That's why there's so much debate. I, for example, think Cassandra is in no way a KISA in the typical sense because of her moral compass (which is quite surprisingly ends justifies the means, something I see as a KISA disqualifier).
So what, or should that be who, defines the KISA? And surely your KISA won't be my KISA and vice versa.
To be fair though, even in legend most KISAs are flawed in some way. Even the archetypal KISA, Lancelot, had an affair with his king's wife.
So what, or should that be who, defines the KISA? And surely your KISA won't be my KISA and vice versa.
To be fair though, even in legend most KISAs are flawed in some way. Even the archetypal KISA, Lancelot, had an affair with his king's wife.
probably because Galahad is the archetypal KISA for the Arthurian Court
probably because Galahad is the archetypal KISA for the Arthurian Court
Quite, Lancelot was awesome, but I would not consider him a KISA in the least.
So what, or should that be who, defines the KISA? And surely your KISA won't be my KISA and vice versa.
To be fair though, even in legend most KISAs are flawed in some way. Even the archetypal KISA, Lancelot, had an affair with his king's wife.
Lancelot is not a Knight in Shining Armor.
In Arthurian legend, Galahad is a KISA no question. Arguments can be made for knights like Percival and Gawain since they were deemed worthy enough to accompany Galahad on the quest for the Holy Grail. And if seem from a certain point of view, Mordred can be seen as a KISA.
I'm getting a sense of deja vu with this conversation.
?I'm getting a sense of deja vu with this conversation.
So what, or should that be who, defines the KISA? And surely your KISA won't be my KISA and vice versa.
To be fair though, even in legend most KISAs are flawed in some way. Even the archetypal KISA, Lancelot, had an affair with his king's wife.
To me, the label is about your subjective perception of a character. In the end, the writer "defines" it in the sense that the writer might want to write what (to them) is a character fitting the trope. That's all good. Kind of how DG wanted to write gay Tony Stark and we got Dorian. I'm not sure I'd agree with his take on his own character, but that's besides the point.
So to answer your question, in a sense, the fans do, and in another, the writers do.
I'm getting a sense of deja vu with this conversation.
So to answer your question, in a sense, the fans do, and in another, the writers do.
Fair enough, but I suspect your KISA would not be my KISA.
Fair enough, but I suspect your KISA would not be my KISA.
And your point is....?
Everyone is simply talking about what they define a KISA to be and what they would personally like to see in the next game. Nobody has ever said we all have to agree on one definition.
Hmm, I don't know. Regardless of personal preferences, one would think the archetype is pretty well defined? As such, any character being lawful good, chivalrous and morally obligated to act according to a code of honor set by whoever they consider their lord, be that a person, a deity, or whatever, would be a KISA.
Hmm, I don't know. Regardless of personal preferences, one would think the archetype is pretty well defined? As such, any character being lawful good, chivalrous and morally obligated to act according to a code of honor set by whoever they consider their lord, be that a person, a deity, or whatever, would be a KISA.
The issue is whether you'd agree with the person fitting the abstract criteria. Is Blackwall lawful, for example? Is he chivalrous? It's a YMMV. IMO. 
The issue is whether you'd agree with the person fitting the abstract criteria. Is Blackwall lawful, for example? Is he chivalrous? It's a YMMV. IMO.
I guess, though I would say Blackwall appears chivalrous (to a lady Inquisitor at least), is probably lawful in the present, but isn't a KISA if only because his moral code is entirely his own. Sure, it conforms to the general standards of 'goodness', but he's still acting solely on what he himself deems 'moral'. I'd argue that a KISA has to conform to some 'higher' standard, as they would never assume their conscience alone would be enough of an authority. Essentially, I'd go by this definition of a 'knight' (not pertaining to the 'shining armor' part), though of course adapted to the setting the game would take place in - 'a man who served his sovereign or lord as a mounted soldier in armor'. Blackwall is morally a freelancer - he serves the Inquisition, but his morality is his own.
But I do agree people will probably see a given character's traits differently anyway.
edit: actually scratch that, Blackwall probably isn't lawful. He strikes me as someone willing to bend the rules a bit too much, if with good intentions. Still, that ties in to the fact that he adheres to his own, if somewhat 'universal' moral guidelines.
edit: actually scratch that, Blackwall probably isn't lawful. He strikes me as someone willing to bend the rules a bit too much, if with good intentions. Still, that ties in to the fact that he adheres to his own, if somewhat 'universal' moral guidelines.
In before someone who hates him points out that Blackwall represents all that is vile and abhorrent. 
Yeah, like In Exile said...Especially in a Bioware game where there's almost always a possible alternate interpretation of a character, I think there's no way to reach a really solid consensus on what characteristics fit this character archetype, or how precisely the majority would like it to fit?
I know, that for my part, my ideal LI would be more chaotic good than lawful good, and I think that could fit a KISA just as well, but I also understand why lawful good would be a prioritized aspect of characterization for some people's idea of a KISA.
Is it kinda like this guy?
or this guy?
Or this girl?
Or these two perhaps
Or maybe her?
I must confess I kind of was thinking of the KISA as a pretty common.. sort of.. shared idea.
Is it kinda like this guy?
Surely he is a cleric, not a knight. One certainly can't have clerics as KISAs because they are dedicated to their deity, not to doing good deeds. I think there needs to be some moral standard for a KISA. (Which is of course the problem since we will not be able to agree on what that moral standard is.)
Surely he is a cleric, not a knight. One certainly can't have clerics as KISAs because they are dedicated to their deity, not to doing good deeds. I think there needs to be some moral standard for a KISA. (Which is of course the problem since we will not be able to agree on what that moral standard is.)
It's unclear if the Light is really a deity yet, the most common theory is that it's a Naaru pretending to be the goddess Elune. Paladins like Uther worship it but there aren't any strict rules besides the Three Virtues, which are on par with KISA morale.
See the differences between the Scarlet Crusade, the Knights of the Silver Hand or even the Blood Knights.
Surely he is a cleric, not a knight. One certainly can't have clerics as KISAs because they are dedicated to their deity, not to doing good deeds. I think there needs to be some moral standard for a KISA. (Which is of course the problem since we will not be able to agree on what that moral standard is.)
I don't see a reason why an armored, melee (mace & shield), cleric who is dedicated to an order and acts in a noble, chivalrous way couldn't count as a KISA. Again, I don't think people are looking for only the most strict version of the archetype. Most are happy with a KISA adjacent character who demonstrates most of these characteristics.
I don't see a reason why an armored, melee (mace & shield), cleric who is dedicated to an order and acts in a noble, chivalrous way couldn't count as a KISA. Again, I don't think people are looking for only the most strict version of the archetype. Most are happy with a KISA adjacent character who demonstrates most of these characteristics.
I think that the reason a cleric cannot be a KISA is because clerics are, by definition, people who have chosen to dedicate their life to their God/Gods. A man of the faith, only replace the cloth with plate mail and an attitude. So how, then, would a cleric choose between his god and the love of his life, if it came to that? Would you count on your gay cleric KISA to choose you? You... wouldn't really know, to be honest. Part of a KISA to me is an embrace of the old-timey romantic fantasy of true love, the only one in the world, and so on. A cleric KISA would thus always cast little worrying doubts, for me.
I think that the reason a cleric cannot be a KISA is because clerics are, by definition, people who have chosen to dedicate their life to their God/Gods. A man of the faith, only replace the cloth with plate mail and an attitude. So how, then, would a cleric choose between his god and the love of his life, if it came to that? Would you count on your gay cleric KISA to choose you? You... wouldn't really know, to be honest. Part of a KISA to me is an embrace of the old-timey romantic fantasy of true love, the only one in the world, and so on. A cleric KISA would thus always cast little worrying doubts, for me.
Not necessarily. I can easily see a KISA, whether it be knight or cleric, placing a higher value on their beliefs than you, even if in a romance. Clerics and KISA are not so different, at least in my mind. One places all their being into pursuit of a deity, the other places highest priority on their values and morals. Both are intangible things that each pursues.
Exactly. If you're love interest is a cleric and his God asks him to stop seeing you than either you're doing something 'evil' to irritate the god or the cleric is following a darker, more ambiguous (possibly 'evil') god and that kinda disqualifies him from being a KISA.Not necessarily. I can easily a KISA, whether it be knight or cleric, placing a higher value on their beliefs than you, even if in a romance. Clerics and KISA are not so different, at least in my mind. One places all their being into pursuit of a deity, the other places highest priority on their values and morals. Both are intangible things that each pursues.
Exactly. If you're love interest is a cleric and his God asks him to stop seeing you than either you're doing something 'evil' to irritate the god or the cleric is following a darker, more ambiguous (possibly 'evil') god and that kinda disqualifies him from being a KISA.
Edit: This is assuming of course that the god is annoyed by your actions. If it's sending the cleric to the other side of the world to save orphans or something than that's still equally applicable to a religiously unaffiliated KISA.
He could be a KISA and not realize that his god is evil. That would make for a great story. Swinging this back to DA, we've talked about an Avvar as an idea before for a KISA. What if he/she thinks that they spirit they follow is benign, and just an average nature spirit, and it instead turns out to be a very subtle and clever demon. He now has a conflict between his "god" and his own Code.
Personally, that's the kind of internal conflict I'd like to see. The writers touched on it with Cullen, but he's not only straight, he's monotheistic. I'd like to see the perspective of a polytheistic group, and in the spirit of the thread, one that isn't heterosexual.
I love the idea of a demon posing as a very good spirit. Quietly manipulating the KISA until the player as well as direct evidence is presented to companion. Then they have to make a choice. I could picture it now: Someone posing as good and helpful, maybe even in a physical body as an adviser or dear friend, only to be subtly controlling the character all along. Like in the first Bioshock, with the arc words "Would you kindly...."
Don't mind me, I'm just spitballing some random ideas that have been rattling around the back of my brain.
Still doing the Kaidan romance, and I'm a little over 1/2 way through ME2 with Natashina Shepard. I did tear up slightly at the reunion at Horizon, mainly because he sounded so incredibly frustrated. However, I'm a good kid and remaining loyal until ME3. I did the romance in the first game and it was totally worth it. I never disliked Kaidan, I just never really used him much. He's grown on me a lot. Plus, in either ME1 or ME3, put him and Liara in a party together to destroy everything in your path with biotics. Liara plus Kaidan plus Infiltrator Shep = Undead Saren dead again in less than 90 seconds. Anyway, Kaidan's romance actually shows a little more of his KISA side that I've noticed.
<hugs to her favorite DA thread> At this point, I'm waiting for patch 7 to come out and then I'll be picking up the DLC and get back into DA.
Not necessarily. I can easily see a KISA, whether it be knight or cleric, placing a higher value on their beliefs than you, even if in a romance. Clerics and KISA are not so different, at least in my mind. One places all their being into pursuit of a deity, the other places highest priority on their values and morals. Both are intangible things that each pursues.
Exactly. If you're love interest is a cleric and his God asks him to stop seeing you than either you're doing something 'evil' to irritate the god or the cleric is following a darker, more ambiguous (possibly 'evil') god and that kinda disqualifies him from being a KISA.
Edit: This is assuming of course that the god is annoyed by your actions. If it's sending the cleric to the other side of the world to save orphans or something than that's still equally applicable to a religiously unaffiliated KISA.
I must respectfully disagree. I cannot endorse a KISA who would value an abstract divine force over the one he loves. Of course, in a game setting where divinity is a tangible force (such as games which grant clerics spells in exchange for worship), the area is more grey, but a KISA who would abandon you to the wolves just because the dictates of his faith commanded it? Nope. Nope. Not a KISA for me. Why would we have all these Knight Errants and spontaneous cases of Courtly love and all the heartbreaking Shakespearian Sonnets if we cannot have a KISA that will for once choose the man he loves above all else?
And I dislike the idea of a KISA forswearing the PC because his god declares you are "evil." Ridiculous. By what moral compass? By what right does a being who has distanced themselves from the mud, grit and pain of a mortal life judge humanity? This is why I like Natashina's idea of a secretly malicious deity.
With that being said, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my viewpoint is only my viewpoint. My personal experiences have left me entirely unconvinced that the presence of a strong religious faith can produce anything pleasant in a potential boyfriend.
Maybe not the faith in a diety, but my man has a strong sense of purpose that one could argue is his faith. He grew up Catholic...ish, and that strong sense of a sorrowful, bittersweet, but dutybound life resonates with him and is how he views the world. On the other hand, I grew up in a more joyous church, so my viewpoint is colored in a more rosy tint. Lol. Needless to say, there have been a few clashes of "faith" but more in terms of "is the glass half full or half empty" kind of discussions.I must respectfully disagree. I cannot endorse a KISA who would value an abstract divine force over the one he loves. Of course, in a game setting where divinity is a tangible force (such as games which grant clerics spells in exchange for worship), the area is more grey, but a KISA who would abandon you to the wolves just because the dictates of his faith commanded it? Nope. Nope. Not a KISA for me. Why would we have all these Knight Errants and spontaneous cases of Courtly love and all the heartbreaking Shakespearian Sonnets if we cannot have a KISA that will for once choose the man he loves above all else?
And I dislike the idea of a KISA forswearing the PC because his god declares you are "evil." Ridiculous. By what moral compass? By what right does a being who has distanced themselves from the mud, grit and pain of a mortal life judge humanity? This is why I like Natashina's idea of a secretly malicious deity.
With that being said, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my viewpoint is only my viewpoint. My personal experiences have left me entirely unconvinced that the presence of a strong religious faith can produce anything pleasant in a potential boyfriend.
With that being said, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my viewpoint is only my viewpoint. My personal experiences have left me entirely unconvinced that the presence of a strong religious faith can produce anything pleasant in a potential boyfriend.
It's all good. This kind of discussion is important to have, even if we don't all agree with each other.
It's all good. This kind of discussion is important to have, even if we don't all agree with each other.
This is why I love you guys. Fun discussions while engaging in some civil debate warms my heart. 
Retour en haut