479 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiafay]

I think I could make a strong case for the claim a predisposition for judgmental attitudes towards others' sexual behavior is a part of our evolutionary legacy, which means that such attitudes develop unless they're prevented by culture, or unlearned later. That, in turn, means that there will always be people who've never learned, or cultures that don't care.

I would disagree. Certain animal species display homosexuality and they don't judge each other for it. Evolution isn't the cause of attitudes. Society is. Culture is. Religion is - especially religion. I'm a Christian, non traditional, and believe homosexuality isn't a choice. Bisexuality isn't a choice. You are attracted to whomever you're attracted to. Love knows no gender.

Perhaps Thedas has this mindset, and like Gaider says, the issue with same gendered relationships would only arise if it interferred with procreation and legacies. It isn't a stretch that if the Chantry's Maker didn't acknowledge homosexual relationships, there would be no fuel for that fire. No "abominations" if a man lay with another man.

This is why I have no problem with the sexuality issue in Thedas. At least in that regard, they are more enlightened than us.

[Dai Grepher]

I was displeased with the lines from The Iron Bull regarding Krem. If he wants to think of Krem as a male, that's fine, but he is in direct conflict with the Qun. In Origins, Sten confirms that children are assigned numbers and symbols at birth, raised by the Tamserans or whatever, and then assigned their roles based on their observed aptitudes and talents. Sten also states that no one can change who they are. A baker cannot be a warrior. A farmer cannot be an artisan. And so on. You can't tell me the Qunari would ever think a biological female could ever be a male, which is what The Iron Bull claims to be the case. He doesn't say females can become warriors under the Qun, he says they become males in order to be warriors. That would completely contradict what Sten said in Origins, which is why I hand-wave this as The Iron Bull making stuff up for Krem's sake. The Iron Bull strikes me as the type who doesn't truly believe in the Qun to begin with.

 

As for the issues brought up by the OP, I agree. Having the choice to be prejudice should be included. Even those who always choose the tolerant option have to agree with this, because without the option to be prejudice, the choice to be tolerant means nothing.

 

Example:

 

"My Inquisitor was tolerant of Krem's identity and supported him!"

 

"So what? Everyone's Inquisitor was tolerant. There was no other choice."

 

See what I mean?

 

And yes, Thedas has prejudice. It is seen everywhere. Against elves, against dwarves, against humans, against qunari. And then there is prejudice within those races, against mages, against templars, against Orlesians, against Fereldens, against Tevinters. The white and black chantries. Between dwarves with "stone sense" and surface dwarves, between caste dwarves and casteless dwarves, between Orzammar and Kal'Sharok. Between Dalish elves and city elves. And yes, against non-heterosexuals. In Origins, a male Warden had some colorful ways to turn down Zevran's advances, responses that prove some societies outright hate alternative sexualities.

 

So I agree that BioWare needs to remain consistent with Origins and let players choose how their character respond to such situations. Player choice.

 

I think the problem is that BioWare has marketed to certain populations that define themselves by their sexualities, and now those groups expect BioWare to promote those sexualities in their games. BioWare may have just painted itself into a corner. But David Gaider, to his credit, has said that no storyline should be off limits. So who knows where they will take this? I say side with player choice.

[David Gaider]

it seems like "choosing" to be a different gender is more extreme and would have been even less accepted, especially if the biological female was better at something else than she was at fighting (can she not become an aqun athlok in such a case? What if she wants to live as a man but doesn't want to be a soldier?). I definitely got the impression that personal desires didn't matter and "the will of the Qun" was everything. I mean Ketojan killed himself without question even though he didn't want to die because that's what the Qun required . Sten doesn't even seem to be able to comprehend that a biological female can fight. It would have been less confusing if he had assumed she was transgender. "oh you're an aqun athlok" rather than arguing in confused circles about how women can't fight. I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive or something weird, just trying to explain where my disconnect at least is coming from. (I don't know about others)

 

Be careful how you picture the process of becoming aqun-athlok. If you picture someone announcing it, and suddenly the Tamassrans fall all over themselves to abide by that person's wishes, that's not really in keeping with what we've established about Qunari society...and neither is it something Iron Bull implies when he explains the existence of the term. From what you've said, I think the hitch is probably your perception of it as a choice.

 

Insofar as the Grey Warden in DAO went, Sten wouldn't have made that assumption because the female Warden neither presented herself as male nor claimed to be one. Granted, he doesn't know everything about human society, but by the time he brings the subject up he's known the Warden long enough to realize she's female...which makes no sense to him.

 

Of course, it's also fair to say that aqun-athlok was not even a concept to us at that time, which is absolutely true. Even so, when the writers discussed the concept as a group, we realized it did not contradict anything we'd already established. It made sense to us, after all, that a society which established so much emphasis on gender might also have a more nuanced understanding of it, and that this didn't contradict all the other ways in which their society is extremely rigid.

[Kalshane]

I'm not sure where people are coming from saying that the Qun is somehow defanged or shown in a positive light in DA:I. Are there some complexities added? Sure. But they are still scary as hell. Read the Codex on Qunari Re-education, for example. And IB is pretty clear that would happen to most of your companions under the Qun wouldn't be very pretty.

 

Also, keep in mind, Sten and the Arishok are both warriors. Iron Bull is Ben-Haaserath. They're going to have different perspectives by virtue of their experiences. Iron Bull also mentions that the Qun is so complex that only the Tamassrans understand it fully.

[Dai Grepher]

^^What? Qunari hold a baker to his bread, but not a female to her physical biology? Not a contradiction? Again, what?

[David Gaider]

You can't tell me the Qunari would ever think a biological female could ever be a male, which is what The Iron Bull claims to be the case. He doesn't say females can become warriors under the Qun, he says they become males in order to be warriors. That would completely contradict what Sten said in Origins, which is why I hand-wave this as The Iron Bull making stuff up for Krem's sake.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the problem here is one of your own manufacturing.

[daveliam]

Also, keep in mind, Sten and the Arishok are both warriors. Iron Bull is Ben-Haaserath. They're going to have different perspectives by virtue of their experiences. Iron Bull also mentions that the Qun is so complex that only the Tamassrans understand it fully.

 

This is always how I've read it.

 

Think of it this way:  If you ask a conservative American from a small town in a red state what they think of transgender people in America, you'll get a very different answer than if you asked a liberal American from a large city in a blue state. 

 

Granted, the Qun is supposed to minimize these types of cultural differences, but it only make sense that people in different 'roles' of the Qun have different understanding and interpretations of the Qun based on their roles.  Particularly since Bull is a spy pretending to be a Tal-Vashoth and Sten is a soldier.  I wouldn't expect them to have the same understanding of the Qun.

[papercut_ninja]

I think the problem is that BioWare has marketed to certain populations that define themselves by their sexualities, and now those groups expect BioWare to promote those sexualities in their games. BioWare may have just painted itself into a corner. But David Gaider, to his credit, has said that no storyline should be off limits. So who knows where they will take this? I say side with player choice.

 

Somebody have certainly painted themself into a corner...it's just not Bioware...

[papercut_ninja]

^^What? Qunari hold a baker to his bread, but not a female to her physical biology? Not a contradiction? Again, what?

 

Just because someone is very rigid about how they categorize their fruit, doesn't mean they have to be rigid about what socks to wear...

[Ieldra]

I'm not sure where people are coming from saying that the Qun is somehow defanged or shown in a positive light in DA:I. Are there some complexities added? Sure. But they are still scary as hell. Read the Codex on Qunari Re-education, for example. And IB is pretty clear that would happen to most of your companions under the Qun wouldn't be very pretty.

If I consider how I've felt about this - which was only in part supported by lore as actually written - I think the impression may be carried by Iron Bull himself. He is, after all, a person we can understand to some degree, even like to some degree, and he's in support of the Qun, at least for a large part of the story, and he even makes some of it look reasonable. So how can such a reasonable person, someone we can actually like, be in support of such a detestable philosophy? Bull's presence alone makes for some successful propaganda. 

[tmp7704]

Sten is the Arishok

He should watch out, though. Because in the shadows... the Arishok.

[Dai Grepher]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the problem here is one of your own manufacturing.

 

If by "your own manufacturing" you mean that I paid attention to what Sten said in Origins, paid attention to what The Iron Bull said in Inquisition, and then observed that the two testimonies contradict each other, then yes, you'd be right in that case.

[tmp7704]

Of course, it's also fair to say that aqun-athlok was not even a concept to us at that time, which is absolutely true. Even so, when the writers discussed the concept as a group, we realized it did not contradict anything we'd already established. It made sense to us, after all, that a society which established so much emphasis on gender might also have a more nuanced understanding of it, and that this didn't contradict all the other ways in which their society is extremely rigid.

I was meaning to ask about this, so this thread is a godsend. Given that Sten uses this term towards female Warden and keeping in mind what you say here about the concept not being solid back then, would it be reasonable to presume that this term is used by the qunari in the broader sense than strictly as "a transgender man/woman"? As in, it's (also) used to refer in general to people who act in a manner the qunari see as 'belonging' to the opposite gender, but without necessarily identifying as being one of that gender?

[Dai Grepher]

Just to clear this up, I'm not displeased that the Qun can make an exception for a female becoming a warrior, the problem is that they redefine her as male in order to consider her to be a warrior. That's like saying the Qun does not allow people to carry cargo because that is a mule's job. Oh but the Qun can make an exception for those who want to be delivery people by redefining them as mules.

 

And remember, this isn't a transgender issue. The female qunari who wants to be a warrior does not consider herself to be male. This is the Qun redefining her in complete disregard for physical reality. That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the Qun's pursuit of truth.

[tmp7704]

^^What? Qunari hold a baker to his bread, but not a female to her physical biology? Not a contradiction? Again, what?

"Physical" is the keyword here. The qunari have no obligation to limit their interpretation of gender to physical aspect only, do they?

[papercut_ninja]

 

And remember, this isn't a transgender issue. The female qunari who wants to be a warrior does not consider herself to be male. This is the Qun redefining her in complete disregard for physical reality. That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the Qun's pursuit of truth.

 

Physical reality being exactly what? Organic tissue between your legs? Or signal substances and synapses in your brain? Which of them is, and which of them isn't physical reality?

[Dai Grepher]

Both are. The qunari female is physically female and mentally female. Yet according to The Iron Bull, the Qun will consider that female to be male for the sake of her being a warrior. That's a complete contradiction of what Sten said in Origins.

[Twilight_Princess]

I think the question is what is "male/female" to the qun? A baby can't present as anything or talk so it's safe to assume the qun (at least at the start) divides the kids based only on biological sex because that's the ONLY big difference between them at that point. I always thought the process was like the start of the movie Antz.

[DomeWing333]

Both are. The qunari female is physically female and mentally female. Yet according to The Iron Bull, the Qun will consider that female to be male for the sake of her being a warrior. That's a complete contradiction of what Sten said in Origins.

 

If she were physically a female and mentally a female then she wouldn't have been able to become a warrior, because only males are warriors. The fact that she can fight as well as a man means that she's a man, because the alternative is that the Qun is wrong about the differences between males and females and that's unacceptable. That's the logic that the Qun is operating by. It might contradict what you see to be the truth but that doesn't mean that it contradicts what the Qun sees to be the truth. 

[katokires]

I wonder why Gaider answer since he doesn't accept any criticism and all he does is marvelous and right. Yeah we know you have your take on these questions. You do as you please, you explain as you will. Hope you enjoy the applause of the fans.

[papercut_ninja]

I wonder why Gaider answer since he doesn't accept any criticism and all he does is marvelous and right. Yeah we know you have your take on these questions. You do as you please, you explain as you will. Hope you enjoy the applause of the fans.

 

You seem to have a very strange expectation of what accepting criticism is...

[Qunquistador]

I agree with David Gaider here. It is indeed so that one does not necessarily imply the other. For most of human history, family and marriage has been something else than an extension of romance, more ruled by economic concerns. It's perfectly understandable for me if a culture says it doesn't care who has sex with whom, but doesn't even consider a family without one parent of either sex as a possibility because it can't produce children. You can see a similar distinction if you look for the function of marriage in modern society. The sentimental/symbolic aspect of marriage is pretty much a private affair, and were it only about that, we wouldn't need laws regulating it, it wouldn't even need to be public knowledge. Public recognition is only needed inasfar we want it to be regulated by the community, in matters of legal and economic benefit and obligation, or for the protection of children, for instance, and the former might as well be regulated by contract law.

 

As I see it, same-sex "marriage" only becomes a serious consideration if (1) the technology exists to create children independently from the parents' sex, or if (2) a prevailing cultural attitude exists that the biological sex of a parent is largely irrelevant for their role as a parent.

Thedas is not the human world we live in. Name the closest thing we have to the Qunari society, where it's clear to everyone that creating children need not have anything to do with marriage or even relationships whatsoever. You can't really compare our worlds. It doesn't stand up when you get right down to it.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, we know very little about the way marriage functions from region to region in general. What impression I got is that marriage is chiefly significant to nobility for the purposes of brokering alliances, grasping power and, in many instances, maintaining names/bloodlines.

 

In the absence of any economic/political significance, social or religious stigmas (that we've seen) surrounding reproduction outside of wedlock (among the lower classes), marriage serves no purpose among commoners in much of Thedas. And yet we have clear indication that even the poor marry.

 

So you have to ask, to what purpose? Why would a miner with no home or property to speak of wish to marry someone who has nothing, when there's nothing to gain and no stigma that might spur them to do so?

 

You may still argue that it's for the purpose of producing children, but we're not talking about a monolithic society, wholly influenced by a sexually restrictive faith (like oh, say...Catholicism) that looks down on those who would have sex and children outside of marriage. Do you think anyone cared that Adaar's Tal-Vashoth parents weren't married when their kid was born? Doubtful.

 

I'm left to believe that the poor couples of Thedas who do bother to have their relationships recognized, most likely informally in the eyes of whatever or whomever they worship, do so only out of love. And if that's the case, it's ridiculous to suggest that it would not occur to same-sex couples to seek the same recognition...even if it is informal. Especially when same-sex marriage, or at least the possibility of it, is mentioned several times throughout the game.

[Kantr]

Just to clear this up, I'm not displeased that the Qun can make an exception for a female becoming a warrior, the problem is that they redefine her as male in order to consider her to be a warrior. That's like saying the Qun does not allow people to carry cargo because that is a mule's job. Oh but the Qun can make an exception for those who want to be delivery people by redefining them as mules.

 

And remember, this isn't a transgender issue. The female qunari who wants to be a warrior does not consider herself to be male. This is the Qun redefining her in complete disregard for physical reality. That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the Qun's pursuit of truth.

He's just saying thats the logic the Qun goes by. It doesnt have to be right

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

The Qunari are very fond of categorization, and look upon those categories as absolute and defining -- but they are not without their own degree of fluidity by Qunari standards, which are very different from our own.

 

You say you're female? Then you do not fight -- "fighting" being when someone serves as a warrior. Some folks looked on Tallis as a contradiction to this as well, rather than accepting that someone like Sten would not look upon what she does as fighting. Being able to pick up a weapon and use it, even to use it well, does not make one a warrior if that is not their purpose (which it would not be, for a Ben-Hassrath, but certainly would be for a Grey Warden whose stated purpose is to combat the darkspawn).

 

You say you're male? Then fighting is acceptable. Even if your biology might say otherwise, the Qunari have a term for what this means and clearly the Tamassrans take it into account -- though you might note Iron Bull did not indicate how easily that might occur. We have a term for "transgender" in our real-world society as well -- that does not automatically translate into it being looked upon exactly the same by every person.

 

You can take what Sten said in DAO as the last and final word on every aspect of Qunari society, and thus everything following it as contradictory, or you can take into account these different viewpoints as new information and consider how they fit into the whole. It's really up to you, though that's hardly going to stop us from further developing the Qunari culture...regardless of the reasons one might ascribe to us for doing so.

Well, I guess I have no real choice but to accept what you say. Since you are here, can you explain the other contradictions betwenn the Qun as presented in DAI and the Qun as presented in previous accounts? I'm really curious how it went from "sex for procreation purposes only" to "sex whenever you have the urge" for example. 

 

 

I will also point out, since Dorian was mentioned, that Dorian's father did not have a problem with his homosexuality in and of itself.

 

His problem was that Dorian refused to do his duty as the heir of a proud Tevinter family. If Dorian had agreed to marry as intended, and kept his homosexuality as a private conceit, there would have been no conflict. The issue insofar as Tevinter society goes is not with homosexuality in and of itself, but with their insistence on a public standard for any and all members of the upper class -- no one does blood magic, no one is anything other than their perfect ideal, and the polite fiction must always be maintained. Appearances are everything, even if every single person understands that the truth behind closed doors is completely different.

 

tl;dr: It's not about Tevinter "suddenly being homophobic when the rest of Thedas isn't", it's about Tevinter society's preoccupation with appearances.

 

Take that as you will.

So the villain theme in Dorian's story is not homophobia, but marriage? 

 

 

Iirc the answer Gaider gave before was that same-sex marriage would seem "anachronistic"/wouldn't occur to most Theodosians, which honestly makes very little sense to me and seems incongruous to what we hear in the game.  So much so that I pretty much made a thread about it here: 

 

http://forum.bioware...-with-marriage/

And because of this they made marriage not an option for any player. 

[(Disgusted noise.)]

 

So the villain theme in Dorian's story is not homophobia, but marriage Tevinter's cultural idea of marriage? 

FTFY