1001 réponses à ce sujet

[Toasted Llama]

And that's the thing. If we're going to talk about pandering up until recently this entire industry almost exclusively pandered to the tastes of one group of people. A few games start to try something different and certain people get all up in arms about "pandering to SJW's."

Random minority of gamers: Can I have just this one little tidbit of games catered to me? ... N..no? 'Only the majority of people matters'? I... Okay.. Yes... I see... Sorry for asking....

Best part is when a majority sees a problem where it doesn't exist. Like the people complaining there's "more gay content than straight content" in DA:I. I mean, did they never learn to count in kindergarten? :')

[BabyPuncher]

Random minority of gamers: Can I have just this one little tidbit of games catered to me? ... N..no? 'Only the majority of people matters'? I... Okay.. Yes... I see... Sorry for asking...

This 'one little tidbit' of games is BioWare, Besthesda, and Obsiden games. The majority - not the minority - of story focused RPGs.

[BSpud]

Random minority of gamers: Can I have just this one little tidbit of games catered to me? ... N..no? 'Only the majority of people matters'? I... Okay.. Yes... I see... Sorry for asking....

Best part is when a majority sees a problem where it doesn't exist. Like the people complaining there's "more gay content than straight content" in DA:I. I mean, did they never learn to count in kindergarten? :')

 

I agree with the sentiment but also keep in mind that straight people support gay content, too. So the majority/minority argument is, as it usually is, pointless.

[Hiemoth]

But all this proves is that some of your assumptions, while perhaps reasonable ones, turned out to be wrong. Surely it can't be a problem that some things in the game-world don't turn out to be exactly the way you thought they seemed to be at first.

Though honestly, I don't know how you took "utilitarian" away from Sten's dialogue when you're playing a female Warden. It's pretty clear that It sounded to me like the Qun simply isn't about whether peoples' talents are being used in an efficient manner.

 

Just wanted to echo agreement with this point, as it also highlights one the things that keeps puzzling me in this discussion.

 

Majority of our information about the Qun actually comes from DA2, where we are not only told of the Qun, but also shown the cultural context they operate from. In DAO, Sten not only refuses to provide context for the actual culture by actually describing it, he also makes several ambigious comments which are difficult to truly interpret because of that lack of context. Thus people provided their own context based on historical real-life cultures and then were shocked when that context doesn't fit with a culture intended to be completely alien from our viewpoint.

 

If DAI did something that wen't against something directly DA2, such as IB referring to Tal Vashtoth as Qunari, then I would understand this complaint. Yet in that game Talis was able to fight despite being a woman, indicating that the Qun is a lot more complex in how it views the roles warrior and woman.

[David Gaider]

It's very easy to deflect the issue especially when the lore is vague enough, but the thing is, we didn't make these assumptions in a vaccum.

The Qun was shown more or less as an extremely utilitarian version of North Korea, everything is considered through the the question of "is this good for the Qun"? No place for sentiments, at least not according to the official line.

 

Why would this utilitarian view require them to assume that "gender is a role -- if you are a warrior, you are a male"? Can't they just use the word *warrior* instead of the word *Male*? A true Utilitarian view would simply not care about physical gender, and would assume roles according to precieved potential and ability.

 

To me, that said that someone tried to make the Qun more cuddly, and at the same time extend a rather meaningless olive branch towards transgenders, for reasons that had less to do with the story and more to do with political opinions.

 

I'm going to assume that what you're picturing, when it comes to Krem, is Krem going to the Tamassran priesthood and going, "hey, I don't think I'm comfortable with this role you've assigned me" and them going, "gosh, you're totally right". Then they all hold hands and sing songs about love and social justice.

 

This is my interpretation when you say the Qun has been painted as more "cuddly".

 

Or perhaps you simply mean more "cuddly" for the player -- as if this makes the Qunari more friendly-seeming, somehow? If so, I'd say that really depends on who you are and what your thoughts are on the idea of self-determination.

 

Either way, there's a number of assumptions at work on your part. With respect to the lore itself, I agree they don't come out of a vacuum...but with respect to this particular aspect of it, I'll simply say there are some biases of your own at work. I'll just say that the utilitarian aspect of the Qun does not disagree with a more nuanced understanding of gender...indeed, considering the importance that the Qun places on gender, I'd say it's complementary. Perhaps the process that Tamassrans use to assign roles is something that future games will go into more detail on, I can't really say. Might be interesting.

[Toasted Llama]

This 'one little tidbit' of games is BioWare, Besthesda, and Obsiden games. The majority - not the minority - of story focused RPGs.

Bethesda?

Story focused?

....


 

 

I agree with the sentiment but also keep in mind that straight people support gay content, too. So the majority/minority argument is, as it usually is, pointless.

While I'm not entire sure I understand what you mean, but I do want to point out that the majority/minority argument is usually brought up by bigoted straight gamers who complain they don't get enough content catered to them and that they "should" because they're the majority.

[BansheeOwnage]

And they're also a great medium for escapism, which is one of the primary reasons why people play video games, especially RPGs. Creating a "some kind of a disconnected bastion of tolerance, equality, diversity, rainbows and unicorns" could be vital for the mental health of people struggling with reality. It could give them that confidence boost or that one safe space where they can go, calm down and tackle the world with renewed willpower. It could give them a goal or an ideal of the world that they can strive and fight for. Heck, it could even go as far as to give them a reason to keep going and not commit suicide.

 

The fact that people can find mental strength, safety and security in video games that their direct (toxic) environment may not give is something that should be celebrated and treasured.

And if that is at the cost of suspension of belief and consistency I'm more than happy to sacrifice that. I mean, if I want a good story I go read a book or watch a movie.

Very well said. Escapism is a big part of why I play video games. Why would I want to play a fantasy game just to face the same crap I do in real life? I don't need it to be all pretty and shiny either, but you can have a middle-ground.

[Geth Supremacy]

I'm going to assume that what you're picturing, when it comes to Krem, is Krem going to the Tamassran priesthood and going, "hey, I don't think I'm comfortable with this role you've assigned me" and them going, "gosh, you're totally right". Then they all hold hands and sing songs about love and social justice.

 

This is my interpretation when you say the Qun has been painted as more "cuddly".

 

Or perhaps you simply mean more "cuddly" for the player -- as if this makes the Qunari more friendly-seeming, somehow? If so, I'd say that really depends on who you are and what your thoughts are on the idea of self-determination.

 

Either way, there's a number of assumptions at work on your part. With respect to the lore itself, I agree they don't come out of a vacuum...but with respect to this particular aspect of it, I'll simply say there are some biases of your own at work. I'll just say that the utilitarian aspect of the Qun does not disagree with a more nuanced understanding of gender...indeed, considering the importance that the Qun places on gender, I'd say it's complementary. Perhaps the process that Tamassrans use to assign roles is something that future games will go into more detail on, I can't really say. Might be interesting.

 

While I cannot speak for the poster I would say your interpretation of "cuddly" might not be what they were going for as I pretty much mirror their sentiments.

 

In DAO the Qun was so crazy and hard to understand it was extremely hard to even talk to Sten effectively BUT Once you finally "got" him and effectively the Qunari mindset it was not "human" but it was understandable and you completely got where he came from.

 

When DA2 came out for many people including myself the Qunari were the saving grace in that game.  The most interesting and unique group I have ever experienced.  There were almost "alien" in their ways, but very understandable.  The way and things lines were delivered...amazing.

 

How unique the Qunari were and as I said before "alien", but at the same time very understandable you know why they do what they do and get it...its just not the way the rest of the world is ran. Its "their" world.  Nothing like anything else.  It was Qunari and then...everything else  It wasn't so crazy that it really stood out.  It was just "Qunari"  its what defined what they were IMO.

 

And then DAI......  not even touching on the social issues....the mighty dreadnaughts were shown to be paper made jokes.  Your character speaks of gaatlok like you could get it at the corner store if you talk about blowing up a bridge when asked about your mercenary work.  In DA2 the way the Qunari were?  How they were about the gaatlok and saar qamek.

 

"A simple act of greed has bound me. We are all denied Par Vollen until I alone recover what was lost under MY command."

 

If you watch any scene of the Arishok in DA2?  Absolutely amazing!

 

 

Compare that to DAI?

[The Elder King]

Other then the fact that they had more time on screen in DA2, I honestly don't see many differences in the Qunari between the two games.

[Ianamus]

I still remember how elated I was when I heard that we would finally be getting homosexual companions. I'd been anticipating it for a while, but I expected it to still be a few games away. I really couldn't be happier that they decided to include them. Krem was ok, though his character didn't stand out much to me beyond the obvious. I'd be very interested in seeing Maevaris in a future game though, as she also seemed to be a more interesting character overall, what with being a Magister and all. 

 

That said there's still room for improvement. While I liked how Dorian and, particularly, Sera's sexuality was handled I felt that Iron Bull and Josephines were a bit too 'hidden', in that unlike Dorian and Sera it wasn't touched on or mentioned much, if at all, outside of the romances. That made sense for Josephine, and it was hinted at in some conversations with her, but made less sense for Iron Bull.

 

Bioware has always seemed to struggle at conveying to the audience that a character is bisexual without having said character be incredibly promiscuous, DA2's "they are whatever you want them to be" (or Isabela) LI's being the epitome of that.

[In Exile]

This is flatly ridiculous.

Of course I get to decide meaning. I'm a man with a functioning brain, am I not?

Why don't you stop and think for a moment how stupidly inundated with hypocrisy this is? I'm sure you've criticized elements of stories in your life? I can pretty much guarantee you that each of those elements of every story had 'meaning' to someone, somewhere. Is every complaint about every narrative ever made 'self righteous' because someone, somewhere found 'meaning' in the topic of criticism?

 

There's a large gulf between ascribing and debating meaning - which is what we all do when we discuss and dissect stories - and actually deciding whether something means a particular thing. The poster you're responding to seems to take objection to your categorical assertions that meaning is one thing, and no other. 

[In Exile]

When DA2 came out for many people including myself the Qunari were the saving grace in that game.  The most interesting and unique group I have ever experienced.  There were almost "alien" in their ways, but very understandable.  The way and things lines were delivered...amazing.

 

They operate on insane troll logic. Their very notion of identity is defined through liberal application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can't say that you understood their views on identity and take issue with their mental gymnastics when it comes to gender. They're the same thing. 

 

Let's turn right back to the Arishok talking about Tal-Vasoth. He says that he lost no "Qunari" to talk the Tal-Vasoth. This only works if you tautologically define a Qunari as "someone who would not become a Tal-Vasoth". It is the same kind of logical black hole Sten puts forward in DA:O. Applying this to gender, here is what Sten (and the Arishok) say: 

 

Sten says: IF AND ONLY IF "Warrior", THEN "Man". One implication of the biconditional being IF NOT Man, THEN NOT "Warrior". We have no idea what Sten considers to be a warrior beyond the fact that it seems to involve "war" being your calling in some important way (not just a propensity for fighting). When you talk to Sten about the GWs, he views their "role" as being to combat the blight. In some sense, that's a "Warrior" role. And then his mind breaks, because he has the fundamental Qun biconditional about gender and warriors applicable in this case ("IF Warrior, THEN Man") along with your clearly defined role ("PC = Grey Warden = Warrior") and the implication of that biconditional ("IF NOT Man, then NOT Warrior"). So now Sten has to deal with you - by his internal logic - being in the "NOT Warrior" box but at the same time having you assert you are a "Warrior". That breaks his mind. Since he accepts his precondition can't be wrong - he's a good Qunari - he assumes you're lying and attempts to get you to relent (by saying you're a "NOT Warrior"). The Ben-Hassarath solve this issue by saying you're not "NOT Man". And that's the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

This works the same way with the Arishok and Tal-Vasoth, since the logic there is just "IF AND ONLY IF Tal-Vasoth, THEN NOT Qunari". 

 

Understanding this in terms of formal logic is very important, because as far as we can tell the Qun is content neutral. "Man" means whatever thing they define it to mean, not whatever it corresponds to IRL. People think the words the Qun uses about roles apprehend IRL meaning instead of whatever meaning the Qunari define those words to mean, which they often pull out of the air when confronted by a circumstance that doesn't fit their predefined notion. That's the Qunari's whole stick - the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

[David Gaider]

They operate on insane troll logic. Their very notion of identity is defined through liberal application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can't say that you understood their views on identity and take issue with their mental gymnastics when it comes to gender. They're the same thing. 

 

Let's turn right back to the Arishok talking about Tal-Vasoth. He says that he lost no "Qunari" to talk the Tal-Vasoth. This only works if you tautologically define a Qunari as "someone who would not become a Tal-Vasoth". It is the same kind of logical black hole Sten puts forward in DA:O. Applying this to gender, here is what Sten (and the Arishok) say: 

 

Sten says: IF AND ONLY IF "Warrior", THEN "Man". One implication of the biconditional being IF NOT Man, THEN NOT "Warrior". We have no idea what Sten considers to be a warrior beyond the fact that it seems to involve "war" being your calling in some important way (not just a propensity for fighting). When you talk to Sten about the GWs, he views their "role" as being to combat the blight. In some sense, that's a "Warrior" role. And then his mind breaks, because he has the fundamental Qun biconditional about gender and warriors applicable in this case ("IF Warrior, THEN Man") along with your clearly defined role ("PC = Grey Warden = Warrior") and the implication of that biconditional ("IF NOT Man, then NOT Warrior"). So now Sten has to deal with you - by his internal logic - being in the "NOT Warrior" box but at the same time having you assert you are a "Warrior". That breaks his mind. Since he accepts his precondition can't be wrong - he's a good Qunari - he assumes you're lying and attempts to get you to relent (by saying you're a "NOT Warrior"). The Ben-Hassarath solve this issue by saying you're not "NOT Man". And that's the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

This works the same way with the Arishok and Tal-Vasoth, since the logic there is just "IF AND ONLY IF Tal-Vasoth, THEN NOT Qunari". 

 

Understanding this in terms of formal logic is very important, because as far as we can tell the Qun is content neutral. "Man" means whatever thing they define it to mean, not whatever it corresponds to IRL. People think the words the Qun uses about roles apprehend IRL meaning instead of whatever meaning the Qunari define those words to mean, which they often pull out of the air when confronted by a circumstance that doesn't fit their predefined notion. That's the Qunari's whole stick - the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

10 points to House Gryffindor.

[vertigomez]

Other then the fact that they had more time on screen in DA2, I honestly don't see many differences in the Qunari between the two games.

Same. There are are different characters speaking about the Qun, which means it's colored by their own perspective and experiences... but it's still the Qun. The Arishok is a scary angry military leader surrounded by cretins who resent his presence, and Bull is a laidback spy who's been "contaminated" by PTSD and chillin' with the bas for too long.

Ask two different people what being a Christian means, and there are gonna be little differences and lots of overlap.

[Geth Supremacy]

They operate on insane troll logic. Their very notion of identity is defined through liberal application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can't say that you understood their views on identity and take issue with their mental gymnastics when it comes to gender. They're the same thing. 

 

Let's turn right back to the Arishok talking about Tal-Vasoth. He says that he lost no "Qunari" to talk the Tal-Vasoth. This only works if you tautologically define a Qunari as "someone who would not become a Tal-Vasoth". It is the same kind of logical black hole Sten puts forward in DA:O. Applying this to gender, here is what Sten (and the Arishok) say: 

 

Sten says: IF AND ONLY IF "Warrior", THEN "Man". One implication of the biconditional being IF NOT Man, THEN NOT "Warrior". We have no idea what Sten considers to be a warrior beyond the fact that it seems to involve "war" being your calling in some important way (not just a propensity for fighting). When you talk to Sten about the GWs, he views their "role" as being to combat the blight. In some sense, that's a "Warrior" role. And then his mind breaks, because he has the fundamental Qun biconditional about gender and warriors applicable in this case ("IF Warrior, THEN Man") along with your clearly defined role ("PC = Grey Warden = Warrior") and the implication of that biconditional ("IF NOT Man, then NOT Warrior"). So now Sten has to deal with you - by his internal logic - being in the "NOT Warrior" box but at the same time having you assert you are a "Warrior". That breaks his mind. Since he accepts his precondition can't be wrong - he's a good Qunari - he assumes you're lying and attempts to get you to relent (by saying you're a "NOT Warrior"). The Ben-Hassarath solve this issue by saying you're not "NOT Man". And that's the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

This works the same way with the Arishok and Tal-Vasoth, since the logic there is just "IF AND ONLY IF Tal-Vasoth, THEN NOT Qunari". 

 

Understanding this in terms of formal logic is very important, because as far as we can tell the Qun is content neutral. "Man" means whatever thing they define it to mean, not whatever it corresponds to IRL. People think the words the Qun uses about roles apprehend IRL meaning instead of whatever meaning the Qunari define those words to mean, which they often pull out of the air when confronted by a circumstance that doesn't fit their predefined notion. That's the Qunari's whole stick - the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

What exactly was the mental gymnastics on gender?  As far as DA2 and Qun lore go a female cannot be a soldier.  Period.  The Ben-Hassrath lead by the Ariqun can have spies such as Tallis.  According to DAI whatever it is now.

 

It's quite clear what the Qunari as a whole view as a "warrior"  It's someone who was specifically bred for that role or someone that has a gift in that area and would be exceptional in that position that is a male.  That's not my interpretation.  That's how it was established.  The Qun is law.  Not Sten or the Arishok or their views or interpretation.  The Arishok is also the military arm only.  Personal views do not....or they didn't used to matter in Qunari society before DAI.

 

The Qun does look at your sex.  It is considered embarrassing for a male (as in someone born with a penis) to farm in Qunari society, but in times to great need or war they would do it, but they would not be happy about it.  That was said by a Bioware person on this forum clearing this up.

 

 

I have to admit these days I don't have the care in me to debate these issues.  This is just how it was.  If its not anymore then thats fine.  I don't have a dog in the fight at this point so to say.

[Toasted Llama]

They operate on insane troll logic. Their very notion of identity is defined through liberal application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can't say that you understood their views on identity and take issue with their mental gymnastics when it comes to gender. They're the same thing. 

 

Let's turn right back to the Arishok talking about Tal-Vasoth. He says that he lost no "Qunari" to talk the Tal-Vasoth. This only works if you tautologically define a Qunari as "someone who would not become a Tal-Vasoth". It is the same kind of logical black hole Sten puts forward in DA:O. Applying this to gender, here is what Sten (and the Arishok) say: 

 

Sten says: IF AND ONLY IF "Warrior", THEN "Man". One implication of the biconditional being IF NOT Man, THEN NOT "Warrior". We have no idea what Sten considers to be a warrior beyond the fact that it seems to involve "war" being your calling in some important way (not just a propensity for fighting). When you talk to Sten about the GWs, he views their "role" as being to combat the blight. In some sense, that's a "Warrior" role. And then his mind breaks, because he has the fundamental Qun biconditional about gender and warriors applicable in this case ("IF Warrior, THEN Man") along with your clearly defined role ("PC = Grey Warden = Warrior") and the implication of that biconditional ("IF NOT Man, then NOT Warrior"). So now Sten has to deal with you - by his internal logic - being in the "NOT Warrior" box but at the same time having you assert you are a "Warrior". That breaks his mind. Since he accepts his precondition can't be wrong - he's a good Qunari - he assumes you're lying and attempts to get you to relent (by saying you're a "NOT Warrior"). The Ben-Hassarath solve this issue by saying you're not "NOT Man". And that's the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

 

This works the same way with the Arishok and Tal-Vasoth, since the logic there is just "IF AND ONLY IF Tal-Vasoth, THEN NOT Qunari". 

 

Understanding this in terms of formal logic is very important, because as far as we can tell the Qun is content neutral. "Man" means whatever thing they define it to mean, not whatever it corresponds to IRL. People think the words the Qun uses about roles apprehend IRL meaning instead of whatever meaning the Qunari define those words to mean, which they often pull out of the air when confronted by a circumstance that doesn't fit their predefined notion. That's the Qunari's whole stick - the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

Well. Guess we know which race will be inventing the first programming language of Thedas!. Maybe that's why they're so technically advanced? They're robots they think in IF ... THEN statements?

[KaiserShep]

Well taking accord how you usually can't even know whole story of your companion without romancing them in BW's games.. I'd say that romance does make companions more intresting

Is that really true in Inquisition though? Anders is a popular example because you don't get dialogue about Carl unless you romance him as a male Hawke, but as far as I can tell, you pretty much get everyone's story without a romance barrier this time around. I'm fairly certain the same is true of Origins. I don't recall there being any special dialogue for the romance options that relate to their personal history that isn't simply blocked off by approval.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It's very easy to deflect the issue especially when the lore is vague enough, but the thing is, we didn't make these assumptions in a vaccum.

The Qun was shown more or less as an extremely utilitarian version of North Korea, everything is considered through the the question of "is this good for the Qun"? No place for sentiments, at least not according to the official line.

 

Why would this utilitarian view require them to assume that "gender is a role -- if you are a warrior, you are a male"? Can't they just use the word *warrior* instead of the word *Male*? A true Utilitarian view would simply not care about physical gender, and would assume roles according to precieved potential and ability.

 

To me, that said that someone tried to make the Qun more cuddly, and at the same time extend a rather meaningless olive branch towards transgenders, for reasons that had less to do with the story and more to do with political opinions.

 

Why do you believe the Qun is truly 100% utilitarian society of robots where any sort of feeling is verbotten and everything is only run in the most efficient of manners possible? Because Sten believes it is, even when he himself is a walking, talking proof to the contrary if you dig into his dialog?

 

It comes back to what David said. Sten's version of the Qun is not the 100% right one, and he even idealizes it to a degree (while IB has a greater distance from it and sees more of its flaws and dodgy reasoning). And I think this makes the Qun more multi-layered and interesting than an ''extreme version of North Korea'', as you put it..

 

As far as the Qun goes, Krem talks like a man, walks like a man, fights like a man, says he's a man, and thus is a man. It's how the logic goes. The writers have already explained that they use that kind of logical loophole a lot to fit the world into the Qun. If you don't like it, fine, but don't pretend this is anything new. Sten ultimately was able to accept that a female Warden is a warrior, a Kadan even, and the female warden clearly identifies as a woman for instance. To say nothing of Tallis, or the Arishok disobeying orders in a manner so brash that he was denounced by the Qun and his death forgotten on the spot.

[David Gaider]

Personal views do not....or they didn't used to matter in Qunari society before DAI.

 

Here, I think, is the crux of your problem.

 

Which "personal view" do you think would matter, in this case?

 

Have you considered the possibility that they would not view Krem's gender as a "personal view"? That Krem did not say "pretty please", and then the Tamassrans went "okay, we'll put you in a male role, but only because you asked so nicely."

 

We are telling you the Qunari have a more nuanced view of gender, because it does apply absolutely to their role, insofar as they're concerned. At what point that occurs, and how it happens, we haven't really gone into...but consider that, prior to the point at which their role is irrevocably assigned, the Tamassrans would also be the ones raising a child and preparing them and also assessing them. They decide where said child fits, not the child. This does not contradict anything else we've told you. That's all I guess I can really say about it.

[BansheeOwnage]

People are equating the Qun's definitions of gender with real-world ones. Stop. In real life, people like to associate gender with sex. If you're born in a male body, you're a man. However, that's not true. Nor is it true under the Qun. Is it crazy to think that instead of that arbitrary viewpoint, the Qunari simply have a different arbitrary viewpoint? That instead of your sex, your role determines whether you are a man or a woman? Like In Exile said, it's insane troll logic, and insane troll logic is very consistent with the Qunari.

[Iakus]

 

 

We are telling you the Qunari have a more nuanced view of gender, because it does apply absolutely to their role, insofar as they're concerned. At what point that occurs, and how it happens, we haven't really gone into...but consider that, prior to the point at which their role is irrevocably assigned, the Tamassrans would also be the ones raising a child and preparing them and also assessing them. They decide where said child fits, not the child. This does not contradict anything else we've told you. That's all I guess I can really say about it.

Now I'm imagining how things would have gone if Sten had been biologically female in DAO...

[Geth Supremacy]

Here, I think, is the crux of your problem.

 

Which "personal view" do you think would matter, in this case?

 

Have you considered the possibility that they would not view Krem's gender as a "personal view"? That Krem did not say "pretty please", and then the Tamassrans went "okay, we'll put you in a male role, but only because you asked so nicely."

 

We are telling you the Qunari have a more nuanced view of gender, because it does apply absolutely to their role, insofar as they're concerned. At what point that occurs, and how it happens, we haven't really gone into...but consider that, prior to the point at which their role is irrevocably assigned, the Tamassrans would also be the ones raising a child and preparing them and also assessing them. They decide where said child fits, not the child. This does not contradict anything else we've told you. That's all I guess I can really say about it.

 

The way that I see the Qunari which may not be the intended interpretation, but from everything I have seen the Qunari are - no personal view matters at all.  The Qun itself is the Iron Fist.  You either accept the Qun and all that comes with it or you are Tal Vashoth and marked for death unless you are "re-educated"

 

My problem with Krem was this contradicted that and made it so that the Qun was not the way all the things I had seen before was defined to me.  Krems feelings inside would not matter and it would be same for anyone else.  They would have been bred from specific parents for a specific purpose and then based on the law of the Qun and their proficiencies where they could best benefit the Qun as a whole they would be placed in this role and that would be the end of it.

 

"Accept and succeed or deny and die."

 

I will say the last paragraph you said makes it better.  It just doesn't feel "right" to me. Still a good point is a good point and you made one.  I will check into what happens in the future to make it all work together.  We don't exactly have the Qun to read at the moment so that is definitely something to keep in mind.  There are still things in the Qun that are locked by gender.

[KaiserShep]

I don't really see much of an issue with Krem and the Qun, seeing as how Iron Bull comes off as a bit of an outlier among his people already. Even Gat, an elf, seems to be puzzled by Bull's rather non-conformant demeanor when it comes to how he handles himself and his people.

[Geth Supremacy]

I don't really see much of an issue with Krem and the Qun, seeing as how Iron Bull comes off as a bit of an outlier among his people already. Even Gat, an elf, seems to be puzzled by Bull's rather non-conformant demeanor when it comes to how he handles himself and his people.

 

Yeah Bull is a stand up Qunari. Hes all about the Qun

[KaiserShep]

I dunno. Sten would probably have committed seppuku if he was declared tal-vashoth, whereas with Bull it just seemed kind of expected.