665 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

 Well either way I'd feel a bit creepy trying to start a relationship with him =/

 

He is supposed to be creepy, after all.

 

 

 

 

Now, personally, if I were trying to make you (the PC) feel creepy... I'd play it off the question of how consensual any non-badass/companion-tier NPC can be when compared to the legion-slaughtering monster that is the standard PC character.

 

If you flirt with a NPC you just rescued, and they accept your advances to the point of intercourse, even if the PC told them that they were free to refuse...

 

How would you feel if you later learned that they consented to your advances because they were desperate and terrified you would kill them/abandon them to a fate worse than death if they appeared anything less than willing, and that they were afraid that your offer of refusal was a trap?

 

 

I would so torment you (and you, and you over there, and anyone who played the game) with the quandry of when consent and perceived coercion can coexist.

 

[I'd give you a happy ending afterwards, in which the NPC realizes that they were never explicitly or implicitly threatened by the PC and apologies for the insult, but only after making you wonder if you were scum.]

[KainD]

Sociopathy is focused more on inter-personal connections, such as empathy. Since empathy is one of the largest factors for moral convictions and behaviors, people who lack it tend to lack concern for harm to other people.

 

Can a person willingly shutdown empathy in themselves without dehumanizing other people for personal gain? 

[Ryzaki]

He is supposed to be creepy, after all.

 

Now, personally, if I were trying to make you (the PC) feel creepy... I'd play it off the question of how consensual any non-badass/companion-tier NPC can be when compared to the legion-slaughtering monster that is the standard PC character.

 

If you flirt with a NPC you just rescued, and they accept your advances to the point of intercourse, even if the PC told them that they were free to refuse...

 

How would you feel if you later learned that they consented to your advances because they were desperate and terrified you would kill them/abandon them to a fate worse than death if they appeared anything less than willing, and that they were afraid that your offer of refusal was a trap?

 

I would so torment you (and you, and you over there, and anyone who played the game) with the quandry of when consent and perceived coercion can coexist.

 

[I'd give you a happy ending afterwards, in which the NPC realizes that they were never explicitly or implicitly threatened by the PC and apologies for the insult, but only after making you wonder if you were scum.]

 

Because of the corpse thing!

 

Why would you do this.

 

But no I'd feel like a terrible human being and I'd probably view all flirts after saving someone with utmost suspicion after that The happy ending would be meaningless because I'd always be double guessing myself after that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Can a person willingly shutdown empathy in themselves without dehumanizing other people for personal gain? 

 

Yes. It's quite common, actually, and arguably the entire point of indoctrination regimes like basic training. Boot camp is, in a sense, about training people to shut down empathy and to dehumanize other people for collective gain. Namely- don't feel bad for killing the enemy, they aren't real people like you and me, and it's for the greater good of cause and country.

 

Now, the important thing there is to realize that most deliberate empathy limiters are neither total or eternal in scale or scope. They aren't intended to be used by everyone, against everyone, and for all things. Soldiers are still encouraged (and expected) to have empathy for eachother. Dehumanization of the enemy isn't carte blanche to do anything and everything to them. When the war ends or a soldier is released, they are expected to re-adjust to civilian life.

 

This isn't even touching on some things like deliberate medication programs for people who have trouble managing their emotions. Some people are overly sensitive, and overly empathetic to an extreme where they become fixated and obsessed over even the prospect of hurting/offending others, and so receive counseling and/or medication to help limit those fixations. Counseling is intended to help focus the mind in more healthy directions, but medications can be used to dampen just how much you care about something/anything. On its own, niether of these requires subsequent selfishness.

 

Put this all goes further in depth on some things I'm not qualified to speak with on specifics with any authority, and diverges from this discussion.

[heretica]

[...]

 

How would you feel if you later learned that they consented to your advances because they were desperate and terrified you would kill them/abandon them to a fate worse than death if they appeared anything less than willing, and that they were afraid that your offer of refusal was a trap?

 

 

I would so torment you (and you, and you over there, and anyone who played the game) with the quandry of when consent and perceived coercion can coexist.

 

[I'd give you a happy ending afterwards, in which the NPC realizes that they were never explicitly or implicitly threatened by the PC and apologies for the insult, but only after making you wonder if you were scum.]

 

Hence why Gaider said Cole wouldn't be romanceable. He's so socially/emotionall awkward and undevelopped in that sense that anything romantic with him would feel so very wrong and totally forced and out of character. It would be like romancing Sandal.

Modifié par Catt128, 10 novembre 2014 - 12:53 .

[KainD]

Dean, what if a person does NOT dehumanize other people and understands that they are people just like them, and understands their feelings and actions, but still doesn't have any problems with inflicting harm on said people, even in severe form such as say torture? 

What if said person is also capable of forming bonds with people, and is capable of empathy, and would not hurt close ones the same way? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Why would you do this.

Because people don't consider how their actions might be perceived by others, especially not people who are weak and dependent. People should be made aware of such things, and the best way to make the lesson stick is to make them uncomfortable.

 

Given the fact that flirting to the point of sex would be optional (whereas you could simply flirt without sex, or never flirt at all), it's something of a self-inflicted faux pas. Think of it as the RPG equivalent to the question 'can an intern ever have consensual sex with the President?' Only instead of being an Arkansasian with control of the most powerful institutions on the planet, you have a death-dealing god of war who massacres entire military formations and who can conduct murder for the flimsiest of reasons making advances on a desperate war refugee.

 

 

But no I'd feel like a terrible human being and I'd probably view all flirts after saving someone with utmost suspicion after that The happy ending would be meaningless because I'd always be double guessing myself after that.

 

 

Then start double-guessing yourself now, Ryzaki, because if you don't start considering the potential implications of power imbalances now you might do worse than just an honest mistake. Did you ever consider, for example, how the Jack romance of ME2 resembles a sexual predator's cultivation? A military commander who holds safety and resources over an impoverished new recruit, allowing them to be isolated from others and presenting themselves as the trustworthy confidant to be relied upon and open towards? Or how Tali's romance is rescue-hero worship that leads to a captain encouraging the potential fatal endangerment of a young woman grieving for recently lost family and who recently suffered significantly strained ties to any other place of work and living?

 

 

Implicit power imbalances like this are one of the reasons why the chain-of-command issue in ME was always something of an iceberg for me. Some people saw it and were thinking 'romantic.' I saw it, and did not. I have similar views of secure people who bang war refugees.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean, what if a person does NOT dehumanize other people and understands that they are people just like them, and understands their feelings and actions, but still doesn't have any problems with inflicting harm on said people, even in severe form such as say torture?

 

Without context or reason, this would indicate significant dysfunction. With context and reason, this could be a normal if unpleasant aspect of human nature.

 

 

What if said person is also capable of forming bonds with people, and is capable of empathy, and would not hurt close ones the same way?

 

 

Being capable of and actual forming emotional bonds with people, and treating them better than one would treat strangers or enemies, is normal.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hence why Gaider said Cole wouldn't be romanceable. He's so socially/emotionall awkward and undevelopped in that sense that anything romantic with him would feel so very wrong and totally forced and out of character. It would be like romancing Sandal.

 

Huh? I think you quoted the wrong thing.

 

Gaider's comments on Cole were about a literal ability and understanding of what is involved that prohibit consent. In what you quoted, explicit consent can be given, but under a (one-sided, unjustified, unfounded) perception of coercion that derives from the character involved.

 

In the first, consent is impossible. In the second, consent is explicit. The creep factor comes from two different elements of the dynamics in play- namely that a person's willingness to consent to sex is not the same as their desire or interest in sex, especially if they perceive a cost in not engaging in a relationship. Nor would what is OOC for Cole (a being who does not understand) be OOC for the refugee (a person who does understand, and chooses to go along with it).

[KainD]

Without context or reason, this would indicate significant dysfunction. With context and reason, this could be a normal if unpleasant aspect of human nature.

 

Reason can be anything tbh. Let's say you meet a complete stranger and you are a very powerful enough individual to get away with hurting the stranger without consequances and you decide to hurt them because:

 

Offense: They said something you don't like or did something you don't like.

Entertainment: You think it would be funny to see how they move around without legs, or how they will talk without teeth.

Power: You make them do something for you against their will because you are too lazy to do it yourself or want some other benefit. 

 

All completely valid reasons. 

 

Now I basically want a LI like that. 

 

But then:

 

Being capable of and actual forming emotional bonds with people, and treating them better than one would treat strangers or enemies, is normal.

 

I also want my LI to treat ME nicely, as I will treat them, with love and care. 

 

Most people here say that these 2 behaviors are mutually exclusive. 

[Xilizhra]

But Anders is really abusive in a relationship with Hawke. Putting aside how he completely violates your trust and uses you as a dupe to commit mass murder, he essentially blows up at you every few seconds, and you've seen him lose it enough to try and kill someone he knows is innocent. Anders is exactly my point in terms of an evil LI - someone who is emotionally abusive and manipulating, who it's one-half of a case-study on battered spouse syndrome. 

 

If you want someone worse than Anders, who isn't even keeping up the facade of being an OK person and doesn't start off with voices in his head driving him to the brink, then you're really asking for even more abusive relationship dynamics. Which, again, is my point. 

Er... what? Anders never blew up at me once, albeit not in a romance; he never even raises his voice except in combat or when Justice takes over.

[Dean_the_Young]

Reason can be anything tbh. Let's say you meet a complete stranger and you are a very powerful enough individual to get away with hurting the stranger without consequances and you decide to hurt them because:

 

Offense: They said something you don't like or did something you don't like.

Entertainment: You think it would be funny to see how they move around without legs, or how they will talk without teeth.

Power: You make them do something for you against their will because you are too lazy to do it yourself or want some other benefit. 

 

All completely valid reasons. 

 

Those are all completely invalid reasons, unless we stretch the first and third categories to extremes that far exceed the implication of your argument.

 

Moral sanity revolves around scaling an appriopriate response to a cause: torture because of verbal offense, laziness, or entertainment is unjustified. An individual who suppresses empathy to engage in such actions would be considered a sociopath.
 

 

I also want my LI to treat ME nicely, as I will treat them, with love and care. 

 

Most people here say that these 2 behaviors are mutually exclusive. 

 

 

 

Can be. Usually is.

 

In this context, such a person who would willingly suppress empathy to such a degree that they would engage in torture for such trivial reasons is generally emotionally disturbed, and is probably incapable of genuine love and care. Or at least incapable of the sort of love and care that would naturally prohibit them from casually torturing you for an offense, entertainment, or power.

[heretica]

Huh? I think you quoted the wrong thing.

 

Gaider's comments on Cole were about a literal ability and understanding of what is involved that prohibit consent. In what you quoted, explicit consent can be given, but under a (one-sided, unjustified, unfounded) perception of coercion that derives from the character involved.

 

In the first, consent is impossible. In the second, consent is explicit. The creep factor comes from two different elements of the dynamics in play- namely that a person's willingness to consent to sex is not the same as their desire or interest in sex, especially if they perceive a cost in not engaging in a relationship. Nor would what is OOC for Cole (a being who does not understand) be OOC for the refugee (a person who does understand, and chooses to go along with it).

 

I stand corrected

[KainD]

In this context, such a person who would willingly suppress empathy to such a degree that they would engage in torture for such trivial reasons is generally emotionally disturbed, and is probably incapable of genuine love and care. Or at least incapable of the sort of love and care that would naturally prohibit them from casually torturing you for an offense, entertainment, or power.

 

But is it possible? 

[Muspade]

This Is officially the most disturbing thread I've ever seen.

Goodnight.

[Ryzaki]

Because people don't consider how their actions might be perceived by others, especially not people who are weak and dependent. People should be made aware of such things, and the best way to make the lesson stick is to make them uncomfortable.

 

Given the fact that flirting to the point of sex would be optional (whereas you could simply flirt without sex, or never flirt at all), it's something of a self-inflicted faux pas. Think of it as the RPG equivalent to the question 'can an intern ever have consensual sex with the President?' Only instead of being an Arkansasian with control of the most powerful institutions on the planet, you have a death-dealing god of war who massacres entire military formations and who can conduct murder for the flimsiest of reasons making advances on a desperate war refugee.

 

I guess that's fair enough =/

 

Okay when you put it like that I see the creepiness of it. I guess I'd ultimately knock off doing it on my noble good characters and keep that sort of behavior for my chaotic neutral or darker characters.

 

Then start double-guessing yourself now, Ryzaki, because if you don't start considering the potential implications of power imbalances now you might do worse than just an honest mistake. Did you ever consider, for example, how the Jack romance of ME2 resembles a sexual predator's cultivation? A military commander who holds safety and resources over an impoverished new recruit, allowing them to be isolated from others and presenting themselves as the trustworthy confidant to be relied upon and open towards? Or how Tali's romance is rescue-hero worship that leads to a captain encouraging the potential fatal endangerment of a young woman grieving for recently lost family and who recently suffered significantly strained ties to any other place of work and living?

 

Implicit power imbalances like this are one of the reasons why the chain-of-command issue in ME was always something of an iceberg for me. Some people saw it and were thinking 'romantic.' I saw it, and did not. I have similar views of secure people who bang war refugees.

 

Ah but that's assuming I'd do those things in real life no? For that to occur I'd have to have power over someone. I don't. And I like it that way.

 

But no while those romances did hit my "ugh..." note it wasn't for those reasons. (That said in fiction I don't mind skeezey romances (my favorite romance in Hakuoki is Kazama) I just don't want to be blindsided into doing one).

[Dean_the_Young]

But is it possible? 

 

Depends on a number of things- how you define love, care, or how you define sincere and successful relationships.

 

If you skew your definitions and scenario accordingly, sure. It's possible- but then, so is almost everything else in the hypothetical space of 'possible.' If you use other understandings, it won't be.

 

In general, let's just say that it's an unhealthy relationship with an unhealthy person regardless.

[Ryzaki]

This Is officially the most disturbing thread I've ever seen.

Goodnight.

 

This is?

 

You haven't been here very long have you.

[KainD]

Depends on a number of things- how you define love, care, or how you define sincere and successful relationships.

 

Let's say that ''love'' is a mutually beneficial union for the sake of a better life. And let's say ''care'' is actions that one takes to make another person feel better in every way possible that is not detrimental to the person that is caring. And let's say a successful relationship is one in which the most important things and goals in life are in unison between people that are in love.

[Hazegurl]

You clearly don't want Aizen. Because Aizen as an LI is an abusive monster - look at what he does to Hinamori. He builds up her entire life to idolise him and throws her away like yesterday's garbage once she outlives her usefulness. He doesn't care about his minions, which he experiments on for the purpose of advancing his agenda. And he doesn't have anything even approaching a companion he cares about in any way.

What you want is some idolised villain who's terrible with everyone *but* you because you're such a special snowflake, and I'm telling you this is pure character breaking fantasy. The kind of people you're describing as desirable LIs are exactly the characters that would lack all of the possibilities of being good to the people around them.

The only IRL examples you've fallen back on are either greed or not giving a crap about the poor, which is nothing like what Aizen Sousuke is like in bleach.

Yes, you have saved me from wanting Aizen by pointing out that moron Hinamori who annoyed me so much I clapped when Aizen ran her thru. How he managed to put up with her for so long is testament to his patience and commitment to seeing a plan to its completion. My hats off to him. Although he started to get stupid later on, had a almost plastic surgery looking face when we see him again, and then did that whole butterfly thing...That was just awful and I couldn't even get through it. But early Aizen when he first reveals his big betrayal was awesome, sadly it was downhill from there.

 

 I think what is happening is that you are imagining how your PC would work with a dark LI and not the possible choices others would make if written in. My PCs never care about half their companions and have killed them when they've gotten in his way, allowed Golem research along with Avernus research, heck if I could have made Alistair a Golem I would have taken it, why just let him get beheaded when he's more useful fighting darkspawn still? I'm surprised my companions didn't pack up camp and sneak off while I was asleep.

 

And I'm hardly opposed to a big earth shattering betrayal where I discover my LI is the big bad evil that needs to be destroyed.  He leaves and we get moments scattered throughout the game where we have encounters with him. If the PC chooses to keep the flame burning they can if not, romance someone else. Like I said, I do like a good question mark romance where you don't really have a clear cut answer if the love was genuine or not.

 

btw, I simply used IRL examples for bad behavior in general because those I replied to kept using IRL examples, I'm NOT describing what I'm looking for. That's the last time I'll repeat that. Besides We are talking about a game anyway. If you can walk around as the most powerful being in an entire country and decide the life or death of everyone around you including my own companions when I see fit to do so, I don't see how it is suddenly fantasy breaking to romance a dubious character.

[Dean_the_Young]

I guess that's fair enough =/

 

Okay when you put it like that I see the creepiness of it. I guess I'd ultimately knock off doing it on my noble good characters and keep that sort of behavior for my chaotic neutral or darker characters.

Oh, I'm under no delusion that people wouldn't metagame around it their second or third time- it's the people who get caught on the first time that are the ones I really hope to make think.

 

For the record, I don't consider the scenario particularly fit for one or the other. It would be deliberately cast so that while flirting to sex might be caddish, there would never be any implicit or explicit threat or intimidation on the PC's part. In fact, the revelation that the refugee did have those fears would be the major plot twist of the arc, and intended to take the player by surprise. The moral of the story is 'be careful about how the weak perceive the strong'- not 'role play a jerk, rape a refugee.' The only people who get that ding are those who simply click every flirt button they see.

 

Which, if we want to be straight, is a terribly pavlovian response.

 

 

Ah but that's assuming I'd do those things in real life no? For that to occur I'd have to have power over someone. I don't. And I like it that way.

 

 

Nope. No assumptions needed- just a desire to make you think. Anita Sarkeesian may think that video games need to make better people by removing even the possibility to be wrong, but I think making people think about situations they will probably never find themselves in is the advantage RPGs have to helping people develop emotionally and mature.

 

 

 

 

But no while those romances did hit my "ugh..." note it wasn't for those reasons. (That said in fiction I don't mind skeezey romances (my favorite romance in Hakuoki is Kazama) I just don't want to be blindsided into doing one).

 

I think blindsiding players with the consequences of typical actions and established patterns is the only way to confront tropes so established that they aren't controversial.

 

I mean, you kind of said it yourself- that you would never be able to think about flirting with someone desperate who you just rescued from peril ever again. Well, why did you ever think it was a decent thing to do in the first place? Do peasants and NPCs exist to be properly grateful and whatever you want after you save that day, to the point of whatever the [Flirt] line offers when it shows up?

 

Blindsiding a player with the flaws of the typical NPC flirt option would be the Bioware romance equivalent to what Spec Ops: The Line was for the FPS genre.

 

This Is officially the most disturbing thread I've ever seen.

Goodnight.

 

Success!

 

I proposed a scenario to creep people out, and it made it! Officially! Dayum, I am good!

[Muspade]

This is?

You haven't been here very long have you.

People say that like I've never been to other forums before.

O'well.

[Hazegurl]

Ok, thought this was going to be about racially diverse LIs and found talks about how attractive Aizen is. Not what I expected.

Good manga, pity the author gave up on writing after the Soul Society arc and just gave the rights to some hobo he found on the street. Coincidentally, the same man who just wrote Naruto's ending. 

LOL!! I'm with Dean in that the Soul Society arc is how the story ended. They saved Rukia, got betrayed by Aizen, it was awesome. Just how a great story should end.  Naruto ended after Sauske left the leaf village. Great shows.

[Ryzaki]

People say that like I've never been to other forums before.

O'well.

 

I'm just saying because this isn't the most questionable topic I've seen on this board not by a long shot.

[Dean_the_Young]

Let's say that ''love'' is a mutually beneficial union for the sake of a better life. And let's say ''care'' is actions that one takes to make another person feel better in every way possible that is not detrimental to the person that is caring. And let's say a successful relationship is one in which the most important things and goals in life are in unison between people that are in love.

 

Why would I care at this point?

 

Are we just going to say I do, so that I agree with your attempts to define it into sounding more acceptable when using the same words that generally have less favorable definitions that wouldn't support your intended conclusion?

 

I mean, there's leading questions, and then there's this. If you're just going to keep trying to selectively redefine things to fit your desired endstate so that you can argue by exception, you can look to someone else to validate your preferences. This is just getting sad.