757 réponses à ce sujet

[Evamitchelle]

Cole: Stepping into the parlor, hem of my gown snagged, no, adjust before I go in, must look perfect.
Vivienne: My dear, your pet is speaking again. Do silence it.
Cole: Voices inside. Marquis Alphonse.
Cole: "I do hope Duke Bastien puts out the lights before he touches her. But then, she must disappear in the dark."
Cole: Gown tight between my fingers, cold all over. Unacceptable. Wheels turn, strings pull.
Cole: He hurt you. You left a letter, let out a lie so he would do something foolish against the Inquisition. A trap.
Vivienne: Inquisitor, as your demon lacks manners, perhaps you could get Solas to train it.

I doubt this is an overlook mainly for the reason that the banter is about her experience with the Game (note that she gets her revenge) and is meant to be one of those revealing character things that only Cole can tell us.

It's a really good banter in terms of characterization, but god... that is just such an awful thing to say. Truly cringe worthy.

 

I meant overlook as in 'forgot that colorism isn't a thing in Thedas'. Aside from that banter, there's not really any in-game indication that people are judged based on skin color.

[Lady Artifice]

You're right - I mixed meanings, and used the entirely wrong word. What I mean to say is that it's incredibly peculiar that humans do think of themselves as one race, and you don't have anything like IRL racism. Not to say that DA should start suddenly having discrimination based on skin colour. But the post-racial (in the IRL sense) society that we have in Thedas doesn't make sense given how endemic every other type of prejudice they have there. 

 

Just look at 18th-19th century beliefs about race (and see e.g. references to non-whites like... the Irish or the Italians). 

 

There's actually a few mentions of colorism (In the novels and in one banter between Cole and Vivienne), but it could just be an overlook on the part of the writers.

 

I think it's a deliberate--and in my opinion, wise--aversion of that kind of discrimination. They chose to focus on fantastic racism and regional prejudice. And there really is plenty of both. I actually think this is one of the things Bioware is most adept at. Even when they show prejudice, they demonstrate a realistic range. Some characters are naively and obliviously bigoted, some characters are fiercely hateful, some characters are just so content with the status quo that they endorse the marginalization and victimization because they can't imagine the world any other way. 

[nightscrawl]

I meant overlook as in 'forgot that colorism isn't a thing in Thedas'. Aside from that banter, there's not really any in-game indication that people are judged based on skin color.

 

I don't think it's really about that. I think they (the Orlesians) were just focusing on something about her that is different. If she had been a man, and even though it is accepted in Orlais, they may have made a top/bottom remark instead, or something equally in poor taste. Don't forget that she actually had real affection for Bastien, so the barb was more hurtful because it attacked their relationship as well.

 

 

And this is really getting away from elves... sorry about that.

 

 

[edit]

I've actually wondered what racism would look like if we had the same types of fantasy non-human races. You can also look at sci-fi space stories to see similar examples. In those genres it becomes humans and other races. Perhaps in the sci-fi ones the mindset can be a bit different because we originally only have the humans, and then some other newer races come along, so the humans band together against them. But the fantasy races are presented as always existing alongside one another. So, would there be primarily inter-racial prejudice and very little intra-racial (as in, within the human race) prejudice?

 

I really have no idea.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 30 décembre 2015 - 05:10 .

[Evamitchelle]

Meaning that the nonhuman races use up the conceptual space that otherwise might have been used to differentiate between different races of humans? (That's a bit of fanwankery, of course.)

 
Pretty much. Substituting IRL racism for fantasy racism is pretty common. Mass Effect does this too to an extant.

I don't think its really about that. I think they (the Orlesians) were just focusing on something about her that is different. If she had been a man, and even though it is accepted in Orlais, they may have made a top/bottom remark instead, or something equally in poor taste.

Sure, but if colorism isn't meant to exist in Thedas it's kinda weird to have Vivienne's dark skin brought up negatively.

[In Exile]

I think it's a deliberate--and in my opinion, wise--aversion of that kind of discrimination. They chose to focus on fantastic racism and regional prejudice. And there really is plenty of both. I actually think this is one of the things Bioware is most adept at. Even when they show prejudice, they demonstrate a realistic range. Some characters are naively and obliviously bigoted, some characters are fiercely hateful, some characters are just so content with the status quo that they endorse the marginalization and victimization because they can't imagine the world any other way. 

 

I think Bioware is absolutely right to do it. I just don't think they've thought through the implication of it. 

[nightscrawl]

... some characters are just so content with the status quo that they endorse the marginalization and victimization because they can't imagine the world any other way.

Yes, this is what I was trying to get at when I said that "humans don't give a damn about elves" earlier in the thread. I think this is the most common type of prejudice, rather than the rabid, "let's kill them all" type, in the real world as well. "Those people don't matter."

I think this issue will come up in a big way in the next game if we do end up going to Tevinter. Let's just take someone like Dorian's father, who is actually a decent man. He supposedly treats his slaves "well," is a good, competent mage, and is focused on maintaining and elevating his place in society. So even though he is a good man, he likely wouldn't do anything to affect change and would overlook some of the worse elements because, hey, they don't apply to him. Even his prohibition against blood magic isn't necessarily because it's "evil" and can lead to great harm, it's because taking the easy way out makes one weak. So he really has no incentive and no desire to change anything from the status quo because it would likely adversely affect his own life, and he was so entrenched in that mindset that he destroyed his relationship with his son and could have done him real harm if he had succeeded with his plan.

[Lady Artifice]

I think Bioware is absolutely right to do it. I just don't think they've thought through the implication of it. 

 

I don't follow. 

[Illegitimus]

The thing that makes it even worse is the incredibly stupid justification offered for it. Not only is it completely evil, but he's not even doing it for a coherent reason. 

 

He needs the money and those elves were a pain in his ass, getting all rioty in the middle of his civil war.  What's incoherent about that?  

 

 

I meant overlook as in 'forgot that colorism isn't a thing in Thedas'. Aside from that banter, there's not really any in-game indication that people are judged based on skin color.

 

 

I don't think it's totally nonexistent.  It's just less major.  Consider that Thedas is more or less modeled on Europe about the time of the Reformation.  At that time prejudice against Jews and Gypsies (who have been switched out for elves) was certainly more major than prejudice against equatorial Africans but that doesn't mean that prejudice against equatorial Africans was nonexistent.  

[Seraphim24]

There are indeed many deal of media in the world that avoid hatreds and conflicts in the hopes they will evade censure for their inability to handle it, but for one, they often are also making clear their limitations, it's a declaration that it is beyond them, and so it is harder to fault them for failing to address something they know they can't (and try hard not to) fundamentally address.

 

It seems that notion is controversial, but I don't know why. If they for whatever reason meddle their hands in something that is beyond them, then would be censured just as severely as if it were anyone else.

 

For those who are curious, it is simply obvious that they cannot handle those things. It is often not particularly powerful, or limited, typical romantic comedies don't substantively make me super engaged in them at all, they are fundamentally limited in how much could they ever appeal to me, but they (generally) also seem to intentionally divorce themselves from the notion that they were ever trying to do that in the first place to the point where it also matters little.

 

But for those that drive deeper, so to speak, merely attempting to confront hate =/= succeeding, and there is a thin line between confronting or portraying hate and endorsing it. I think Dragon Age/Bioware (because most of their games are similar really) is/are kind of interesting, but my negative reactions are not automatically one of shock because my safe space was invaded, it is often one of simple dislike.

 

I'm not going to mince words, I found the City Elf origin to be fairly repulsive, it is pretty clear to me it was a bad idea, and could of been a human, whatever, but I don't think Dragon Age or Bioware needs to abandon the notion of confronting hatreds of raising difficult questions or however they see it, simultaneously, but they need to be more wary of the implications of all the things they say and do perhaps, especially if they are interested in holding up themselves as bearers of the truth or something.

 

I found lots of things bad, right down to Alistair's excessive snark, it didn't have anything to do with anti-Elvish fact hatred in the City Elf Origin, although the world of Thedas makes clear that is a thing, anti-Elvishness, it was the type, manner, expression, the player's role, lots of things.

[Seraphim24]

Which again brings me to Dragon Age 2... it feels like they are engaging with mixes of opinions and shades of gray, but without kind of trying to go too far outside of those boundaries either. There are lots of hatreds, pettiness, vengeance, it's sort of has that milieu, it doesn't abandon wholesale this notion of "dealing with the hard questions" but it doesn't over-estimate the ability to resolve them simultaneously. Elves (as an example) essentially aren't really a part of DA2 at all except as distant in the forest keepers, you can't play as one, there is no interaction, etc.

 

I can't really say (although again MEMORY DISCLAIMER) anything I remember off the top of my head offended me in Dragon Age 2, I just thought it was kind of boring, it was a series of chores, tasks, blah blah blah. The game design also just seemed to take a back seat, most abilities were kind of boring, except for backstab I guess. Then again, Dragon age 1 often had the same chore quality at times.

 

But fans seemed to really like it, the developers seemed proud of it, and the fact that nothing I can remember off the top of my head jumped out as offending is maybe a reason to take it as a sound model.

 

It's odd too, because I spent a lot of time castigating Dragon Age 2, but I think that's because I want something more and it's not good to try and get Dragon Age 2 to be 1 if the result is somewhat messy.

 

Honestly though, I think Bioware's ultimate goal was to make entertaining and fun video games for people to play, most of the worlds and things they created just happened as a byproduct of that. For most of their history, and they have, at times, in various magnitudes, succeeded at that. I don't have a problem playing Dragon Age 1 with the fun things and the warts as I've seen them mixed together, but going forward, it seems like stuff to keep in mind.

[Seraphim24]

Well I wanted to do a complete playthrough and keep close track of Loghain, every phrase, every option, every word matters.. I vaguely remember for instance something where he said he personally had no knowledge Arl Howe's situation....

 

The Tevinter thing was a bigger stick, and I'm going off what Nightcrawler said, although this also illustrates the importance of me just checking it myself.

 

Finally, as far as Dragon Age Inquisition goes? I see it all as kind of a mess personally, it's not about Elves or Humans or anything. Solas is basically just some elder god or some kind of personal superhero fantasy character. The magic in DA:I is also so untethered to reality or even a sense of magical power it is more like an action movie where everyone has lasers or something.

[AlanC9]

I'm not going to mince words, I found the City Elf origin to be fairly repulsive, it is pretty clear to me it was a bad idea, and could of been a human, whatever, but I don't think Dragon Age or Bioware needs to abandon the notion of confronting hatreds of raising difficult questions or however they see it, simultaneously, but they need to be more wary of the implications of all the things they say and do perhaps, especially if they are interested in holding up themselves as bearers of the truth or something.

What's wrong with those implications, again? Racism exists in Thedas. Exploitation exists in Thedas. Should they not?

You're supposed to be repulsed by the situation in the City Elf origin. It's a horrible situation. Of course, you might just not like being confronted with this sort of thing in games, which is OK. No game can appeal to everyone.

[Seraphim24]

What's wrong with those implications, again? Racism exists in Thedas. Exploitation exists in Thedas. Should they not?

You're supposed to be repulsed by the situation in the City Elf origin. It's a horrible situation. Of course, you might just not like being confronted with this sort of thing in games, which is OK. No game can appeal to everyone.

 

No, it's crass and terrible, this is exactly what I meant by how you "confront" hatreds" It's not a black and white thing. Plenty of gruesome terrible things happen in Dragon Age that don't bother me.

 

I specifically pointed to Dragon Age 2 in general as an example of a game that did seem to portray hatreds without doing it so clumsily or ineptly (and disclaimed that I can't remember the entire game). So no.. you can have "bad things" in your game, just like you can have a "bad game."

 

And in Dragon Age 1, it's not because of the fact that it involves groups or individuals known as "Elves" or "Humans," in fact, that's the example Dragon Age (appeared) to give to me, there are plenty of crass and terrible interactions in Dragon Age involving all kinds of things.

 

First Enchanter Irving is just kind of an ugly person, why? Because instead of trying to provide for mages he's frequently just obsessed with getting back at Greagoir and his hatred dictates his actions. They also in part succeed as portraying him as someone who has to be realistic and navigate competing factions.

 

Sometimes they try and create nuances and instead it's marginally revolting, or massively revolting.. or maybe... maybe.. guess what? Not revolting. It all depends.

 

And you are also wrong about no game can appeal to anyone, they (often, not always) sell more, more people like them, and for good reason, they are better at all the things Dragon Age/Bioware games cannot do. Bioware is arguably really a very niche company that makes those things precisely because it is beyond (and likely will forever be beyond, given their attachment to their franchises and respective identity) their ability to create the mass universal thing.

[AlanC9]

No, it's crass and terrible, this is exactly what I meant by how you "confront" hatreds" It's not a black and white thing. Plenty of gruesome terrible things happen in Dragon Age that don't bother me.

So terrible is OK with you but crass isn't ? OK. Can you define "crass" and say what's wrong with "crass"? That bit about how you ought to confront hatreds didn't make any sense; "implications" was doing all the work, but you didn't say what was being implied and why implying it was wrong.

Sometimes they try and create nuances and instead it's marginally revolting, or massively revolting.. or maybe... maybe.. guess what? Not revolting. It all depends.

Depends on what? I get that you're having emotional reactions here, but you haven't managed to articulate what causes them.

And you are also wrong about no game can appeal to anyone, they (often, not always) sell more, more people like them, and for good reason, they are better at all the things Dragon Age/Bioware games cannot do. Bioware is arguably really a very niche company that makes those things precisely because it is beyond (and likely will forever be beyond, given their attachment to their franchises and respective identity) their ability to create the mass universal thing.

Lucky for me. If they did, I'd like their games less. Those mass universal things generally fail for me. Which means that they're... wait for it..... not actually universal.

[Red of Rivia]

There are indeed many deal of media in the world that avoid hatreds and conflicts in the hopes they will evade censure for their inability to handle it, but for one, they often are also making clear their limitations, it's a declaration that it is beyond them, and so it is harder to fault them for failing to address something they know they can't (and try hard not to) fundamentally address.

 

It seems that notion is controversial, but I don't know why. If they for whatever reason meddle their hands in something that is beyond them, then would be censured just as severely as if it were anyone else.

 

For those who are curious, it is simply obvious that they cannot handle those things. It is often not particularly powerful, or limited, typical romantic comedies don't substantively make me super engaged in them at all, they are fundamentally limited in how much could they ever appeal to me, but they (generally) also seem to intentionally divorce themselves from the notion that they were ever trying to do that in the first place to the point where it also matters little.

 

But for those that drive deeper, so to speak, merely attempting to confront hate =/= succeeding, and there is a thin line between confronting or portraying hate and endorsing it. I think Dragon Age/Bioware (because most of their games are similar really) is/are kind of interesting, but my negative reactions are not automatically one of shock because my safe space was invaded, it is often one of simple dislike.

 

I'm not going to mince words, I found the City Elf origin to be fairly repulsive, it is pretty clear to me it was a bad idea, and could of been a human, whatever, but I don't think Dragon Age or Bioware needs to abandon the notion of confronting hatreds of raising difficult questions or however they see it, simultaneously, but they need to be more wary of the implications of all the things they say and do perhaps, especially if they are interested in holding up themselves as bearers of the truth or something.

 

I found lots of things bad, right down to Alistair's excessive snark, it didn't have anything to do with anti-Elvish fact hatred in the City Elf Origin, although the world of Thedas makes clear that is a thing, anti-Elvishness, it was the type, manner, expression, the player's role, lots of things.

Well, If Bioware wants us to have some kind of likelihood principle, this is totally acceptable, the world is something like that, the racism between humans and elves are just a mirror of ''our'' society. I live in Brazil for some time and all these kind of atrocities that happen at dragon age incredible as it sounds, really happen here.
I believe Bioware does a good job showing us this ''type'' of racism, it's a racism that I would believe that really could exist in a fantasy world, It is palpable, is close to reality.
Which reminds me one sentence: The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense.

[sniper_arrow]

First Enchanter Irving is just kind of an ugly person, why? Because instead of trying to provide for mages he's frequently just obsessed with getting back at Greagoir and his hatred dictates his actions. They also in part succeed as portraying him as someone who has to be realistic and navigate competing factions.

 

Where the hell did you get the idea that Irving is obsessed with getting back at Greagoir? They don't hate each since they respect each other (and even worked together to arrest Jowan in the Mage origin). 

[Illegitimus]

 

 

First Enchanter Irving is just kind of an ugly person, why? Because instead of trying to provide for mages he's frequently just obsessed with getting back at Greagoir and his hatred dictates his actions. 

 

No he isn't.  He does one thing, going out of his way to ensure that Lily gets her share of the blame in the escape attempt but that isn't out of hatred.  It's out of politics.  He wanted to strengthen his hand in the maintenance of circle autonomy by giving them an internal discipline problem to distract them from the blood magic issue.  

[In Exile]

I don't follow. 

 

Think about the type of society we see in a sci-fi game that's post-racial, that has an inclusive "all humans should be treated equally" view. The differences that we see with other species comes from the fundamental incompatibility of integration. But that doesn't actually exist in DA, as far as we can tell - every race can integrate. There's nothing - apart from physical appearance, that outwardly would say that "elves" are anything but humans that look different. 

 

Think about how IRL we define something as a single species (i.e., viable offspring). For Bioware's distinction to work, essentially, the fantasy races have to be 1) natural kinds and 2) all people, of any race, must have an inherent understanding of these categories. 

 

He needs the money and those elves were a pain in his ass, getting all rioty in the middle of his civil war.  What's incoherent about that?  

 

That's not his reason. His reason is ostensibly military: he couldn't hold the alienage if the darkspawn attack. This reason is stupid. 

[In Exile]

No he isn't.  He does one thing, going out of his way to ensure that Lily gets her share of the blame in the escape attempt but that isn't out of hatred.  It's out of politics.  He wanted to strengthen his hand in the maintenance of circle autonomy by giving them an internal discipline problem to distract them from the blood magic issue.  

 

It's not that he wanted to distract them. First of all, it's obvious he works with Gregoire to tempt idiots into blood magic, like Jowan. The hints are there (remember, he has forbidden texts on blood magic around him). This allows him to quickly purge the Circle of problem elements and avoid annulment. With how little power a First Enchanter has, really, this is cunning of him. Second, by showing that a Chantry Sister was corrupted, he again insulates the rest of the Circle from an accusation of widespread blood magic, and undercuts the power of the Chantry by undercutting their narrative. 

 

He's one of the only politicians ever portrayed by Bioware that isn't an idiot. 

[Gervaise]

Actually it was Uldred who was deliberately leading mages like Jowan into using blood magic and then betraying them to Irving to bolster his own position of trust.   It was Uldred who suggested this helped keep the Circle strong and free of corruption, whilst simultaneously using his position to advance the Libertarian cause and introducing those under his influence to blood magic and other forbidden modes of thought concerning magic to advance his own ambitions.    If WoT2 is to be believed, Uldred was the clever one and Irving the idiot because he was totally duped by him and thought of him as one of his most trusted advisors.   

[AlanC9]

Isn't there a Codex entry called "Irving's Mistake"?

[Lady Artifice]

I'm not usually overly concerned with staying on topic, but considering who initiated the "Irving is an ugly person" rabbit trail...

 

Shouldn't we stay on topic? 

[In Exile]

I'm not usually overly concerned with staying on topic, but considering who initiated the "Irving is an ugly person" rabbit trail...

 

Shouldn't we stay on topic? 

 

 

I think Bioware needs to develop elven culture further. Or, really, at all. At this point, we have two amphormous masses of elves that should have distinct cultures - the Dalish and the CEs - but that don't. Thus far, the Dalish are just defined on a spectrum of seeming hostility to humans, and CEs, to the degree they appear, seem to have uniform (and barely existent) customs. 

 

Isn't there a Codex entry called "Irving's Mistake"?

 

Yes. It makes Irving look like an active agent:

 

I followed another apprentice through supposed secret maneuvers today, and exposed her tendency towards blood magic. The environment of the tower is such that certain modes of thought are encouraged, both for good and ill. The students think we toy with them. The truth is far more intricate and directed. Deviant traits must be exposed early, or the whole of the Circle suffers.

 

Uldred has been very helpful in identifying the markers to look for. His skills at misdirection are admirable. I daresay that the apprentices would be shocked at his ability to manipulate them. I must organize a retreat such that the other enchanters can benefit from his skills. --Excerpt from the journal of First Enchanter Irving

[Aren]

Irving and Eamon were master manipulator in DAO to the point that not every player managed to detect them for what they were.

While for Irving i didn't care much,at least i manipulated Eamon.

[Illegitimus]

It's not that he wanted to distract them. First of all, it's obvious he works with Gregoire to tempt idiots into blood magic, like Jowan.

 

No.  It isn't.  Those texts on blood magic used to be in the library until he pulled them out because of Jowan.