194 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

To be fair to Tevinter (lol, I know, right?), when you ask Krem if it's "illegal to pass" In Tevinter, he says that it's illegal to lie on a military service form (or something along those lines). In Tevinter, it seems that the role of army grunt is a man's role, not so different from the Qunari, and most real-world armies until the last few decades. So, in light of that remark, it's not that being trans is an issue in and of itself, but the passing to be in the military was. He does admit to having bribed the previous medical guy to look the other way.

 

In Tevinter, I believe, men and women are allowed very different work in the military with the former's role being heavily restrictive which was why Krem concealed his physical gender and bribed the military physician. Desertion and fraud was apparently punishable by execution or slavery so Krem tried to ditch Tevinter altogether. This eventually resulted in him running into the Iron Bull.

 

Basically, Krem would likely not have resorted to fraud and bribery if the military had functioned more similarly to the military of some southern nations. It seems to have been less about his transexuality and more about gender restrictions in the military.

[jlb524]

 

With regards to Bioware's one-sided conversations about sexuality in their games, it is obvious that they are, as a company, trying to tell you that this is how they think and that you are not allowed to challenge their views or debate it in an intellectually honest discussion. In essence, what is happening here is that Patrick Weekes is telling you, the player, this is what he thinks about sexuality and that you cannot question it or argue it in any way, because its "progressive".

 

 

It's not as if any other content creator (movies, games, etc.) in the history of forever hasn't done the same things...

 

I mean, they do engage in discussions concerning their content from time to time but if you think they will over an option to add 'ew gaaaaaay!!!' to conversation options then this probably isn't going to happen at this time in history.  Maybe, ten or fifteen years ago.

[Dai Grepher]

You also don't get to tell Cassandra to get get back in the kitchen if women warriors are too progressive for you. Boo hoo.

 

Female warriors are part of the norm in Thedas. Transgenders are not. In fact, individuals who claim to be something else on the inside... are usually suspected of being possessed.
 

[Dai Grepher]

Excuse my pessimism, but I have no faith that anyone who would like to have an option to debate with an LGBT character about their '' gross/weird '' lifestyle decision ever EVER wanted to actually learn anything or be taught. They wanted to be the ones scolding the character, not them scolding you and your views.

 

Prove me wrong though, I'm VERY interested if anyone who wanted such options would actually like a discussion where you could learn something new or gain a new perspective.

 

I would imagine the only players who would want that option are those who already agree with such worldviews and want to roleplay a character who changes his or her mind from what all people in Thedas are generally taught.

 

But so what if players want to actively disagree with it? Why shouldn't they have that option?
 

[Abyss108]

Female warriors are part of the norm in Thedas. Transgenders are not. In fact, individuals who claim to be something else on the inside... are usually suspected of being possessed.
 

 

Got some proof Fereldens/Orlesians/Dalish Elves/Carta Dwarves think transgender people are possessed or otherwise discriminate against them?

[Dai Grepher]

And for the record, the responses in-game to Dorian, Bull, and Krem, are not insulting or condescending. The "I think you're trouble" quote is in regards to Dorian as a whole, not just that one aspect of his character. The responses to Krem are ones of genuine bewilderment. The ones to Bull are responses of honest curiosity. Never are you given the option to say that you disagree with any of it.

 

Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you don't accept the person as a friend despite the disagreement. This is yet another nuance that BioWare is overlooking in their blind rush to win praise from their desired segment of the fanbase.

[Witch Cocktor]

I would imagine the only players who would want that option are those who already agree with such worldviews and want to roleplay a character who changes his or her mind from what all people in Thedas are generally taught.

 

But so what if players want to actively disagree with it? Why shouldn't they have that option?

Because sexuality and gender identity have nothing to do with the story generally?

Because Thedas isn't a world where homosexuality or being transgender is actively frowned upon due to teachings of a holy book, thus it makes no sense for the PC the object it unless they are Tevinter nobility and are expecting their child to continue the lineage?

 

Why are people aching for these kinds of responses when you can hardly even debate about actual things that matter in the story, like the Qun or the Circles?

[nightscrawl]

It's not as if any other content creator (movies, games, etc.) in the history of forever hasn't done the same things...

 

I mean, they do engage in discussions concerning their content from time to time but if you think they will over an option to add 'ew gaaaaaay!!!' to conversation options then this probably isn't going to happen at this time in history.  Maybe, ten or fifteen years ago.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, it's not as if this reluctance to offer those options is only about real-world progressive issues. They also don't allow the player to portray themselves as a flaming racist or anything along those lines. That is in fact a complaint of some Dalish elf players: that they can't play a bigoted Dalish who goes around calling humans "shem" and so on.

 

They can't provide options for everyone. We typically only get three dialogue options, with an occasional bonus based on a special circumstance (previous conversation, origin, game bonus like Inquisition Perks). Those options, even if DAI was not built this way, still follow the model of 1 nice, 2 sarcastic, 3 aggressive.

 

Let's say that the people who want bigoted options get their way. What if a player wants to choose the aggressive option to say, "No. Go jump in a lake," but they can't because that option is the bigoted one, resulting in using a term like "shem" or "knife ear"? I'd say that those players that lost their simple aggressive option have also lost agency.

 

With most things in the game it is either/or; the devs can't account for everything every player might choose. Bioware devs don't want to put in bigoted options. They are honest about that, and it is their prerogative.

 

 

I actually think a greater loss is in not being able to express solidarity over certain things. For example, a lesbian Inquisitor cannot "come out" in the Dorian tavern scene. That option is treated as a flirt and is available to males only. This makes sense because Dorian either reacts with surprise (if you had not been flirting), or with sarcasm "You're not exactly subtle, Lord Inquisitor," (if you had been flirting), so it's a reveal of your PC that is linked to the quest and Dorian's own sexuality. That said, it is just a tad unfortunate that a lesbian PC can't make remarks along those lines -- "Well, I like women. So what?"

[Witch Cocktor]

And for the record, the responses in-game to Dorian, Bull, and Krem, are not insulting or condescending. The "I think you're trouble" quote is in regards to Dorian as a whole, not just that one aspect of his character. The responses to Krem are ones of genuine bewilderment. The ones to Bull are responses of honest curiosity. Never are you given the option to say that you disagree with any of it.

 

Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you don't accept the person as a friend despite the disagreement. This is yet another nuance that BioWare is overlooking in their blind rush to win praise from their desired segment of the fanbase.

You can roleplay that it is disagreeing with it? Why do you need to '' you are gay, ****** off you disgusting animal '' option when you are given a decent enough option to roleplay your anti-LGBT inquisitor?

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The real problem for everybody whining over Bull is that his interactions don't allow for this mary sue self insert bullshit everyone seems to be so fixated on, or as you guys call it "player agency". That his storyline doesn't indulge this vain and idiotic fantasy of some Bioware players that they're so special, their characters are SO amazing, that everyone should be willing to drop who and what are and like on a whim because "you" Say so and to please you.

 

If player agency is a self insert bullshit then why on Earth are you playing a role playing game where player agency is one of the core mechanics of a good role playing game ? I mean really, if you want all your decisions be made for you, why not watch a movie or read a book ?

 

Also, I do not give a damn about being progressive and representation in a video game. I am an Tamil man living in Southeast Asia. As far as I can tell, Bioware characters have never represented me in any meaningful way so I don't care about those things. I prefer well written characters and good story arcs over some nonsensical feel good quota.

 

& yes, I find BDSM to be rather demeaning. Yes, it requires consent from all the parties involved but I just cannot comprehend why you would get off on being tied up. Its weird.

 

To me, the thing is Iron Bull is not a very well written character. He acts all dominant in the bedroom either towards the Inquisitor or Dorian but cowers down to Vivienne because she wears a horny hat & that somehow reminds of a priest that is, in all likelihood, much taller and more imposing than Vivienne. He treats Dorian like crap if he is in a relationship with him. Based on the banters, he enjoys humiliating Dorian and I don't like that because Dorian is a good character.  He also assumes that every Inquisitor, regardless of sex or race or background or behavior, wants to be dominated if he express any interest in him because "training".

[Dai Grepher]

 

I didn't write that anyone in Thedas thinks transgender people are possessed. I said that some believe those claiming to be something else on the inside usually think possession is the cause of such sentiments. This is of course relating to the fact that spirits can possess people. The templar order is built around this concept.

 

However, now that you mention the dwarves (because I didn't), I do have to point out that the dwarves and their caste system is based on gender. A child will be assigned the caste of the parent matching that child's gender. So I highly doubt the dwarves would accept the concept of transgenderism.
 

[nightscrawl]

And for the record, the responses in-game to Dorian, Bull, and Krem, are not insulting or condescending. The "I think you're trouble" quote is in regards to Dorian as a whole, not just that one aspect of his character. The responses to Krem are ones of genuine bewilderment. The ones to Bull are responses of honest curiosity. Never are you given the option to say that you disagree with any of it.

 

Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you don't accept the person as a friend despite the disagreement. This is yet another nuance that BioWare is overlooking in their blind rush to win praise from their desired segment of the fanbase.

 

But... the point of the Dorian quest is accepting who he is, his whole self. The fact that you accept that is part of the reason he considers you his friend, and even his best friend, because he has not had that type of acceptance in his life. I really don't see Dorian considering an Inquisitor who disagrees with that part of him to be very close of a friend.

[Witch Cocktor]

He treats Dorian like crap if he is in a relationship with him. Based on the banters, he enjoys humiliating Dorian and I don't like that because Dorian is a good character.

 

1) No.

2) He talks about their relationship in public. Oh no, what will Dorian do, the man who thought that he'll never find love or be in a meaningful relationship with a man. And now he is and he sees that there's nothing shameful about it, and everyone around him seem extremely accepting of it when Bull talks about it. It's really not that hard to understand that Bull might have had GOOD intentions when he talks about Dorian in front of others. Is it rather private and sexual? Yes, but Bull doesn't always make the best decisions. But his intentions are never malicious.

[Dai Grepher]

Because sexuality and gender identity have nothing to do with the story generally?

Because Thedas isn't a world where homosexuality or being transgender is actively frowned upon due to teachings of a holy book, thus it makes no sense for the PC the object it unless they are Tevinter nobility and are expecting their child to continue the lineage?

 

Why are people aching for these kinds of responses when you can hardly even debate about actual things that matter in the story, like the Qun or the Circles?

 

They usually don't, and I would be fine not having it brought up at all, but Patrick Weekes made it part of the story when he had those lines implemented into the game.

 

Thedas is a place where it is frowned upon, with the exception being Orlais.

 

I think people are aching for player choice in every regard, including the issues regarding magic, the Chantry, and politics.

[Witch Cocktor]

They usually don't, and I would be fine not having it brought up at all, but Patrick Weekes made it part of the story when he had those lines implemented into the game.

 

Thedas is a place where it is frowned upon, with the exception being Orlais.

 

I think people are aching for player choice in every regard, including the issues regarding magic, the Chantry, and politics.

 

'' The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of character and nothing more. In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy. In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves. Nowhere is it forbidden, and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgment when taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye. ''

 

None of this say to me personally that it is frowned upon, except with nobles in Tevinter for the reason of continuing the lineage, not because '' ew gays are so gorss ''. I see no reason for anyone from Orlais, Ferelden or so to look down on it so much that it'd need a specific choice to call anyone out on being a dirty gay.

[Abyss108]

I didn't write that anyone in Thedas thinks transgender people are possessed. I said that some believe those claiming to be something else on the inside usually think possession is the cause of such sentiments. This is of course relating to the fact that spirits can possess people. The templar order is built around this concept.

 

However, now that you mention the dwarves (because I didn't), I do have to point out that the dwarves and their caste system is based on gender. A child will be assigned the caste of the parent matching that child's gender. So I highly doubt the dwarves would accept the concept of transgenderism.
 

 

So no, you don't have anything to support that transgender people are discriminated against. 

[Dai Grepher]

You can roleplay that it is disagreeing with it? Why do you need to '' you are gay, ****** off you disgusting animal '' option when you are given a decent enough option to roleplay your anti-LGBT inquisitor?

 

I could roleplay a character who disagrees with it, sure, if BioWare would let me. My Hero disagreed with Zevran's sexual preference and yet counted him as a friend regardless just fine.

 

I don't remember advocating for a vulgar option. But some players might want that option available. So, why not let them have it?

 

But these is no option to express disapproval. Also, you claim you would not pick such an option, so how do you know what is "decent enough" in this particular roleplay path?

[nightscrawl]

'' The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land. In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of character and nothing more. In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy. In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves. Nowhere is it forbidden, and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgment when taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye. ''

 

None of this say to me personally that it is frowned upon, except with nobles in Tevinter for the reason of continuing the lineage, not because '' ew gays are so gorss ''. I see no reason for anyone from Orlais, Ferelden or so to look down on it so much that it'd need a specific choice to call anyone out on being a dirty gay.

 

This is an interesting point. Wanting the option to express disgust is more representative of real-world views than lore-based game ones. There really isn't a reason why a given PC would be a sexuality bigot, especially considering that most of that bigotry in the real-world is religion based and that doesn't seem to be an issue with Andrastianism. So, what? Players want the option to be one of the few sexuality bigots in existence in Thedas?

[Witch Cocktor]

I could roleplay a character who disagrees with it, sure, if BioWare would let me. My Hero disagreed with Zevran's sexual preference and yet counted him as a friend regardless just fine.

 

I don't remember advocating for a vulgar option. But some players might want that option available. So, why not let them have it?

 

But these is no option to express disapproval. Also, you claim you would not pick such an option, so how do you know what is "decent enough" in this particular roleplay path?

Why does your hero/whatever disagree with ones sexual preference? Where does that need to discriminate and want someone to be something else they aren't come from in a world where such characters don't really fit the lore. Do these needs to have options come from your own opinions, which is not much of a roleplay anymore because you let your own opinions reflect your character?

 

I do not think your need for this option, or anyones need for this option is genuine '' I want to roleplay a character that is this or that '' instead of '' I do not like gays in my video game, let me disagree with their lifestyle because this is what I think in real life, ew. ''

 

If we add this option, should we also start putting out options like '' ew Vivienne, you are black '', '' ew Varric, you are so hairy '', '' ew Solas, you are bald and pale '' because that is about AS IMPORTANT TO THE STORY as saying what you think of someone's sexuality.

 

Well gosh, there are youtube videos where you can check the reaction to all the choices. And it is enough for roleplaying. I guess you just lack imagination?

 

In the end, the developers can't give you 30423932 options on how to respond, and if they think that responding to an LGBT character with disrespect or disgust regarding their gender or sexual identity isn't needed and doesn't add anything to the game, that's final. It concerns me that you think this is a feature that definitely should be in the game. Projection?

[Dai Grepher]

''In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy.

 

Nowhere is it forbidden..."

 

None of this say to me personally that it is frowned upon...

 

Okay, well you try telling homosexuals today that they should be discreet. See how they react to your recommendation.

 

What Genetivi is saying in that codex is that Ferelden considers it a scandal (which is a bad thing) if those involved do not keep it to themselves.

 

But he also notes that it is not a crime. That doesn't mean Ferelden doesn't consider it immoral. They do. But, Ferelden also allows prostitution and gambling, so... I mean, what can they really do about private acts?

[Dai Grepher]

But... the point of the Dorian quest is accepting who he is, his whole self. The fact that you accept that is part of the reason he considers you his friend, and even his best friend, because he has not had that type of acceptance in his life. I really don't see Dorian considering an Inquisitor who disagrees with that part of him to be very close of a friend.

 

Right. His whole self. So if you say you think he's trouble then you are saying his whole self is trouble. You aren't singling out his sexual preference.

 

Also, it is possible to say that to him and yet still end up being his friend.
 

[Dai Grepher]

So no, you don't have anything to support that transgender people are discriminated against. 

 

No... I pointed out the common belief in Thedas about thinking you are something else on the inside, and I also pointed to the caste system with the dwarves. I could go on. The Dalish belief in marriage perhaps? How about the Qunari's strict gender roles?

 

If "discrimination" is defined by not agreeing with a transgender's self-perception, then yes, there is plenty of evidence that Thedas "discriminates against" transgender people.

[Witch Cocktor]

Okay, well you try telling homosexuals today that they should be discreet. See how they react to your recommendation.

 

What Genetivi is saying in that codex is that Ferelden considers it a scandal (which is a bad thing) if those involved do not keep it to themselves.

 

But he also notes that it is not a crime. That doesn't mean Ferelden doesn't consider it immoral. They do. But, Ferelden also allows prostitution and gambling, so... I mean, what can they really do about private acts?

 

WHY would Ferelden consider homosexuality immoral, and where do those teachings that it is immoral come from?

 

Being indiscreet -> scandal. What is being indiscreet about it in Ferelden terms and what size of a scandal is it. Is it '' Britney went into a public bathroom with no shoes '' size of scandal or '' Britney shaved all her hair, went berserk on paparazzi with an umbrella and dropped her kid on the floor '' size of scandal? There is '' ooh that is so SCANDALOUS, tell me more~ '' and '' this scandal could destroy our good name, we will never be looked at the same and people will shun us and our heads will be in the chopping block. ''

 

Sera is quite loud and proud of her sexuality, and is Ferelden born and raised. She has no problem shouting to all of the inquisition how she and Inky are going to the bedroom to do some warmups, Blackwall and Iron Bull speak about women with her so easily, and nobody seems care at all what she is. And heck, she is quite indiscreet. Where is the scandal with Inky and Sera being together? No scandal. And it's not like NOBODY KNOWS. 

 

Same goes to Iron Bull and male Inquisitor being together, in which nobody objects anything. If it was a religion thing, you'd think that Cassandra would object to it. But no, when she finds out, '' A surprise I admit, but not a problem. '' There are some gossiping nobles in the hallway who slyly comment on your relationship as you pass by them, and if anything they just find it amusing IIRC. Not much of a scandal there.

 

So no, I don't see how your Ferelden thinks gays are immoral holds up at all?

[nightscrawl]

Okay, well you try telling homosexuals today that they should be discreet. See how they react to your recommendation.

 

What Genetivi is saying in that codex is that Ferelden considers it a scandal (which is a bad thing) if those involved do not keep it to themselves.

 

But he also notes that it is not a crime. That doesn't mean Ferelden doesn't consider it immoral. They do. But, Ferelden also allows prostitution and gambling, so... I mean, what can they really do about private acts?

 

To be honest, I read it as people not being overt, or making out and such in public, which should apply to all sexualities, really.

 

 

Right. His whole self. So if you say you think he's trouble then you are saying his whole self is trouble. You aren't singling out his sexual preference.

 

Also, it is possible to say that to him and yet still end up being his friend.
 

 

I never addressed that dialogue option, and I agree that that particular one is not in regard to his sexuality. The wording of your post that I quoted led me to assume that you wanted the option to disagree with his sexuality, just as you mention that you disagreed with Zevran's.

 

Of course you can still be friends with him, because you can accrue enough approval points. The game's dialogue options, as well as NPC reactions, are not nuanced enough to account for such variation. In a way, it is akin to the lack of nuance with the friend/rival system in DA2. Some things should be deal-breakers, but they aren't written into the game that way. Fenris should not be friends (much less lovers) with a player who supports slavery simply because they also pick all of the anti-mage options, but that's how the game works.

 

In my post I was basically acting like Dorian were a real person. Considering everything he says in the game about himself, I truly don't think that, were he real, he would regard someone as anything more than a familiar acquaintance if that person could not accept him completely.

[Dai Grepher]

This is an interesting point. Wanting the option to express disgust is more representative of real-world views than lore-based game ones. There really isn't a reason why a given PC would be a sexuality bigot, especially considering that most of that bigotry in the real-world is religion based and that doesn't seem to be an issue with Andrastianism. So, what? Players want the option to be one of the few sexuality bigots in existence in Thedas?

 

More representative, sure, but those views do exist in the game world as well.

 

In Ferelden it's considered a scandal if you don't keep it behind closed doors. Period. Tevinter doesn't allow it either except as a form of entertainment for their tyrant class. The Qunari sure as anything do not tolerate it. The Dalish also believe in matching male and female in marriage. The dwarves have a caste system that relies on gender and procreation.

 

Whatever Andrasteism says about it, one thing remains constant. You can't reproduce through homosexuality. Therefore a basis for disapproval will always exist in the DA universe.
 

And beside all that is the fact that there are characters in the game who express disapproval of homosexuality. Cullen, Blackwall, Vivienne, the Hero of Ferelden (possibly), etc.