443 réponses à ce sujet

[karushna5]

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

um, no. Putting everything else aside. One is not allowed because it is bestiality/incest, and the other is not. Bestiality and incest dont belong as actual options because it is beatiality and incest, comparing that and a Shale romance are uncomparable but comparing it to something that has been compared side by side with it for years is disconcerting.

 

I realize that it is huge to ask and all of us realize it wont happen, but someonbe wanted it to be available because in the past, due to its time, Bioware could not. it is reasonable to want to have it. Even if it is apparently unreasonable to ask. it isnt about little fantasies the same to us as you, we feel recognized in a way hard to imagine and wanting to carry it through.

[efd731]

Andraste's verbing nouns!! It's not about the content, it's about the mod being acknowledged. That's it. But people don't like retcons! The opposing side of the arguement isn't about equality it's about having a previous game altered and rearranged to suit your preferences. You'd have the same opposition no matter the retcon. (Unless it was specifically formulated to allow for mass headcanon verification)

[Allan Schumacher]

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

 

Because I don't consider the requests equivalent.  It's easy to look at it and say "Well if we do ONE thing based on a mod, it means that we would then do ANYthing based on a mod" which I think is pretty trivial to point out that that needn't be the case.

 

And I say this while being on the record that I'm not particularly keen on the idea of making the changes for Alistair and Morrigan for how we set up the Keep.

 

 

Coming in and saying "but what about Barkspawn" (or some other mod, that comes across as explicitly chosen because it shouldn't go in) comes across as a display of false equivalence, because one doesn't flow from the other.

[efd731]

Because I don't consider the requests equivalent. It's easy to look at it and say "Well if we do ONE thing based on a mod, it means that we would then do ANYthing based on a mod" which I think is pretty trivial to point out that that needn't be the case.

And I say this while being on the record that I'm not particularly keen on the idea of making the changes for Alistair and Morrigan for how we set up the Keep.


Coming in and saying "but what about Barkspawn" (or some other mod, that comes across as explicitly chosen because it shouldn't go in) comes across as a display of false equivalence, because one doesn't flow from the other.

^^that last bit is fair, but my point is just that mods are mods. I like them, I enjoy using them, they add to the experience. But they aren't part of the game, so don't see why any* mod should be acknowledged or adapted. And if the devs make it so alistair and morrigan are romanceable by either sex that's fine. My jimmies will remain unrustled.
Edit: "if mod x then mod y too!" Is silly. I just don't think any mod should be incorporated. If that counts as an appreciable difference.
Also, as opposed to weapon mods and Barkspawn, a more apt comparison would be aveline. The change from straight romance to gay romance is much more comparable to "no romance to romance."

[Mockingword]

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?

I don't believe the romances should be segregated at all, so I have no issues with Traynor being romanceable by male characters.

 

But you misunderstand my argument. Whether or not people were able to mod such content into the game is irrelevant to my point. Even if people hadn't modded in s/s relationships for Alistair and Morrigan, I would still say that making it possible in the Keep is the right thing to do. Saying "but this is also a mod and it's bad and should not be included!" doesn't help you in the least, because I was never talking about mods, even if the rest of this thread is.

 

It's not about "BioWare should acknowledge mods", it's about "BioWare created this opportunity for themselves to address previous imbalances, maybe they should live up to their claims of supporting equality and inclusion in gaming".

 

But as I said, and keep saying, I'm not under any illusion that they will actually do this.

[Allan Schumacher]

^^that last bit is fair, but my point is just that mods are mods. I like them, I enjoy using them, they add to the experience. But they aren't part of the game, so don't see why any* mod should be acknowledged or adapted. And if the devs make it so alistair and morrigan are romanceable by either sex that's fine. My jimmies will remain unrustled.

 

I understand that.  And I think it poses challenges (and there might even be legal issues for all I know, since it's work someone else did....).

 

Though the request, in and of itself, can still exist even in a world absent of mods.  The biggest problem I would have for doing it is that it misrepresents the product.  A new player playing DAI for the first time and checks out the keep, and sees that the game will allow him to be in a gay relationship with Alistair, the future King of Fereldin.  Now that player picks up the game, has high hopes because the bits of Alistair he knows about sounds awesome.  He's playing, loves the character and.... "odd I don't seem to be able to romance Alistair?  Am I doing something wrong??"  It'd be akin to us saying that a particular character in DAI is gay, having people get excited to romance said character, and then having that character not be available for a gay romance.

 

The Keep isn't designed to be used exclusively for previous owners of the game.

[philippe willaume]

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.

 

It is not a matter of lowering any bar or being right or wrong, It is more of having a subject that is very sensitive to us and that it colors our understanding comment in a certain way and it is not necessarily what the other party meant or intended.

 

in the second part is what i am getting at is that when I explain avoidance in Self defense.  So when I say if  you don't feel good about the  bar/passage/parking the best course of action is not to get there in the first place.  Because of a few encounters with the pseudo-rambo/"its my right, i can go where I please" crowd and that i beleive that avoidance is really the primary tool of self defense/personal protection,  i used to assume that people that asked why they should not go there where part of that crowd. It turned out that in the vast majority of the cases, that was a genuine question as to rational behind it.

 

IE to use an other example

if someone was so inclined, he/she  could take the line that you implied that he is bigoted and homophobic whereas to me you really only mean to say that using the Barkspawn example has massive negative connotation that it is silly to use it to make a point

 

basically, I am trying to say is that i agree with your aim but that you drew your pistols a tad early.

 

phil

[Allan Schumacher]

I vote it's best to not derail the thread any further regarding the semantics over the details of why someone may take issue with how an analogy is framed.

[The Hierophant]

In relation to customization requests... Allan? Yeah I'm talkin' to you. Can you confirm if it's possible for the pc to sport a replica of DHMG's stache?

[Nohvarr]

I don't believe the romances should be segregated at all, so I have no issues with Traynor being romanceable by male characters.

 

Honestly, I have no issue with romanceable people being segregated in this fashion. I've asked people out before and learned that for one reason or another they were not interested in a date. So to face that same rejection in a game is a nice dose of immersion for me. I fully believe that I should have my choices matter in game, but that shouldn't mean I always get my way. Traynor is not interested in my male Shepard, I am good with that. Even though I'd gladly romance her as a male if it were available, knowing that my Shepard's magnetic personality does not in fact override a person's sexual preference helps me believe in the world.

 

 

 

It's not about "BioWare should acknowledge mods", it's about "BioWare created this opportunity for themselves to address previous imbalances, maybe they should live up to their claims of supporting equality and inclusion in gaming".

 

Allan has already touched on this so let me add my thoughts. I dislike the idea of solving that previous imbalance with a hand-wave. It feels like a massive cop-out to me. I mean instead of being encouraged to provide a fully developed characters for S/S relationships in their games for LGBT players, they can just retcon it after the fact and say 'Yeah that person was a romance' and potentially have it mentioned in the next game.

 

That is not a path I want Bioware to start down.

[In Exile]

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.

 

With the caveat that I am not a Canadian criminal lawyer, and so this is in no way a legal opinion on the subject but my own musing and my knowledge being limited to the sparse set of courses I took in law school on the subject, my understanding is that convictions made under a law declared unconstitutional are not subject to challenge or to review. 

Our common law, while ostensibly never overturned, is pretty well recognized as being re-written by appellate decisions. But in this case I wasn't talking about statutes, but rather pure common law concepts like the scope of the duty of care in torts or the scope of consideration in contracts. 

 

Anyway, we should totally abandon the legalese, since I think the rest of the thread is thinking "Why, god, why?"

[philippe willaume]

I understand that.  And I think it poses challenges (and there might even be legal issues for all I know, since it's work someone else did....).

 

Though the request, in and of itself, can still exist even in a world absent of mods.  The biggest problem I would have for doing it is that it misrepresents the product.  A new player playing DAI for the first time and checks out the keep, and sees that the game will allow him to be in a gay relationship with Alistair, the future King of Fereldin.  Now that player picks up the game, has high hopes because the bits of Alistair he knows about sounds awesome.  He's playing, loves the character and.... "odd I don't seem to be able to romance Alistair?  Am I doing something wrong??"  It'd be akin to us saying that a particular character in DAI is gay, having people get excited to romance said character, and then having that character not be available for a gay romance.

 

The Keep isn't designed to be used exclusively for previous owners of the game.

hello

I am not sure that i understand that. would not  the same goes for any past decisions ? IE siding with the elf/werewolf and then not being able to play that in the game.

Alistair was not gay in the vacuum, it is part of his story, I. E we know he is gay because he had a relationship with the Warden.

in a way i thought the keep would be building the past of the game world until DA:I starts

it is not quite the same as saying that Alistair part of the game or romance-able 

 

phil

[The Hierophant]

You can't ignore me Allan. I'm inside you. In your mind. Dominating your every thought.

[efd731]

You can't ignore me Allan. I'm inside you. In your mind. Dominating your every thought.

And I thought sections of the cole thread were creepy.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am not sure that i understand that. would not  the same does to any past decisions ? IE siding with the elf/werewolf and then not being able to play that in the game.

Alistair was not gay in the vacuum, it is part of his story, I. E we know he is gay because he had a relationship with the Warden.

 

I'm saying that if someone goes into the Keep and sees Alistair is gay and married the Warden (because the player can pick those options), they are justified in going into the DAO with that expectation that they can play DAO and have a gay relationship with Alistair.  The game won't let them do that, however.

[philippe willaume]

I'm saying that if someone goes into the Keep and sees Alistair is gay and married the Warden (because the player can pick those options), they are justified in going into the DAO with that expectation that they can play DAO and have a gay relationship with Alistair.  The game won't let them do that, however.

 

Doh, yes i should really have though of that .....   

Phil

[ElitePinecone]

I'm saying that if someone goes into the Keep and sees Alistair is gay and married the Warden (because the player can pick those options), they are justified in going into the DAO with that expectation that they can play DAO and have a gay relationship with Alistair.  The game won't let them do that, however.

 

This is something I didn't even think of, actually. 

 

Almost "false advertising", in a way, I guess - especially if people get the wrong idea and think DA:O supports something that it doesn't.

[DisturbedJim83]

No, I think it's legitimate to be upset that the LI distribution in DA:O was unbalanced, and I think it's fair to ask for retroactive changes in the DA Keep to allow same-sex relationships with Alistair and Morrigan.

 

Why OP wants what he wants doesn't particularly concern me. Honestly, I didn't even read the entire thing.

 Although I'm a Straight Guy, I sympathize with the LGBT crowds feelings of of inequality in games when it comes to romances efd can correct me if I'm wrong but I think the point he/she is making is that due to the reality that there are more Straight gamer's then LGBT gamer's it bores down to cold hard economics, Bioware or any other Dev has to make a game as broadly appealing as possible,

 

If that means most of their userbase is straight then its likely there will be more straight romance options then LGBT options.Its morally dubious at best but until such time as we live in a Star Trek style world where money has no relevance, economics will always trounce morality.

The point efd makes about the difference between fanfic and cannon also crops up in regular Hawke/Warden threads where fans demand that Hawke/Warden never ever make a appearance in any other game/media "because it conflicts with my Warden/Hawke" failing to understand that because Dragon Age is Bioware's IP its not our place to demand they support our fanfic, its great if they do, however they are not obligated to do so and in any instance their cannon takes precedence over our Fanfic.

[Mr.House]

I find it amusing that people think Bioware should acknowledge fan made mods for the keep. I want the option to romance Sten then if Alistair and Morrigan are made bi.

[DisturbedJim83]

Yes, I absolutely can blame people for not understanding that the issue is one of equality, and I do. Claiming to support equality is utterly worthless when, in the very next sentence, you state that existing inequality should be preserved simply because changing it would be a "retcon". Well, guess what, sometimes retcons are good. X Men Origins: Wolverine, for example, should be retconned out of existence, we'd all be better off if we pretended it never happened. Every time same-sex marriage is legalised in a new area, the law is being retconned.

 

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.

 

If people don't want to support inequality, maybe they should take that aspect of the situation into account when their opinion favours the continuation of inequality purely for the sake of protecting a fictional story that occurs in a make-believe place. 

 

You can say that it's "not about inequality", but all that means is that you haven't actually thought about the inequality that persists as a result of your opinion.

 

Sorry but what your asking is out of the question, you are asking that via The Keep they offer the option of a decision that could only be made in DAO via a mod to be reflected in DAI.

 

Mods can cause plot flag conflicts and errors, something The Keep is designed to eliminate by allowing you to select choices that were available in the core unmodded DAO/DAOA and DA2, M/M relationships between Warden/Alistar and F/F between Morrigan/Warden were not available in the core game.

 

The short answer is you have misinterpreted the purpose of The Keep by imparting your own sense of being "wronged" by lack of satisfactory romance options in DAO/DA2.

[Brass_Buckles]

My argument against allowing for gay marriage of Alistair to be ported is a bit... harsh, maybe, but it's not out of hatred for gay couples.  No one is allowed to marry Alistair except for Queen Anora, or the Female Noble Warden.  Ostensibly, these are people he could have acceptable heirs with.  Now, he might be barren, and the female Warden definitely is, and Anora might be too.  But, the nobility of Ferelden don't know that.

 

If Alistair in the base game romances anyone other than human noble woman, he will break up with them if not "hardened."  And he won't marry anyone but human noble woman or Queen Anora, and will only marry the human noble woman if he is hardened.

 

If Alistair were not in a position where producing heirs/breeding were a priority, if he weren't potentially the king of Ferelden, I'd be all for saying "sure let's port this into the game."  But here's the thing:  An acceptable heir can't come from an elf, dwarf, or mage.  It can't come from a commoner.  And men can't have babies unless they are transexuals.  Only a woman can bear an heir.  Adoption might be a possibility, but I don't know how Thedas in general or Ferelden specifically handles that.  I do know that in real-world historic times, adoption was of adults and used to secure an heir.  But the problem here is that Alistair is the last of the Theirin line, so he doesn't have a convenient cousin or the like he can adopt.

 

And if you've read The Masked Empire...

 

Spoiler

It's very unfair in general, but Celene wouldn't be allowed to marry a woman either.  Certainly not Briala, who is not only a woman but also an elf and her servant.  No, she's expected to marry a man so she can have an heir and secure her line.

 

Now that said, is it unfair?  Yes.  But nobility are expected to breed, because as long as they inherit leadership, having an heir means the government will be stable, and people won't have to worry so much about civil war erupting.  And I do hope that commoners, at least, are allowed to have s/s marriage.  The trouble is that nobility, at least (no idea how commoners are handled) are allowed to have a s/s lover on the side, but must make a straight marriage and "take one for the team," even if they are gay/lesbian and not at all interested in the opposite sex.

 

So, my reasons aren't that Bioware couldn't/shouldn't change content due to the difficulty (though that's certainly a consideration, and things have changed a lot since even just 2009 in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't), but that lore-wise, and story-wise, at present (disregarding any lore changes that may be made for the fourth Dragon Age title, or beyond--which it would be nice if they did, to allow for s/s noble couples who adopted an heir, etc.) the two kings thing wouldn't work.  It's not fair, but Bioware has pretty much made it clear that it wouldn't happen.

 

You'd have to have the support of the other nobles for any marriage to occur, and you wouldn't, because they would want there to be an heir.  You might be able to best each individual noble and his/her champions in combat, but you're not going to do much good against the armies they raise up against your rule when you threaten the stability of the nation with the lack of an heir (thereby making it so that should anything happen to one or both monarchs, the throne is up for grabs, and civil war erupts).

 

I hope that it's clear that this is not a hate-fueled rant.  I do believe that BioWare could have considered the adoption concept (again, historically adoption first appeared as adults, not minors, being brought into a family without heirs, to be the heir to that line), thereby allowing even nobles to have s/s marriage.  But, as they have written things, from what I've read in Masked Empire, I am not even sure how s/s relationships are handled in terms of commoners--hopefully they are allowed to at least live together in peace, and preferably allowed to marry.

 

But definitely don't stop fighting the good fight out there, because you might inspire the "rules" of other nations than Orlais and Thedas to be different, when we visit them in future games.  So, then there could be same sex marriage, with adopted heirs.  Or same sex nobles could be required to marry a third, opposite-sex person for breeding purposes (it's horrible, regardless how you look at it, but nobility basically are treated as breeding stock even in the modern world... what was the first thing people wanted Will and Kate to do?  That's right... have a baby...).

[Gamemako]

If Alistair in the base game romances anyone other than human noble woman, he will break up with them if not "hardened."  And he won't marry anyone but human noble woman or Queen Anora, and will only marry the human noble woman if he is hardened.

He does not need to be hardened to marry the female human noble. He does, however, mention in a conversation afterward that just one Grey Warden has enough trouble breeding.

Just a minor correction; nothing to add.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

My argument against allowing for gay marriage of Alistair to be ported is a bit... harsh, maybe, but it's not out of hatred for gay couples.  No one is allowed to marry Alistair except for Queen Anora, or the Female Noble Warden.  Ostensibly, these are people he could have acceptable heirs with.  Now, he might be barren, and the female Warden definitely is, and Anora might be too.  But, the nobility of Ferelden don't know that.

Where was it confirmed the female Warden was definitely barren? 

[Mr.House]

He does not need to be hardened to marry the female human noble. He does, however, mention in a conversation afterward that just one Grey Warden has enough trouble breeding.

Just a minor correction; nothing to add.

Alistair will always dump you if you're not a human noble and become queen.