155 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes it is. It is being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

 

Not by some definitions of polyamory, which can require that the other members are romantically involved with eachother as well.

[Lady Artifice]

Yes it is. It is being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

 

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

 

The knowledge and consent bit is an important distinction. Neither Leliana or Morrigan were alright with what the Warden was doing.

[Tishina]

Yes it is. It is being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

As I said, you've found a very vague definition that leaves out the most important details. Someone cheating on a partner is not engaged in polyamory, they're cheating. It's only polyamory if it's consensual. And Lel and Morrigan will force you to choose between them if you do start that situation. You can only get away with it until the next time you speak to one, iirc. But regardless, I'm curious about why you are trying to shift this discussion from the obvious meaning of consensual relationships to cheating?

[Tishina]

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

 

The knowledge and consent bit is an important distinction. Neither Leliana or Morrigan were alright with what the Warden was doing.

Thank you.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And no one said you did. You did, however, ask if DAO had 'this'. It didn't, because 'this' in the context of the thread is 'polyamory in the form of an open multi-way relationship as set out by the OP and used in the context thread,' not 'polyamory as defined by the selective definition Hanako Ikezawa wishes to use irregardless of all other possible definitions.'

 

As a mathematician answer goes, you are correct. As a functional answer goes, you are wrong.

Yes, I asked if it had 'this', as in 'polyamory and what the term represents'. And while replying to you, I learned that it does. So thank you for indirectly answering my question. I sincerely appreciate it. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

As I said, you've found a very vague definition that leaves out the most important details. Someone cheating on a partner is not engaged in polyamory, they're cheating. It's only polyamory if it's consensual. And Lel and Morrigan will force you to choose between them if you do start that situation. You can only get away with it until the next time you speak to one, iirc. But regardless, I'm curious about why you are trying to shift this discussion from the obvious meaning of consensual relationships to cheating?

No, I found the dictionary definition of the term. 

As for Morrigan and Leliana, there is a way you can be with both without them confronting you about it anymore even if you talk to them, but it sounds tricky. 

 

I never brought up cheating. The first time that word came up was in your post. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

 

The knowledge and consent bit is an important distinction. Neither Leliana or Morrigan were alright with what the Warden was doing.

 

It's probably the hypertext, but the part I'd underline is the 'everyone involved,' followed by 'not exclusive.' Both Leliana and Morrigan want exclusive relationships with the Warden.

 

But this just gets back to how there are many different definitions available, so it's better to go with the one that is the basis of the thread (the OPs) than to wave around arbitrary selections.

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes, I asked if it had 'this', as in 'polyamory and what the term represents'. And while replying to you, I learned that it does. So thank you for indirectly answering my question. I sincerely appreciate it. 

 

I am always happy to make corrections on people's misuse of language.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I am always happy to make corrections on people's misuse of language.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on it being a misuse of the term when I'm using the dictionary definition of that term. 

[Tishina]

No, I found the dictionary definition of the term. 

As for Morrigan and Leliana, there is a way you can be with both without them confronting you about it anymore even if you talk to them, but it sounds tricky. 

And of course, there's only one dictionary and it can't possibly be misrepresenting how that term is defined by those involved.

 

And fascinatingly, you didn't answer the question about why you insist on redirecting this into cheating rather than what you have been told repeatedly is the meaning for this thread. So, I'm done discussing with you.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And of course, there's only one dictionary and it can't possibly be misrepresenting how that term is defined by those involved.

 

And fascinatingly, you didn't answer the question about why you insist on redirecting this into cheating rather than what you have been told repeatedly is the meaning for this thread. So, I'm done discussing with you.

Try several dictionaries that have the identical definition. 

 

I did. I never brought up cheating. You were the one who brought that term up. But yes, let's drop this. 

[Broganisity]

I support the concept as long as it is done in a fitting way.

By this I mean not having the option to be in a romance with multiple consenting companions, but rather the player is the 'third party' of a relationship between a companion and a side character. I feel like that particular route would be more interesting from a narrative perspective.

[Lady Artifice]

But this just gets back to how there are many different definitions available, so it's better to go with the one that is the basis of the thread (the OPs) than to wave around arbitrary selections.

 

This is true.

 

 

As for me, I personally prefer monogomous romance arcs, and I do think it would be difficult for the Devs to implement. 

 

But if they they did a polyamorous romance, I think they should do it with two people who are already a couple and who invite the PC into the relationship. That seems like the tidiest way to go about it to me. 

[AresKeith]

This is true.

 

 

As for me, I personally prefer monogomous romance arcs, and I do think it would be difficult for the Devs to implement. 

 

But if they they did a polyamorous romance, I think they should do it with two people who are already a couple and who invite the PC into the relationship. That seems like the tidiest way to go about it to me. 

 

Two companions form a relationship and asks the PC to join

[Hanako Ikezawa]

This is true.

 

 

As for me, I personally prefer monogomous romance arcs, and I do think it would be difficult for the Devs to implement. 

 

But if they they did a polyamorous romance, I think they should do it with two people who are already a couple and who invite the PC into the relationship. That seems like the tidiest way to go about it to me. 

Bioware agrees from what they've said about the idea. 

Unfortunately that means if they do this they will be doing the companion hook-up thing I don't like. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on it being a misuse of the term when I'm using the dictionary definition of that term. 

 

That is always an excellent way to misuse language when talking with other people, particularly with words with multiple meanings that lack a singular meaning that could be called 'the' dictionary definition.

 

(Also ignorring the many different dictionaries available to choose from. Le sigh.)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That is always an excellent way to misuse language when talking with other people, particularly with words with multiple meanings that lack a singular meaning that could be called 'the' dictionary definition.

 

(Also ignorring the many different dictionaries available to choose from. Le sigh.)

Using how the term is defined identically by multiple sources is misusing the term? 

[vertigomez]

No, I found the dictionary definition of the term. 
As for Morrigan and Leliana, there is a way you can be with both without them confronting you about it anymore even if you talk to them, but it sounds tricky. 
 
I never brought up cheating. The first time that word came up was in your post.

You can't be with both of them without them WANTING to confront you. Regardless of whether or not you talk to them enough to trigger the break-up convos, the banter shows that neither lady is okay with the situation. That's what makes it cheating. There's no Keep tile that says "the Warden was in a relationship with Morrigan and Leliana", and you can't go into Inquisition with both of their romances active, therefor, it's not what we're talking about at all.

Please stop being obtuse. There's a derogatory word for gay people that also means "a bundle of sticks", but I guarantee you nobody's using it that way.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You can't be with both of them without them WANTING to confront you. Regardless of whether or not you talk to them enough to trigger the break-up convos, the banter shows that neither lady is okay with the situation. That's what makes it cheating. There's no Keep tile that says "the Warden was in a relationship with Morrigan and Leliana", and you can't go into Inquisition with both of their romances active, therefor, it's not what we're talking about at all.

Please stop being obtuse. There's a derogatory word for gay people that also means "a bundle of sticks", but I guarantee you nobody's using it that way.

Sorry, that always comes to mind whenever someone uses the term obtuse like that.

 

In all seriousness though, I'm dropping the conversation. My question was answered that it is indeed polyamory, though not the kind the OP wants(which I never said it was), so no point in continuing. As for going in with both romances active, technically you can though it is a bug.

[Lady Artifice]

Two companions form a relationship and asks the PC to join

 

The trick there would be, what would be the factor that initiates the companions forming a relationship? i.e. Garrus and Tali getting together due to both being single.

 

Problematic. Too many variables. 

 

No, I think it would have to be an existing relationship, established before encountering the PC.

 

Or. Or, it could be and option that opens up by way of the PC being in a certain relationship. PC and character A begin a romance. Character B approaches and tests the waters regarding joining in. I could see a Zevran type character doing that. 

 

 

This has probably all been discussed before. Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The trick there would be, what would be the factor that initiates the companions forming a relationship? i.e. Garrus and Tali getting together due to both being single.

 

Problematic. Too many variables. 

 

No, I think it would have to be an existing relationship, established before encountering the PC.

 

Or. Or, it could be and option that opens up by way of the PC being in a certain relationship. PC and character A begin a romance. Character B approaches and tests the waters regarding joining in. I could see a Zevran type character doing that. 

 

 

This has probably all been discussed before. Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread. 

It hasn't been discussed yet. 

[Lady Artifice]

Using how the term is defined identically by multiple sources is misusing the term? 

 

It can be, if you're oversimplifying it and ignoring context. 

[Dean_the_Young]

As for me, I personally prefer monogomous romance arcs, and I do think it would be difficult for the Devs to implement. 

 

But if they they did a polyamorous romance, I think they should do it with two people who are already a couple and who invite the PC into the relationship. That seems like the tidiest way to go about it to me. 

 

It is- but it's also helpful to remember that a structurally pre-established couple isn't necessarily the same as a pair of NPCs that are romantically engaged from the start.

 

Or, in other words- (potential) love triangle!

 

Consider a case in which two NPCs meet and become romantically engaged over the course of the story. A 'background romance', if you will- nothing you do can stop it, nothing you can do will break it. Functionally, that's the same as a pre-existing relationship that's established from the start. It sounds different, but the two NPCs are already tied together in a relatively 'static' way, even though the relationship may seem dynamic due to the character development and such.

 

From there, it's a short hop, skip, and jump away from allowing the player to be a potential party in a love triangle that can become a polyamory. As long as the player can't get an exclusive relationship or prevent the NPCs from pairing, it would functionally be the same as if those NPCs were together from the start. But this way allows some sense of progression for people who would like a polyamory as a 'compromise' solution for resolving a love triangle, rather than an 'opt in' for a pre-established relationship. It'd also have the 'virtue' of being something that shows NPC independence from the PC- that they'd get together regardless of what the PC wants or feels.

 

 

In layman terms, it could map like this-

 

If PC A does not want romance-

-NPCs (B AND C) form a monogamous couple.

 

If PC A does want a romance with NPC (B OR C)-

-PC A can come to terms that (B OR C) will not have an exclusive relationship with PC A, and agrees/is accepted into a polyamory with (B AND C)

-PC A does not agree to a polyamory, and NPCs (B AND C) form a monogamous couple

 

If PC A does want a romance with NPC (B AND C)-

-PC A is accepted into a polyamory with (B AND C)

[Dean_the_Young]

Using how the term is defined identically by multiple sources is misusing the term? 

 

If a term has differing definitions and defining sources, then of course. That's why context, and not just diction, is required for competent communication skills.

 

If I'm speaking with military people, then military terms have specific doctrinal definitions that are irrelevant to the layman and common usage. If I'm speaking with engineers, then something like 'power' has a specific implication compared to when I talk with a political scientist. When I speak with a lawyer, words have a specific contextual meaning that isn't necessarily apparent to non-lawyers. When I read academic social science papers, sometimes the same words get redefined each paper.

 

None of these definitions are necessarily 'wrong' in isolation, but they can also be irrelevant or misleading depending on context.

[Broganisity]

I love it when people argue on the forums, it sustains me.

. . .I mean-

I could see it as being the following vague scenario:

1) Player flirts and attempts to romance the Companion, the entire time believing them to be currently single, they then find out that the character is in a relationship already with someone else and they care for them just as they care for you, the player. The player can then be dedicated to the relationship (locked in, as it were) or leave and end the relationship.

2) Once locked into the relationship, the player then begins to get to learn the other person involved and their relation with the companion which allows the player to either grow to like this character as well as a friend, to love them as they love the companion mutual, or start to dislike them or be jealous. This would all be 'early on' in the romance once locked, focusing primarily on the ties between the Player and the NPC, as it's assumed at this point that the Player and the Companion like each other. Insight is gained on the Companion and the NPC's relationship as well.

2) Over time, a potential crisis scene occurs when the player finds out something nefarious about the other party (an attempted murder plot or something. The NPC is forced into this however and genuinely loves the Companion) and attempts to warn the companion, who may or may not believe the player based on prior interactions during the relationship locking scene or while in the romance. The crisis moment happens and the player can end up in the following outcomes:

Potential Outcomes:
 

- If Companion believes warning and Player Loves NPC: Three survive and stay a couple.

- If Companion believes warning and Player is friends with NPC: Three survive and stay a couple.

- If Companion believes warning and Player dislikes the NPC: NPC can die and Player stays with companion regardless. Companion may leave NPC for Player.

- If Companion doesn't believe warning and Player Loves NPC: Companion can die. Player remains with NPC regardless.

- If Companion doesn't believe warning and Player is friends with NPC: Companion can die. If Companion dies Player does not remain in relationship with NPC.

- If Companion doesn't believe warning and Player dislikes the NPC: Companion can die. NPC can die. If NPC does not die, Companion may leave NPC for Player.
- If Companion is not warned: Companion dies regardless. NPC can die, if they do not fate varies on player relationship. Stay together if loved by Player, leaves if not.

 

- Likely for gameplay limitations, I doubt you would then be able to romance anyone else on the character should both parties die or otherwise be uninterested in one another.