Right? I just wish Scout Harding would find my character hideous and not be afraid to tell me that. I wish they'd all find me hideous. Then I'd have a good reason to sit down with a gallon of ice cream and watch Galaxy Quest. Because that is never, ever, a bad idea.
<sob><sniff>
Seriously, Bioware needs to make this an option for their next protagonist.
It would certainly be a change of pace.
This topic makes me question people's priorities.
She never seem to show that she felt uncomfortable since it always ends with a smile on her face with no sense of rejecting the flirting.
That would be decided on a case-by-case basis. It shouldn't be hard though. An employer should be focused on his/her employee's work output and overall effectiveness... not how nice that red dress looks on them today.
Bear in mind I haven't heard all of the responses from Harding, but there's always that one, and I'm paraphrasing:
"The desert is far more precious with you in it, Harding!"
"(awkward laughter) (takes a breath) ..when did you come up with that one?"
I'm in no way offended by the responses in this thread, but I do disagree and raise my eyebrows at some of them. "It's not sexual harassment unless she says no!" and "She's not uncomfortable if she smiles!" Being a slim and well-dressed girl, I get Harding approaches here and there. Once a month wouldn't be so bad, but when it becomes frequent it's very annoying. And when you feel you're not in a position to say no? That's when you give Harding responses, with an awkward laughter and a "what a thing to say!" line. And then you ignore it. The Inquisitor is throwing advances at her way pretty much every time they meet despite her being awkward about it.
In the end she does turn you down and calls it "playful banter", so she's probably not written as an example of sexual harassment, even though it does come off as it sometimes. But then again, maybe she got used to it.
I'm not much of a feminist, and I very rarely speak from this standpoint, but I felt like sharing my view on it. Is it okay if Harding is treated like this? I don't really care, it's just a video game character, and I guess it's interesting to add variation to the interaction. I just don't flirt with her, it adds nothing to my experience.
I hate to be that guy but I have no barometer for this sort of thing myself so . . .
Is it really ok to be hitting on Scout Harding? She's your subordinate, you're a religious icon to her. Kind of has shades of Commander Shepard. On the one hand, so far at least she hasn't told me to stop. On the other hand, I know she's not a romance option for my character so she's not reciprocating. Honestly I'm just doing it at this point to see if the game will ever call me on it.
But maybe I'm off base here. I want to stress I'm really not normally the hypersensitive politically correct guy (look through my posts if you need the proof). But I was curious what you all thought about this.
If you want an American military answer, AR 600-20 7-4 has the US Army's definition of sexual harasssment (which for some reason isn't copying and pasting). I haven't done the Harding flirts, but unless Harding indicates that she doesn't want them (or if the Inquisitor is making implicit threats or offers for reciprocation), it wouldn't be considered sexual harassment. The military's key caveat for that is 'unwanted.'
It would still be forbidden on other grounds that you note, mainly along chain of command concerns, command discipline, reasonable presumption of bias, and other factors. But that's just a modern professional military. The closest Thedas has to one of those are the Qunari and Templars. Take that for what it's worth.
I doubt the game will call you out on any of the Harding flirts. The Inquisition isn't a modern military, Thedas isn't a Western culture that cares about such things as we do, and the Inquisitor is hardly a professional, let alone a military professional.
Why does this thread even exist?
You are missing the point. You can't tell if it is unwelcome because your subordinate may be so intimidated by your position that she goes along with it as if she is willing.
I'm going to make the assumption that Bioware isn't going to write a character to do that, and that if they are, they're going to give me the chance to clarify that point with a "I'm not making you uncomfortable, am I?" option.
Metagaming, maybe, but it is what it is.
...if someone is frightened enough to go along out of fear of what you might do if they say 'no' even without an explicit threat, do you really think they'll believe and be honest with you if you ask if they're uncomfortable?
I realize some people may be less clever than Sansa Stark in King's Landing, but she knew the potential consequences for such an entrapment.
Right? I just wish Scout Harding would find my character hideous and not be afraid to tell me that. I wish they'd all find me hideous. Then I'd have a good reason to sit down with a gallon of ice cream and watch Galaxy Quest. Because that is never, ever, a bad idea.
<sob><sniff>
Seriously, Bioware needs to make this an option for their next protagonist.
So instead of Bastilla getting kidnapped away for plot reasons, if Bastilla dumped you and left for plot reasons?
I could dig an icecream scene.
Harding is a volunteer that explicitly states she is in the Inquisition for fun. As I understand it the Inquisitor has no power over her. If being part of the Inquisition was (expected to be) profitable or mandatory then the Inquisitor would need to tread more carefully.
Harding is a volunteer that explicitly states she is in the Inquisition for fun. When the head of a charity organization hits on a volunteer it's quite different from an Officer hitting on a concript. If being part of the Inquisition was (expected to be) profitable or mandatory the Inquisitors behaviour would be more lamentable.
Calling the Inquisition a charity organization is more than a slight stretch, and being a volunteer for the mission of the Inquisition is irrelevant to volunteering to romantic advances from superiors.
Unless the mission of the Inquisition is to provide the Inquisitor people to flirt with. But I don't recall hearing that anywhere.
Calling the Inquisition a charity organization is more than a slight stretch, and being a volunteer for the mission of the Inquisition is irrelevant to volunteering to romantic advances from superiors.
Unless the mission of the Inquisition is to provide the Inquisitor people to flirt with. But I don't recall hearing that anywhere.
It's arguably a bigger stretch than comparing it to the military which is part of why I edited my post. Hopefully making my point more clear.
It's arguably a bigger stretch than comparing it to the military which is part of why I edited my post. Hopefully making my point more clear.
The Inquisition is a military, however. From start to finish, the core component and crux of its influence and power is its military that can take, hold, and maintain a presence on terrain in the face of demons and renegade military forces and bandits and so on. It conducts offensive, defensive, security, and stability operations along military lines of organization and direction.
The Inquisition can claim to be peacekeepers doing aid work at times, but the only reason they aren't as military as any other army is because the Inquisition is functionally a state in and of itself, a small nation with a sphere of influence rivaling or exceeding the Free Marches city-states.
...if someone is frightened enough to go along out of fear of what you might do if they say 'no' even without an explicit threat, do you really think they'll believe and be honest with you if you ask if they're uncomfortable?
I realize some people may be less clever than Sansa Stark in King's Landing, but she knew the potential consequences for such an entrapment.
Are you honestly suggesting Bioware is going to write their protagonist into being a rapist-by-intimidation?
And I'm still not hearing an alternative. As the Inquisitor, you control a vast army to rival nations, a network of spies and assassins, and command considerably influence among nobles and merchants. It doesn't matter if they work for the Inquisition directly or not, by the end game there potentially quite literally no one in Thedas that you don't hold some sort of influence over or who wouldn't be somewhat intimidated by the power you could bring to bear. Maybe the Archon of Tevinter and the Black Divine or the Triumvirate of the Qun. That's about it. And even with them it's largely a matter of them being far away from you.
So with that in mind, must the Inquisitor assume that literally no one in the world could possibly want to become romantically involved with them? They *must* take the blanket stance that anyone who apparently reciprocates their feelings is acting out of abject horror at the thought of what the Inquisitor could do to them if they refuse? That because of this position that quite probably was thrust upon the Inquisitor against their will, they must swear off all thoughts of love and romance?
The Inquisition is a military, however. From start to finish, the core component and crux of its influence and power is its military that can take, hold, and maintain a presence on terrain in the face of demons and renegade military forces and bandits and so on. It conducts offensive, defensive, security, and stability operations along military lines of organization and direction.
The Inquisition can claim to be peacekeepers doing aid work at times, but the only reason they aren't as military as any other army is because the Inquisition is functionally a state in and of itself, a small nation with a sphere of influence rivaling or exceeding the Free Marches city-states.
Well I can't dispute any of that but I would still argue that it's a military that for the purpose of this thread is better compared to a charity organization than the militaries that excist in the real world. As I understand it Harding draws no paycheck worth mentioning and is free to leave at any time. For obvious reasons those two things are never both true in real militaries of note.
Harding is more than okay with the flirting, as she eventually brings it up herself if you choose the option often enough.
I was just about tos ay that she flirts back as well about asking you to sit down at the bar some time
Are you honestly suggesting Bioware is going to write their protagonist into being a rapist-by-intimidation?
Deliberate intimidation? No. Unintended? Sure- it would hardly break precedent for unhealthy relationships. Bioware already gives you the opportunities to be a sexual predator (Vega), borderline sexual deviant ('almost a child'/lookalike taboo Liara), a victim of sexual coercion and exploitation (Morrigan), abusive (or exploitative) relationships (multiple), and a few other types of relationships that would be found upon if they weren't supposed to be portrayed as 'romantic,' like how the only therapy Jack needs or can get in ME2 was the magic **** of M!Shep.
Having a player cad enough to try to sleep with anyone when a 'flirt' option shows up find out that some people will agree out of fear of the massive engines of death, devastation, and potential petty vendettas that are the aggregate PC? Sure, why not? No one is making you act that way, any more than you had to kiss the tavern wench in DAO.
And I'm still not hearing an alternative. As the Inquisitor, you control a vast army to rival nations, a network of spies and assassins, and command considerably influence among nobles and merchants. It doesn't matter if they work for the Inquisition directly or not, by the end game there potentially quite literally no one in Thedas that you don't hold some sort of influence over or who wouldn't be somewhat intimidated by the power you could bring to bear. Maybe the Archon of Tevinter and the Black Divine or the Triumvirate of the Qun. That's about it. And even with them it's largely a matter of them being far away from you.
There are four alternatives I can come up with off the top of my hat.
One is to not have a romance at all. That's simple, and arguably the most professional for an always-on-duty but temporary role of the Inquisitor and Inquisition. Keep it in (or out of) your pants for the year or three the game covers.
Another is, as you reference, have a relationship with a relatively similar power base and position of power. The key word in this is 'relative,' not 'absolute.' A person of the nobility may be weaker than the Inquisitor, but not the same as a rank-and-file soldier of no station. A leader of a separate organization that may be weaker but is none the less autonomous of the Inquisition. Were the Templars or Mages allies instead of conscripted, that could be an example of a possible option.
The third, and this is specific to the 'don't screw around the chain of command' objection, is to have someone who isn't a part of the chain of command (or Inquisition). This is the more professional line of thought that doesn't care about power imbalance as much as inter-organizational foolery. A tavern maid, a bookish librarian, or what have you.
The fourth is to have some sort of pre-existing relationship that predates the ascent to power or was independent of the person's influence. In a Bioware game this would be controversial, but would be certainly possible as a role playing device. In an amnesia-trope game, it could be a pre-existing relationship that the PC (and player) has forgotten and must choose how to respond to. Or an arranged marriage that the PC was forced into, and chooses to make sincere or not.
So with that in mind, must the Inquisitor assume that literally no one in the world could possibly want to become romantically involved with them? They *must* take the blanket stance that anyone who apparently reciprocates their feelings is acting out of abject horror at the thought of what the Inquisitor could do to them if they refuse? That because of this position that quite probably was thrust upon the Inquisitor against their will, they must swear off all thoughts of love and romance?
Must? Of course not. There is no requirement that the Inquisitor be a moral person of sound sexual ethics and or professionalism.
Well I can't dispute any of that but I would still argue that it's a military that for the purpose of this thread is better compared to a charity organization than the militaries that excist in the real world. As I understand it Harding draws no paycheck worth mentioning and is free to leave at any time. For obvious reasons those two things are never both true in real militaries of note.
Hm? The pay issue is almost universal (relative wealthiness is typically reserved for senior officers/generals), while plenty of military organizations have had such policies. Militias in particular have weak retention ability, which is what the Inquisition really functions as.
The Inquisition relies on voluntary militia and borrowed armies for its manpower needs. The later don't have a choice of leaving because other people hold them accountable, while former can't be held to task or else no one would want to volunteer.
Another is, as you reference, have a relationship with a relatively similar power base and position of power. The key word in this is 'relative,' not 'absolute.' A person of the nobility may be weaker than the Inquisitor, but not the same as a rank-and-file soldier of no station. A leader of a separate organization that may be weaker but is none the less autonomous of the Inquisition. Were the Templars or Mages allies instead of conscripted, that could be an example of a possible option.
How would you propose to keep them around long enough to develop relationships with them in a satisfying manner?
Actually, that applies to the third question too.
How would you propose to keep them around long enough to develop relationships with them in a satisfying manner?
Actually, that applies to the third question too.
The same as the Inquisitor's advisor romances work: having them live at the Keep, but not be dependent on the Inquisitor or Inquisition for survival. The tavern master, for example, is someone who lives in a place the Inquisitor has reason to be without being subordinate to the Inquisitor through any chain of command. Mother... Gisselle(?) is also an example of someone not of the Inquisition who lives with the Inquisition. Even were the Inquisitor to say 'out' to them by pulling rank and influence, both have obvious fallback positions that make them more independent of the Inquisitor than, say, a refugee who has nowhere else safe to go.
So for a 'near peer,' a hypothetical person could be an ally of the Inquisition. Imagine if Mother Gisselle was a total MILF- she would be a good candidate. As a member of an external organization, she neither answers to the Inquisitor nor does she depend on the Inquisition for relevance. If the Inquisition were to say 'go', she would have a place to go and be safe: this helps maker her independent of the Inquisitor, which removes much of the coercive angle. Another hypothetical 'near peer' would be an ambassador. Not one that works for the Inquisition, but a foreign ambassador or an outside power. Think Morrigan, who is nominally with the Inquisition at the behest of Celene (if you go that route).
A 'commoner but not Inquisition' LI would admittedly be much harder to rationalize or justify in DAI, because of the power the Inquisitor has over the home area. The best I could propose off the top of my head is someone working in the tavern. However, such a person would be far, far easier to justify in other Bioware contexts. In Mass Effect, Shepard could have had a shore leave relationship- say someone who works on the Citadel, which is a convenient place to meet Shepard regularly. Such a person could be a store clerk, but Shepard's awesome reputation wouldn't necessarily mean much influence over, say, a secretary in the Asari embassy. Or consider DA2, where Hawke's progress through the social classes could justify interaction and relationship with anyone from a noble in hightown to a fellow Ferelden refugee in low town... and well before Hawke has any greater rank than either of them.
Look, personally I simply consider the implication that a person of lower rank or status is by default, incapable of giving consent to a person of higher status or rank, to be demeaning and more than a little insulting. It's imposing victimization on people who don't necessarily feel victimized and painting people acting on normal, healthy human emotions as predators for doing so. It deprives both parties of agency if we assume from the start that the Inquisitor cannot express interest in someone without abusing power and that the person they're expressing interest in cannot reciprocate those feelings without being coerced.
I believe - firmly and absolutely - that a relationship between the Inquisitor and a member of the Inquisition can take place in a healthy, moral manner. Perhaps not an ethical, professional one, but the Inquisitor didn't get their position based on professionalism. They got their position based on their decisiveness and inspirational nature.
Punishing them for that by holding them up on this pedestal of impossibly high standards dehumanizes them - turns them into one of those statues of Andraste holding bowls of fire. A very large portion of this game goes towards taking a person who's being lifted up as a religious icon and showing that they're still a person, with wants, needs, flaws, quirks. I feel that the expectation that they should be celibate because you can't accept that a relationship with a power imbalance can happen and still be healthy diminishes the character.
I also agree with Xil - and that doesn't happen very often - that incorporating a character completely outside the Inquisitor's direct influence to serve as a romance is impractical from a design and story telling standpoint. I feel that such a character would be obstructive to the plot and would largely exist for no other reason than to have someone for the Inquisitor to stick it in. The existing romances a strong because all of the LI's serve a purpose beyond being a love interest; they all contribute to the cause and to the plot.
Look, personally I simply consider the implication that a person of lower rank or status is by default, incapable of giving consent to a person of higher status or rank, to be demeaning and more than a little insulting. It's imposing victimization on people who don't necessarily feel victimized and painting people acting on normal, healthy human emotions as predators for doing so. It deprives both parties of agency if we assume from the start that the Inquisitor cannot express interest in someone without abusing power and that the person they're expressing interest in cannot reciprocate those feelings without being coerced.
I believe - firmly and absolutely - that a relationship between the Inquisitor and a member of the Inquisition can take place in a healthy, moral manner. Perhaps not an ethical, professional one, but the Inquisitor didn't get their position based on professionalism. They got their position based on their decisiveness and inspirational nature.
Punishing them for that by holding them up on this pedestal of impossibly high standards dehumanizes them - turns them into one of those statues of Andraste holding bowls of fire. A very large portion of this game goes towards taking a person who's being lifted up as a religious icon and showing that they're still a person, with wants, needs, flaws, quirks. I feel that the expectation that they should be celibate because you can't accept that a relationship with a power imbalance can happen and still be healthy diminishes the character.
Your opinion on the matter is noted and understood.
Disagreed with, on professional grounds, but noted and understood.
I also agree with Xil - and that doesn't happen very often - that incorporating a character completely outside the Inquisitor's direct influence to serve as a romance is impractical from a design and story telling standpoint. I feel that such a character would be obstructive to the plot and would largely exist for no other reason than to have someone for the Inquisitor to stick it in. The existing romances a strong because all of the LI's serve a purpose beyond being a love interest; they all contribute to the cause and to the plot.
You realize they said the same of the prospect of non-companion romances, right? That they'd take away from the story? And then Bioware wrote them and wrote the story to incorporate them, rather than tack them on to the side.
Personally, I'd say that non-companion romances like Cullen had far more involvement with the story than the entirety of all the ME2 companion romances combined. Not because of being under direct influence, but because a plot can be written around the characters offered rather than offering characters around the plot.
What, pray tell, requires all plot-moving and supporting characters to be subordinate to the PC?
Your opinion on the matter is noted and understood.
Disagreed with, on professional grounds, but noted and understood.
You realize they said the same of the prospect of non-companion romances, right? That they'd take away from the story? And then Bioware wrote them and wrote the story to incorporate them, rather than tack them on to the side.
Personally, I'd say that non-companion romances like Cullen had far more involvement with the story than the entirety of all the ME2 companion romances combined. Not because of being under direct influence, but because a plot can be written around the characters offered rather than offering characters around the plot.
What, pray tell, requires all plot-moving and supporting characters to be subordinate to the PC?
In general or in Inquisition, specifically?
I'd also argue that this isn't a matter of opinion; either someone can consent in a given circumstance or they cannot. Consent isn't something with much wiggle room for opinions.
Retour en haut