19658 réponses à ce sujet

[godModeAlpha]

But here's where it gets tricky because it's a game. They don't have the resources to display the natural variation that would actually occur within the species.

I mean, if a character were to say that they would absolutely not romance elves. What is really the difference between:



and





Would still

Doesn't it seem odd that if my Inquisitor looked Anora, a character would find me attractive, but if I looked like Iona, they wouldn't?

But here's where it gets tricky because it's a game. They don't have the resources to display the natural variation that would actually occur within the species.

I mean, if a character were to say that they would absolutely not romance elves. What is really the difference between:



and



Doesn't it seem odd that if my Inquisitor looked Anora, a character would find me attractive, but if I looked like Iona, they wouldn't?

I'd plough your character even if they looked half as beautiful as these.

[daveliam]

Its not the race I think, but the lack of certain attributes from that certain race. For example mine is purely physical. I am just so attracted to blonde haired and blue eyed and tall men. Im eurasian and lived in south east asia for a while. While u could see plenty of natural variety of hair and eye colors in europe or america, thats not the case in SEA. People saw me as a dateless lesbian ( im straight) when I lived in asia, I was dating like some harlot when I moved to scandinavia.

So in some way its racial? I dont know.

 

And the difference to me in your situation is that you, I assume, show the same preference within the white "race" as well.  So for your example, you probably aren't interested in short, dark haired, dark-eyed white guys either.  So if you were a character, it's not that you would be "race-gated", so much as they would need to code it so that only PCs who are blond and blue-eyed could initiate the romance.  It's different, at least in my mind.

 

It's actually a mistake from the fantasy genre that existed well before BioWare did. We can blame Tolkien for popularizing it and D&D for making it the standard of RPGs.

 

Basically, in the case of a fantasy setting or RPG game, race means species.

 

No.  "Basically, race means species" is incorrect.  The term species has different connotations.  Even in Tolkein, there were cross-race romance.  People are trying to use a biological term in a sociological way and it's not a fair comparison.  Effectively, or practically, they are not different species.  They are different races and are called this in game. 

[Ianamus]

You are putting something here that is not from the devs though.  You're head canoning that they are species even though the game says race.  The game makes it clear that they are races, so you have already been corrected.  They don't need to give you the evolutionary history of the races in Thedas.

 

 

So you have two interesting thoughts here:

 

1.)  Re: Varric, again, it's not having preferences.  It's the flat out refusal of an entire race of people that I find odd.

 

2.)  I think that your second point is more interesting.  If qunari and humans can't biologically reproduce, then I can see that giving someone pause.  That would indicate that they are actually different species and not races.  We could look at an analogous situation and say, "Would she still be with a sterile human  man?"  If the answer is yes, then she should also not have an issue with qunari based on that criteria.  If the answer is no, then it's not because of their "race" that she's not open to the romance.  It's because of their reproduction, which is a different thing.

At least how I view it.

 

1. ) The point is: If Varric is completely turned off by people who are much taller than him then he would never be attracted to a qunari woman, because by default they are going to be at least considerably taller than him. What is the difference between an incredibly strong 'preference' and an 'orientation'? Aren't they essentially the same thing? 

 

2. ) A similar thing could apply to Varric though. He technically could breed with an elf or human, but dwarven fertility rates are already incredibly low and with non-dwarves are said to be even lower. Would refusing a relationship based on that be much different, if he really wanted children and we are talking an incredibly low chance?

[daveliam]

1. ) The point is: If Varric is completely unattracted to people who are much taller than him then he would never be attracted to a qunari woman, because by deafault they are going to be at least considerably taller than him. What is the difference between an incredibly strong "preference" and an orientation? Aren't they essentially the same thing?

 

We are at a stand still with this.  I see a fundamental difference between an orientation, in which no choice is given, and preference, in which a choice is given, but one prefers something over another.  Sexual orientation is not a preference because there is no choice.  Preference for one race over another is a choice.  They are fundamentally different to me.  The fact that there isn't even a separate word for what you are talking about outside of "preference" kind of supports my argument.  But we aren't going to get anywhere with this so you will have to go on with your beliefs and I will go on with mine.  It was  good discussion though. 

 

 

2. ) A similar thing could apply to Varric though. He technically could breed with an elf or human, but dwarven fertility rates are already incredibly low and with non-dwarves are said to be even lower. Would refusing a relationship based on that be much different, if he really wanted children and we are talking an incredibly low chance?

 

Again, if he prefers dwarven women so that he can produce dwarven children over human women because he doesn't view a dwarf-human child as "real dwarves", then yes, I find that to be questionable.  It has icky social connotations that we cannot remove because we play this game in the real world, where there is a context around thinking like this that is uncomfortable to me.

 

ETA:  Sorry, I misread it the first time.  You were talking about the likelihood of conceiving?  Still holds pretty true.  I know that if a friend of mine left his/her spouse because that person had fertility issues, I would find that questionable.  But that's just me and it gets away from the conversation that we were having here because it's not really about race at all.

[Former_Fiend]

1. ) The point is: If Varric is completely turned off by people who are much taller than him then he would never be attracted to a qunari woman, because by default they are going to be at least considerably taller than him. What is the difference between an incredibly strong 'preference' and an 'orientation'? Aren't they essentially the same thing? 

 

2. ) A similar thing could apply to Varric though. He technically could breed with an elf or human, but dwarven fertility rates are already incredibly low and with non-dwarves are said to be even lower. Would refusing a relationship based on that be much different, if he really wanted children and we are talking an incredibly low chance?

 

Considering that he's apparently been abstaining for ten years while he pines for the one woman he loved? I don't think breeding enters into Varric's decision.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

All this talk makes me really uneasy with the idea of this ending well. It seems the pros are far outweighed by the cons. 

[Ianamus]

We are at a stand still with this.  I see a fundamental difference between an orientation, in which no choice is given, and preference, in which a choice is given, but one prefers something over another.  Sexual orientation is not a preference because there is no choice.  Preference for one race over another is a choice.  They are fundamentally different to me.  The fact that there isn't even a separate word for what you are talking about outside of "preference" kind of supports my argument.  But we aren't going to get anywhere with this so you will have to go on with your beliefs and I will go on with mine.  It was  good discussion though. 

 

I don't think people are understanding my arguments to this effect, so I'll just leave it with two questions that should at least hopefully explain my thought process better:

• Is gender the only thing it is possible to be completely unattracted to?
• If not, why is gender-attraction an "orientation" but everything else a "preference" and a "choice"?

[daveliam]

Considering that he's apparently been abstaining for ten years while he pines for the one woman he loved? I don't think breeding enters into Varric's decision.

 

Right, in this case, he would need to be a female dwarf only romance, which might happen, but I think would be unlikely, to be honest.  I've been wrong before though, so who knows.

[Former_Fiend]

I'm currently in an interracial relationship IRL, so i'm well aware that some of the arguments uncomfortably close to being racism.

 

However when that sentient, sapient organism actually IS another species I don't think the racism argument fits.

 

For example, let's say a highly intelligent, fully sentient, sapient aliens like the Turians landed on earth tomorrow. You really would think people not wanting to date them would be racist?

 

It's unlikely to happen, but i'd really like a dev to clarify the whole race/species thing so we can all put this argument to bed.

 

To me, from a writing perspective, you can't take qunari and used them as a cultural analogue for medieval Islam and take elves and use them as an analogue for jews and gypsies, and use them to show the consequences of hate and prejudice and say that this is wrong, but balk at the idea of interracial relationships. The companions are, for the most part, supposed to be characters we can root for. They're going to have flaws, some of them may well be horrible people, but you can't just take these races, use them as an example of why racism is bad, then have a character categorically refuse the possibility of interracial relationships and have that presented as anything other than a major character flaw.

 

There's also the argument that yea, there are people who wouldn't find a turian, or keeping it dragon age, a qunari attractive. Then there are people who would fetishize them. Hell, we've seen that happen already in Dragon Age. 

 

Both extremes are racist; one is excluding, the other is objectifying. Both would impose potential restrictions. Both are realistic. So why include one and not the other?

[daveliam]

 

I don't think people are understanding my arguments to this effect, so I'll just leave it with two questions that should at least hopefully explain my thought process better:

• Is Gender the only thing it is possible to be completely turned off by?
• If not, why is gender-attraction an "orientation" but everything else a "preference" and a "choice"?

 

Sexuality is still being learned about.  Just last week, there was just the announcement of two genes which are correlated with homosexuality.  There is a biological component to it.  It's different.  We just don't know how and to what extent yet.  In 100 years, we'll likely know for sure.

 

The fact that it is accepted that all of the other examples are preferences and/or choices (regardless of what you think of sexuality), however, goes to demonstrate that there is not nor has there been a biological explanation for it.  Perhaps there is and we'll learn of it eventually, but as of now, there's not.  They are considered different than sexuality.

 

Humans are a pretty bright species.  We're able to identify things before we understand them.  Think about miasma theory (or "bad air"), even before people knew what was causing sickness specifically, they were able to link it to the air and name it.  The fact that no one, at least as far as I know, has created a term for "race-sexual" makes me think that it's always been viewed as a choice. 

 

I wish I had a stronger background in cultural and linguistic anthropology to discuss this in further detail.  Perhaps this is a future area of dissertation research for you if you choose to do a doctoral program!

[azarhal]

No.  "Basically, race means species" is incorrect.  The term species has different connotations.  Even in Tolkein, there were cross-race romance.  People are trying to use a biological term in a sociological way and it's not a fair comparison.  Effectively, or practically, they are not different species.  They are different races and are called this in game. 

 

The race means species is correct, the thing is that fantasy authors don't care about taxonomic and genus. We couldn't have a star mating with a humans in Stardust if they did.

 

Sexuality is still being learned about.  Just last week, there was just the announcement of two genes which are correlated with homosexuality.  There is a biological component to it.  It's different.  We just don't know how and to what extent yet.  In 100 years, we'll likely know for sure.

 

Studies with rats already suggested it psycho-social and an indicator that the population is too large for its resource. Being tied to a gene would make sense (it needs to be wired somewhere).

[daveliam]

The race means species is correct, the thing is that fantasy authors don't care about taxonomic and genus. We couldn't have a star mating with a humans in Stardust if they did.

 

Studies with rats already suggested it psycho-social and an indicator that the population is too large for its resource. Being tied to a gene would make sense (it needs to be wired somewhere).

 

Again, I do not agree that race means species.  Race means race.  You have provided no evidence to support that they are different species. 

 

Can you provide a link for the rat studies?  I'd like to hear more about the psycho-social aspects outside of the biological triggers.  I have some fundamental issues with the resource use theory for numerous reasons (including evidence of homosexuality in species which are not overpopulated.  If you don't have it handy, I'll dig around Ebsco until I find it.

[Ianamus]

Sexuality is still being learned about.  Just last week, there was just the announcement of two genes which are correlated with homosexuality.  There is a biological component to it.  It's different.  We just don't know how and to what extent yet.  In 100 years, we'll likely know for sure.

 

The fact that it is accepted that all of the other examples are preferences and/or choices (regardless of what you think of sexuality), however, goes to demonstrate that there is not nor has there been a biological explanation for it.  Perhaps there is and we'll learn of it eventually, but as of now, there's not.  They are considered different than sexuality.

 

Humans are a pretty bright species.  We're able to identify things before we understand them.  Think about miasma theory (or "bad air"), even before people knew what was causing sickness specifically, they were able to link it to the air and name it.  The fact that no one, at least as far as I know, has created a term for "race-sexual" makes me think that it's always been viewed as a choice. 

 

I wish I had a stronger background in cultural and linguistic anthropology to discuss this in further detail.  Perhaps this is a future area of dissertation research for you if you choose to do a doctoral program!

 

But other forms of attraction are biological as well. Things like being attracted to the healthiest looking potential mates so as to produce healthy offspring, or the way our ancestors apparently favored mates with certain features (lack of hair, etc), that helped lead to humans looking how we do now. What about attraction to human features that aren't related to gender? These are every bit as biological. 

 

You say there's no word for "sexual preferences" but the term is right there. The reason there aren't a plethora of more specific terms is that they vary so much from person to person that you would need a word for every single one. And as an aside, I don't like the implication that everything except gender is a "choice". We don't choose any of what we're attracted to.

"Fetish" is a concept that has existed for a long time, as an attraction to more unusual things, and I don't think asexuality was even acknowledged as existing until relatively recently. Neither was Lesbianism, for that matter, which was seen as rejecting men rather than an attraction to women. Just because things were viewed a certain way in the past doesnt make them accurate, by any means.

 

And to be incredibly blunt, I don't believe that sexuality is purely determined by genes. There are instances of identical twins with different sexualities. I think it's a mixture of many different factors, like other forms of attraction. 

 

I'm currently studying computer science at university, so I think sexuality is a bit out of my field of study. 

 

And it's probably best that this conversation doesn't derail the thread any further, so I guess I'll just agree to disagree and end it here. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Again, I do not agree that race means species.  Race means race.  You have provided no evidence to support that they are different species. 

Out of curiosity, what would constitute as evidence you'd agree to? I'm only curious since our definitions can't really be compatible since we have no other sentient races and/or species on Earth. 

[daveliam]

But other forms of attraction are biological as well. Things like being attracted to the healthiest looking potential mates so as to produce healthy offspring, or the way our ancestors apparently favored mates with certain features (lack of hair, etc), that helped lead to humans looking how we do now. What about attraction to human features that aren't related to gender? These are every bit as biological. 

 

You say there's no word for "sexual preferences" but the term is right there. The reason there aren't a plethora of more specific terms is that they vary so much from person to person that you would need a word for every single one. And as an aside, I don't like the implication that everything except gender is a "choice". We don't choose any of what we're attracted to.

"Fetish" is a concept that has existed for a long time, as an attraction to more unusual things, and I don't think asexuality was even acknowledged as existing until relatively recently. Neither was Lesbianism, for that matter, which was seen as rejecting men rather than an attraction to women. Just because things were viewed a certain way in the past doesnt make them accurate, by any means.

 

And to be incredibly blunt, I don't believe that sexuality is purely determined by genes. There are instances of identical twins with different sexualities. I think it's a mixture of many different factors, like other forms of attraction. 

 

I'm currently studying computer science at university, so I think sexuality is a bit out of my field of study. 

 

And it's probably best that this conversation doesn't derail the thread any further, so I guess I'll just agree to disagree and end it here. 

 

I have a lot to say on this, but I agree.  Let's just drop it since it's really the general "romance discussion" thread and we're getting a bit off track.

 

Out of curiosity, what would constitute as evidence you'd agree to? I'm only curious since our definitions can't really be compatible since we have no other sentient races and/or species on Earth. 

 

Three things off of the top of my head:

 

1.)  They called them species and not races;

or

2.)  They were unable to breed with each other;

or

3.)  There was in-game lore that specifically stated that they were not races (i.e., if had been created in the fade or something)

 

Outside of those kinds of evidence, I tend to take what they say at face value.  They call them races and they can interbreed (at least some of them are confirmed and we've no idea on the others either way).  Seems to me that it's harder to make them species than it is to accept them as races.

[Vapaa]

Three things off of the top of my head:

 

1.)  They called them species and not races;

or

2.)  They were unable to breed with each other;

or

3.)  There was in-game lore that specifically stated that they were not races (i.e., if had been created in the fade or something)

 

Outside of those kinds of evidence, I tend to take what they say at face value.  They call them races and they can interbreed (at least some of them are confirmed and we've no idea on the others either way).  Seems to me that it's harder to make them species than it is to accept them as races.

 

Thedas biology=/=Earth biology

[azarhal]

Can you provide a link for the rat studies?  I'd like to hear more about the psycho-social aspects outside of the biological triggers.  I have some fundamental issues with the resource use theory for numerous reasons (including evidence of homosexuality in species which are not overpopulated.  If you don't have it handy, I'll dig around Ebsco until I find it.

 

Read that stuff a long time ago. The studies was not about homosexuality, just behavioral pattern of rats among a population. The only thing I really remember was that they observed an increase in aggressiveness and homosexuality among the rats population with the decline of resources and increase in population size. Quick internet search suggest it might have been something from John B. Calhoun.

[TheodoricFriede]

I believe that ultimately this line of discussion is completely irrelevant, because race gating in this game has nothing to do with lore anyway.

[SnakeCode]

Also, as has been stated, Lions and Tigers can interbreed, and so could ****** sapiens and neanderthals.

 

http://news.discover...ans-130327.htm‎

[Usarean]

For me it's not that cross race relation don't happen or can't. But how they would be perceived in Thedas. Would a Templer pre-mage conflict bring a circle mage to the mess hall for a romantic dinner? even better would a Templer bring a elven circle mage? I have no doubt those relationships happen just not out in public. I don't think they would be holding hands and kissing in the Denerim market. I was hoping this time around with the inclusion of the non human player choices, we would have gotten both male and female options for non humans, just makes more sense to me with the divided nature of Thedas. I'm still hoping there are non companion choices, just hope if there are they are not romance through love pigeon.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I have a lot to say on this, but I agree.  Let's just drop it since it's really the general "romance discussion" thread and we're getting a bit off track.

 

 

Three things off of the top of my head:

 

1.)  They called them species and not races;

or

2.)  They were unable to breed with each other;

or

3.)  There was in-game lore that specifically stated that they were not races (i.e., if had been created in the fade or something)

 

Outside of those kinds of evidence, I tend to take what they say at face value.  They call them races and they can interbreed (at least some of them are confirmed and we've no idea on the others either way).  Seems to me that it's harder to make them species than it is to accept them as races.

I don't get #2. Lions and Tigers are different species, but they are able to breed with each other.

 

Edit: SnakeCode beat me to Ligers. 

[Kimarous]

One thing I've seen little discussion of is the potential for LIs outside of not only the party, but outside the Inquisition. It's not like the Inquisitor is strictly bound to romance people as part of his/her order.

 

"Let's see: I could romance the religious warrior who joined me from the start, the pro-Circle mage fighting at my side, the scribe girl who's part of the administrative staff... but there's also that adorable dwarf over in Crestwood I could woo. :3"

 

Any speculation and/or hopes for non-Inquisition romances? I'm banking on a fem!elf for the male Dalish players.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

One thing I've seen little discussion of is the potential for LIs outside of not only the party, but outside the Inquisition. It's not like the Inquisitor is strictly bound to romance people as part of his/her order.

 

"Let's see: I could romance the religious warrior who joined me from the start, the pro-Circle mage fighting at my side, the scribe girl who's part of the administrative staff... but there's also that adorable dwarf over in Crestwood I could woo. :3"

 

Any speculation and/or hopes for non-Inquisition romances? I'm banking on a fem!elf for the male Dalish players.

I think this hasn't been discussed much because we have no idea on who those characters might be. Those who we do know, like Celene and Gaspard, have been brought up as LI options occasionally.

[daveliam]

Thedas biology=/=Earth biology

 

Which is why the argument that they are different species is baffling to me because they are called races.  What evidence could any one use to support that they aren't?  Especially if biology is out.

 

Also, as has been stated, Lions and Tigers can interbreed, and so could ****** sapiens and neanderthals.

 

http://news.discover...ans-130327.htm‎

I don't get #2. Lions and Tigers are different species, but they are able to breed with each other.

 

Edit: SnakeCode beat me to Ligers. 

 

Sorry, let me clarify.  With just a very few small exceptions, being able to produce a biologically fertile offspring is the line of what makes one species different from another.  Again, there are exceptions to it, but it's the general rule in biology.

 

Also, there is a debate in paleoanthropology as to whether Neandertals are even a different species at all.  Many prominent researchers consider them a subspecies of H. sapiens.  It's the interbreeding theory that is a strong piece of evidence for this argument.

 

But, I digress.  We're getting way off topic.  Sorry for the de-rail.