269 réponses à ce sujet

[BabyPuncher]

Those are the exact words? That sounds pretty condemning.

[Grieving Natashina]

Those are the exact words? That sounds pretty condemning.

Um, I think that Kaiser was making that up....

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

It's exactly the same thing. The whole point of a story spending time on a topic is to have the audience consider it.

 

That isn't the whole point of a story. Sometimes, the point of a story is to be funny. Sometimes it is to be scary. Sometimes it is to be mindlessly entertaining. It can be a great many things. You do not solely determine the point of the story as a member of the audience.

 

Do you somehow imagine that if I write a book about bananas, the reader would never think about or consider bananas while reading it? If 'bananas' never once enters their head while reading my book, why are they even reading a book about bananas in the first place?

 

This is a completely tangential point that has nothing to do with the subject. If I write a story about bananas, I'm not required to write a specific moment in the story allowing each member of the audience to express every potential viewpoint about bananas that they might have.

 

In fact, in the strictest sense, if I'm writing a story about bananas, it's presumably to share my own view of bananas.

 

What do you think the whole point of communication is? When I start a conversation about apples, I do so because I want the other person to think about apples.

 

You understand that DA:I is not a conversation, do you not? The conversation part happens here, in the forums.

 

A laughable strawman.

 

So that we understand what we are talking about. I did not declare myself the victor of anything. In the quote you chose to refer to as a "straw man" I actually used the phrase, "If your implication is..." I was offering my interpretation of what you said. That is not, by definition, a straw man.

 

When a story prompts the protagonist to answer whether homosexuality is okay or not, the protagonist being given the option to say some variation of 'it's not okay' is hardly some far-fetched, esoteric response. It's a incredibly basic and expected possible response.

 

The story did not prompt the protagonist to answer whether homosexuality is okay or not. You can say it did as much as you like, but the fact of the matter is that it did not.

 

Expressing a view disdaining homosexuality in a world where it is not considered unacceptable is not something that is a basic or expected response. You did not create Thedas. In Thedas, homosexuality is not considered unacceptable. The fact that you want the ability to express that it is unacceptable is your own personal desire - it is not the responsibility of game makers to provide you with the opportunity to express your opinion on homosexuality in a game they make. If you dislike it so much for that reason, you have the option of not playing or buying it. That is the extent of your entitlement on the issue.

[KaiserShep]

Don't listen to them. It's totally true.

[Grieving Natashina]

Don't listen to them. It's totally true.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

 

Reading some of these responses, people are acting like the OP wants to be able to walk up to any gay character and be given a dialogue option to shout slurs in their face and kick them off the team or immediately execute them.

 

That's just ridiculous, and a serious failing to understand cause and effect.

 

The relevant point here is that the players did not bring this issue up. BioWare did. By writing a story arc specifically about this issue, BioWare is effectively asking the player "How does your character feel about this?"

 

They could have avoided this issue. Nobody asked them or forced them to talk about it. They decided to talk about it. They decided to write a story about it.

 

A story not giving you the option to dislike something and a story asking you your opinion on something and then preventing you from saying you dislike it are two completely different things.

 

There is this.

 

There is also the fact that Bioware in past games, allowed us to have Hawkes who would send a runaway slave turned follower back to his slave master as a slave, allowed us to have Hawkes who would wipe out an entire clan / tribe of Elves, allowed us to participate in racist uprisings seeing as Hawke who could be extremely anti-Qunari could actually side with Petrice and her ilk.

 

There is also the fact that Bioware in past games, allowed us to have Wardens who could chastise and mock a potential male companion who is bisexual about him liking men sexually, allowed us to have Wardens who can be in cahoots with a vile racist man who raped Elven women & killed the Warden's potential spouse by accepting a large bribery, allowed us to have Wardens who could sell off many Elves as slaves to Tevinter for gold, allowed us to have Wardens who could exterminate a entire clan of Elves and allowed us to side with a Dwarf who wants to enslave living beings into a mechanical construct.

 

But for some weird reason, Bioware cannot allow us to have Inquisitors who might not be comfortable with homosexuality or might be outright homophobe. For some weird reason, we can be someone who decides the fate of nations and let important leadership figure be killed but to express any sentiment against homosexuality, we can't.

 

We can be pro slavery, we can hate Elves, we can kill leaders of empires but sexuality is a no-no.

 

I am not homophobic and I have many gay men as good friends but Andraste's knickers / Fen'Harel's bald head / Koslun's horns / vishante kaffas...Is it too much to ask for consistency when it comes to addressing mature issues ? Why is it okay to give players leeway when it comes to some mature issues but not others ? Where is the consistency here ?  

 

Yes, I know that Dorian's romance quest was about being forced into arranged marriages which I, as an Asian Indian, can happily relate to but the OP raises a valid question.

 

As for Inquisitor being a heroic figure, well so was the Warden and the Hawke. Warden was named Hero of Ferelden. Hawke was named Champion of Kirkwall. All our playable characters are heroes of some form or another. As for Inquisitor being the leader of an organization, I can think of many leaders of organizations who are bigoted hateful racists. 

 

The point of having the option to be one is so that we can roleplay as one. Not self-insert, which is what most people in this thread seem to be doing, but roleplay. 

 

 

My advice is to just sit back and enjoy the shitshow, I mean you could argue with these people but if the BSN has taught me anything the Dragon Age forums are notoriously stubborn when it comes to acknowledging logic and reason, don't even bother arguing, just grab some popcorn and laugh as they rage on, it is the only way to maintain your sanity.

 

Yeah. The thing with BSN and Bioware fans in general is that many of them are self-inserting hypocrites. They cannot see that this is a game and take questions like the OP raised, which boils down to lack of consistency, too personally. 

 

That is what happens when you self-insert too much....You end up taking things too personally and cannot have proper discussion on things. 

[actionhero112]

Somehow I don't see it as a great loss to remove the "homophobia" option in dialogue. 

 

Is this really a thing? Are people so attached to being intolerant that they have to have the option to be assholes to virtual characters in the game? 

[DuskWanderer]

I wish I could stop having it shoveled down my throat with the whole "This is good, and you need to accept it!" I'm a bit older than your average gamer, and I've been hearing it my whole life. Either say something new about it, or stop pretending like you're the first person who's said it.

 

I liked Krem not because of anything regarding transgender, but because you could ignore it and move on.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Somehow I don't see it as a great loss to remove the "homophobia" option in dialogue. 

 

Is this really a thing? Are people so attached to being intolerant that they have to have the option to be assholes to virtual characters in the game? 

 

Consistency + more roleplaying options. That is the issue. Not being intolerant. By that logic, people who play first person shooters are all violent killers with guns. They are not for they are playing games. Games are not real and a thinking human being can separate one from the other. Unless if you happen to self insert and take things too personally. 

 

This argument you and others are presenting are no different from Jack Thompson with his "Video games make people violent" rhetoric. Yours is "Video games make people homophobic". They do not. 

 

So tis' not about attached to being intolerant, it is about having more options in game and since this game has allowed us to be pro-slavery, anti-elf, anti-mages, kill leadership figures...It would be good to have consistency in addressing mature issues...

[ThreeF]

Somehow I don't see it as a great loss to remove the "homophobia" option in dialogue. 

 

Is this really a thing? Are people so attached to being intolerant that they have to have the option to be assholes to virtual characters in the game? 

Many people actually seems to want to be assholes to virtual characters, I'm fine with that but only if it will become acceptable for the virtual characters to be assholes too and with no provocation.

[leaguer of one]

 

 

 

 

There is this.

 

There is also the fact that Bioware in past games, allowed us to have Hawkes who would send a runaway slave turned follower back to his slave master as a slave, allowed us to have Hawkes who would wipe out an entire clan / tribe of Elves, allowed us to participate in racist uprisings seeing as Hawke who could be extremely anti-Qunari could actually side with Petrice and her ilk.

 

There is also the fact that Bioware in past games, allowed us to have Wardens who could chastise and mock a potential male companion who is bisexual about him liking men sexually, allowed us to have Wardens who can be in cahoots with a vile racist man who raped Elven women & killed the Warden's potential spouse by accepting a large bribery, allowed us to have Wardens who could sell off many Elves as slaves to Tevinter for gold, allowed us to have Wardens who could exterminate a entire clan of Elves and allowed us to side with a Dwarf who wants to enslave living beings into a mechanical construct.

 

But for some weird reason, Bioware cannot allow us to have Inquisitors who might not be comfortable with homosexuality or might be outright homophobe. For some weird reason, we can be someone who decides the fate of nations and let important leadership figure be killed but to express any sentiment against homosexuality, we can't.

 

We can be pro slavery, we can hate Elves, we can kill leaders of empires but sexuality is a no-no.

 

I am not homophobic and I have many gay men as good friends but Andraste's knickers / Fen'Harel's bald head / Koslun's horns / vishante kaffas...Is it too much to ask for consistency when it comes to addressing mature issues ? Why is it okay to give players leeway when it comes to some mature issues but not others ? Where is the consistency here ?  

 

Yes, I know that Dorian's romance quest was about being forced into arranged marriages which I, as an Asian Indian, can happily relate to but the OP raises a valid question.

 

As for Inquisitor being a heroic figure, well so was the Warden and the Hawke. Warden was named Hero of Ferelden. Hawke was named Champion of Kirkwall. All our playable characters are heroes of some form or another. As for Inquisitor being the leader of an organization, I can think of many leaders of organizations who are bigoted hateful racists. 

 

The point of having the option to be one is so that we can roleplay as one. Not self-insert, which is what most people in this thread seem to be doing, but roleplay. 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the problem with that...What's the lore reason for it. People in thedus don't even care about homosexuality.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Many people actually seems to want to be assholes to virtual characters, I'm fine with that but only if it will become acceptable for the virtual characters to be assholes too and with no provocation.

 

Same here. It would have been nice to have the Inquisitor be a homophobic jerk and then Dorian being appalled at it and walking away from the Inquisition right there or saying something like : "I no longer want to talk to you because you are homophobic jerk but since I made a promise to help out, I will but after that, I am gone." and then when you try to talk to him again he tells you to "F**k off"

 

Kinda like how Jack responded to you if you just choose to have sex with her without getting to know her more. 

[DomeWing333]

The thing is that Dorian and the Character must be aware by now that Southern Thedas is not as discriminating, but Dorian's like "surely you've heard of [the concept of same-sex attraction]" which is somewhat sarcastic, but then the player can respond as if they're completely in the dark about it.  I mean really?  How would an adult from a society where it's not discrimated against not know what homosexuality entails?

If you're referring to the "No women at all?" option, I don't think that was what the dialogue choice meant to convey. I think that was supposed to be the Inquisitor being surprised that Dorian in particular was gay, not that being gay was a thing. Other options included things like "I had no idea" and "I had a suspicion." So no the Inquisitor isn't ignorant of homosexuality, they just have terrible, terrible gaydar.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

The point of having the option to be one is so that we can roleplay as one. Not self-insert, which is what most people in this thread seem to be doing, but roleplay. 

 

Yeah. The thing with BSN and Bioware fans in general is that many of them are self-inserting hypocrites. They cannot see that this is a game and take questions like the OP raised, which boils down to lack of consistency, too personally. 

 

That is what happens when you self-insert too much....You end up taking things too personally and cannot have proper discussion on things. 

 

 

Considering the OP wanted to play a self-insert who could express his opinion on homosexuality in the game, I'd say you've actually reversed things. I don't play self inserts in RPGs. I also don't expect the option to play as myself, or express my own political opinions in RPGs.

 

I don't think generalizing people as hypocrites simply because the story was not consistent with the OP's political beliefs makes any sense, whatsoever.

[Grieving Natashina]

Here's the problem with that...What's the lore reason for it. People in thedus don't even care about homosexuality.

That's my thoughts too.  I've been supportive of threads that have requested blood magic to come back.  I've been supportive of other ideas, like having more options to act racist towards elves/humans/quanri, ect.   I know that, while gender equality is better than Thedas than it is in our world overall, there is still some sexism.  There are other RP avenues established in the lore that the player should have at least some access to.   I do support RP options that allow players to be less of a good guy, and to have some options that might be morally questionable.  

 

There is plenty of other ways the writers could add less LG (lawful good) options without changing the lore about homosexuality in Thedas.

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I do not support the OP at all.  I'd rather see the writers explore other avenues of being a less-than-perfect-hero that are already in the lore over making homophobia a common response to LGBT characters.

[actionhero112]

Consistency + more roleplaying options. That is the issue. Not being intolerant. By that logic, people who play first person shooters are all violent killers with guns. They are not for they are playing games. Games are not real and a thinking human being can separate one from the other. Unless if you happen to self insert and take things too personally. 

 

So tis' not about attached to being intolerant, it is about having more options in game and since this game has allowed us to be pro-slavery, anti-elf, anti-mages, kill leadership figures...It would be good to have consistency in addressing mature issues...

I'm all for more roleplaying options, but the argument that there needs to be homophobia simply for counterbalance is something I will not support. 

[ThreeF]

Same here. It would have been nice to have the Inquisitor be a homophobic jerk and then Dorian being appalled at it and walking away from the Inquisition right there or saying something like : "I no longer want to talk to you because you are homophobic jerk but since I made a promise to help out, I will but after that, I am gone." and then when you try to talk to him again he tells you to "F**k off"

 

Kinda like how Jack responded to you if you just choose to have sex with her without getting to know her more. 

Well you see that is with provocation and even so I'm seeing way to many people crying foul about Sera being a jerk for personal reasons to think that many players would actually like such behavior from a fictional character.

[Qun00]

You do get to ask Krem why she's trying to pass up as a man, though.

Priceless.

[leaguer of one]

Well you see that is with provocation and even so I'm seeing way to many people crying foul about Sera being a jerk for personal reasons to think that many players would actually like such behavior from a fictional character.

She's not a jerk to sexual preference or behavior. To cultures sure, and it's not like the quis can't be that ether. It's just thedus does not have that biest on sexuality.

[leaguer of one]

You do get to ask Krem why she's trying to pass up as a man, though.

Priceless.

Yep... My female qunari did the same thing. She thought Krem did not want to be looked down or sexually harassed from being a woman among horny mercs.

[Fireheart]

Well if they're trying to show support or whatever for lgbt community, then why would they even present the option to condemn Dorian for being what he is. Kind of sound like they would be hypocritical if they did that. It's not like they give you options with Aveline or Cassandra where you could say something like, "you're a woman, you're not supposed to fight".

[ThreeF]

She's not a jerk to sexual preference or behavior. To cultures sure, and it's not like the quis can't be that ether. It's just thedus does not have that biest on sexuality.

I'm just bringing this up as an example of tolerance of a fictional characters behavior period.

 

Dorian telling to PC to **** off isn't a great example, if we are to be able to be jerk to Dorian preferences then a fictional character should be also be able to be as intolerant to ours. Did you choose to romance Cassanda? Someone is out to call you a "breeder" and be obnoxious ignorant too. Fair is fair.

[leaguer of one]

I'm just bringing this up as an example of tolerance of a fictional characters behavior period.

 

Dorian telling to PC to **** off isn't a great example, if we are to be able to be jerk to Dorian preferences then a fictional character should be also be able to be as intolerant to ours. Did you choose to romance Cassanda? Someone is out to call you a "breeder" and be obnoxious ignorant too. Fair is fair.

Sure, but it need to make sense to the lore. As I said before, no one in thedus cares about sexuality.

[JJDXB]

If you're referring to the "No women at all?" option, I don't think that was what the dialogue choice meant to convey. I think that was supposed to be the Inquisitor being surprised that Dorian in particular was gay, not that being gay was a thing. Other options included things like "I had no idea" and "I had a suspicion." So no the Inquisitor isn't ignorant of homosexuality, they just have terrible, terrible gaydar.

 

Perhaps, but it's ambiguous enough to me that one can interpret it as the character being completely clueless about the concept.  And, for that matter, there's the line that preceeds Dorian's sarcasm about needing to explain the concept.  "I'll need you to explain that".  If homosexuality was accepted in the way you think it is, there is no reason anyone would ask that question.  One who accepts homosexuality, completely as we understand it, would never ask someone to "explain", you would accept it as is or jump straight to "I didn't know you were x".  Why else would one ask to explain what "preferring the company of men" meant if not to be indicative of the fact they aren't familiar with the concept?  None of the following responses make sense except for "No women" or "spare me the details".  It's part of the reason I think the whole thing is poorly executed.  People are arguing that the scene makes sense in the Thedosian context, but I think the complete opposite - it's clearly written as it is to make sense from the perspective of our society.  It's clearly forced and because of that it can't accomplish what it was supposed to do.  It just ends up being a self-congratulating echo chamber

I'm sure Thedosians don't care about who you sleep with, but I never got the impression from the Sexuality in Thedas codex that people, mainly nobles to be fair, understood that one might have sexual relations exclusively with the same sex (as is the case with dorian) was a valid thing.  It's all phrased as "so long as they do their family bearing duty".  Ergo, you can't exclusively have sex with the same sex and not be criticised in nobility.  This is the case everywhere in Thedas as far as that codex is concerned.  For the Dalish, I can't think of any reason why they would see homosexuality per se as being wrong, but if you're a society that teeters on the brink of extinction (and constantly talking about it), I can't see how they would support exclusively homosexual relations.  That's why I think the "no women at all?" thing is indicative of completely astonishment at the idea of exclusive homosexuality, at least by the human noble or a Dalish elf.  I would say the same for the Dwarf if they weren't surfacers.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Isn't shemlen just the elvish word for human?

Shemlen in the Elven language means "quickling or "quick children" so by calling the human race Shemlen they are comparing them as children to the elves which would be adults.