100 réponses à ce sujet

[veeia]

I personally have never played a game with a lgbt narrative, I am a premed student I get like one game every 5 months I can complete lol. Didn't know that was a played out narrative

Oh sorry, I just mean in general. People are way too prone to making stories about gay people only if they're about gay people getting discriminated against...not like, gay people fighting Wall Street corruption or being competitive mountaineers or wev, lmao. Feels like stories about minorities are always stories about them experiencing oppression, like those are the ones worth telling, ya know? In Inquisition I can play a character who is a lesbian and her main story is wholly about leadership and faith, not about people crapping all over her for her sexuality, and that means a lot to me.

I mean I get the appeal of playing through a struggle of that kind, Brosca is my favorite Origin partially because of the rise from poverty and oppression , but I do appreciate 100% that I can play a gay character who is just gay and it's okay, if that makes sense?

[Rekkampum]

I think G.R.R.M is the master of planting the ideas he identifies with, like feminism while not detracting from his story and making it seem too idealistic. His male characters dominate the world, but he has female characters who are powerful, but believably so, they have reasons for being powerful not just "she can do what any man can" because even in many places today that logic doesn't fly. In medieval Europe it certainly didn't. Women who had power either had it by birth right or were incredibly clever. I think to a degree bioware has made thedas increasingly unrealistic which I mean duh it is fantasy, but I think it is unrealistic in a negative way for the series. It would have been great if equality would have been something we as the character fought for from day one rather than it being shoehorned in. And yes I know we are sort of fighting for mage equality. But homosexuals, bisexuals etc. just had their rights granted between games, I wish we could have fought for them instead.

 

What you're asking for is a "been-there, done-that" formula bordering on patronizing minority groups. Thedas was never realistic. There aren't elves, dwarves, dragons, qunari, or Darkspawn and Old Gods in the "real" world. There is no "Fade" that we travel to while sleeping with a gigantic blackened city looming in the distance. The most DA could've ever been, and the most that it is right now, is a fantastical world with vague allusions to historical customs that at most give us a frame of reference so that we can establish a setting for the events taking place. Thedas is inspired by medieval customs but it is not limited to or defined by them.

[ZJR12911]

Oh sorry, I just mean in general. People are way too prone to making stories about gay people only if they're about gay people getting discriminated against...not like, gay people fighting Wall Street corruption or being competitive mountaineers or wev, lmao. Feels like stories about minorities are always stories about them experiencing oppression, like those are the ones worth telling, ya know? In Inquisition I can play a character who is a lesbian and her main story is wholly about leadership and faith, not about people crapping all over her for her sexuality, and that means a lot to me.

I mean I get the appeal of playing through a struggle of that kind, Brosca is my favorite Origin partially because of the rise from poverty and oppression , but I do appreciate 100% that I can play a gay character who is just gay and it's okay, if that makes sense?

I can definitely see where you are coming from, that's a great point you made there. It would definitely be less fun for a homosexual to play if the narrative was as I was saying earlier. It'd be a beating to play 

[Zobert]

No, I won't bother. You've already made your mind up, wrong as it is.

 

Sounds like you don't have examples to me.  That's okay.  Say you won't bother and we'll call that a clarification on Tolkien.

[Ieldra]

You're right, but limited representation is a problem. Basically, when you're given a single source with no additional information that would damage source's credibility, you can assume that you're getting relatively good insight into the topic covered. Obvioulsy Sten could be biased and Iron Bull could be just lying in Krem's face, in fact every single piece of information can be questioned and most of them discarded as we usually don't get more than one source for most things - if we approached the lore with scrutiny appropriate for real-life problems we wouldn't have too much left. But the thing is that - unlike in real life - we're generally unable to look for more reliable (or just different) sources. As with other works of fiction, we're forced to accept sources given or discard pretty much everything we know about Thedas as unreliable. That's where kind of informal "deal" between writers and readers is struck - readers take what they hear/read/see at face value to greater extent than they would in real life while writers don't have to give a couple reliable sources for every detail to introduce it as part of the world.
Therefore when faced with accounts that aren't implied to be unreliable, players generally assume that even including some bias coming from in-game author of information they're generally told the truth, and the more knowledgeable the source seems to be, the more they can believe it, perhaps distrusting interpretation but not really the facts.
Obviously, some accounts are proven to be wrong, but when some element was introduced by a source that seemed reliable, knowledgeable AND uncontested (there wasn't reallya ny source other than Sten to learn about Qun), its account was understandably taken as binding, since there was completely no reason for Player to doubt it. Suddenly departing from that account in significant manner combined with lots of semantic play to "prove" that there isn't any change, really, it all fits... Well, it leaves people with bad taste in their mouth. Because it's like the writers try and weasel out of their side of the deal I mentioned - deal that is really indispensable for purposes of building a rich world through interaction with a bunch of NPC plus written in-world codex entries.

I'll quote this for emphasis. No matter that most retcons aren't really contradicting anything, they still leave us with the impression that the writers don't feel bound by what they've written in earlier games and use the excuse of unreliable sources to make significant changes to the lore.

[Xilizhra]

I'll quote this for emphasis. No matter that most retcons aren't really contradicting anything, they still leave us with the impression that the writers don't feel bound by what they've written in earlier games and use the excuse of unreliable sources to make significant changes to the lore.

I don't find this to be worthy of blame, per se. Sometimes, what you said once doesn't work for future stories, and you have to change the direction you were originally going in. I think the aqun-athlok thing was actually handled fairly deftly.

[Caddius]

Oh sorry, I just mean in general. People are way too prone to making stories about gay people only if they're about gay people getting discriminated against...not like, gay people fighting Wall Street corruption or being competitive mountaineers or wev, lmao. Feels like stories about minorities are always stories about them experiencing oppression, like those are the ones worth telling, ya know? In Inquisition I can play a character who is a lesbian and her main story is wholly about leadership and faith, not about people crapping all over her for her sexuality, and that means a lot to me.

I mean I get the appeal of playing through a struggle of that kind, Brosca is my favorite Origin partially because of the rise from poverty and oppression , but I do appreciate 100% that I can play a gay character who is just gay and it's okay, if that makes sense?

I honestly don't see Dorian's personal quest as a quest about LGBT discrimination.

Magister Halward didn't go, "My son is gay and therefore an abomination and a shame."

He went, "Dorian is the heir to House Pavus. He doesn't want to marry a woman."

Tevinter isn't homophobic in the way we usually think of it. They're all about putting on a 'good face', and overt homosexuality isn't part of that. That's homophobic. Their culture causes most homosexual relationships to be physical in nature, because they can't afford to get close without losing face. That's why Dorian is so surprised and delighted when the Inquisitor wants more.

His issue with his father isn't so much accepting that he's gay, it's accepting that he refuses to bow down to the life laid before him by his parents, that he refuses to put on the mask and play with the Tevinter nobility. It's the marrying and reproducing part that drove his father to atrocity. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd known for years about Dorian's sexuality without being bothered in the slightest. Most gay nobles in Tevinter and our own history laid back and thought of becoming Archon, just so long as they could pop out a kid or two and continue the family line. There was immense social, religious, and family pressure to do that. Some culture's bedding even had people ensuring that the couple consummated that very wedding night, to make sure no one could back out of the political alliance.

His father didn't accept his son, and tried to change him. Dorian's being gay is a part of that, and a lot of coming-out stories and their fallout revolve around the parent's disappointment and the child's defiance, which is why a lot of people simplify it and say it's like they walked into an after-school special. The conflict between Dorian and his father is multi-faceted, and I think it was handled extremely well. I've been in similar situations, and Gaider's writing for that scene and everyone's acting rang true. For me, at least.

 

I do agree that ret-cons ruin everything. Things like Arlathan turned out to have been a rigid, caste-and-slave magocracy is great. Sten's comments about females serving as military could be expansion, but I can't help but think of the 'A farmer who becomes a merchant is never a merchant, he is a farmer-turned-merchant'. I remember thinking, "Yeesh, I don't want to hear what the Qunari do to attempted transsexuals." It's possible he's just a soldier and determining the gender of the Qunari is up to the Tamrassrans. It's possible it's a recent development within the Qunari. *shrug*

[Ieldra]

I don't find this to be worthy of blame, per se. Sometimes, what you said once doesn't work for future stories, and you have to change the direction you were originally going in. I think the aqun-athlok thing was actually handled fairly deftly.

I don't criticize this example specifically, nor any other. The problem is that the small, acceptable changes add up until the identity of the setting is compromised. DAI as a whole presents a world significantly Lighter and Softer than DAO and DA2. That is irritating, especially for those who liked the darker tone of the earlier games. DA2 may have overdone it but DAI goes too far in the other direction. Nullifying social issues like the Qun's fixed gender roles or the absence of sexism for the sake of inclusiveness is a problem if part of the original "dark" aspect of the setting was carried by them. Red lyrium body horror might've carried it instead, only we're never actually shown what happens, and it never becomes personal like the CE origin story in DAO did.

[Xilizhra]

I don't criticize this example specifically, nor any other. The problem is that the small, acceptable changes add up until the identity of the setting is compromised. DAI as a whole presents a world significantly Lighter and Softer than DAO and DA2. That is irritating, especially for those who liked the darker tone of the earlier games. DA2 may have overdone it but DAI goes too far in the other direction. Nullifying social issues like the Qun's fixed gender roles or the absence of sexism for the sake of inclusiveness is a problem if part of the original "dark" aspect of the setting was carried by them. Red lyrium body horror might've carried it instead, only we're never actually shown what happens, and it never becomes personal like the CE origin story in DAO did.

Did DA2 actually present any examples of sexism?

[Caddius]

Yes, but what he said was true, they were not tolerant. Bioware can create the world they want, that's fine I don't mind, but still if medieval fantasy in a realistic sense is their aim, bigotry, hate, and senseless violence need to be included. But perhaps they don't want a realistic medieval feel.

One key thing about medieval European society was the Pope. Namely, that the Pope was male, the kings were male, a lot of kingdoms had male-only succession laws, the priesthood was male, the warriors were male...Basically everyone in a position of power and prestige, with a few impressive exceptions, were male.

In Thedas, their version of Muhammed/Joan of Arc/Jesus was a woman. And the Chantry, the bedrock of society, decided that women would be the only ones who could achieve higher rank in the Chantry. The Divine is female (In the South, at least. )

I think that Andraste and the set-up of the most successful Andrastian religion is responsible for women having a lot more power and rights in Thedas than they did in our own society.

As for homosexuality, unlike some others, Andrastianism doesn't seem to have had any tenets or preaching against homosexuals. Just mages and Tevinters.

And the Tevinter Imperium's views on homosexuality mirror that of the Romans, at times.

Instead, we've got: anti-elf bigotry, the various prejudices amongst the elves against each other, Orlais being hated by everyone, the Orlesians looking down on the Fereldans as primitive yokels, the various split-off groups of the Alamarri's hatreds for one another, Hawke and company being spat on as refugees as they try to make a life in Kirkwall, mages being oppressed, Templars being addicted to lyrium, the Chantry often acting as an arm of the Orlesian Empire, the Qunari with their religious fanaticism, the mass slavery of Tevinter, the mass poverty and abuse of elves and the poor in the South, peasants stirring up revolutionary talk in Serault, the Casteless in Orzammar, the Orlesians' tendency for mass arson, rape, and dog-kicking whenever they occupy a country, darkspawn raids, and blood magic libel.

There's plenty of unpleasantness in Thedas. It's just that Inquisition focused less on that than some of us would have liked. I would have loved to have seen more of the Briala-led rebellion, the brutal Chevalier oppression, Avvar raiding the Hinterlands, that kind of thing. I hope that the DLC gives us a view of Thedas's darker side, as Bioware handled some pretty heavy and dark plots with finesse in the past.

[Eliastion]

(...) I hope that the DLC gives us a view of Thedas's darker side, as Bioware handled some pretty heavy and dark plots with finesse in the past.

I really wish you were right. I have little hope, but sure I wish.

 

...also I really have to look for a mod to change color palette a bit so it isn't all so fresh and MMORPG-level sweet I have a personal feeling that the scenery being too... nice color-wise is an often-overlooked factor that contributes a lot to the overall feeling of world being sanitized Hardly the only factor, of course, but a noticeable one. And relatively easy to fix globally without changing a lot in the game itself

[Ryriena]

Did DA2 actually present any examples of sexism?

Ser Arlik raping woman with the threat of tranquility, or the fact Donic calls Aveline if she is not married to him a ******. That's little peice of sexism is saying a woman can't garner respect without a man behind her, although, I still liked the quest because it's cute how Aveline reacts to Donic. Or the fact you here of woman Mages being beating and whipped but that just dialogs you here from the woman Mages in the gallows, so it's not directed at the personal character.

[Xilizhra]

Ser Arlik raping woman with the threat of tranquility, or the fact Donic calls Aveline if she is not married to him a ******. That's little peice of sexism is saying a woman can't garner respect without a man behind her, although, I still liked the quest because it's cute how Aveline reacts to Donic. Or the fact you here of woman Mages being beating and whipped but that just dialogs you here from the woman Mages in the gallows, so it's not directed at the personal character.

The former didn't strike me as sexist per se, because Alain also gets raped (albeit without being made Tranquil). I've got no clue about the Donnic thing, though.

[Sifr]

Ser Arlik raping woman with the threat of tranquility, or the fact Donic calls Aveline if she is not married to him a ******. That's little peice of sexism is saying a woman can't garner respect without a man behind her, although, I still liked the quest because it's cute how Aveline reacts to Donic. Or the fact you here of woman Mages being beating and whipped but that just dialogs you here from the woman Mages in the gallows, so it's not directed at the personal character.

 

It's not really sexism in Donnic's case, as most of the vitriol he throws at her is simply projection, as he's bitter at himself. He obviously fancied Aveline right from the get-go, but both fumbled the ball and so now they've been stuck in an awkward silence for a couple years?

 

He still think she's doing a good job as Captain, regardless?

[Eliastion]

I think it depends on definition of sexism, really. Is southern Thedas free of gender roles? No, it's not. Priesthood is all-female, fighting is seen as predominantly male occupation (which I personally approve of, I must add - gameplay aside, DA managed to avoid the idiocy of claiming that women are just as good as men in fighting - and just as common as fighters - despite fighting in the setting being mostly physical and people of the setting being human enough to have males on average significantly stronger than females). There are also some other jobs connected to one or the other gender. Still, while some people would see that as sexism, I'm not one of them. There don't seem to be any fields where women are not permitted and while a female warrior is seen as a bit of an oddity, it's never to an extent that would make people shocked. Women are valid heirs to titles and fortunes and while it might be relatively uncommon* for them to lead their countries, it's by no means seen as going against the natural order of things or anything like that.

 

Basically, while there might perhaps be some signs of mild sexism here and there and there most certainly are some sexist personas, I don't think we have any actual basis to say that in Southern Thedas sexism is a problem. Especially if we consider things like (crypto)slavery, racism, war, Orlais and other nasty things the world struggles with...

 

*Ok, at this point of time if you made Anora the ruler of Ferelden there are queens EVERYWHERE but that's a special case

[X Equestris]

Yes, but what he said was true, they were not tolerant. Bioware can create the world they want, that's fine I don't mind, but still if medieval fantasy in a realistic sense is their aim, bigotry, hate, and senseless violence need to be included. But perhaps they don't want a realistic medieval feel.

And Thedas is coming from a different religious/cultural/historical background. You can't just compare the two, because you miss out on the context.

[X Equestris]

The writer themselves use these examples in the WIKI entries or the Lore entries, I forget which. THEY are the ones who likened  various Thedan nations to Medieval and early Renaissance nations of earth. You can't fault the games players for taking the writers at their word. We were told that's how it was. (Origins) (BTW using quote as springboard to add support to its author.)

You can liken something to something else without it actually being that something else. That concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

[o Ventus]

Sounds like you don't have examples to me.  That's okay.  Say you won't bother and we'll call that a clarification on Tolkien.

No, I'm not going to bother because I've done this dance before.

 

I'll list some examples, and you'll say something to the effect of "oh, no, those don't count for one reason or another", I'll list more examples, and you'll repeat the same thing until I run out of examples to give. I know how debating works on the BSN.

[AresKeith]

I'm beginning to think the term retcon is really just code for "contradicts the intricate headcanon I've built in my brain".

Not particularly directed at you, OP.

I thought that's what it always meant in Bioware's fanbase

[AresKeith]

Yeah it may be a desperate attempt to headcanon it, but it buys some time until it gets confirmed or refuted. Especially since Merrill's codex entry states magic is dying out among the Dalish. Driving out mages seems wasteful, unless it's an act of true desperation.

I wouldn't really say it's headcanon since that's most likely the case

With each clan being different on they act towards humans, it would be that far-fetched for each clan to act differently on other things

[In Exile]

I'll quote this for emphasis. No matter that most retcons aren't really contradicting anything, they still leave us with the impression that the writers don't feel bound by what they've written in earlier games and use the excuse of unreliable sources to make significant changes to the lore.

But that's very subjective in the sense that this "impression" may not actually result from a change.

[TEWR]

 

 

because Alain also gets raped (albeit without being made Tranquil)

 

By Karras, a different Templar.

 

 

.....or by Karras' ghost, if you killed him in Act 1

[Zobert]

No, I'm not going to bother because I've done this dance before.

 

I'll list some examples, and you'll say something to the effect of "oh, no, those don't count for one reason or another", I'll list more examples, and you'll repeat the same thing until I run out of examples to give. I know how debating works on the BSN.

 

Gotcha.  Weak and a cop-out, but gotcha.  You "know" me and you "know" I won't debate. 

 

[Zobert]

You can liken something to something else without it actually being that something else. That concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

 

I feel like people didn't play the same version of Dragon Age Origins as I did and see the type of racism (against Elves), bigotry (against mages, elves, and lower classes), the marriage requirements of the human nobility or the caste system of Orzammar.  They ignore how Zevran, a highly sexual nonjudgmental type has to "explain" to a female that he's bi with the anticipation that she may not accept it.  I also think people overlook everything that Sten or the Arishok or even Fenris said in the other two games about the roles (and what we consider misogyny) of the Qun.

 

All of those things existed and were portrayed in a negative light and in many cases a challenge to the hero.  They weren't like, "Wwoooooweeeee, let's revel in bigotry, baby!!!"" 

 

They showed it existed and you fought against stereotypes and other hurdles.

 

I certainly wouldn't mind a different world like the one of Inquisition had they started that way, but if they're going to change the Qun then say how it changed not pretend it's a clarification.  If they are going to change sexual politics, maybe make it known why it changed, not pretend it always was.

 

That's all I'm saying.  Give me a "how" to this that doesn't feel like the game writers just want to placate the fans without effort.  Placate us, but do it in a way that explains how it all happened.  This is like the soap opera, woke up from a bad dream method.

[In Exile]

I feel like people didn't play the same version of Dragon Age Origins as I did and see the type of racism (against Elves), bigotry (against mages, elves, and lower classes), the marriage requirements of the human nobility or the caste system of Orzammar. They ignore how Zevran, a highly sexual nonjudgmental type has to "explain" to a female that he's bi with the anticipation that she may not accept it. I also think people overlook everything that Sten or the Arishok or even Fenris said in the other two games about the roles (and what we consider misogyny) of the Qun.

All of those things existed and were portrayed in a negative light and in many cases a challenge to the hero. They weren't like, "Wwoooooweeeee, let's revel in bigotry, baby!!!""

They showed it existed and you fought against stereotypes and other hurdles.

I certainly wouldn't mind a different world like the one of Inquisition had they started that way, but if they're going to change the Qun then say how it changed not pretend it's a clarification. If they are going to change sexual politics, maybe make it known why it changed, not pretend it always was.

That's all I'm saying. Give me a "how" to this that doesn't feel like the game writers just want to placate the fans without effort. Placate us, but do it in a way that explains how it all happened. This is like the soap opera, woke up from a bad dream method.

I addressed in this very thread how nothing about the Qun changes in DAI. Not understanding its insane troll logic is a failing on the part of the player.