172 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm just mentioning homosexuality since it's one of the most obvious lifestyles to illustrate what societal control looks like (in our world). I only mention in the context of the Qunari because they inflict that type of control on EVERYONE. They make everyone feel like gay people do in our own world. The extensive role designations frighten me on that level. The closest we have to it now is Sharia law. So it's hard to have "fun" with. I can roleplay just about anything else. I'd rather be a Dwarf nug humper than this.

 

I don't think Sharia law means what you think it means. Or at least, it certainly doesn't mean to people who practice it what you feel it means. The Hijab, that veil that is to many in the west a symbol of the enslavement and objectification of women, is to many who wear it a sign of respect and consideration to not be an object of lust. A number of practices we think of as oppressive, they think of as respectful and protective. In Afghanistan, for example, it is very bad manners to look at and address the host's female relatives unless invited to: this isn't because women have no value, but rather that women are respected and that by not looking at them unless invited you are making a point that you aren't oogling a man's wife or children. Similarly, the prohibition about women traveling long distances alone without a male relative originated in a time when bandits and packs of feral dogs were a much more common problem and travel by one's self was dangerous.

 

To modern western sensibilties, Sharia means oppressive and unreasonably restrictive. To people in highly corrupt and poor societies with non-functioning justice systems, Sharia is a sensible and appropriate moral system that, by living by, you would live a good life.

 

 

Touching back to your original question about how a gay person could write the Qunari? I think the element of distinction would be a lack of distinction. Homosexuality is a particularly hard taboo because it is particularly exclusionary. Everyone has sexual and romantic desires, but yours are condemned. When you remove the exclusionary aspect, when everyone bears a burden, it can often be far less oppressive and stigmatizing to an individual.

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't recall Fenris, Varric, Isabela, Morrigan, Alistair, Oghren, Velanna, Nathaniel, Sten, Zevran, Wynne, Merrill, Sigrun, Lelianna or Shale EVER trying to instigate religious war through zealotry....... Might just be me......

 

It would be just you- just as its just you that instigating a religious war through zealotry was the category being raised, and just as it was just you who thought I was referring to all the characters you just listed.

 

I do believe I specified fanatic/liar/killer, and brought up specific companions who retain fans despite holding some or all of those flaws.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It would be just you- just as its just you that instigating a religious war through zealotry was the category being raised, and just as it was just you who thought I was referring to all the characters you just listed.

 

I do believe I specified fanatic/liar/killer, and brought up specific companions who retain fans despite holding some or all of those flaws.

But that she is a fanatic, liar or murderer is not why she is disliked. She is disliekd because she tries to create a conflict that the majority has no interrest of being a part of. She is disliked for the EXACT same reasons that Anders is.

[The Elder King]

That lady looks familiar.

She's Cobie Smulder, who plays Maria Hill in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

[Dean_the_Young]

@Dean_the_Young This topic has captured my interest and I want to add a bit more since I haven't really debated here yet....

 

 

-snip-

 

 

Yea and I don't like her, problem? Am I banned from the story & characters section of the forums now because I won't lick your boots and agree with your vaunted wisdom or that I just plain despise Petrice? Oh right I forgot opinions on bioware forums are translated as "toxic behavior" what was I thinking? 

 

I'm more bemused that your post began with talking about wanting a debate and ended with a persecution complex. Am I being invited to contribute my thoughts, or would doing so be seen as an attack?

 

Rest assured, you are not banned from the story and character section because you don't agree with me. Why you think I even take issue with you despising Petrice is a tad confusing, since I don't like her as a person either. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Anders, Petrice, and Arishok.. all peas in a pod. All representatives of Certainty.

 

I don't like them either, but I've come to realize they imparted a harsh lesson to me. That this world is meant for nothing but war.

 

"Blessed are the peacemakers. Champions of the just". My ass. I don't believe that anymore. Choose a side and fight.

Usually the way to solve a problem is by not becomming a part of it...

[Dean_the_Young]

But that she is a fanatic, liar or murderer is not why she is disliked. She is disliekd because she tries to create a conflict that the majority has no interrest of being a part of. She is disliked for the EXACT same reasons that Anders is.

 

I think you missed the part of the conversation you tried to jump in on, Sahlertz. Being a fanatic, liar, and murderer was the reasons given for why she was being disliked (by one particular individual).

 

I was just pointing out, in a round-about way, that those reasons wouldn't be sufficient. Other fanatic liars and murderers, especially Anders, have much larger fan groups than Petrice. 

 

This isn't an accusation of hypocrisy on the fan base, or some argument that people must like her in order to avoid double standards. It was just pointing towards that other factors would be in play... like what you just raised.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Hawke is part of it, no matter what. Even if I quit the game, I'm sure Varric would just make Hawke part of it anyways.

 

Maybe my Inquisitor will fare better. Maybe he or she hasn't lost their faith yet.

Wait what? Then why are you talking of your Hawke's posistions in first person?  Are you roleplaying in these discussion?

[Dean_the_Young]

I never said Petrice is heroic. I don't think that's up for debate at all.

 

She's a conniving scumbag. She even admits she's sloppy. But she's concerned about "Eternity". Not present methods. She'll take any means to save eternity, in her mind.

 

The Arishok says the same thing. He also excuses himself for the sake of "Eternity". They're both fanatics.

 

The thing is, I don't wish to be a peacemaker between the two sides. That amounts to being the Viscount or Elthina. There's no place for those people in this world anymore. There is no grey. There is only Certainty. Certainty of the Qun. Or something else.

 

I think Petrice would have been a lot more palatable to the player base had she dropped the Eternity bit of the afterlife (unknowable, unprovable, unscientific) and focused her rabble-rousing on more immediate and believable charges: that they would take your wives away from you, brainwash your children, use you as slaves to support a war machine of global conquest, and defile all that is holy about Andraste. Hyperbolic, but grounded in an more appreciable reality than the Maker's Side.

 

Of course, I don't think the devs ever wanted or intended for her to be palatable to the player base. She was made to be hated and antagonistic, not to be morally ambiguous or agreeable.

 

The fact that some people might not want to be peacemakers between the two sides... well, there were plenty of people who regretted not being able to side with the Arishok. If Act 3 was about forcing Hawke to pick a side, Act 2 was forcing Hawke to NOT pick a side. Even the 'work with Petrice' route casts Hawke's actions in terms of gaining trust to quiet Petrice's proxies. One of Hawke's lines basically amounts to 'amatuers shouldn't be rabble-rousers.'

[Dean_the_Young]

Usually the way to solve a problem is by not becomming a part of it...

 

Unless you're a Bioware protagonist, of course. Shepard, the Warden, Hawke...

[TheKomandorShepard]

I think you missed the part of the conversation you tried to jump in on, Sahlertz. Being a fanatic, liar, and murderer was the reasons given for why she was being disliked (by one particular individual).

 

I was just pointing out, in a round-about way, that those reasons wouldn't be sufficient. Other fanatic liars and murderers, especially Anders, have much larger fan groups than Petrice. 

 

This isn't an accusation of hypocrisy on the fan base, or some argument that people must like her in order to avoid double standards. It was just pointing towards that other factors would be in play... like what you just raised.

Pretty much it is more than single factor but being fanatic , liar and murderer are negative traits that won't help you in getting friends or fans.Anders had sympathetic traits (for example helping refugees for free or noble goal) petrice didn't not mention that many liked anders from daa however his apparence in da 2 costed him many fans because he had many negative traits in da 2.So there is little wonder why petrice is disliked as she isn't good villain in any way but she is one as because character is built on negative traits.   

[EmperorSahlertz]

Unless you're a Bioware protagonist, of course. Shepard, the Warden, Hawke...

I think that goes for any game really.. There is no problem in video games that cannot be solved with violence (generalization).

[Dean_the_Young]

I think that goes for any game really.. There is no problem in video games that cannot be solved with violence (generalization).

 

More generally, there are a lot of problems in this world that mediation or compromise doesn't resolve successfully. Picking a side and fighting for it is a viable way to addressing some issues: it escalates the cost in the short term, but can provide closure and success with long-term gains.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You can side with the Arishok by giving his book back. It's honoring them and maybe enabling them, if anything.

I'd say that this scenario is more of the peacemaking one, than the Qunari favoring one. You can't really side with the Qunari in this conflict. You can't be up there in Hightown along with your Qunari buddies butchering the nobles.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

DA2 was in dire need of a "Screw you Guys, I'm going back to Ferelden." Option.

 

I had no reason to sympathize with either side and after the death/removal of the other sibling I had nothing holding me in Kirkwall.

 

Edit: Still I didn't even know there was a way for Petrice to survive act 2 so at least I learned something today.

[Dean_the_Young]

You can side with the Arishok by giving his book back. It's honoring them and maybe enabling them, if anything.

In the same sense, you can side with Petrice, and she lives. The odds (and game mechanics) are against it: Isabella will only return with the book if you strongly friend or rival her. I've never done that without metagaming, personally.

 

But the sense I was speaking of was 'side with the Arishok' in terms of 'help the Qunari take over Kirkwall.' Yes, people actually wanted to do that.

[Shadow Fox]

I never said Petrice is heroic. I don't think that's up for debate at all.

 

She's a conniving scumbag. She even admits she's sloppy. But she's concerned about "Eternity". Not present methods. She'll take any means to save eternity, in her mind.

 

The Arishok says the same thing. He also excuses himself for the sake of "Eternity". They're both fanatics.

 

The thing is, I don't wish to be a peacemaker between the two sides. That amounts to being the Viscount or Elthina. There's no place for those people in this world anymore. There is no grey. There is only Certainty. Certainty of the Qun. Or something else.

The difference is Petrice is trying to start a war between Kirkwall and the Qunari the Arishok isn't that makes her worse.

 

Or you can fight the fanatics/extremists on both sides or just do damage control.

[Steelcan]

Liara shudders at the plot armor of that miserable wretch