7155 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

 

Just to keep on topic with the whole Knight in Shining Armour thing, I want to tie what you said about not all men not living up to this conventional ideal of socially constructed masculinity.

 

 

But what I'm getting at is that I'd like to see this kind of character who so happens to be gay, but written in a way humanises those characteristics rather than making them into a joke. I mean, you see it all the time in the quintessential "hero's journey" storylines where you have a youth who's near completely hopeless go through the wringer and come out stronger for it- why couldn't it be the same for this kind of character, who only just so happens to be homosexual.

 

 

I wish I could like your post more than once, carlo.  That was beautifully written.  

[carlo angelo]

 

 

 

 

I wish I could like your post more than once, carlo.  That was beautifully written.  

 

 

Thanks! I think it may have nudged me into actually conceptualising this character and giving him an image.

 

Be right back, drawing him...

[eyezonlyii]

Just to keep on topic with the whole Knight in Shining Armour thing, I want to tie what you said about not all men not living up to this conventional ideal of socially constructed masculinity.

 

I would personally like to see a gay male companion who doesn't actually ooze machismo nor isn't the cultured man of class like Dorian was. I don't see anything wrong with having men in stories who are rather soft-spoken, slight of stature, unable to grow beards or bulk up on muscle (and aren't elves). I get the impression from other gay men in real life that they need to have something to prove their masculinity and be able to keep in line with their heterosexual counterparts. All this because of this imposed mentality of "liking other men sexually = feminine" then viewing it as a bad thing, which in turn is some kind of subconscious misogyny there. I get that- "oh well, I'm sexually attracted to men, I've just used up all my 'I'm just like a woman' points, gotta cancel them out by butching it up, am I right?". When that shouldn't be the case.

 

So yeah, maybe for me, I'd like to see a rather unseasoned knight in training who "has his heart in the right place", but there are other traits about him that aren't so... gallant, like your classic knight in shining armour. Like, well, he never really learnt how to swing a sword, but only managed because he had to. He was never the type to defend himself because everyone else did that for him, but take them away, he's like "oh ****, whut?". He's rather under-developed because genetics cursed him to be rather slight. Oh well.

 

But what I'm getting at is that I'd like to see this kind of character who so happens to be gay, but written in a way humanises those characteristics rather than making them into a joke. I mean, you see it all the time in the quintessential "hero's journey" storylines where you have a youth who's near completely hopeless go through the wringer and come out stronger for it- why couldn't it be the same for this kind of character, who only just so happens to be homosexual.

*stands on tiptoes on soapbox*

On a personal note. In real life, I'm 5'6, 140 pounds and nowhere near hulked out at this weight class. I possess a sharp wit, biting tongue, and my resting ***** face is legendary. I'm also fairly athletic, and HIGHLY competitive. 

 

My boyfriend/lover/whateverwecalleachothertoday on the other hand, is 6'1, 200, and is starting to lift to bulk up. He on the other hand is quieter, softer spoken and about as coordinated as a rock on wheels most of the time. He's also HIGHLY intelligent, and very perceptive to other people's motivations and emotions. He also gives eye-hugs, just by looking at you.

 

Why am I telling you guys this? Because it goes to show that masculinity and femininity are not bound by body type nor, sex. We are both physically male and identify as such, but in areas where I am more masculine he is more feminine and vice versa. It's something that keeps us together and we both recognize it. So when I say I want a "traditionally" masculine man, I'm not doing so in any vein of internalized homophobia or misplaced misogyny. A man can be traditionally masculine in some ways and feminine in other ways. However, most of the time, when a gay man is present in a story he is depicted as (and here's the issue) less masculine in ALL areas than the presumably straight men on screen. 

 

I understand wanting to please one's father (I'm sure most gay men do to some extent). I was (and still am) more effeminate than my cousins, who were all tall and ripped and tearing up the football field/basketball courts/insert sport arena here. I remember the hurt in my dad's eye when I told him I wanted to do a theater production my freshman year in high school instead of football, and I also remember turning my back on what I wanted to do for the rest of high school so he could participate in fatherhood boasting with my uncles about their sons' athletic pursuits. I'm not going to say it was a hard and lonely road, because I was actually good at it, enjoyed it and made great friends. 

 

To sum it all up, what I'm saying is we all have our stories to tell, and coming into a thread like this, and trying to "shame" people into feeling a certain way is counter productive, as most of us have "been there, done that" and have the empty tissue boxes to prove it. 

 

*steps down*

 

Ok, with that out of the way, I can see where you're character concept is coming from, and if Dragon Age were a more Young Adult setting, it would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, in my opinion, 2 things are holding him back:

1. We've kind of already had the bumbling warrior with Alistair. Not physically but mentally and emotionally.

2. Adding the "inept trainee" aspect to a gay character when none of the other characters of any class beforehand had this trait might send the wrong impression, but it definitely goes against (and sandal please be willing to slap me down if I'm wrong) what the spirit of the thread is asking for: a seasoned warrior who likes "swords" as much as swords (or whatever euphemism a woman can use there).

[carlo angelo]

-snip-

 

I don't mean my post to come off as "if you're not one, you're the other, how dare you", and if it did, I do apologise. I was just hoping to prove a point that social constructs of conventional masculinity (be it athleticism, belligerence, or a domineering personality, to name a few) shouldn't need to be the be-all-end-all for a "respectable" (for lack of a better word) male character who just so happens to be gay/bisexual/queer. As you know, it's all how it's delivered. Dorian, in my opinion, is a decent example- he's vain, a sucker for creature comforts, and is perhaps Cullen's polar opposite (who in turn is stoic and militant). But he's written with a deal of care that almost everyone finds him likeable. And that's good.

 

Ok, with that out of the way, I can see where you're character concept is coming from, and if Dragon Age were a more Young Adult setting, it would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, in my opinion, 2 things are holding him back:

1. We've kind of already had the bumbling warrior with Alistair. Not physically but mentally and emotionally.

2. Adding the "inept trainee" aspect to a gay character when none of the other characters of any class beforehand had this trait might send the wrong impression, but it definitely goes against (and sandal please be willing to slap me down if I'm wrong) what the spirit of the thread is asking for: a seasoned warrior who likes "swords" as much as swords (or whatever euphemism a woman can use there).

 

I can see where you're coming from, particularly with the first point, and that's something that crossed my mind as I was typing it. I'd be willing to see how the similar archetype is carried out and made it's own, though. Again, it's all in how well they're written.

 

For for your second point, for me, that's where the story comes in. A man who starts at zero and throughout the story, he grows, and as a player-character fighting alongside him, you see that. I don't know, maybe it's just me being a sucker for "zero" to "hero" stories. But believe me when I say I'll accept anything- seasoned warrior, novice knight, rookie recruit, conventionally feminine or masculine or neither at all. As long as they're written with a great deal of care, ingenuity, and respect.

[Walfan]

Before I answer any of the above, wait--I'm not going to answer any of the above.  I said exactly what I mean to say and that is that neurological studies have shown similiarities (not that they are identical fully).  That means only that there are naturally occurring similarities in the brain chemistry and use of tissue.  We're not speaking of soft science like psychology but a hard science with repetitive evidence. 

 

Now, if this fucks with your perception of masculinity that is not my problem. My point is that some people are born differently with you and you can't shrug it off that they were socialized that way because then you are telling people how they feel inside, how they act is wrong....and that is wrong.

 

I'm not that interested in Corvinos take on this as a philosophy major but rather the opinion of neurologists.

 

http://www.pnas.org/...ent/105/27/9403

 

http://cercor.oxford...0/2322.abstract

 

 

No offense, but the outrage that it could be possible also shows a bit of misogyny because it's saying for men to share characteristics with women is somehow offensive enough that people have to stamp their feet and scream, no no no.

 

No science is concrete but there is enough evidence to have it published in very GLBT friendly nations like Sweden who are advanced in gender neurology and in their national social conscience to the point where they are even adding a new gender word so that people are not alienated.

 

Anyway, a hyper masculine, grunting farting, ball scratching gay KISA would be fine with me.  He doesn't have to pick flowers in nature with the childrens.

Again I ask, what are you going on about with this ? If those similarities aren't sexual orientation related, which they logically are (I highly doubt I have another little brain between my legs), you're basically saying that gay men and women are more like the other sex than straight people are, which means we can't be considered "normal" people anymore with a boner issue and become "them" again.

These studies bring nothing new beside controversy at the moment, the human brain is still a mystery and we're not going to get facts anytime soon.

 

I don't know if you're misunderstanding me or if I'm not explaining myself correctly (english is not my first language), but I never said feminine men had to change. 

So yes, I don't like them, and I can be really bitter about them sometimes, but that stops there. What I want is for people to understand that we're not all like that.

If the feminine men want to keep limp wristing then that's not my problem. Althought you need to keep in mind that feminine men mostly came to be because of prejudice, when, at the start of the 20th century, gay men co-opted stereotypical postures and hand gestures as a way to signal their sexual orientation. Before the 18th century gay people didn't even have those stereotypes following them around, it started when people began to see homosexuality as the antithesis of manliness from the 18th century onward.

Feminine gay men of today are probably that way because it's either their personnality or they mostly started to hang around with the "obvious" gay men which then rubbed off on them, or the prejudice is so strong that they subconsciously developped the mannerisms.

You at least have to admit that the "gay lisp" is questionably natural.

 

Honestly it's not really suprising feminity is disliked, I wouldn't say that it's primarily mysogny but more that it often comes with negative character traits like overall weakness, timidity, pettiness, bitchiness, softness, sensitiveness, passiveness, and so on. Of course feminine people don't get all of those but it gives you an idea. 

People simply assume bad things based on feminine mannerisms while you may perfectly have none of the above. And I'm not saying that masculinity doesn't have faults, but we're constantly told to keep them in check anyway (sexual aggresiveness and all that jazz).

 

About that last sentence, dont go into the extremes, stupid people think being masculine relates to the number of beers you drink a day and that's pretty sad. It's about confidence, strenght, experience and being overall active, not if I can fart on command. Those traits can also apply to women, in case you wanted to pull the muh sojiny card again.

[TheRatPack55]

^ Sensitivity is a negative character trait now?  Wow... nice world you live in.

 

Your post is also seriously misogynist, whether you're aware of it or not.

[Walfan]

^ Sensitivity is a negative character trait now?  Wow... nice world you live in.

 

Your post is also seriously misogynist, whether you're aware of it or not.

It's only negative if you're too sensitive, like if you break down too easily or can't handle some situations because you get overwhelmed too quickly.

Of course I'll argue that crying about something sad is better than being a cold-blooded killer.

 

Care to enlighten to me about the misogyny part ? How am I supposed to change my mind if you don't explain what I've said wrong ?

[WildOrchid]

Honestly it's not really suprising feminity is disliked, I wouldn't say that it's primarily mysogny but more that it often comes with negative character traits like overall weakness, timidity, pettiness, bitchiness, softness, sensitiveness, passiveness, and so on. 

 

Are you implying only women have these "traits"? 

 

 

Bad way of thinking, very bad way...

[Walfan]

Are you implying only women have these "traits"? 

 

 

Bad way of thinking, very bad way...

No I don't. That's why I talk of feminity and what traits people usually assign to it and not women.

Feminity also has good traits but I was talking about the negative ones.

 

And my last sentence about masculinity included women too :

 

About that last sentence, dont go into the extremes, stupid people think being masculine relates to the number of beers you drink a day and that's pretty sad. It's about confidence, strenght, experience and being overall active, not if I can fart on command. Those traits can also apply to women, in case you wanted to pull the muh sojiny card again.

[TheRatPack55]

No I don't. That's why I talk of feminity and what traits people usually assign to it and not women.

Feminity also has good traits but I was talking about the negative ones.

 

And my last sentence about masculinity included women too :

 

femininity

noun

the quality of being female; womanliness.

 

Saying traits commonly coded as 'feminine' are intrinsically 'bad' is misogynistic. Do you see how that's wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carlo angelo]

Again I ask, what are you going on about with this ? If those similarities aren't sexual orientation related, which they logically are (I highly doubt I have another little brain between my legs), you're basically saying that gay men and women are more like the other sex than straight people are, which means we can't be considered "normal" people anymore with a boner issue and become "them" again.

These studies bring nothing new beside controversy at the moment, the human brain is still a mystery and we're not going to get facts anytime soon.

 

I don't know if you're misunderstanding me or if I'm not explaining myself correctly (english is not my first language), but I never said feminine men had to change. 

So yes, I don't like them, and I can be really bitter about them sometimes, but that stops there. What I want is for people to understand that we're not all like that.

If the feminine men want to keep limp wristing then that's not my problem. Althought you need to keep in mind that feminine men mostly came to be because of prejudice, when, at the start of the 20th century, gay men co-opted stereotypical postures and hand gestures as a way to signal their sexual orientation. Before the 18th century gay people didn't even have those stereotypes following them around, it started when people began to see homosexuality as the antithesis of manliness from the 18th century onward.

Feminine gay men of today are probably that way because it's either their personnality or they mostly started to hang around with the "obvious" gay men which then rubbed off on them, or the prejudice is so strong that they subconsciously developped the mannerisms.

You at least have to admit that the "gay lisp" is questionably natural.

 

Honestly it's not really suprising feminity is disliked, I wouldn't say that it's primarily mysogny but more that it often comes with negative character traits like overall weakness, timidity, pettiness, bitchiness, softness, sensitiveness, passiveness, and so on. Of course feminine people don't get all of those but it gives you an idea. 

People simply assume bad things based on feminine mannerisms while you may perfectly have none of the above. And I'm not saying that masculinity doesn't have faults, but we're constantly told to keep them in check anyway (sexual aggresiveness and all that jazz).

 

About that last sentence, dont go into the extremes, stupid people think being masculine relates to the number of beers you drink a day and that's pretty sad. It's about confidence, strenght, experience and being overall active, not if I can fart on command. Those traits can also apply to women, in case you wanted to pull the muh sojiny card again.

 

I kind of want this thread to be as drama free as possible, considering the vitriol I could come across in other threads around here, but I just want to say this:

 

I would try and avoid assigning gender to characteristics and personality traits, since it's an indicator of reinforcing gendered stereotypes. In this day and age, people generally try to overcome that and express themselves in however way they want regardless of what gender they identify. Confidence and strength shouldn't be an indicator of how "masculine" or "feminine" you are, as everyone has the capability to be strong and confident. Neither should sensitivity or softness be an indicator of "femininity" or "masculinity". Everyone could be real petty or very uncouth, and no gender is prediposed to one or the other, apart from what society reinforces. Experience is something everyone goes through.

 

I'm not sure what issue you might have with "feminine" gay men, but speaking as perhaps one of their numbers (since I don't exude many characteristics people would stereotypically assign to conventional masculinity), I would argue that the characteristics you've assigned as being stereotypically feminine sort of suit my personality.

 

If being sensitive (which in turn means I would be perceptive of other people's feelings and motives- quite handy, mind you), passive (well, I'm not exactly outgoing), and soft (I like people assuming that I'm not... harsh, I suppose, thanks), makes me a... less than sterling example of a man because some people associate those things with femininity, and femininity is...less superior than masculinity (neither of which should be better than the other), well... can't exactly say I'm sorry for being a "bad" person. Also weakness, cowardice, and pettiness aren't inherent in either gender- I mean, the greatest villains, male or female, are effing petty, everyone has the capacity for being a coward depending on the circumstances, and weakness is just a flaw everyone is guilty of- not what women are prediposed to have because of what convention dictates...

 

I don't mean to come off as preachy, but I'm just trying to explain how people can interpret your words...

 

...Now can we get back to the whole Knight In Shining Armour thing?

 

Here. Have a webcomic. It has gay knights and poetry.

[Walfan]

femininity
noun
the quality of being female; womanliness.

Saying traits commonly coded as 'feminine' are intrinsically 'bad' is misogynistic. Do you see how that's wrong?

They're coded as feminine because women have always been seen as inferior and as such any "weak" trait is attributed to them.
And while boys are taught to overcome them it's not the case for girls.

Honestly I'm not giving my opinion here I'm explaining how it works. I always treat women as equal in my everyday life.

Edit : I'm on my phone right now so I'll answer your post later carlo.

[TheRatPack55]

They're coded as feminine because women have always been seen as inferior and as such any "weak" trait is attributed to them.
And while boys are taught to overcome them it's not the case for girls.

Honestly I'm not giving my opinion here I'm explaining how it works. I always treat women as equal in my everyday life.

 

Sensitivity, caring, emotional fragility, physical weakness, and many others, are 'weak' traits coded as 'feminine' and possessed of many people, both women and men. The thing is these traits are not bad and the people who possess them are not inferior in any way. Saying they are is an expression of misogyny, whether maintained by society or an individual. It should be contested.

 

Also, yes, let's get back to the KISA topic before the thread gets locked.

[carlo angelo]

They're coded as feminine because women have always been seen as inferior and as such any "weak" trait is attributed to them.
And while boys are taught to overcome them it's not the case for girls.

Honestly I'm not giving my opinion here I'm explaining how it works. I always treat women as equal in my everyday life.

Edit : I'm on my phone right now so I'll answer your post later carlo.

 

...That's true, in the sense that history generally dictates male superiority. Societies have imposed this idea of certain traits to be feminine and therefore less valued, particularly in men; and another set of traits to be masculine, and therefore, things to aspire to.

 

But as societies develop and people gain a better understanding of human nature and the complexities that go along with it, the above doesn't hold much weight anymore, and those who still subscribe to that thinking are seen nowadays as, well, old-fashioned and behind-the-times.

 

 

 

 

...Now about that knight, right guys?

 

I mean, I've watched A Knight's Tale when I was younger and... Heath Ledger didn't inspire anything in me- I just wasn't of that age where I was drooling over boys yet.

[Hellion Rex]

*stands on tiptoes on soapbox*

On a personal note. In real life, I'm 5'6, 140 pounds and nowhere near hulked out at this weight class. I possess a sharp wit, biting tongue, and my resting ***** face is legendary. I'm also fairly athletic, and HIGHLY competitive. 

 

My boyfriend/lover/whateverwecalleachothertoday on the other hand, is 6'1, 200, and is starting to lift to bulk up. He on the other hand is quieter, softer spoken and about as coordinated as a rock on wheels most of the time. He's also HIGHLY intelligent, and very perceptive to other people's motivations and emotions. He also gives eye-hugs, just by looking at you.

 

Why am I telling you guys this? Because it goes to show that masculinity and femininity are not bound by body type nor, sex. We are both physically male and identify as such, but in areas where I am more masculine he is more feminine and vice versa. It's something that keeps us together and we both recognize it. So when I say I want a "traditionally" masculine man, I'm not doing so in any vein of internalized homophobia or misplaced misogyny. A man can be traditionally masculine in some ways and feminine in other ways. However, most of the time, when a gay man is present in a story he is depicted as (and here's the issue) less masculine in ALL areas than the presumably straight men on screen. 

 

I understand wanting to please one's father (I'm sure most gay men do to some extent). I was (and still am) more effeminate than my cousins, who were all tall and ripped and tearing up the football field/basketball courts/insert sport arena here. I remember the hurt in my dad's eye when I told him I wanted to do a theater production my freshman year in high school instead of football, and I also remember turning my back on what I wanted to do for the rest of high school so he could participate in fatherhood boasting with my uncles about their sons' athletic pursuits. I'm not going to say it was a hard and lonely road, because I was actually good at it, enjoyed it and made great friends. 

 

To sum it all up, what I'm saying is we all have our stories to tell, and coming into a thread like this, and trying to "shame" people into feeling a certain way is counter productive, as most of us have "been there, done that" and have the empty tissue boxes to prove it. 

 

*steps down*

 

Ok, with that out of the way, I can see where you're character concept is coming from, and if Dragon Age were a more Young Adult setting, it would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, in my opinion, 2 things are holding him back:

1. We've kind of already had the bumbling warrior with Alistair. Not physically but mentally and emotionally.

2. Adding the "inept trainee" aspect to a gay character when none of the other characters of any class beforehand had this trait might send the wrong impression, but it definitely goes against (and sandal please be willing to slap me down if I'm wrong) what the spirit of the thread is asking for: a seasoned warrior who likes "swords" as much as swords (or whatever euphemism a woman can use there).

[Walfan]

I don't mean to come off as preachy, but I'm just trying to explain how people can interpret your words...

Again I have to clarify that I'm trying to explain how "conventional" people might think, not my personnal opinion. Even though I do dislike feminine men, what they do is their business.

 

You're a bit naive if you actually think people are trying hard to overcome gender. Most people are straight and they don't care as much as we do, a big part of the world still even wants us dead. Most of them still see feminity in a man as weak but normal in a woman, while masculinity is seen as normal in a man. Masculine traits in women are seen differently in cultures, as a sign of a strong women in America and Europe, while it's discouraged in Japan for example.

 

My point from the beginning is that gay men with feminine mannerisms and traits are still vastly overrepresented. Most people still see feminity in a man as bad and as such it's not the best way for us to be accepted as equal. It's important to understand how the other side thinks if we ever want to win, and I don't believe forcing the way will get us anywhere good. "Conventionnal" gay men should take the center stage or at the very least get equal representation.

I said it two times already I think but the gay feminine stereotype hurts feminity in men as a whole, it's THE thing that allows you to detect gay men in their mind and as such they'll reject it so their "straightness" isn't at risk.

 

I have to correct you on passiveness, it's not about being shy or introverted, it's about inaction, cowardice, a lack of initiative, not standing up for yourself or for others, and overall submissiveness. Being sensitive is still pretty negative beyond understanding others better, it implies a thin skin and can get really handicapping like I explained in one of my previous posts.

I agree being soft isn't necessarily bad, in fact I believe softness and harshness in equal measures are necessary to be a well-adjusted person. Harsh words are sometimes far more efficient than sugar coating.

 

Sensitivity, caring, emotional fragility, physical weakness, and many others, are 'weak' traits coded as 'feminine' and possessed of many people, both women and men. The thing is these traits are not bad and the people who possess them are not inferior in any way. Saying they are is an expression of misogyny, whether maintained by society or an individual. It should be contested.

 

Also, yes, let's get back to the KISA topic before the thread gets locked.

How are emotional fragility and physical weakness not bad ?

Come on man the "everyone is perfect" speech is good and all but the world isn't made of smiles and rainbows.

I do agree that kindness is a good trait, which you'll notice I didn't include in my other post.

 

Why would the thread be locked as long as we don't insult each other ? 

I would at least appreciate a warning from the mods if the risk is there.

[eyezonlyii]

I don't mean my post to come off as "if you're not one, you're the other, how dare you", and if it did, I do apologise. I was just hoping to prove a point that social constructs of conventional masculinity (be it athleticism, belligerence, or a domineering personality, to name a few) shouldn't need to be the be-all-end-all for a "respectable" (for lack of a better word) male character who just so happens to be gay/bisexual/queer. As you know, it's all how it's delivered. Dorian, in my opinion, is a decent example- he's vain, a sucker for creature comforts, and is perhaps Cullen's polar opposite (who in turn is stoic and militant). But he's written with a deal of care that almost everyone finds him likeable. And that's good.

 

 

I can see where you're coming from, particularly with the first point, and that's something that crossed my mind as I was typing it. I'd be willing to see how the similar archetype is carried out and made it's own, though. Again, it's all in how well they're written.

 

For for your second point, for me, that's where the story comes in. A man who starts at zero and throughout the story, he grows, and as a player-character fighting alongside him, you see that. I don't know, maybe it's just me being a sucker for "zero" to "hero" stories. But believe me when I say I'll accept anything- seasoned warrior, novice knight, rookie recruit, conventionally feminine or masculine or neither at all. As long as they're written with a great deal of care, ingenuity, and respect.

I could go for a guy fresh out of "boot camp" who is physically competent, but hasn't quite earned his stripes yet. I was toying with an idea not too long ago about origin stories and tying them to specializations and race instead of just one or the other (this was before the Grand Tourney Knight was thought up) and one of the things was actually a Grand Tourney human origin. Where the PC competes on behalf of their brother who has fallen ill before the big affair. At the end, after winning, a Chevalier would approach, just like one did for Blackwall, along with a Templar and your brother. It would be here that you would choose your spec: Guardian, Templar, Sentinel. Then the game would go from there. One change could be that the Chevalier that approaches could be the potential LI. If you don't choose his spec he shows up later in the game as part of a story mission.

[eyezonlyii]

After skimming the whole "masc vs fem" debate above, what I want to point out is how ironic it is that the traits that are considered "feminine" are almost all part and parcel to a KISA: kindness, chastity, humility, faith, temperance. All these things are there in our minds when we picture a knight, whether or not we admit or had the words to define them. They are countered by his physical stature, or the visible masculinity: the weapon (melee), the armor (strong but not imposing), and his physical stature (well fed and groomed). We see the physical before we get to the internal, thus the internal femininity takes on a more masculine tone. 

 

At least it's ironic to me. 

[TheRatPack55]

 

How are emotional fragility and physical weakness not bad ?

Come on man the "everyone is perfect" speech is good and all but the world isn't made of smiles and rainbows.

I do agree that kindness is a good trait, which you'll notice I didn't include in my other post.

 

Why would the thread be locked as long as we don't insult each other ? 

I would at least appreciate a warning from the mods if the risk is there.

 

If you're easily hurt emotionally you put extra care into how your own words and actions affect others, and try to avoid hurting their feelings, since you know how damaging it can be - that's why I prefer emotionally fragile, sensitive people to thick-skinned ones, who usually have no idea they're hurting others since they're incapable of feeling it themselves. We also no longer live in a world where we need physical strength to survive as a species, so whether you're weak or strong shouldn't be qualified as positive or negative. It's a neutral trait as far as I'm concerned. 

 

_{(I also believe the world is made of feces and hellfire, which is why more people could really use these 'feminine' traits to make it better and not worse..  )}

 

And threads have been locked due to off-topicness.

 

I could go for a guy fresh out of "boot camp" who is physically competent, but hasn't quite earned his stripes yet. I was toying with an idea not too long ago about origin stories and tying them to specializations and race instead of just one or the other (this was before the Grand Tourney Knight was thought up) and one of the things was actually a Grand Tourney human origin. Where the PC competes on behalf of their brother who has fallen ill before the big affair. At the end, after winning, a Chevalier would approach, just like one did for Blackwall, along with a Templar and your brother. It would be here that you would choose your spec: Guardian, Templar, Sentinel. Then the game would go from there. One change could be that the Chevalier that approaches could be the potential LI. If you don't choose his spec he shows up later in the game as part of a story mission.

 

I really like this idea, especially if the rest of the game would go as they usually go, with the PC in a position of power over their companions - you'd have the Chevalier as a sort of 'mentor' figure, who'd later become your subordinate, I could go places with this scenario... 

[eyezonlyii]

If you're easily hurt emotionally you put extra care into how your own words and actions affect others, and try to avoid hurting their feelings, since you know how damaging it can be - that's why I prefer emotionally fragile, sensitive people to thick-skinned ones, who usually have no idea they're hurting others since they're incapable of feeling it themselves. We also no longer live in a world where we need physical strength to survive as a species, so whether you're weak or strong shouldn't be qualified as positive or negative. It's a neutral trait as far as I'm concerned. 
 
_{(I also believe the world is made of feces and hellfire, which is why more people could really use these 'feminine' traits to make it better and not worse..  )}
 
And threads have been locked due to off-topicness.
 

 
I really like this idea, especially if the rest of the game would go as they usually go, with the PC in a position of power over their companions - you'd have the Chevalier as a sort of 'mentor' figure, who'd later become your subordinate, I could go places with this scenario... 

I don't know how it could be done, but I would like a game where the PC was a subordinate. I get tired of the "save the world/run an organization" story. Especially because we end up doing missions for other people anyway.

[carlo angelo]

And threads have been locked due to off-topicness.

 

 

I really like this idea, especially if the rest of the game would go as they usually go, with the PC in a position of power over their companions - you'd have the Chevalier as a sort of 'mentor' figure, who'd later become your subordinate, I could go places with this scenario... 

 

I'd say just leave it be. It'll be just going around in circles, and we'll go more off topic than we really should be. But I hear you. I definitely hear you.

 

 

I could go for a guy fresh out of "boot camp" who is physically competent, but hasn't quite earned his stripes yet. I was toying with an idea not too long ago about origin stories and tying them to specializations and race instead of just one or the other (this was before the Grand Tourney Knight was thought up) and one of the things was actually a Grand Tourney human origin. Where the PC competes on behalf of their brother who has fallen ill before the big affair. At the end, after winning, a Chevalier would approach, just like one did for Blackwall, along with a Templar and your brother. It would be here that you would choose your spec: Guardian, Templar, Sentinel. Then the game would go from there. One change could be that the Chevalier that approaches could be the potential LI. If you don't choose his spec he shows up later in the game as part of a story mission.

 

You'll have to pardon me since I hadn't been around much for the origin stories here (I've seen Grand Tourney tossed around, but never really figured where it started in the thread).

 

I had in mind a farm boy or an apprentice smith (I mean, country bumpkins, am I right?) who saw his home, his village, his everything burned to the ground. Not wanting to be caught in the fray, he tried to find his family and get them to safety before bandits could get to them too. Having never seen much battle in his life, he pretty much grabbed the nearest weapon he could find and tried swinging at the assailants every which way while his family made good their escape.

 

PC arrives and hey, encounter and both fight alongside each other. Our novice "knight" looks a little traumatised and promptly leaves to find his family. More stuff happens, Novice Knight crosses paths with PC again, and after living a life on the run and keeping his family safe, he's hardened up as a fighter, but still seems to come off as simple- still wishing life was easy like the life he had before, but because his family is all that he has, he'd be damned if they're taken away as well.

 

What I had in mind was a character who has the makings of a potential knight in shining armour- protective, kindly, eager to serve, brave (well, he's getting there), and physically able (I mean, he does hard labour, right?). But not quite since it's mixed in with the qualities of a protagonist before they embark on this "hero's journey"- wide-eyed, kind of lazy, has a lot to learn, and a bit inexperienced. So... Knight in Peasant's Garbs? Dude's getting there, he just doesn't have the means nor has he figured out that he actually has it in him, yet.

 

I mean, over the course of the game, he slowly starts to "get it" and begins to take charge of his own, rapidly rising through the ranks in your retinue and before you know it, he's seeing himself as your equal and probably would start protecting your player-character.

[Walfan]

If you're easily hurt emotionally you put extra care into how your own words and actions affect others, and try to avoid hurting their feelings, since you know how damaging it can be - that's why I prefer emotionally fragile, sensitive people to thick-skinned ones, who usually have no idea they're hurting others since they're incapable of feeling it themselves. We also no longer live in a world where we need physical strength to survive as a species, so whether you're weak or strong shouldn't be qualified as positive or negative. It's a neutral trait as far as I'm concerned. 

I see your point, when you think about it people develop thick skin after being hurt emotionally, so in theory if everyone was kind to each other it wouldn't be needed. But then again the world is not a happy place.

Although keep in mind what I said, harsh words are sometimes far better than sugar coating, and an extra sensitive person might be of no support to someone who needs them. Don't also forget that keeping your head cool isn't only necessary when talking to other people.

I don't agree about physical strenght, you'll always need some at some point, like if you need to defend yourself someday, or simply when moving away.

 

It's not really off-topic, it's about the personality representation of gay men so I guess that fits.

 

 

I'd say just leave it be. It'll be just going around in circles, and we'll go more off topic than we really should be. But I hear you. I definitely hear you.

Do as you wish, but keep in mind that circlejerking isn't exactly nice for the other parties, since not hurting other people's feelings seems important to you.

[TheRatPack55]

I don't know how it could be done, but I would like a game where the PC was a subordinate. I get tired of the "save the world/run an organization" story. Especially because we end up doing missions for other people anyway.

 

I agree, but I kinda doubt I'd enjoy that particular setup in a Bioware game, particularly in DA, considering how they've been moving away from giving the player the ability to support a particular faction and have that reflected in the story, which is an unfortunate consequence of having multiple games set in the same world. If I'm subordinate to someone I want to be able to choose who to pledge myself to - imagine if we were just forced to do the Chantry's bidding no matter what (oh... wait ).

 

But yeah, as far as rpgs go, to me the best implementation of that scenario was in Fallout:New Vegas. You could take power for yourself, but you could also serve as a lieutenant to any of the faction leaders. I enjoyed doing just that. _{True to Caesar!}

[carlo angelo]

-snip-

 

Spoiler

I'll do this once. I tried being tactful and patient, and they're not bad traits to have. But you seem set in your ways and there's no way of convincing you. I've read your posts. I disagree. I could go on about why, but I'd just be repeating myself. It's called knowing when to pick your fights, and this one isn't worth it.

 

Sorry.