443 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

I doubt the team will retroactively change Morrigan's and Alistair's sexual preference as it'll have little or no mention, and or impact on DAI's plot since they are not confirmed as LI or returning companions.

[efd731]

Once again. I got sucked into mockingword's arguement. I couldn't care less about the mod or fanfiction content. And if they do include the option in the keep to make all companions romanceable regardless of gender, then fine. But saying they have an obligation to do so, is wrong. Saying that any mod,regardless Of content, should be honored, is ridiculous

[Nohvarr]

But that's all beside the point, because I was never talking about making a retroactive change to Dragon Age: Origins, I am talking about what I think should be included in an upcoming product, which is the Dragon Age Keep.

The problem for me is that the information you are talking about is specifically linked to a past product. It had it's issues but changing that story in the way you want to accommodate a fan mod is a touch ridiculous since it opens up a serious can of worms. You say it's for equality and fairness, that's fine but if they go that route what's to stop other people from making similar demands? Perhaps a person wants their male Shepard to be able to Romance Samantha Traynor and was able to accomplish that in a mod, is Bioware then responsible for continuing that choice in future games? What if I mod Dragon Age 2 to keep Bethany alive despite my choosing to play as a mage, perhaps I decided to force Fenris to keep quiet about his hatred of mages, or Maybe I changed Sebastian to remove all references to a chaste marriage so I want our children showing up in future games?

 

Which fan does Bioware listen, and/or how do they choose which mod to accommodate?

[In Exile]

Not really. The old law still existed in the past, so retcon isn't the right word since the new law doesn't go "The old law never existed". Just saying...

 

This is a side-track, but the law can be retconned. The distinction is between (countries borrowing from the English common law tradition) between laws passed by the Legislature (which are repelead or ruled unconstitutional, in which case their existence is recognized) and judge-made common law (whereby judges will say that the "true principle" was always whatever they just ruled now).

 

This has a major difference in practice, because changes to the common law are retroactive whereas legislative changes are (usually) not retroactive.

[Lotto]

I romanced Barkspawn.  Can we import that, too?  It's only fair.

[Darth Krytie]

I romanced Barkspawn.  Can we import that, too?  It's only fair.

 

[edit] Bestiality and same sex romances are really in no way the same. It's disgusting to even insinuate that they are.

 

edited: removed inflammatory comment -Mod05

[Hanako Ikezawa]

[edit] Bestiality and same sex romances are really in no way the same. It's disgusting to even insinuate that they are.

 

edited: removed inflammatory comment -Mod05

I think they were more saying that "This person gets their mod recognized, so why can't mine be recognized as well?".

[Darth Krytie]

I think they were more saying that "This person gets their mod recognized, so why can't mine be recognized as well?".

 

You're giving them far too much credit. It's actually a very sensitive issue for many LGBT people...having people equate wanting acknowledgement for their relationships to incest, pedophilia/underage, and bestiality. People bring those things up all the time in the context of discussing LGBT things and it's disgusting and disrespectful. If they wanted to make it more of an equivalent without being really rude, they could have brought up a mod to romance Wynne or Sten or even Shale and it wouldn't have given the same impression of likening queer romances to bestiality.

[Nohvarr]

 

You're giving them far too much credit. It's actually a very sensitive issue for many LGBT people...having people equate wanting acknowledgement for their relationships to incest, pedophilia/underage, and bestiality. People bring those things up all the time in the context of discussing LGBT things and it's disgusting and disrespectful. If they wanted to make it more of an equivalent without being really rude, they could have brought up a mod to romance Wynne or Sten or even Shale and it wouldn't have given the same impression of likening queer romances to bestiality.

The problem for me is that the information you are talking about is specifically linked to a past product. It had it's issues but changing that story in the way you want to accommodate a fan mod is a touch ridiculous since it opens up a serious can of worms. You say it's for equality and fairness, that's fine but if they go that route what's to stop other people from making similar demands? Perhaps a person wants their male Shepard to be able to Romance Samantha Traynor and was able to accomplish that in a mod, is Bioware then responsible for continuing that choice in future games? What if I mod Dragon Age 2 to keep Bethany alive despite my choosing to play as a mage, perhaps I decided to force Fenris to keep quiet about his hatred of mages, or Maybe I changed Sebastian to remove all references to a chaste marriage so I want our children showing up in future games?

 

Which fan does Bioware listen, and/or how do they choose which mod to accommodate?

[Darth Krytie]

 

The problem for me is that the information you are talking about is specifically linked to a past product. It had it's issues but changing that story in the way you want to accommodate a fan mod is a touch ridiculous since it opens up a serious can of worms. You say it's for equality and fairness, that's fine but if they go that route what's to stop other people from making similar demands? Perhaps a person wants their male Shepard to be able to Romance Samantha Traynor and was able to accomplish that in a mod, is Bioware then responsible for continuing that choice in future games? What if I mod Dragon Age 2 to keep Bethany alive despite my choosing to play as a mage, perhaps I decided to force Fenris to keep quiet about his hatred of mages, or Maybe I changed Sebastian to remove all references to a chaste marriage so I want our children showing up in future games?

 

Which fan does Bioware listen, and/or how do they choose which mod to accommodate?

 

 

Note: I never gave my opinion one way or another on whether BioWare should approve acknowledging mods. I just said that equating accepting a LBGT mod to accepting a bestiality mod was disgusting. 

[Lotto]

Don't be a jackass. Bestiality and same sex romances are really in no way the same. It's disgusting to even insinuate that they are.

 

I think you're being intolerant.  What Barkspawn and I had was real.

 

But yeah, Hinata Hyuuga got the point; you didn't. 

[Darth Krytie]

I think you're being intolerant.  What Barkspawn and I had was real.

 

But yeah, Hinata Hyuuga got the point; you didn't. 

 

I got your point just fine. I'm just pointing out the way you made your point was a problem.

[Gamemako]

This is a side-track, but the law can be retconned. The distinction is between (countries borrowing from the English common law tradition) between laws passed by the Legislature (which are repelead or ruled unconstitutional, in which case their existence is recognized) and judge-made common law (whereby judges will say that the "true principle" was always whatever they just ruled now).
 
This has a major difference in practice, because changes to the common law are retroactive whereas legislative changes are (usually) not retroactive.

That suggests that judges create law where they typically do not. When a judge strikes down a law, the law must always have been invalid as the superseding rule was always in force. Equivalent situations in fiction are difficult to create because the fiction exists in a physical space where the law does not. For example, a character who cannot die might be killed off in one episode only to return in the next. The viewer would already be aware that the character cannot die, and the entire notion that he could be killed off wouldn't be sensible in the first place. There's no retcon to be made, but one still might question the good sense of the creators.

Retconning in real life would more accurately compare to historical revisionism.

[In Exile]

I think you're being intolerant.  What Barkspawn and I had was real.

 

But yeah, Hinata Hyuuga got the point; you didn't. 

The bold part makes it sound like comparing S/S relationships to bestiality was the goal.

[In Exile]

That suggests that judges create law where they typically do not. When a judge strikes down a law, the law must always have been invalid as the superseding rule was always in force. Equivalent situations in fiction are difficult to create because the fiction exists in a physical space where the law does not. For example, a character who cannot die might be killed off in one episode only to return in the next. The viewer would already be aware that the character cannot die, and the entire notion that he could be killed off wouldn't be sensible in the first place. There's no retcon to be made, but one still might question the good sense of the creators.

Retconning in real life would more accurately compare to historical revisionism.

 

I'm not sure what the bold statement is related to in respect of my post. The common law is judge-made law. Judges don't often change the common law for a lot of reasons, but the basic point that changing it is within their absolute jurisdiction is not in doubt.

 

The underlined portion isn't true, at least in Anglo-Canadian law, but the answer may vary based on the legal system at issue. In very general terms, and without reference to a specific law or to a specific provision, a prior conviction under a law later declared unconstitutional is not void or voidable in Canada.

[Avaflame]

If people want to mod their games, all the power to them. Heck, if I had the technical or mental capacity to do so myself, I probably (definitely) would have been all over Alistair as a male Warden. But to expect BioWare to put in the time, money and effort to accommodate how you modified your previous games seems unreasonable. If you want Harry to end up with Draco (or Luna, or Bellatrix, or whoever) you should feel absolutely no shame in writing or reading fanfiction of that nature, but if people had kicked up a stink when Deathly Hallows came out (In my mind Mrs. Weasley runs away with Snape! Guess I have to rely on fanfic writers - again.) I'm sure many would have rolled their eyes. I don't see how this is any different. It's BioWare's narrative and characters and if we don't like it we can always not buy it, the same as any movie, tv show, book or comic.

In terms of modding Inquisition and whether BioWare should or should not make it more accessible to do so is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, though I still feel they have absolutely no obligation. 

[philippe willaume]

I got your point just fine. I'm just pointing out the way you made your point was a problem.

 

May be i am way off but i think you got the wrong end of the stick on that one. I.e i really don't think it was meant or intend to be understood that way

To be fair going calling him a jackass right off the bat does not really lend itself for a follow up adult conversation which is a pity because your longer post on the topic clearly explains where you are coming from.  

I agree with you on the total absurdity of linking LGBT with incest or bestiality but to be honest it is not really a line of thought that the majority of us entertains so we could really give the dude the benefits of the doubt.

 

what i am trying to get at is that when I teach SD/PP or martial arts quite often someone ask a question that is a trademark of my pet peeve, the entitled muppet community , and most of the time the same someone is not even eligible to be on 3rd tier supplemental replacement waiting list of the aforementioned community. so there is really no point for me to get in high rev about the question

 

phil

[Allan Schumacher]

To be fair, I have seen people express concerned on this forum (or rather, the old BSN) that by being inclusive of LGBT content means a slippery slope that will eventually include bestiality, incest, and pedophilia.

[efd731]

I feel (personally) that saying that a decision, made for other reasons and because of an entirely different subject, is wron because It doesn't comply with your views on equality, is wrong. All it does is attempt to make the other person seem like a discriminatory person simply for disagreeing with you. It's not having a real arguement/discussion, it's saying "I'm taking our toys home and you can play with them when you behave how I want"

[Gamemako]

I'm not sure what the bold statement is related to in respect of my post.

I should first note that my understanding of legal systems is generally limited to the U.S. one, and that may be the point of contention here. In the U.S., a prior conviction under a statute later declared unconstitutional is immediately subject to legal challenge. The statute is considered void as though it had never passed the legislature at all. This is not the one exclusive interpretation of the fate of unconstitutional statutes; in the case of convictions under unconstitutional statutes, however, it's pretty well-established. That particular discussion would get pretty far out of hand in a hurry, of course, and I'm not qualified to give any detailed explanation of that business.

At least in U.S. case law, nothing really resembling retconning occurs. When a statute is found constitutional or unconstitutional, the statute may be retroactively applied, but only as far as it was in force under law already. In many cases, the unconstitutional statute simply loses effect from the time of the ruling, which depends on the specific situation. Case law is never retroactively overturned, even though the impact of the law in question might be (which falls under the previous description). Which is really to say that U.S. case law exists in a series superimposed imaginary states, any of which might apply at any given moment based on the whim of some wealthy sod appointed by a politician to give opinions for a living. Gods bless America.

[karushna5]

There has been a long long history of associating homosexuality with incest/beastiality/and pedophilia. And it is important to compare likenesses. Someone mentioned children, Shale, Aveline, okay sure. personally I feel they are missing the point to some degree but to imediately compare it to those has things that will imediately put us on the defensive. It isnt okay that you are going for the absurd and didnt mean it, these things have history.

[Darth Krytie]

 

 

May be i am way off but i think you got the wrong end of the stick on that one. I.e i really don't think it was meant or intend to be understood that way

To be fair going calling him a jackass right off the bat does not really lend itself for a follow up adult conversation which is a pity because your longer post on the topic clearly explains where you are coming from.  

I agree with you on the total absurdity of linking LGBT with incest or bestiality but to be honest it is not really a line of thought that the majority of us entertains so we could really give the dude the benefits of the doubt.

 

what i am trying to get at is that when I teach SD/PP or martial arts quite often someone ask a question that is a trademark of my pet peeve, the entitled muppet community , and most of the time the same someone is not even eligible to be on 3rd tier supplemental replacement waiting list of the aforementioned community. so there is really no point for me to get in high rev about the question

 

phil

 

 

Perhaps calling that person a jackass wasn't the way to go about it. But, I highly doubt I lowered the maturity bar considering I was responding to a comment about romancing Barkspawn in the first place. In light of that, I'd say that person's original comment doesn't lend itself to adult conversation.

 

Anyhow, the latter half of your comment didn't really make much sense to me. If you would elaborate, it'd be appreciated.

[efd731]

To be fair, I have seen people express concerned on this forum (or rather, the old BSN) that by being inclusive of LGBT content means a slippery slope that will eventually include bestiality, incest, and pedophilia.

but no one here has said that. Even the Hawkecest(and weapons and dark spawn companion) comment I made was not to say "look what it leads to!" It was to say "these are also mods, why don't they deserve this treatment. No one's saying it's a slippery slope to perversion, were saying with any other mod it would be viewed as self-serving entitled whining. And the only reason this one has legs to stand on is that everyone supporting it can* shout "look hatred an intolerance" to those who disagree