It's because insults are just an attempt to derail the conversation by baiting whoever you are talking with into angry, defensive incoherence.
They are best ignored as irrelevant dross to the actual meat of the conversation. (And here I am breaking my own advice).
Guest_Raga_*
Programming something into the game is condoning the option. There is no difference.
They are in control, and you merely have the option to pick it.
This is I don't agree with. Putting in multiple choices, some of which are unethical, is not condoning any particular choice as "correct" either morally or narratively. The only action it's condoning is allowing the player to chose. The reason the player isn't allowed to chose anything they want is simply a constraint of game mechanics.
To be clear I do agree with you that allowing a player to make an unethical choice has certain RL political and social implications, which is precisely why Bioware doesn't allow you to take some of them in game.
Giving the option without much context can be considered condoning.This is I don't agree with. Putting in multiple choices, some of which are unethical, is not condoning any particular choice as "correct" either morally or narratively. The only action it's condoning is allowing the player to chose. The reason the player isn't allowed to chose anything they want is simply a constraint of game mechanics.
To be clear I do agree with you that allowing a player to make an unethical choice has certain RL political and social implications, which is precisely why Bioware doesn't allow you to take some of them in game.
Guest_Raga_*
I think it's more the negative press part than the ethical part that causes companies to shy away from it. I mean, most games also don't show full frontal nudity, but that has a lot more to do with "we don't want that media crapstorm" than it has to do with actual developer ethical hiccups over nudity.
The negative press shitstorms result from the ethical issues though.I think it's more the negative press part than the ethical part that causes companies to shy away from it. I mean, most games also don't show full frontal nudity, but that has a lot more to do with "we don't want that media crapstorm" than it has to do with actual developer ethical hiccups over nudity.
If you just want to say bioware is afraid of risks and won't allow you to step out of politically correct positions, for the sake of their income, I won't disagree, though.
Not including an option that a portion of their fanbase, not to mention the writers themself, may well find deeply offensive is not 'political correctness'. It is simply sensitivity.
As well as limitations of mechanics (infinite choices are obviously impossible) there are also self imposed limits of taste. The game does not allow the player the choice to make their character a hateful misogynist either, nor to do a whole host of other things the devs and writers probably don't want to touch. Is that a limitation of player choice? Absolutely, but that's not always a bad thing.
I think it's more the negative press part than the ethical part that causes companies to shy away from it. I mean, most games also don't show full frontal nudity, but that has a lot more to do with "we don't want that media crapstorm" than it has to do with actual developer ethical hiccups over nudity.
The third reason for limiting some options definitely censorship/potential for huge crapstorm 
*Bangs head against wall*
It isn't completely focused on him being gay, didn't you pay attention?
It's about breeding, eugenics and Tevinter nobility supremacy. Yes, being gay ties in with it but it's only more or less a stepping stone to what the actual issue his personal quest was about.
Please, at the end the point was that his father "tried to change him". It all came down to that
Why did his father want to change him?Please, at the end the point was that his father "tried to change him". It all came down to that
Why did his father want to change him?
It's because Dorian is gay and refused to play along. This interfered with his fathers perfect plan. His legacy.
This is remarkably similar to the Miranda arc in Mass Effect. One wonders why it wasn't an issue then but is an issue now. Is it because he is gay?
It came out that way. The problem with his family was because his father didn't accept him because he was gay. That's the message given. You ended the quest and the conclusion was "oh Dorian is gay and his father didn't accept him" NOT "oh he didn't want to carry on his family legacy".
Those crazy to scream "HOMOPHOBE!" seem to be missing the point.
What I gather from the OP was that Dorian's problem ended up being too simplistic (in his opinion) and somehow cliche, given that he was very interesting character, gay and his problems could have been beyond the fact that he was gay.
It came out that way. The problem with his family was because his father didn't accept him because he was gay. That's the message given. You ended the quest and the conclusion was "oh Dorian is gay and his father didn't accept him" NOT "oh he didn't want to carry on his family legacy".
The question remains: Why should it not be?Those crazy to scream "HOMOPHOBE!" seem to be missing the point.
What I gather from the OP was that Dorian's problem ended up being too simplistic (in his opinion) and somehow cliche, given that he was very interesting character, gay and his problems could have been beyond the fact that he was gay.
Guest_Raga_*
I think the underlying idea here is that it seems Dorian was placed in this situation specifically because Tevinter is the only place in Thedas that actually cares if you are gay or not. If the devs just wanted to create some conflict with his father over legacy, there 50 other ways they could do that without his orientation even coming into it.
Dorian's orientation is more than just frosting on that scene. It's an underlying foundational part of it.
Also did Miranda's plotline have anything to do with "breeding?" It just seems like she wouldn't become her father's "heir" or submit to his control. Her sexuality seems irrelevant when she could just do what he did and grow a replacement heir in a vat. Dorian meanwhile I think is completely willing to accept being his father's heir, but his father is not alright with Dorian failing to produce another heir - this is directly tied to his orientation.
Why not both?
Tevinter culture finds homosexuality to be a quirk as long as it doesn't interfere with continuing and refining the family legacy.
Dorian refused to play along. The reason is that he's gay, but the ultimate driving force of the conflict is the legacy.
Absolutely. This is completely true.
I can't believe how many people are either refusing to acknowledge or just failed to understand the rest of the story. No one is denying that his sexuality plays a role in the story. It's the driving force. But to make a statement that it's all about his sexuality or that he's defined by his sexuality is silly. It's missing the larger context.
Dorian is a rebel. He's rebelling against Tevinter because he views the Tevinter ideals (specifically this notion of superior mage bloodlines and the weight that they are given in society) to be the reason why his father betrayed both his own ideals as well as Dorian's trust. His father was so determined to maintain the facade of a perfect mage bloodline that he was willing to resort to blood magic to change Dorian's sexuality. It's this betrayal that pushed Dorian over the edge and into full-blown rebellion against Tevinter ideals. That's why Dorian hates Tevinter the way that he does; because it forced his father to betray him. And it's also why he is torn on the issue. He still loves his father. That's clear. And he still harbors some love for his homeland. But not enough to play along with the charade and pretend to be someone he isn't. The reason why he wasn't willing to play along with the charade was because of his sexuality, so it's central to the story. But this is far beyond the classic "My father doesn't accept my sexuality" story.
I'm genuinely not sure why people can't see this. Especially because I know that some of the people who are arguing that it's "all about his sexuality" have demonstrated deeper understanding of other plotlines in the past. A gay person's sexuality is important to their story, the same way that it is for everyone else. But it doesn't mean that it defines them. For example, Alistair's story is directly influenced by his heterosexuality: he needs to create an heir. He can be married to Anora or the Warden; he can keep the Warden as a mistress; it plays out differently because of context. It's important to his story, but it certainly doesn't define him.
I think the underlying idea here is that it seems Dorian was placed in this situation specifically because Tevinter is the only place in Thedas that actually cares if you are gay or not. If the devs just wanted to create some conflict with his father over legacy, there 50 other ways they could do that without his orientation even coming into it.
Dorian's orientation is more than just frosting on that scene. It's an underlying foundational part of it.
Also did Miranda's plotline have anything to do with "breeding?" It just seems like she wouldn't become her father's "heir" or submit to his control. Her sexuality seems irrelevant when she could just do what he did and grow a replacement heir in a vat. Dorian meanwhile I think is completely willing to accept being his father's heir, but his father is not alright with Dorian failing to produce another heir - this is directly tied to his orientation.
The reason why he wasn't willing to play along with the charade was because of his sexuality, so it's central to the story. But this is far beyond the class "My father doesn't accept my sexuality" story.
Completely agree here. Dorian's story actually reminded me very much of the experience of a close friend and his family - they didn't so much care that he was gay, they cared that he was wouldn't pretend to be straight publicly.
Guest_Raga_*
Absolutely. This is completely true.
I can't believe how many people are either refusing to acknowledge or just failed to understand the rest of the story. No one is denying that his sexuality plays a role in the story. It's the driving force. But to make a statement that it's all about his sexuality or that he's defined by his sexuality is silly. It's missing the larger context.
Dorian is a rebel. He's rebelling against Tevinter because he views the Tevinter ideals (specifically this notion of superior mage bloodlines and the weight that they are given in society) to be the reason why his father betrayed both his own ideals as well as Dorian's trust. His father was so determined to maintain the facade of a perfect mage bloodline that he was willing to resort to blood magic to change Dorian's sexuality. It's this betrayal that pushed Dorian over the edge and into full-blown rebellion against Tevinter ideals. That's why Dorian hates Tevinter the way that he does; because it forced his father to betray him. And it's also why he is torn on the issue. He still loves his father. That's clear. And he still harbors some love for his homeland. But not enough to play along with the charade and pretend to be someone he isn't. The reason why he wasn't willing to play along with the charade was because of his sexuality, so it's central to the story. But this is far beyond the class "My father doesn't accept my sexuality" story.
I'm genuinely not sure why people can't see this. Especially because I know that some of the people who are arguing that it's "all about his sexuality" have demonstrated deeper understanding of other plotlines in the past. A gay person's sexuality is important to their story, the same way that it is for everyone else. But it doesn't mean that it defines them. For example, Alistair's story is directly influenced by his heterosexuality: he needs to create an heir. He can be married to Anora or the Warden; he can keep the Warden as a mistress; it plays out differently because of context. It's important to his story, but it certainly doesn't define him.
Right. I get that this is key. My point is that there are innumerable ways to set up that scenario that don't have anything to do with orientation. That orientation was the mechanism chosen to set off this more complex chain of events was deliberate. This has always been my underlying point. It's not that the scene is completely devoid of any other theme or that Dorian is 100% defined by being a gay guy. Obviously neither of those are true. But it's also not true that "this scene isn't about him being gay" which is a statement I've read here various times, because his orientation was the explicit catalyst that set all this in motion. If Dorian *wasn't* gay, it seems unlikely that any of this would have happened.
At the heart of this debate is whether you do or don't think Bioware's choice to use Dorian's orientation as a catalyst to set up a more complex plotline is a statement on their part or not. I also genuinely don't understand how people can't see that this *is* a statement on their part, especially considering the larger themes set up by it are acceptance, trust, the parent/child relationship, shame, and unyielding tradition. These are *precisely* the major issues faced by many gay people because of their orientation. I'm not talking about some wide-sweeping "gay agenda" conspiracy peppered throughout the entire game. I'm talking specifically about the narrative choice in *this* particular scene.
Whether people like the statement being made is a whole other debate. It's specifically the "this isn't a statement" argument that I've been contending with.
Has Bioware made other statements that passed me by due to my own oblivious privilege or just because I also happened to like that narrative portion of that statement? It's entirely possible. For me, this doesn't change the underlying fact that Dorian's scene is a statement and that on principal I don't really want intentional statements like this in DA (even the ones I may have missed).
Guest_Raga_*
Miranda's plotline was entirely about eugenics and protecting her sister from her fathers wishes in continuing his legacy.
But yes, I agree that the homosexuality is not a trivial part of Dorian's arc. He is from Tevinter. He is gay. He refuses to play along.
Naturally there will be conflict, and Gaider chose to elaborate on it. They could have avoided the question entirely, but.... why?
It's just not a plotline I'm interested in in DA because I feel positively inundated with this debate on a daily basis. There are other debates that I feel inundated by just as much. I get it's important. I get it resonates with some people. But it's also extremely mentally and emotionally draining and I like having some spaces where gay people aren't just hidden under a rug and not talked about, but the gay rights debate also *doesn't* come up.
I don't want to just associate gay people with "that gay rights debate." For me at least, just having a gay character who is non politicized human being who I can be friends with or have a relationship with in the game does infinitely more to convince me to treat gay people fairly than yet another lecture/examination/debate/whatever you want to call it about gay rights. This is why I can legitimately feel sorry for Dorian as a person in this situation and still be irritated the devs decided to put the situation in the game.
If this content was purely meant for gay customers to identify with than I acknowledge the legitimacy of them enjoying it and am glad that they can. The thing is, I don't think that's the only reason it's in the game.
Right. I get that this is key. My point is that there are innumerable ways to set up that scenario that don't have anything to do with orientation. That orientation was the mechanism chosen to set off this more complex chain of events was deliberate. This has always been my underlying point. It's not that the scene is completely devoid of any other theme or that Dorian is 100% defined by being a gay guy. Obviously neither of those are true. But it's also not true that "this scene isn't about him being gay" which is a statement I've read here various times, because his orientation was the explicit catalyst that set all this in motion. If Dorian *wasn't* gay, it seems unlikely that any of this would have happened.
At the heart of this debate is whether you do or don't think Bioware's choice to use Dorian's orientation as a catalyst to set up a more complex plotline is a statement on their part or not. I also genuinely don't understand how people can't see that this *is* a statement on their part, especially considering the larger themes set up by it are acceptance, trust, the parent/child relationship, shame, and unyielding tradition. These are *precisely* the major issues faced by many gay people because of their orientation. I'm not talking about some wide-sweeping "gay agenda" conspiracy peppered throughout the entire game. I'm talking specifically about the narrative choice in *this* particular scene.
Whether people like the statement being made is a whole other debate. It's specifically the "this isn't a statement" argument that I've been contending with.
Has Bioware made other statements that passed me by due to my own oblivious privilege or just because I also happened to like that narrative portion of that statement? It's entirely possible. For me, this doesn't change the underlying fact that Dorian's scene is a statement and that on principal I don't really want intentional statements like this in DA (even the ones I may have missed).
Well of course it was a statement. Just like Cullen's story arc is a statement on drug abuse. And Cassandra's story arc is a statement on faith. And Krem's dialogue was a statement on gender identity. And the city elves are a statement on socio-economic/political class issues. And the Dalish stories touch on racism and xenophobia. They are all statements. Bioware writers, like any other good artists, have a point of view. Those views influence their art. I would never want to play a game that is completely devoid of 'statements' or a point of view. What would that even look like? I can't even wrap my brain around it because it sounds so incredibly dull and uninteresting. Movies, books, television shows, video games; they all make statements and the ones that do that in ways that connect to their audience are the ones that do it best. Perhaps you aren't the intended audience for that scene; just like I'm not the intended audience for the scenes where struggles with faith are central. I can understand those scenes; I can appreciate that others take meaning from those scenes that I don't; but I don't think that the game would be better off without them. They can't create a game by committee. There's no way for them to create a game that everyone enjoys and that holds no content that some people don't connect to and that doesn't contain any content that people might find distasteful. Instead, they need to use their point of view to guide their vision and, just like every other game developer, they've done that.
Uh... just to clarify, Dorian doesn't hate Tevinter, he's ashamed of its past actions and wants it to prosper and change to become more like the ideals of Cassandra or Leliana Not Hardened. Basically, a Tevinter people wouldn't be afraid of visiting. The Venatori and other types of people living there are ruining the reputation of his lands for him. Then, there's his conflict with his family, which doesn't help.
Right. I get that this is key. My point is that there are innumerable ways to set up that scenario that don't have anything to do with orientation. That orientation was the mechanism chosen to set off this more complex chain of events was deliberate. This has always been my underlying point. It's not that the scene is completely devoid of any other theme or that Dorian is 100% defined by being a gay guy. Obviously neither of those are true. But it's also not true that "this scene isn't about him being gay" which is a statement I've read here various times, because his orientation was the explicit catalyst that set all this in motion. If Dorian *wasn't* gay, it seems unlikely that any of this would have happened.
At the heart of this debate is whether you do or don't think Bioware's choice to use Dorian's orientation as a catalyst to set up a more complex plotline is a statement on their part or not. I also genuinely don't understand how people can't see that this *is* a statement on their part, especially considering the larger themes set up by it are acceptance, trust, the parent/child relationship, shame, and unyielding tradition. These are *precisely* the major issues faced by many gay people because of their orientation. I'm not talking about some wide-sweeping "gay agenda" conspiracy peppered throughout the entire game. I'm talking specifically about the narrative choice in *this* particular scene.
Whether people like the statement being made is a whole other debate. It's specifically the "this isn't a statement" argument that I've been contending with.
Has Bioware made other statements that passed me by due to my own oblivious privilege or just because I also happened to like that narrative portion of that statement? It's entirely possible. For me, this doesn't change the underlying fact that Dorian's scene is a statement and that on principal I don't really want intentional statements like this in DA (even the ones I may have missed).
As others have said very well the scene isn't solely about him being gay, but you are right in that him being gay is the thing that creates the other issues and is at the heart of the whole thing. Whether its a statement or not is a little more complex.
Overall I agree with you - it is a statement. My only hesitation is that, as you say, these are real issues many people face - so you could make an argument that its inclusion is more to do with realism than making a statement. Personally i think it was deliberate choice to make a statement, but that isn't a problem - without making that statement you could not have Dorian as a character. Just as you could not have Cass without looking at issues of faith.
With Dorian, the history with his father is pretty central to his character. Could they have made the issues be due to something other than his sexuality? Sure, but it would have made him a different character.
p.s. I come down on the other side of the issue than you but always nice to have a polite, reasonable and well reasoned argument put forward on here
It's just not a plotline I'm interested in in DA because I feel positively inundated with this debate on a daily basis. There are other debates that I feel inundated by just as much. I get it's important. I get it resonates with some people. But it's also extremely mentally and emotionally draining and I like having some spaces where gay people aren't just hidden under a rug and not talked about, but the gay rights debate also *doesn't* come up.
I don't want to just associate gay people with "that gay rights debate." For me at least, just having a gay character who is non politicized human being who I can be friends with or have a relationship with in the game does infinitely more to convince me to treat gay people fairly than yet another lecture/examination/debate/whatever you want to call it about gay rights. This is why I can legitimately feel sorry for Dorian as a person in this situation and still be irritated the devs decided to put the situation in the game.
If this content was purely meant for gay customers to identify with than I acknowledge the legitimacy of them enjoying it and am glad that they can. The thing is, I don't think that's the only reason it's in the game.
There was a solid twenty years when gay characters were present in popular media, but, outside of gay-oriented projects, issues around being gay were completely ignored. Gay characters were relegated to sassy, asexual best friends or cliche gag jokes. I never want to go back to that. I grew up and formed my identity during that time period and it had direct impact on why I still, to this day as a happily married successful man, have issues with masculinity and how I'm viewed by strangers. Had there been honest discussions about gay life, culture, identity, sexuality, etc. in mainstream media during my youth, I would have been much happier. I never want to go back to a time where these issues are viewed as too controversial, too political, too anything to be included in the media. The world is a better place for hundreds of thousands of youth today because of it.
Not everything has to be a 'gay rights' issue. And, in fact, none of Bioware's other gay/lesbian characters have issues that relate to it. Juhani? Steve? Samantha? Sera? None of their stories delve into these kind of topics. You've gotten what you want in 80% of the representation. Let the rest of us have this 20% please. Hell, if we can't have gay content that speaks to us, why even include it at all? I'm getting fatigued by having to justify stories that speak to me to strangers. I don't go into threads about things that I'm not personally invested in (representation of women; themes of faith; etc.) and ask for that content to be removed.
Guest_Raga_*
Okay, this is the point in the debate that really threatens to start getting circular so we may just have to pull out the "agree to disagree" card and move on, but I will repost something I said earlier. Namely:
"The difference is that mostly these events [RL themes] are watered down into extremely general themes that have broad RL application but not specific RL application. Take elves and humans in DA. Can anybody seriously suggest that this *isn't* an examination of racism? Obviously it is. But "elves" are a made-up race so we are dealing with racism as an abstraction. The game would have a very different feel if all the elves had brown skin, and even more so if they were just actual brown/black people. Because "elves" are a made-up race, you can play with the concept of racism in a way that simply isn't ethically feasible otherwise. Can you seriously see a plot line where you could, say, hand Fenris over to slavers working *at all* if Fenris was a black human male? Since homosexual people *are* real in both DA and RL, you run into this same problem when depicting how they are treated.
Some stories have overt, specific RL tie-ins. The Crucible is the first thing that comes to mind. It's about McCarthyism. It's an excellent play. Until DAI, I don't think any particular themes in DA where meant to be specific, RL tie-ins. They were broad examinations of moral abstractions for us to play with like a kid with an ant farm.
Also, perhaps a better way to say this is that I don't want DA to be allegorical."
I don't think Krem or Dorian's quest are broad examinations of moral abstractions. They are specific examinations of specific modern ethical/political legal debates that are still highly contentious in which Bioware is taking a firm stand.
To use another example I used earlier. It would be as if Vivienne wasn't just talking bout general security/freedom stuff between fictitious groups of people: mages and templars, but instead started talking about how white guards always unfairly beat up and target people who have her skin color.
Or to use your Chantry argument. That faith crisis discussion would take on a lot more baggage and weight if *actual* Christianity was being discussed.
It's a difference of degree and not of species.
I don't think Krem or Dorian's quest are broad examinations of moral abstractions. They are specific examinations of specific modern ethical/political legal debates that are still highly contentious in which Bioware is taking a firm stand.
There are broader moral issues of tolerance and acceptance, but largely I agree with you - they are specific issues directly relating to RL. Difference in our positions is that I'm very glad that they are there and think their inclusion is great.
So like you said, this is an 'agree to disagree' thing
Guest_Raga_*
There was a solid twenty years when gay characters were present in popular media, but, outside of gay-oriented projects, issues around being gay were completely ignored. Gay characters were relegated to sassy, asexual best friends or cliche gag jokes. I never want to go back to that. I grew up and formed my identity during that time period and it had direct impact on why I still, to this day as a happily married success man, have issues with masculinity and how I'm viewed by strangers. Had there been honest discussions about gay life, culture, identity, sexuality, etc. in mainstream media during my youth, I would have been much happier. I never want to go back to a time where these issues are viewed as too controversial, too political, too anything to be included in the media. The world is a better place for hundreds of thousands of youth today because of it.
Not everything has to be a 'gay rights' issue. And, in fact, none of Bioware's other gay/lesbian characters have issues that relate to it. Juhani? Steve? Samantha? Sera? None of their stories delve into these kind of topics. You've gotten what you want in 80% of the representation. Let the rest of us have this 20% please. Hell, if we can't have gay content that speaks to us, why even include it at all? I'm getting fatigued by having to justify stories that speak to me to strangers. I don't go into threads about things that I'm not personally invested in (representation of women; themes of faith; etc.) and ask for that content to be removed.
Well, I am invested in it at least to the point that it emotionally effects me. Whether it should or not, or whether I have any right to an opinion about it is a whole other debate. I discuss it because I *do* care about it. I just as handily ignore threads about topics that don't interest me.
I also don't think it's true that people in general don't ask for changes in content they don't like in the game even though other people like it. This is just standard forum fair. The difference here is that this debate is especially sensitive because it's bound up in people's identity and personal experience and not just personal taste.
You don't have to justify stories you like to me or anybody. If you like them, fair enough. I was never questioning other people's enjoyment of the scene. I was explaining my own dislike for it.
Retour en haut