561 réponses à ce sujet

[Rocknife]

Any member of the Lodge of Sorceresses were strong, even in death.

[andy6915]

How is this a bad thing? 

 

It's not, on its face. But cutting the foreskin off of people without their consent when they're far too young to even have a say or fight back is supremely f*cked up. If female circumcision somehow allowed people to regrow limbs, would you see it as justified to start a circumcising baby girls en mass? Chop off a clitoris, help a person be able to walk again... Sounds like a great deal, huh? You're basically saying that babies well being needs to be sacrificed against their will so that a burn victim somewhere else gets a better life. I don't see it as fair to permanently scar someone for life by cutting a big piece of skin off to help someone else's own injury, especially people that are freaking newborns. And greed is the reason they do it, not helping. They do it because someone else is willing to pay a lot of money for it and sometimes it just happens to go for a good cause. Sometimes it's just so some woman somewhere can put some anti wrinkle cream on her face, because that's definitely important enough for someone to be effected for life by an invasive procedure done without consent/sarcasm.

[Countess Cutlass]

Which is why DAI feels so bland, in the overall context. It feels so modern in ideals and equality and it doesn't fit. It is not primitive enough.

You could argue that it is a "Fantasy" BUT look at all fantasy- books, movies and series that where we fight with swords and shields all of them have a stroke of modern views in them strong women, equality and so on but not to much so its overpowering the medieval lore, it is still primitive enough so it could take place in that time.

And that is what DAI does completely overpowering.

 

There were plenty of strong women in history.  Lots of women taking charge, forging ahead despite sexism and lame attitudes.  It really did happen.  So, there's that.

 

I confess I don't get this argument, though.  I guess there's only narrative tension when women are all weak and subjugated?   When everyone's racist?  When trans people are trashed?  Because, to be honest it seems an odd line to draw.  Dragons, fine.  Frost zombies, check.  Independent women/not everyone is white and blonde/LGBTQ positivity...THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC.  Um, okay.

 

Also, I think it's sometimes refreshing to see a world that is a reflection (somewhat) of things that we would like to see in our world: more-or-less equality between the sexes and more tolerance regarding sexuality.  Not everything has to be an exact social depiction of real world issues.  It just doesn't.  I sometimes don't want to have to wade through super racist/misogynistic lore so we can all talk about how bad it really is.  Sometimes, it's interesting and fine, but sometimes I just want to kick butt as a cool female heroine in a world that supports that.  I feel like there is room for both.  Though, usually, the latter doesn't happen too much, which is kind of a shame, imho.

[midnight tea]

Also, I think it's sometimes refreshing to see a world that is a reflection (somewhat) of things that we would like to see in our world: more-or-less equality between the sexes and more tolerance regarding sexuality.  Not everything has to be an exact social depiction of real world issues.  It just doesn't.  I sometimes don't want to have to wade through super racist/misogynistic lore so we can all talk about how bad it really is.  Sometimes, it's interesting and fine, but sometimes I just want to kick butt as a cool female heroine in a world that supports that.  I feel like there is room for both.  Though, usually, the latter doesn't happen too much, which is kind of a shame, imho.

 

I completely agree - and I think it's important that such hypothetical worlds help us focus on different issues or more subtle matters once we're no longer forced to go though YET ANOTHER "uh, oh, we have to fight against this horrible system that holds us back on every turn!".

 

Besides - if realistic/semi-realistic fiction is supposed to be the "exact depiction" of our reality, where it sucks to be a woman/PoC/LGBT, doesn't that basically flies in the face of those who, on the same breath, claim that, say, women never had it as bad as they claim/don't have that bad???

[Ariella]

There were plenty of strong women in history.  Lots of women taking charge, forging ahead despite sexism and lame attitudes.  It really did happen.  So, there's that.

 

I confess I don't get this argument, though.  I guess there's only narrative tension when women are all weak and subjugated?   When everyone's racist?  When trans people are trashed?  Because, to be honest it seems an odd line to draw.  Dragons, fine.  Frost zombies, check.  Independent women/not everyone is white and blonde/LGBTQ positivity...THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC.  Um, okay.

 

Also, I think it's sometimes refreshing to see a world that is a reflection (somewhat) of things that we would like to see in our world: more-or-less equality between the sexes and more tolerance regarding sexuality.  Not everything has to be an exact social depiction of real world issues.  It just doesn't.  I sometimes don't want to have to wade through super racist/misogynistic lore so we can all talk about how bad it really is.  Sometimes, it's interesting and fine, but sometimes I just want to kick butt as a cool female heroine in a world that supports that.  I feel like there is room for both.  Though, usually, the latter doesn't happen too much, which is kind of a shame, imho.

 

A-freaking-men!

 

I don't see why Dragon Age has to conform to some kind of check list of what is fantasy. This whole "medieval" trope is a joke. I have to wonder what the people at SCA would say about the assessment.   

[berelinde]

SCAdians (people in the Society for Creative Anachronism) hold a wide range of opinions about how diligently one should attempt to recreate medieval culture. Some people devote considerable time and expense into making their costumes, speech, and deportment as authentic as possible (minus the cholera and problematic social customs, of course), while others apply something called the Ten Yard Rule (if it looks OK at 30 feet, you're good to go). But wherever a member falls on the spectrum, they're encouraged to live and let live. No spoiling someone else's fun by imposing your standards on them. That approach sounds as if it would be useful in just about any situation, honestly.

 

But despite the medieval feel, Thedas is not medieval Europe, nor did it ever pretend to be. It has its own customs, lore, and rules.

[Ariella]

SCAdians (people in the Society for Creative Anachronism) hold a wide range of opinions about how diligently one should attempt to recreate medieval culture. Some people devote considerable time and expense into making their costumes, speech, and deportment as authentic as possible (minus the cholera and problematic social customs, of course), while others apply something called the Ten Yard Rule (if it looks OK at 30 feet, you're good to go). But wherever a member falls on the spectrum, they're encouraged to live and let live. No spoiling someone else's fun by imposing your standards on them. That approach sounds as if it would be useful in just about any situation, honestly.

 

But despite the medieval feel, Thedas is not medieval Europe, nor did it ever pretend to be. It has its own customs, lore, and rules.

 

My point about SCA is that they aren't going to go deny people the ability to fully participate based on gender or sexual preference or skin color, which WOULD have happened in history. Unless things have changed I doubt anyone has forbidden women to fight in tournaments for example.

 

And agreed, on Thedas on being Europe. I don't know why people suddenly think that to be good fantasy you have to have rigid gender roles.

[midnight tea]

My point about SCA is that they aren't going to go deny people the ability to fully participate based on gender or sexual preference or skin color, which WOULD have happened in history. Unless things have changed I doubt anyone has forbidden women to fight in tournaments for example.

 

And agreed, on Thedas on being Europe. I don't know why people suddenly think that to be good fantasy you have to have rigid gender roles.

 

Because nobody shall believe the world is realistic if there are no rigid gender roles, obviously! No matter how anachronistic other parts of the story are...!

...Let's face it, most people have little to no clue how Middle Ages/Renaissance, heck, even XIX-century world was. I don't think I can properly imagine it as well, with all its peculiarities and different mindsets, not shaped by modern inventions and conventions. I even have problem understanding my parents or grandparents sometimes...

 

I mean, it's always great to research things, especially if someone wants to create world specifically based on ours or even certain mythologies, but most fantasy doesn't SPECIFICALLY reflect particular time in Earth's history. In fact, a lot of it reflects times the author lives in, or - through medieval setting - they oftentimes attempt to reflect and say things about modern world or some more universal themes.

[Panda]

There were plenty of strong women in history.  Lots of women taking charge, forging ahead despite sexism and lame attitudes.  It really did happen.  So, there's that.

 

I confess I don't get this argument, though.  I guess there's only narrative tension when women are all weak and subjugated?   When everyone's racist?  When trans people are trashed?  Because, to be honest it seems an odd line to draw.  Dragons, fine.  Frost zombies, check.  Independent women/not everyone is white and blonde/LGBTQ positivity...THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC.  Um, okay.

 

Also, I think it's sometimes refreshing to see a world that is a reflection (somewhat) of things that we would like to see in our world: more-or-less equality between the sexes and more tolerance regarding sexuality.  Not everything has to be an exact social depiction of real world issues.  It just doesn't.  I sometimes don't want to have to wade through super racist/misogynistic lore so we can all talk about how bad it really is.  Sometimes, it's interesting and fine, but sometimes I just want to kick butt as a cool female heroine in a world that supports that.  I feel like there is room for both.  Though, usually, the latter doesn't happen too much, which is kind of a shame, imho.

 

It's quite intresting how many are against female characters having scars, wide jaws etc. and having reasonable armors that actually look like they will protect character cause it's fantasy and shouldn't be realistic, but suddenly these guys think it's so unrealistic to have world in game that treats female and LGBT+ characters with respect.

 

Like Witcher 3 has female characters who despite being strong-written are all (main female characters) pretty similar looking, conventionally attractive and 2 of them apparently uses magic to enchance their looks, but when someone argues that sexist world of Witcher 3 isn't nice suddenly it's must be cause it's realistic. Where did that fantasy disappear? Or is this fantasy only limited to eye-candy (mostly for straight male gamers)?

[Aren]

Considering the vast majority of males in the United States are circumcised... Yeah, we do need laws. But everyone doing it because everyone else is doing it, pressure put on parents by doctors because they can charge extra for the procedure plus the extra money they get for selling the foreskin to be put into beauty products, and bullsh!t studies that America does both to justify it and because the scientists doing it are also likely circumcised and thus biased, and on top of all that the fact that society as a whole doesn't value or care about males as much as females and ignores male suffering a lot more... Well, add all that up and it results in us actually needing laws for the obvious that "cutting skin off of a baby's penis without pain relief so they literally pass out from the pain within a minute of the cut is probably a bad thing". And no, that isn't hyperbole. They don't get any pain relief and they really do go unconscious due to the shock from the sheer agony they're in.

[Ariella]

Because nobody shall believe the world is realistic if there are no rigid gender roles, obviously! No matter how anachronistic other parts of the story are...!

...Let's face it, most people have little to no clue how Middle Ages/Renaissance, heck, even XIX-century world was. I don't think I can properly imagine it as well, with all its peculiarities and different mindsets, not shaped by modern inventions and conventions. I even have problem understanding my parents or grandparents sometimes...

 

I mean, it's always great to research things, especially if someone wants to create world specifically based on ours or even certain mythologies, but most fantasy doesn't SPECIFICALLY reflect particular time in Earth's history. In fact, a lot of it reflects times the author lives in, or - through medieval setting - they oftentimes attempt to reflect and say things about modern world or some more universal themes.

 

Agreed. It's one of those things I love when certain people get on their "back to nature" kicks (ie must abandon technology). We can't live without technology, and very very few of us can really imagine what it would be like.

 

World creation is always going to be informed by our own views, and I certainly have no problem with that. In fact, it's a great way to look at the world and its problem with fresh eyes and see in a way you haven't before.

 

I just do't understand why some  people think this is a bad thing.

[perfect_victime]

Maybe I am in the minority but I can play both games without reflecting on which handles 'pixel' love better. At times I wish some scenes in Dragon Age were more like the ones in the Witcher, and at times I think the Witcher could take cues from Bioware. I am a Bioware fan that I will admit. But during the time between games I play other games like Skyrim, Batman Arkham, and Witcher. Those games do not have the replay ability of Bioware games.

 

I am reminded of the Isabella romance in DA 2 which could have used a more 'Witcher' approach. Maybe the Cullen romance in DA:I as well since we have seen him in each game and many wanted a fan service with him. The Sera scene was spot on IMO, nothing needed to be added to it. Cassandra was also fine in its approach to the subject.  Solas was a bummer, but then I suppose it was meant to be.  

 

I think the article focused on the Bloody Baron Quest too much. Sure it was meaningful and broached a subject not seen in games, but it is such a small part of the whole. Medieval Europe WAS not a happy time for women who WERE treated like possessions. Perhaps he wasn't taking that into consideration whilst writing the article.

 

I have a dream; A dream of a time where a chicken may cross the road without his intension being questioned.     

[Ariella]

 

I am reminded of the Isabella romance in DA 2 which could have used a more 'Witcher' approach. Maybe the Cullen romance in DA:I as well since we have seen him in each game and many wanted a fan service with him. The Sera scene was spot on IMO, nothing needed to be added to it. Cassandra was also fine in its approach to the subject.  Solas was a bummer, but then I suppose it was meant to be.  

 

 

While a *tiny* bit more skin would have been nice (ie having the morning after not be the IQ already pulling on her boots) Cullen's romance really didn't need a Witcher treatment. 

[berelinde]

My point about SCA is that they aren't going to go deny people the ability to fully participate based on gender or sexual preference or skin color, which WOULD have happened in history. Unless things have changed I doubt anyone has forbidden women to fight in tournaments for example.

 

And agreed, on Thedas on being Europe. I don't know why people suddenly think that to be good fantasy you have to have rigid gender roles.

Back in the old days of the SCA, females who wanted to fight had to adopt a male persona, but they did away with that decades ago, thank goodness! Now, and for at least the last 40 years, no activities are restricted based on gender or orientation.

 

As an aside, if someone *does* want to have a persona of a gender which does not match their physiology, they may be assured that people will always ask which pronouns they use, and it has been that since the very beginning.

[perfect_victime]

While a *tiny* bit more skin would have been nice (ie having the morning after not be the IQ already pulling on her boots) Cullen's romance really didn't need a Witcher treatment.

True. I had no problem with the Cullen part. I meant because he has a fan following, and has been in all three games maybe he should have gotten a bit more. Actually there is this one scene where he is in full plate armor and lays down on top of the IQ. First thought I had was; "Can't Breath!" lol

[Ariella]

Back in the old days of the SCA, females who wanted to fight had to adopt a male persona, but they did away with that decades ago, thank goodness! Now, and for at least the last 40 years, no activities are restricted based on gender or orientation.
 
As an aside, if someone *does* want to have a persona of a gender which does not match their physiology, they may be assured that people will always ask which pronouns they use, and it has been that since the very beginning.

The male persona was well before my time. Unfortunately, just never had the opportunity to get as involved as I wanted.

True. I had no problem with the Cullen part. I meant because he has a fan following, and has been in all three games maybe he should have gotten a bit more. Actually there is this one scene where he is in full plate armor and lays down on top of the IQ. First thought I had was; "Can't Breath!" lol

Didn't think of that, but when I saw her already dressed I started wondering if she was off to polish her andirons ala When Harry met Sally. Though if they'd gone that route, I also would have loved to see Cullen's response to the IQ faking it at a meal...

It's 4:15 am, I'm sleep deprived and this is my sense of humor. Deal.with.it.

[Ieldra]

There were plenty of strong women in history.  Lots of women taking charge, forging ahead despite sexism and lame attitudes.  It really did happen.  So, there's that.

Not the point. We have more women as leading figures of the Inquisition, and I'm 100% fine with that. The difference is between a world where sexism exists but is overcome by, say, the protagonist in a meaningful way like in DAO's City Elf origin, and a world where it doesn't exist. I say that if you want to make a statement about these things, the former is plainly more interesting and impactful, while the latter raises nothing but the spectre of a world that is, in this particular aspect, utopian.    
 

I confess I don't get this argument, though.  I guess there's only narrative tension when women are all weak and subjugated?   When everyone's racist?  When trans people are trashed?  Because, to be honest it seems an odd line to draw.  Dragons, fine.  Frost zombies, check.  Independent women/not everyone is white and blonde/LGBTQ positivity...THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC.  Um, okay.

Again, missing the point. The difference is between "there are *some* sexists and racists (implication, some of them should be on-screen)" and "there are none". I find the latter plainly implausible because I think the tendency to express such traits is a human constant, for no better reason than a tendency to create group identity through raising obvious traits to false significance. Can we overcome that? Hopefully, some day, but a world where the way there isn't an uphill battle - or, if it is different, where such uphill battles haven't taken place - is one I have trouble believing in.   

Regarding the fantastic elements: essentially human nature is a constant in all stories we are making, regardless of how fantastic things are in any other dimension. That's because we need to connect to the characters in the stories, and if they're too different from us we can't do that. Since individuals can express tolerance perfectly well, having tolerant characters in a story is perfectly ok. Whole populations being more or less free of intolerance, that's much harder to accept because we don't have that, if only for the reason that human nature is such that people are different and not uniform in almost anything beyond the basics of their biology.

(Yes, I am aware that racial prejudice is commonplace in Thedas. That just illustrates how weird it feels that sexual prejudice is absent).

[9TailsFox]

Not the point. We have more women as leading figures of the Inquisition, and I'm 100% fine with that. The difference is between a world where sexism exists but is overcome by, say, the protagonist in a meaningful way like in DAO's City Elf origin, and a world where it doesn't exist. I say that if you want to make a statement about these things, the former is plainly more interesting and impactful, while the former raises nothing but the spectre of a world that is, in this particular aspect, utopian.    
 
Again, missing the point. The difference is between "there are *some* sexists and racists (implication, some of them should be on-screen)" and "there are none". I find the latter plainly implausible because I think the tendency to express such traits is a human constant, for no better reason than a tendency to create group identity through raising obvious traits to false significance. Can we overcome that? Hopefully, some day, but a world where the way there isn't an uphill battle - or, if it is different, where such uphill battles haven't taken place - is one I have trouble believing in.   

Regarding the fantastic elements: essentially human nature is a constant in all stories we are making, regardless of how fantastic things are in any other dimension. That's because we need to connect to the characters in the stories, and if they're too different from us we can't do that. Since individuals can express tolerance perfectly well, having tolerant characters in a story is perfectly ok. Whole populations being more or less free of intolerance, that's much harder to accept because we don't have that, if only for the reason that human nature is such that people are different and not uniform in almost anything beyond the basics of their biology.

(Yes, I am aware that racial prejudice is commonplace in Thedas. That just illustrates how weird it feels that sexual prejudice is absent).

All you said excellent. This you can call human nature or human mindset. We can't be something we don't understand. We can't create real alina. Like in mass effect asari mono-gender specias. As much as we want it's automatically female only. Same reason I don't care what race I play so I always play human only. If i play elf I don't play elf I play human with pointy ears. Or dwarf is just short human. You can't create world and say in this world "evil" doesn't exist not just because it's would be boring as game, but we simply couldn't comprehend it.

[DustyTulip]

ps By the way again Liara is not a woman 

 

I am sorry I am genially confused, why is Liara not a woman?..

[In Exile]

I am sorry I am genially confused, why is Liara not a woman?..

Because they designed a woman and then said "but it's totally not a woman".

[9TailsFox]

I am sorry I am genially confused, why is Liara not a woman?..

I could put naked Liara with penis image, but I don't want to be banned.

[Ariella]

Not the point. We have more women as leading figures of the Inquisition, and I'm 100% fine with that. The difference is between a world where sexism exists but is overcome by, say, the protagonist in a meaningful way like in DAO's City Elf origin, and a world where it doesn't exist. I say that if you want to make a statement about these things, the former is plainly more interesting and impactful, while the former raises nothing but the spectre of a world that is, in this particular aspect, utopian.

   
What a load of... You picked a lousy example to use to talk about sexism when the City Elf origin is about RACISM. Why did Vaughn pick them? Because they were elves and couldn't fight back. In EVERY origin men and women are treated the same. For example, in the Human Noble origin, you're still left in charge of the castle garrison if you're female. An Aeducan female dwarf can be considered for the throne. The Keeper of your Dalish Clan is female.  
 
 
 

Again, missing the point. The difference is between "there are *some* sexists and racists (implication, some of them should be on-screen)" and "there are none". I find the latter plainly implausible because I think the tendency to express such traits is a human constant, for no better reason than a tendency to create group identity through raising obvious traits to false significance. Can we overcome that? Hopefully, some day, but a world where the way there isn't an uphill battle - or, if it is different, where such uphill battles haven't taken place - is one I have trouble believing in.

   
Why does there have to be? And it's a bs answer to just say "because it's realistic". Thedas is not required to completely ape Earth. If it ruins your suspension of disbelief that there could be a society where a person is not judged by gender, maybe that's not the game's problem.
 

Regarding the fantastic elements: essentially human nature is a constant in all stories we are making, regardless of how fantastic things are in any other dimension. That's because we need to connect to the characters in the stories, and if they're too different from us we can't do that. Since individuals can express tolerance perfectly well, having tolerant characters in a story is perfectly ok. Whole populations being more or less free of intolerance, that's much harder to accept because we don't have that, if only for the reason that human nature is such that people are different and not uniform in almost anything beyond the basics of their biology.

(Yes, I am aware that racial prejudice is commonplace in Thedas. That just illustrates how weird it feels that sexual prejudice is absent).

Again what a load of crap. It illustrates no such thing. Racism and sexism are two separate issues.

Did you have a problem with the make up of the Howling Commandos in Captain America, the First Avenger for much the same reason? Because in the real world there sure as hell wouldn't have been an African American on the front lines. He would have been back working kp or some other scut job. But in Cap, he was a major part of the team. You know why it works, because it's a comic book movie, not real life.

It's possible to write stories in worlds that don't have the exact same social issues as we do. Beyond that, I play games to enjoy myself. Why should I have to put up with sexist crap in them. Didn't have to in Balder's Gate, didn't have to in Neverwinter Nights, why is it suddenly the "thing" to have sexism in rpgs?

[midnight tea]

Again, missing the point. The difference is between "there are *some* sexists and racists (implication, some of them should be on-screen)" and "there are none". I find the latter plainly implausible because I think the tendency to express such traits is a human constant, for no better reason than a tendency to create group identity through raising obvious traits to false significance. Can we overcome that? Hopefully, some day, but a world where the way there isn't an uphill battle - or, if it is different, where such uphill battles haven't taken place - is one I have trouble believing in.   

 

I'm not really sure I follow that point - so you're basically saying that sexism is ingrained in human nature... or there's no other way of bringing other humans down or portrayed the issue of discrimination and oppression than, say, blatantly attack their sex/gender/race (especially in a world that offers more possibilities than just those to divide people??).

 

I mean, the tendency "to create group identity through raising obvious traits to false significance" doesn't always dictate that this false significance is ascribed only to certain traits at all times and in all kinds of possible scenarios. In fact, isn't it even more meaningful and resonant if we show that even if issues of gender or race weren't so prominent, people would still find ways to divide themselves?????

 

 

Besides - we do know that Thedas isn't entirely free of varying shades of sexism, despite your claims: otherwise we wouldn't have Krem (women can join Tevinter army only under certain conditions, hence Krem - not recognized by Tevinter society as a man, which is another issue - has to run). We wouldn't have scene where Iron Bull yells at Cassandra for not hitting him hard enough with the stick and says that "this is why Qun doesn't have women in military".

 

Yet another BESIDES - we know why the position of women in area of Southern Chantry influence is so prominent: the major religious organization in Thedas is ran almost exclusively by women. They even teach that females are more reasonable and less prone to aggression than men.

 

That doesn't mean that it's like that everywhere in Thedas. Aside from examples presented above, I've gotta ask: do we even know if there was ever female Archon in Tevinter? We do know that the Black Divine is always male. What about magisters? How many of them are actually females or have important position? Or why was it important for Cassandra to emphasize (if IQ is fem) that yet another time the fate of Thedas will be decided by woman???

 

So really - just because sexism doesn't hit us like a brick in the face (or we don't have characters shown in the game making overly-sexist comments) doesn't mean that "it's non-existent, therefore Thedas is an implausible utopia".

 

Though..... I can see where this form of reasoning comes form - after all, there are people who are happy to argue that "sexism or racism doesn't exist!" in modern world, because it's not so overt or 'in-your-face' anymore.

 

I don't have to explain issues with such line of thinking though, I hope?

 

 

In any case, DA simply chooses to portray uphill battles differently. That doesn't just offer different narrative possibilities - it offers for female characters to exist in a different context and focusing on more nuanced issues, and not predominantly on "I'm a woman/it's so hard being a woman!".

 

That's actually quite relevant to our times: I mean, maybe - just maybe - the way for women to feel empowered/equal or not feel as if they're still very much victims in the modern world is to offer them more varied narratives, including those that don't focus as much on portraying them as victims, ey?

 

Fiction reflects something about ourselves and out world after all, and it isn't JUST a literal or simplistic reflection of issues that plague it, but also more subtle or abstract things - like the way we, as society (or groups) currently view the world and others and where our expectation for ourselves or others are located. And through fiction women are still told that they're either irrelevant or are there to fit limited roles, which includes that of an oppressed victim or at least someone dealing with prevalent sexism.

 

Men don't have to deal with this; they're allowed more varied roles or ways through which they can be defined. Even if they still have to "fight the system", they can do so for different reasons: class, talent, dedication to truth, values or family, without anything about the story making a big deal out of them being a man. Why can't women or other oppressed or discriminated people be offered that? When do we stop this without some people crying foul and deeming it as "unrealistic" for hardly defensible reasons???

 

And that's just one facet of the issue. Another is that fiction/art/culture doesn't just passively 'reflects' reality - it resonates and influences it. It's a 'positive feedback loop' kind of thing.

 

Therefore if we're willing to change the world for better or claim that it's better for everyone than it was before, it's time to start offering everyone more varied stories, including those in which different people are viewed as equals. It helps not just re-contextualize themselves as 'equal/accepted members of society', but explore other facets of their personalities or give them different and more layered issues to deal with.

 

And while I don't claim I've made a good job of touching on the issue of portrayal in fiction in this particular post, I find it hard to imagine that most people can't figure it our on their own. It's not really rocket science.

 

 

 

Regarding the fantastic elements: essentially human nature is a constant in all stories we are making, regardless of how fantastic things are in any other dimension. That's because we need to connect to the characters in the stories, and if they're too different from us we can't do that. Since individuals can express tolerance perfectly well, having tolerant characters in a story is perfectly ok. Whole populations being more or less free of intolerance, that's much harder to accept because we don't have that, if only for the reason that human nature is such that people are different and not uniform in almost anything beyond the basics of their biology.

 

So... is human nature a constant or are people different in almost anything beyond the basics of their biology, huh???

 

The only way to make sense out of it is to understand that you're basically saying that the constant of human nature is that everyone's different.

 

And if so.... HOW the fact that people are different or subjective makes it so that "we don't have whole populations being more or less free of intolerance"? I mean, if people were so different, they wouldn't even agree to what they discriminate against as a society, won't they? This whole argument feels like non sequitur, basically.

 

 

Besides, we've already established that Thedas isn't "free of intolerance" and the plight of, say, elves or mages seems to resonate with the audience as well as any other forms of oppression. There's just no need to go for forms of oppression we know from reality in order for the world to make a point about how those things are bad or how they affect people (whether people are portrayed as actual people or masked behind pointy ears of elves or bushy beards of dwarves, for example).

 

I'd also like to point out that - contrary to your belief - that the world and culture is slowly but surely making steps towards being more inclusive and tolerant. Oh, there's still a lot of work ahead and I do not question that, but in many regards we, in first world countries, DO live in an "utopia", if compared to levels of discrimination or intolerance in previous eras or generations.

 

Therefore people imagining themselves in a world where they're more or less equal, or able to obtain position of power or influence, is not such bonkers concept and it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

[Ariella]

 Another is that fiction/art/culture doesn't just passively 'reflect' reality - it resonates and influences it. It's a 'positive feedback loop' kind of thing.

 

What you said reminded me of this:

 

 

Starts at 3:00