291 réponses à ce sujet

[zambingo]

Writers, or at least compotent ones, don't pose questions and do nothing. They answer them. That's the entire point of conflict and resolution. Anyway, such a thing doesn't even really exist. Because even the response of 'this question has no answer' is, itself, an answer. There's no such thing as a silent narrator.

You are always permitted to say. You are always permitted to think and say "This story is moronic." You don't need the narrative giving you permission to do so.

:-) No offense, but again I don't believe you are correct on whole. Pieces, yes. However I believe you're construing multiple things that don't totally relate to this specific.

Posing a question and not providing an answer is not necessarily a sign of incompetence as a writer. It can be highly valid and arguably a pinnacle purpose for a storyteller, in relation to what they can mean to society. This situation is not, to turn a writing phrase, putting a loaded gun on a mantle in act one and not having it go off in act three. This piece examines a philosophical question that doesn't have an answer, even if the game had one resolution the question is still open. That the game has multiple resolutions for this piece is both an example of the fluid nature of interactive storytelling, but also how wonderfully suited it can be to stories of this type. Beyond the fact that a game with choices allows the audience to impose some measure of self on the narrative, whether simply what race was the Inquisitor to how did they behave, in this instance the audience is afforded the ability to provide one answer to the philosophical question posed; What is justice here?

[Gilsa]

I was a violent Carta thug at the Conclave overseeing a lyrium deal. Wrong place, wrong time and people rolled out the red carpet for me and put me in charge with my own throne to boot. Blackwall was in the wrong time, wrong place and was constantly trying to be a better person, which was more than I could say for my Cadash. Leaving him to fall on his own sword? For what? Moral outrage? On something that predated the Inquisition? Hypocritical for an ex-Carta that got a second chance. Sending him to the Grey Wardens didn't make sense since I had banished them. It was a decision he needed to make freely once the misunderstandings about the original Blackwall's death were cleared up.

 

I never got the sense that Blackwall was "playing" the Inquisitor. He had nothing to gain by joining. He never asked the Inquisitor to intervene. He didn't even ask for mercy. He resolved this all on his own terms without the Inquisitor's involvement. Other people join the Inquisition for their own self-serving purposes, but Blackwall just wanted to help the greater good, that's all. That was a factor in freeing him.

 

If he had actually put a blade to those children himself, then I would have felt differently. I had a toddler sleeping in my lap when the details came to light so that was pretty tough to digest. I had to stop playing for a bit and research the actual facts and then consider my character's roleplay perspective before deciding how to proceed. Betrayal is the name of the game when you're in the Carta, but I felt that Blackwall was lying to himself rather than to others so I did not take the deception personally.

[Iakus]

:-) No offense, but again I don't believe you are correct on whole. Pieces, yes. However I believe you're construing multiple things that don't totally relate to this specific.

Posing a question and not providing an answer is not necessarily a sign of incompetence as a writer. It can be highly valid and arguably a pinnacle purpose for a storyteller, in relation to what they can mean to society. This situation is not, to turn a writing phrase, putting a loaded gun on a mantle in act one and not having it go off in act three. This piece examines a philosophical question that doesn't have an answer, even if the game had one resolution the question is still open. That the game has multiple resolutions for this piece is both an example of the fluid nature of interactive storytelling, but also how wonderfully suited it can be to stories of this type. Beyond the fact that a game with choices allows the audience to impose some measure of self on the narrative, whether simply what race was the Inquisitor to how did they behave, in this instance the audience is afforded the ability to provide one answer to the philosophical question posed; What is justice here?

"The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think, but to give you questions to think upon"

 

That there are so many views about Blackwall and how to deal with him (pardon him, enslave him, let him rot in prison, etc) shows that there's plenty to think about given his motive and actions

[Paragonslustre]

If I had just been presented with Blackwall's (Rainier's) crimes, as Inquisitor I probably would have had him jailed for life or executed.  However, I got to know him 'personally' in game and that coloured my judgement.

[Magdalena11]

This sounds like a rather absurdly low bar for what constitutes 'betrayal.'

Betrayal comes in different kinds, and I probably chose the wrong word to express the concept.  The idea is that everyone has stuff they're hiding, and their own agenda.  For Blackwall, what he's hiding is truly horrific, but it really is something in the past that doesn't affect the current inquisition.  If you can't forgive the lie or the mistake, you don't have to keep him.  You'll lose a good warrior, but you'll have the satisfaction of making a statement.  I think you can even blackmail him into staying with the inquisition, so you can continue to punish him by turning him into essentially slave labor, if you like.  For me, the fact is that it's in the past, and if the inquisition will have him, he'll be loyal to the end--the shoe's dropped and except for some petty womanizing, fighting or drinking, you can assume he's learned his lesson and won't cause any more problems.  I much prefer his brand of treachery to Viv's, someone who is actively pursuing their political agenda while still serving the inquisition.  That's someone to worry about.  Or, Bull can remain a Qunari agent throughout the game if you want, and was chosen for his role for his ability to lie.  That's a current threat if he's not being forthright, and he did tell you he's good at lying.  My point is that if you're going to pick and choose which companions are worthy of service and which should be cut loose, it's about the inquisitor's values, not the companion's.  They're all good and bad, it's just a question of what faults are ones you don't want to accept.

[ask_again_later]

Yes.

Didn't work. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Didn't work. 

Oh, well maybe you'll want to set all spoilers off instead?

[KaiserShep]

I much prefer his brand of treachery to Viv's, someone who is actively pursuing their political agenda while still serving the inquisition.  That's someone to worry about.

 

On the subject of Vivienne, if you talk to Josephine regularly, at some point she will mention that Vivienne invited someone to Skyhold, who just so happens to be influential in the election for Divine, which she notes as curious. The very idea can be very irksome if you just so happened to be someone who allied with the mages.

[BabyPuncher]

Posing a question and not providing an answer is not necessarily a sign of incompetence as a writer. It can be highly valid and arguably a pinnacle purpose for a storyteller, in relation to what they can mean to society. This situation is not, to turn a writing phrase, putting a loaded gun on a mantle in act one and not having it go off in act three. This piece examines a philosophical question that doesn't have an answer, even if the game had one resolution the question is still open. That the game has multiple resolutions for this piece is both an example of the fluid nature of interactive storytelling, but also how wonderfully suited it can be to stories of this type. Beyond the fact that a game with choices allows the audience to impose some measure of self on the narrative, whether simply what race was the Inquisitor to how did they behave, in this instance the audience is afforded the ability to provide one answer to the philosophical question posed; What is justice here?

The question is not still open at all.

If a story enunciates, say, 'Power makes people evil', that's it. The question of 'Does power corrupt?' is closed. 'Yes' is the right answer and 'No' is the wrong answer. And if you disagree as a reader, according to the narrator - you're wrong.

All stories with themes do this, whether they want to or not. There's no such thing as a silent narrator. Even a story that makes the very silly claim of 'There's no wrong answer' condemns certain answers as wrong. Anyone who believes there ARE wrong answers are themselves 'wrong' under such a narrator.

[BabyPuncher]

"The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think, but to give you questions to think upon"

That quote is flatly nonsense. It suggests that 'telling' a person how to think somehow inhibits a person's ability to think about the subject themselves.

The purpose of stories is to enunciate truths.

[Sah291]

Well in my first play through I failed to trigger his quest, so my inquisitor never found out and so he just sorta...stayed....

But really. I think that my Inquisitor didn't trust any of her companions at first and felt 90% of the inquisition members were all hiding something and/or looking for some kind of redemption, acceptance, second chance, etc. It's like how Varric jokes about everyone being a thug/villain in one of his stories except for the main character... If you think about it, almost everyone who joins you has some sort of problematic past somehow. So for story and headcanon reasons, I took that concept and ran with it. Also him not being a real grey warden turned out to work in his favor, since that meant he wasn't vulnerable to Corypheus, and he wasn't involved in their shenanigans, so there's just some practical/utilitarian reasoning also I guess.

[zambingo]

The question is not still open at all.

If a story enunciates, say, 'Power makes people evil', that's it. The question of 'Does power corrupt?' is closed. 'Yes' is the right answer and 'No' is the wrong answer. And if you disagree as a reader, according to the narrator - you're wrong.

All stories with themes do this, whether they want to or not. There's no such thing as a silent narrator. Even a story that makes the very silly claim of 'There's no wrong answer' condemns certain answers as wrong. Anyone who believes there ARE wrong answers are themselves 'wrong' under such a narrator.

Again. Sorry, but I believe you're right and yet incorrect. You're still construing the process with the effect.

To be absurd and still playful, no ill will etc; Why are you on a discussion forum, inside a thread that discusses a question which has no absolute answer when you believe that a what narrator says, what the story concludes is absolute? Are we all unwashed masses in need of academic correction? Doesn't reality debase your position? ;-)

[Wynterdust]

He was a willing helping hand and he could do a lot more in life than he could atone for in death. Him dying wouldn't have changed what he did and since he's clearly willing to do the right thing, it seems pretty clear. If he hadn't shown any regret towards it then it would be a different story.

[beccatoria]

That quote is flatly nonsense. It suggests that 'telling' a person how to think somehow inhibits a person's ability to think about the subject themselves.

The purpose of stories is to enunciate truths.

 

If that's how you like your stories, power to you, but there are entire schools of literary theory that disagree.  Formalism, for one, is vastly more concerned with the interaction between the reader and the text than the intent of the author.  It would also be incorrect to presume that every author is seeking to make definitive statements rather than presenting questions.  Further, the existence of clear themes in some areas doesn't negate the possibility for ambiguity in others. 

 

Again, you have a preference in terms of narrative storytelling, as I'm sure most of us do, and I'm not here to tell you that it's a bad one.  But it's not as universal as you seem to be implying. 

[Magdalena11]

That quote is flatly nonsense. It suggests that 'telling' a person how to think somehow inhibits a person's ability to think about the subject themselves.

The purpose of stories is to enunciate truths.

Telling someone how to think is an act of agression.  It hurts them on a very deep level, because it takes away their agency and replaces it with yours.  It implies giving or witholding approval if there is disagreement.  Really, and literally, it's an attempt at mind control.  DON'T EVER TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK OR FEEL.  It's hard to understand, but there's so much to worry people, most of the time they make the choices that are easiest.  It's easiest to parrot what's been told to you than risk disagreeing.  You've been told the "truth," why look deeper?  No one can know or say everything important there is to know about something, so not all facts will be presented.  The facts that are presented, and the light in which this is done, may present a completely skewed version of literal fact.  It's OK to say that something's your opinion.  Like a sphincter, everybody's got one.  You don't have to disprove your own argument every time you want to make a point  in order to acknowledge that other points of view might be valid.  You just have to leave an opening for doubt or disagreement.

 

The purpose of stories is to provide a framework.  If all the places where you could attach interpretation have been filled with the teller's, most people really won't go further.

 

Edit:  I just realized this is a rant and not on topic.  I thought it needed to be said because of the dangerous attitude bolded above, but if the mods feel it doesn't belong, they're probably right.

Modifié par Magdalena11, 29 mai 2015 - 11:59 .

[HereticDante]

Or rather "save" him.

 

Why did you do it? I don't see why anyone would. For one thing, it's the justice system and that's how it works. Not to mention that he willingly decided to do it and I figured I'd respect his wishes.

 

So for anyone who brought Blackwall back to Skyhold, what was your reasoning? I feel like even if you romanced him you wouldn't do that, but that's just my thought.

 

Well if we're taking a purely legal system in Thedas, Rainier was still recruited by  a grey warden, which legally speaking puts him beyond any legal judgment from anyone other than the grey wardens. So really if anyone should appraise his actions, it should be then. I know he was impersonating a grey warden for a long time, but he was still legitimately recruited into the order which seems to be treated as the moment they are considered a grey warden for all intents and purposes by hte outside world

[TevinterSupremacist]

Telling someone how to think is an act

 

that happens using one's own body, tongue, lips etc, to talk, falls under personal bodily autonomy and thus is perfectly fine. Forcing someone to think in a certain way is a different thing than telling them how to think.

[Magdalena11]

that happens using one's own body, tongue, lips etc, to talk, falls under personal bodily autonomy and thus is perfectly fine. Forcing someone to think in a certain way is a different thing than telling them how to think.

I'm not sure I get the distinction.  How is telling someone to think a certain way and warning them of the negative consequences of failure to comply different than forcing?  OK, I guess it is, if the person being coerced doesn't really care about the consequences of the outcome.  Point made.  It's not really any different than anything else, if the person doing the coercion is prepared to accept the consequences.  With media and stories, the person exertling their influence isn't there to deal with the repercussion, though.  They plant a virtual letter bomb and whistle while they walk away, because the destruction isn't their fault, they just delivered a package.  The fact that the contents of the package were not random and the overall result was planned is irrelevant -- someone got hurt and they wouldn't have if the package wasn't there, and it did what it was supposed to.  People who tell stories are ultimately accountable for their impact, sorry.  It doesn't matter whether it's the media or a legend or a juicy bit of gossip you heard in line at the deli.  If you say something so compellingly that people believe you, and it winds up that what you said hurts them, it's your fault.  Did you know that some professionals are prohibited from discussing their work, even casually, for this reason?

[TevinterSupremacist]

I'm not sure I get the distinction.  How is telling someone to think a certain way and warning them of the negative consequences of failure to comply different than forcing?  OK, I guess it is, if the person being coerced doesn't really care about the consequences of the outcome.  Point made.  It's not really any different than anything else, if the person doing the coercion is prepared to accept the consequences.  With media and stories, the person exertling their influence isn't there to deal with the repercussion, though.  They plant a virtual letter bomb and whistle while they walk away, because the destruction isn't their fault, they just delivered a package.  People who tell stories are ultimately accountable for their impact, sorry.  It doesn't matter whether it's the media or a legend or a juicy bit of gossip you heard in line at the deli.  If you say something so compellingly that people believe you, and it winds up that what you said hurts them, it's your fault.  Did you know that some professionals are prohibited from discussing their work, even casually, for this reason?

It depends on the type of consequences. For instance "start thinking and by extension acting in a certain way or we can't be friends anymore" is perfectly ok, since the consequences don't violate the "threatened" person's rights. After all, it's perfectly ok to not be friends with someone because of how they think.

"Think a certain way or I'll beat you up" is not. Because here consequences are of a problematic nature.

Now, if we focus only in the telling someone to act a certain way, which is what I was actually referring to, without institutionalising any consequences in case he/she doesn't comply, that's always fine. You just used your mouth.

As for people who tell stories being accountable for the impact, eh. No. Nah. The range of possible recipents is too big. Different people can react very differently to different things. Someone can see superman's story and decide to jump off a roof and try flying. The storyteller is not responsible for his/her death. Obviously, that was an extreme case but it still falls under "impact of the story". So no, the prhase "People who tell stories are ultimately accountable for their impact" isn't true. You need to put more specifications, otherwise you include too many stuff a storyteller can't be held accountable for.

[Sah291]

I'm not sure I get the distinction. How is telling someone to think a certain way and warning them of the negative consequences of failure to comply different than forcing? OK, I guess it is, if the person being coerced doesn't really care about the consequences of the outcome. Point made. It's not really any different than anything else, if the person doing the coercion is prepared to accept the consequences. With media and stories, the person exertling their influence isn't there to deal with the repercussion, though. They plant a virtual letter bomb and whistle while they walk away, because the destruction isn't their fault, they just delivered a package. The fact that the contents of the package were not random and the overall result was planned is irrelevant -- someone got hurt and they wouldn't have if the package wasn't there, and it did what it was supposed to. People who tell stories are ultimately accountable for their impact, sorry. It doesn't matter whether it's the media or a legend or a juicy bit of gossip you heard in line at the deli. If you say something so compellingly that people believe you, and it winds up that what you said hurts them, it's your fault. Did you know that some professionals are prohibited from discussing their work, even casually, for this reason?

Hmm, this is why I find the Blood magic/mind control debate in DA interesting. It seems to hint at this theme. Explains why people are so afraid of mages, who have the ability to do this sort of thing easily, no?

But I think you answered your own question there. Simply expressing an opinion, even very persuasively, or pointing out negative consequences of one's actions, or even being rude, isn't in of itself aggression. Until such point you start threatening violence and violating someone's rights.

In my opinion, I don't think we can say simply having or expressing an offensive or controversial opinion, with the intent to persuade others, is by itself an act of aggression. You can see how that might quickly become oppressive and stifling to free thought/speech. I think, you have to consider, did the speech actually violate someone's self ownership or rights somehow? That said, a story teller should also accept the consequences of what opinions they put forth, and the fact that others will also respond. If you are going to write something intentionally offensive or provocative, for example, don't be surprised when people feel, well, provoked.

[Magdalena11]

Hmm, this is why I find the Blood magic/mind control debate in DA interesting. It seems to hint at this theme. Explains why people are so afraid of mages, who have the ability to do this sort of thing easily, no?

But I think you answered your own question there. Simply expressing an opinion, even very persuasively, or pointing out negative consequences of one's actions, or even being rude, isn't in of itself aggression. Until such point you start threatening violence and violating someone's rights.

In my opinion, I don't think we can say simply having or expressing an offensive or controversial opinion, with the intent to persuade others, is by itself an act of aggression. You can see how that might quickly become oppressive and stifling to free thought/speech. I think, you have to consider, did the speech actually violate someone's self ownership or rights somehow? That said, a story teller should also accept the consequences of what opinions they put forth, and the fact that others will also respond. If you are going to write something intentionally offensive or provocative, for example, don't be surprised when people feel, well, provoked.

You're right.  As a teacher once put it: "Your right to freedom of expression stops at someone else's nose."  The problem is that sometimes, through ignorance or their own emotional disability, people sometimes have trouble finding where someone else's nose starts.  And, honestly, some people's noses are bigger than they look.  It is also that sometimes, there is something that the person doing the persuading isn't taking into account when they say it's my way or the highway.  They did make it pretty easy for us, with Blackwall.  His crime was black-and-white, it was just a question of what we want to do about it.  I think there are enough options to satisfy anyone.

 

I did think about the similarity between Blackwall's crime and Loghain's.  I think the difference is that Blackwall changed on his own afterward.  Loghain kept on hiring assassins and bounty hunters, and started having people locked up who opposed them and selling people into slavery when he found he was short on cash (shouldn't have hired those bounty hunters, huh?)  He also benefited from his decision, because then he got to rule the country his way, at least for a while.  The only benefit Blackwall got was a name (warden) that kept him alive and put him in a position to help other people.

 

I actually think it's great that they go into issues like redemption and forgiveness.  I'd be willing to bet that it strikes a chord with a lot of people.

[Sah291]

I actually think it's great that they go into issues like redemption and forgiveness. I'd be willing to bet that it strikes a chord with a lot of people.

Yeah it does. Plus I think, with the way the Inquisitor is chained up and threatened with jail/execution at the start of the game, is supposed to put the player in the position of a suspect/guilty individual. It turns out you are innoncent, but you don't find that out until later. At the time, the Inquisitor is fortunate for the mercy Cassandra and Leliana show you, and for Solas being able to convince them both the mark is useful to them. You are kinda set up from the start to be a little more empathetic than with past protagonists I think. They do jump right to the herald thing rather quickly though, so maybe that point gets lost.

[Magdalena11]

Yeah it does. Plus I think, with the way the Inquisitor is chained up and threatened with jail/execution at the start of the game, is supposed to put the player in the position of a suspect/guilty individual. It turns out you are innoncent, but you don't find that out until later. At the time, the Inquisitor is fortunate for the mercy Cassandra and Leliana show you, and for Solas being able to convince them both the mark is useful to them. You are kinda set up from the start to be a little more empathetic than with past protagonists I think. They do jump right to the herald thing rather quickly though, so maybe that point gets lost.

I don't think so, because people do pick up on it.  It's just that it is a really big game, and there are a lot of social issues (if that's the right concept) that they're trying to get you to think about.  I applaud the ambition, and wonder if they knew what they were letting themselves in for.  It's a video game, and you get as much or as little out of it as you want.  There are a lot of heavy, current issues in there, and there's a lot to think about, if you want, but I bet it's possible to click through codexes, not reading anything, and still finish the game too.

[Sah291]

I don't think so, because people do pick up on it.  It's just that it is a really big game, and there are a lot of social issues (if that's the right concept) that they're trying to get you to think about.  I applaud the ambition, and wonder if they knew what they were letting themselves in for.  It's a video game, and you get as much or as little out of it as you want.  There are a lot of heavy, current issues in there, and there's a lot to think about, if you want, but I bet it's possible to click through codexes, not reading anything, and still finish the game too.

Reminds me of something funny Patrick Weekes said in one interview...something about how the game was either a great elfroot picking simulator, or a deep religious story.