443 réponses à ce sujet

[ladyoflate]

Where was it confirmed the female Warden was definitely barren? 

 

It's not, but it has been stated that two Grey Wardens will never have children.

[Brass_Buckles]

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.

 

Ah.  Been a while since I played, and I was pretty sure he had to be hardened--he can keep someone else as a mistress if hardened, I remember that much.

 

Either way, Masked Empire establishes that nobility can have lovers on the side for affection but they have to marry to breed an heir.  This appears to be as true in Ferelden as it is in Orlais.  If the lore allowed for adopting an heir (undoubtedly it would need to be nobility) by the various noble lineages, then s/s marriage for nobility would be totally okay in my book.  But, at present, that's not how it's written and storywise, Alistair marrying someone who's not female and nobility would not work--the s/s lover, if allowed, would remain the love interest on the side.

 

And that said, I do believe Alistair should've been available to men, and Morrigan to women--but they weren't, unfortunately.  Just, I think that the human male noble should've ended up with the same dead-end relationship that most of the women got (my first playthrough elf got her little magic-using heart broken by Alistair), due to how the lore is written.  Being Alistair's sugar on the side isn't really ideal, by any means, nor is the breakup, but it makes sense in the context of the world's lore.

[Brass_Buckles]

It's not, but it has been stated that two Grey Wardens will never have children.

 

Pretty sure that one of the devs said in a post on the old BSN waaaay back when that the female Warden wouldn't ever have children, she's completely barren.  It was a Gaider post, if I am not mistaken.  And she and Alistair would most certainly not have children together, and Alistair's chances of producing an heir outside of the Dark Ritual were slim to none.

 

It's been a looong time ago, though, likely all the way back in 2009 shortly after the game's release, or early 2010.

 

Edit:  The Female Warden's barrenness likely came from not wanting to deal with her pregnancy in future games/expansions, and not wanting to deal with fan backlash of her getting pregnant if they didn't want her to be.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It's not, but it has been stated that two Grey Wardens will never have children.

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. I was like "Um, Fiona was a Grey Warden and she got pregnant with Alistair." 

[Giggles_Manically]

Personally I dont really care about romances.

 

However I do care about choices in game.

I do not think that they should go back and give people choices that did not exist in the game as it was.

 

What if someone uses the Keep first, then realizes they cant get that choice in the base game?
Plus there are already enough things to import without adding more lines for something that never was in the game in the first place.

[ladyoflate]

You already have the option of gay/bi romances, and having them all as away option can make straight people uncomfortable. At least you have some representation, the Asexuals have none. At the end of the day Allistar is bio wares toy, and it's not right to break it just because you don't like it.

 

Straight people have the entire world to feel comfortable in, I'm not really concerned about them.

[Mr.House]

Straight people have the entire world to feel comfortable in, I'm not really concerned about them.

Using games to escape reality and your problems will always lead to woo.

[Mockingword]

OH GOD NO, WE CAN'T MAKE THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE!!!

 

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaaa.

[ladyoflate]

OH GOD NO, WE CAN'T MAKE THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE UNCOMFORTABLE!!!

 

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaaa.

 

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

[efd731]

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

speaking as a token straight person here, gay or bi LI's don't concern me, because romances in bioware games don't really concern me. It's not something on the whole that I care about(except Tali, I have a sweet spot for tali). They could do all bi LI's (Sebastian was da2 exception) or even do away with it. They could have exclusive Gay LI's and it wouldn't bother me.

[efd731]

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

I've also gotta say, being uncomfortable with bi or gay LI's does not make someone douchey. Advocating against them does, but simply disliking them or not wanting to explore that option is perfectly Allright. In fact, trying to shame people for not being comfortable with that is "kind of douchey"

[ladyoflate]

I've also gotta say, being uncomfortable with bi or gay LI's does not make someone douchey. Advocating against them does, but simply disliking them or not wanting to explore that option is perfectly Allright. In fact, trying to shame people for not being comfortable with that is "kind of douchey"

 

And that person was pretty much advocating for Morrigan or Alistair never being bi because of the reason--and it is the only reason they give--of not making straight people uncomfortable. That's douchey. I'm not saying that Morrigan or Alistair being bi is an unassailable idea of perfection--the reason Mr. Schumacher gives is the same reason I have for being against that change happening in the keep--but that reason is not valid.

[Allan Schumacher]

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

 

This could be one of a few reasons.

 

I was once uncomfortable with it, much the same way I am uncomfortable with a lot of things I don't fully understand (including my own psychology).  By taking the time to push through that discomfort I was able to become more comfortable with it.  I asked myself "why am I not comfortable with it" and followed it up with "is it reasonable for me to not be comfortable with it."  So I took steps and made a plan to change that (though a lot of it was just some self awareness).

 

 

That said...

 

 

I've also gotta say, being uncomfortable with bi or gay LI's does not make someone douchey. Advocating against them does, but simply disliking them or not wanting to explore that option is perfectly Allright. In fact, trying to shame people for not being comfortable with that is "kind of douchey"

 

I think actively choosing to not want to explore the option is an example of one's privilege (despite how some dislike that term), because it's possible for them some people to be able to make that choice.  A lot of people don't have such an option.  I also think that if one always chooses to actively disengage from subject matter that they find uncomfortable, they can do themselves a disservice because it lends a degree of power of that subject matter and may be unfairly insulating.

 

People are pretty good at this... myself included.  We resist cognitive dissonance because it means admitting we're wrong.  Publicly, this is often perceived (rightly or wrongly) by ourselves as a forfeiture of power.  I've definitely seen it on the forums, where people who are adamant about a particular position are much more open to critique on that same topic when I chat with them via PM - the audience is no longer there.  Think of all the times you found that one thing wrong with an article that allowed you to completely ignore the whole thing.  I know I've done it: "This person clearly doesn't know what they're talking about" and so forth.  Even then here is an interesting read about how facts often don't change people's minds.

 

 

So we get to an interesting place.  I can feel that protecting a straight person from feeling uncomfortable may not be particularly interesting goal of mine... I also reconcile that a straight person has the most opportunity to choose to ignore the situation (by not playing the game).  Tricksy tricksy.  At some point I think it's important to still do what one feels is right.

[Giggles_Manically]

I kinda have to wonder what the response would be if people were asking for a gay character to retroactively have the ability to say they were romanced, by a character of the opposite gender.

 

Truly I dont even really care since I romanced Leliana and Zevran far more than Alistair and Morrigan.

I just wonder if we were to reverse the sexualites in the situation, what would happen.

[ladyoflate]

I kinda have to wonder what the response would be if people were asking for a gay character to retroactively have the ability to say they were romanced, by a character of the opposite gender.

 

Truly I dont even really care since I romanced Leliana and Zevran far more than Alistair and Morrigan.

I just wonder if we were to reverse the sexualites in the situation, what would happen.

 

It'd probably be entirely different, because the situations are entirely different. Videogames do not take place in a cultural vacuum, and there's quite a bit more straight representation than gay.

 

On the other hand, there's also a great deal more gay representation than bi (see 'playersexual' and Freddie Mercury). So from my point of view it's a bit of a wash.

[In Exile]

It'd probably be entirely different, because the situations are entirely different. Videogames do not take place in a cultural vacuum, and there's quite a bit more straight representation than gay.

 

On the other hand, there's also a great deal more gay representation than bi (see 'playersexual' and Freddie Mercury). So from my point of view it's a bit of a wash.

 

While I agree that we can't ignore the cultural context in which something happens, I think there's an important distinction between two kinds of arguments: "I would like this character to be available as an LI to my (or all) gender(s)" and "This character should this particular orientation, and I want to make them this way because [reasons]". The former argument is why I find all of the "The character has to give us outward signs of sexuality" as icky (for lack of a better word), because it assumes there's a right way to express sexuality. 

 

While I'm aware that no one in this thread (as far as I can tell) has made the latter argument, I did see it in one thread a long time ago (regarding why Morrigan should have been available as an F/F romance and, in fact, why Morrigan should have been exclusively a lesbian) which made me uncomfortable, because I find something problematic with any argument that suggests that there's a particular way that people should be or should act like.  

[efd731]

^^^dont care why you brought him up, but Freddie mercury for the win

Also Allan, straight people undeniably had/have the priveledge of that choice. But everyone should. Why is it "bad" for me to avoid that choice, but acceptable to skip games due to a "hetero dudebro protagonist"? I understand the obvious inequality, and have yet to play a game that forces me to go against my native sexuality, but my point is nobody should have to. And some people have, and that's shitty as all hell, but it's no reason to say everyone else is bad for not having that experience.
Edit: and I don't skip that choice when presented. FemShep has a sweet spot for liara and garrus, FemHawke and merril get along swimmingly. But not going that route is not bad. Just like not doing a straight romance with our pixelated avatars isn't bad. It just is

[Auztin]

From what I read is that straight people need to play another game because person X wants it to be LBGT exclusive for the sake of equality.That is not equality that is special treatment.If not wanting to partake or join in homosexual sex makes me d-bag then whatever.Mods shouldn't be supported because it is a mod.If you want it so badly then go mod it yourself or wait for 1 of the many people who want it to do it when DA:I drops.This has nothing to do with equality on any level.

[ladyoflate]

While I agree that we can't ignore the cultural context in which something happens, I think there's an important distinction between two kinds of arguments: "I would like this character to be available as an LI to my (or all) gender(s)" and "This character should this particular orientation, and I want to make them this way because [reasons]". The former argument is why I find all of the "The character has to give us outward signs of sexuality" as icky (for lack of a better word), because it assumes there's a right way to express sexuality. 

 

While I'm aware that no one in this thread (as far as I can tell) has made the latter argument, I did see it in one thread a long time ago (regarding why Morrigan should have been available as an F/F romance and, in fact, why Morrigan should have been exclusively a lesbian) which made me uncomfortable, because I find something problematic with any argument that suggests that there's a particular way that people should be or should act like.  

 

Can you maybe clarify what you mean by this with regards to my post, or is this more of a general statement thing? I'm just not quite comprehending this as a response to that. (also to clarify: I'm not saying it's not a good response to me, I just mean it's so not clicking for me rn. Sometimes my brain just shorts out on the reading comprehension sometimes, I'll probably read this tomorrow and it'll make sense even if you don't explain)

[ladyoflate]

^^^dont care why you brought him up, but Freddie mercury for the win

 

Freddie Mercury is broadly known as a gay icon and a famous gay man, but in his life identified as bi. Thus, an example of a real bi person being used as monosexual gay representation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_{(those sweet, sweet vocals belong to the polysexuals, dammit)}

[daveliam]

From what I read is that straight people need to play another game because person X wants it to be LBGT exclusive for the sake of equality.That is not equality that is special treatment.If not wanting to partake or join in homosexual sex makes me d-bag then whatever.Mods shouldn't be supported because it is a mod.If you want it so badly then go mod it yourself or wait for 1 of the many people who want it to do it when DA:I drops.This has nothing to do with equality on any level.

 

Can you please link to the post in this thread where someone (anyone) has asked for the game to be LGBT exclusive and/or has stated that "straight people need to play another game"?

 

I must have missed those posts. 

[Auztin]

Can you please link to the post in this thread where someone (anyone) has asked for the game to be LGBT exclusive and/or has stated that "straight people need to play another game"?
 
Ok.

I must have missed those posts.

  

Straight people have the entire world to feel comfortable in, I'm not really concerned about them.

Summarization of it means who cares about the heterosexuals they got other games to play.

[efd731]

Freddie Mercury is broadly known as a gay icon and a famous gay man, but in his life identified as bi. Thus, an example of a real bi person being used as monosexual gay representation.







_{(those sweet, sweet vocals belong to the polysexuals, dammit)}

that set of pipes belongs to th earth. Soundtrack to a decent chunk of my teenage years, let me tell you

[daveliam]

   Summarization of it means who cares about the heterosexuals they got other games to play.

 

So no where then?  Got it.

What I got from this is that people want to see equal options for romances for all gender/sexuality combinations and the priority should be given to increasing the amount of LGBT romances because there are already many straight romances, but less LGBT ones.  Nowhere does anyone state that the game should LGBT exclusive OR that the straight romances should be reduced.  Only that the LGBT ones should be increased in order to make it more equitable. 

 

At least that's my take on it.