in dialogue visual, means that they are reduced to being only in for the representation.

*clap*

[Br3admax]

David Gaider wrote...

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?

I did not imply that at all. As Darth said we're talking about the same hoops, not the "Here it is hoop," which in itself doesn't imply that you have ever made a character that way.

 
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.

Except this makes a lot of assumptions about my person simply because I don't agree with something. If I don't want black characters for black characters, I'm racist against black people, completely ignoring that I am one. No offense, but no one here really knows me enough to make such judgements against me, especially for not wanting a character for a character.

 
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.

Again, we aren't implying that it is automatically bad, by stating, "As long as it is of quality." Some of us do not feel that quality always comes into mind when designing a character. And it's not like this is limited to any minorities. i would consider plenty of white, straight, male characters bland and pointless in DA. When we say, 'As long as it is of quality," we aren't limiting it to the one topic, we are simply commenting on the topic at hand. 

[Silfren]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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?

You did exactly this with Maevaris in the comics did you not?  Unless I missed something, her being a transwoman is completely irrelevant to the story.  But you still put enough evidence in the art that readers who pay attention can't miss it, and therefore "know" what she is.

A lot of people would appreciate this because of the way it would normalize representation of LGBT characters: they're there, undeniably, but, lo! their sexuality is so not a big deal it's perceived as no more worthy or special mention than that of straight characters.

Modifié par Silfren, 05 décembre 2013 - 07:51 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

While I feel my earlier post was out of line, I will say these points I raised in them.

1. Characters should go through, more or less, the same types of hoops when being written. Nobody is saying because a character is gay they need to work harder, quite the opposite in fact. I was calling on there being the same hoops, hardships, and writing any other character would go through otherwise and not be given less content or shortcuts because of a loophole status, see traynor and cortez of ME3 for an example of relegated content, in which the only way to be friends or interact with them is to more or less romance them until the last second, and that being all the content they get outside of dlcs.

2. 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.

[Legbiter]

eluvianix wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

Dragon Age needs a tranny otherkin (zebra) with a dash of homonormative tumblrpansexuality thrown in.

Ticks more boxes.

Totally unnecessary. <_<

Well, the fat acceptance/body positive transgendered narrative meta-background goes without saying.

Modifié par Legbiter, 05 décembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[Lebanese Dude]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

This is true. It is a common notion that characters without a given (or implied) orientation are "straight unless proven otherwise". 
Obviously, it isn't true at all. If the orientation is not relevant to the subject matter, then bringing it up (straight or otherwise) would be forced.

What Silfren and others (including me) want is more "matter-of-fact" representations. Honestly, they're the ones that make me smile the most.

Modifié par Lebdood, 05 décembre 2013 - 07:54 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Silfren wrote...
A lot of people would appreciate this because of the way it would normalize representation of LGBT characters: they're there, undeniably, but, lo! their sexuality is so not a big deal it's perceived as no more worthy or special mention than that of straight characters.

Exactly what I just said 

[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 .

[MrMrPendragon]

Lebdood wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beyond that, I would also have to ask, again, why the assumption is that LGBT characters in the game AREN'T characters first.  Seems to me the idea that they are representatives for a certain cause or group and nothing more, stems from you, and not the character themselves.  It almost seems like you're saying that any reference at a;; to that character's being LGBT, whether direct or alluded, in dialogue visual, means that they are reduced to being only in for the representation.

*clap*

Because it would be hard to see them as characters first without establishing they are transgendered. How would people know that the character is transgender without some sort of sign? Their sexuality has to be part of their character and their purpose in the game. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of making them transgender if they're just going to be the exact same character if they were straight? In fact, if you do that, you'll only come off as appeasing minority groups because you've made a character transgender without any valid reason.

And when they do establish the fact that one character is transgendered, people can't seem to get past that image of them being representatives of a minority.  That's the most obvious identity people can associate them with. If people see a tranny blacksmith - most likely they'll see that person as transgender first, blacksmith second.

Most people can't see past the adjective/identity of "transgender", not unless the character itself plays a major role in the game, which gives that transgender person a new identity people can associate that person with. And what people choose to see is hardly Bioware's fault. Remember this is a story, all characters have to have an engineered excuse for doing things or showing up.

[Silfren]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thanks, but in fairness I'm NOT asking for it to be done everywhere.  Just that it be more normalized and not something primarily seen only between the PC and her companions.  I wasn't saying it should be included everywhere at all, just objecting to the idea of it "having to fit."  It could be something as simple as having a female NPC have ambient dialogue about going home to her girlfriend.  Take ANY character whose sexuality is alluded to in such a fashion.  Can it truly be said that if you were to reverse every such situation (so that a referenced wife becomes a husband, etc), there are some in which it wouldn't "fit"?

Modifié par Silfren, 05 décembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[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.

[DonaldFwump]

@legbiter. I like your idea, although mine was to represent those who enjoy bestiality and want to make a centaur baby with their mounts (I'm just kidding).

@OP, you won't be getting an answer to your question until the game. Devs aren't going to say, as it's not major (in terms of story, gameplay, etc.) and they would have other information they'd want to convey. As Gaider has said it's a possibility, but I'd think it would be something you'd discover for your self in-game.

[Fredward]

Legbiter wrote...
Well, the fat acceptance/body positive transgendered narrative meta-background goes without saying.

-pets- Your kind should be valued and cherished so that future generations can one day point and gasp in horrified wonder at the close-mindedness of yesteryear.

[Silfren]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beyond that, I would also have to ask, again, why the assumption is that LGBT characters in the game AREN'T characters first.  Seems to me the idea that they are representatives for a certain cause or group and nothing more, stems from you, and not the character themselves.  It almost seems like you're saying that any reference at a;; to that character's being LGBT, whether direct or alluded, in dialogue visual, means that they are reduced to being only in for the representation.

*clap*

Because it would be hard to see them as characters first without establishing they are transgendered. How would people know that the character is transgender without some sort of sign? Their sexuality has to be part of their character and their purpose in the game. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of making them transgender if they're just going to be the exact same character if they were straight? In fact, if you do that, you'll only come off as appeasing minority groups because you've made a character transgender without any valid reason.

But that's exactly what was done with Maevaris.  Her character would have been the same even if she had been a ciswoman.

[Legbiter]

David Gaider wrote...
 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. 

You already do an excellent job of feeding our narcissim IMO.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

It honestly should not, and yet here we are still debating it all the same. It is an interesting situation, in that regard.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

You are not Mr. Gaider, of that I can assure you. I have respect for you and what you do/what you have to put up with in being the person this fanbase pretty much identifies as the head of everything, even if that might not be the 100% case.

It is just the fringe element, causing trouble and always using those tactics, which have driven such hard times onto everyone. I do understand where those who want these characters in game are coming from, and I understand that sometimes making these suggestions as I do can come off harsher then intended. But if there is anything at all I would like you know, is that there is more to this issue then a simple one side wants something and the other side doesn;t, though it sounds like you already do.

I hope this doesn't leave any hard feelings.

[Lebanese Dude]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote..
Because it would be hard to see them as characters first without establishing they are transgendered. How would people know that the character is transgender without some sort of sign? Their sexuality has to be part of their character and their purpose in the game. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of making them transgender if they're just going to be the exact same character if they were straight? In fact, if you do that, you'll only come off as appeasing minority groups because you've made a character transgender without any valid reason.

Transgender representation is a little difficult I agree. For one, transgendered people are not necessarily attracted to the same birth sex, so they won't stand out unless it's pointed out.

However, if it's someone who has same-sex attractions, matter-of-fact representation is much easier to achieve.
I bolded the issue in your post. Why are you putting "straight" above the others? If anything, anyone without a clear or implied orientation (not stereotyped mind you), should not even be considered straight. 

And when they do establish the fact that one character is transgendered, people can't seem to get past that image of them being representatives of a minority.  That's the most obvious identity people can associate them with. If people see a tranny blacksmith - most likely they'll see that person as transgender first, blacksmith second.

I would refrain from using the word "tranny". It's quite offensive to trans people. Your statement is an unfortunate truth though.

Most people can't see past the adjective/identity of "transgender", not unless the character itself plays a major role in the game, which gives that transgender person a new identity people can associate that person with. And what people choose to see is hardly Bioware's fault. Remember this is a story, all characters have to have an engineered excuse for doing things or showing up.

You're right here.

Modifié par Lebdood, 05 décembre 2013 - 08:13 .

[lady_v23]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

nope.  At least not in thedas.  As far as I know, being gay/bi/trans? in thedas is fine.

[MrMrPendragon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

Given how long this debate has been going on, I'd say that assuming that it does matter would be a good bet.

[Lebanese Dude]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

Given how long this debate has been going on, I'd say that assuming that it does matter would be a good bet.

Humans have a natural obsession with all things remotely related to sex. 

[Legbiter]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why does it always comes down to the sexuality of the characters, or in this case I suppose the wanted sex of the character?
Why does it matter? Should it matter?

Because of narcissism.

And people want Bioware to feed said narcissism.

It's the same impulse that drives a Japanese herb to marry his pillow with a picture of his anime "girlfriend", etc. It's one of the creepy sides of gamer culture.