194 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

And I think this position is naive, it relies on the notion that the ignorant person is entirely aware of their ignorance and deficits.  That is generally the opposite of reality.  Ignorant individuals are generally are not aware of how ignorant their attitudes are.  It is difficult to look for something that one doesn't know they are missing.  That's just putting the blame on people who don't know things for not being exposed to those things previously, which may not be something they have had any control over.  I'm speaking of individuals here, not "the majority".  I'm specifically against the idea that the person asking should be condemned for their ignorance because it doesn't facilitate the respectful dialogue that  that would be most helpful in remedying that ignorance.

 

I agree about politeness as a function of a well-mannered society, I am simply saying that it is critical for proper dialogue on these issues.  One can't decry the "majority" for being ignorant and simultaneously stonewall and attack an honest attempt to learn for being poorly phrased.

 

You say this is about "respectful" dialogue. But respect is a two way street. The type of questions we're talking about here - the kind the Inquisitor can ask Krem or the IB - are incredibly basic. The ignorance itself is not respectful. You imply that the onus for respect is on others. That's wrong. The lack of respect - and the thing that undermines respectful dialogue - is the ignorance, which is not well-meaning. 

 

A person totally divorced from the issue can't be expected to know it's intricacies, or what the experience is like. But a random person can certainly be expected to know the basics. 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly about the bold and underlined. If someone is genuinely well-meaning an ignorant, then it's not some unreasonable Herculean effort to become less ignorant. An "honest" attempt to learn would involve "Google" and about an hour of someone's life. An "honest" attempt would involve some actual effort. Not just blurting out basic questions to the first person who happens to come across your way. That's not an honest or well-meaning attempt - that's just laziness, and a demand that other people accommodate laziness and disinterest. 

 

The moral narrative you've developed is about a group of well-meaning people who just can't find this out elsewhere, and we shouldn't blame them for not being able to learn. But that's silly. That's not the situation at all. 

 

Asking incredibly personal questions of another person because someone can't be bothered to spend a few hours of their life reading up on a topic is absolutely not respectful. 

[Gwydden]

Asking incredibly personal questions of another person because someone can't be bothered to spend a few hours of their life reading up on a topic is absolutely not respectful. 

Are you saying the Inquisitor should have googled it, or looked up Transexuality in Thedas: A History in some local library?

[AlanC9]

You say this is about "respectful" dialogue. But respect is a two way street. The type of questions we're talking about here - the kind the Inquisitor can ask Krem or the IB - are incredibly basic. The ignorance itself is not respectful. You imply that the onus for respect is on others. That's wrong. The lack of respect - and the thing that undermines respectful dialogue - is the ignorance, which is not well-meaning. 

What would better dialogue for the Inquisitor look like?

[Abyss108]

Are you saying the Inquisitor should have googled it, or looked up Transexuality in Thedas: A History in some local library?

 

The conversation has moved on from specifically talking about that scene in the game.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I would post a reply to the latest comments, but In Exile has said it all much better. Just pretend I repeated what he said!

[Kaweebo]

Asking incredibly personal questions of another person because someone can't be bothered to spend a few hours of their life reading up on a topic is absolutely not respectful. 

You're projecting common decency today to a world that technologically and culturally speaking is still stuck somewhere in the Dark Ages. Gay and transgender individuals existed back then, too, but it's not a stretch to assume the common person might not even have considered the idea of it. Especially in a world like DA where the Chantry doesn't seem to really have an official opinion on the latter whereas the Bible and other popular religions today have condemned the idea of both for centuries. 

[Heimdall]

You say this is about "respectful" dialogue. But respect is a two way street. The type of questions we're talking about here - the kind the Inquisitor can ask Krem or the IB - are incredibly basic. The ignorance itself is not respectful. You imply that the onus for respect is on others. That's wrong. The lack of respect - and the thing that undermines respectful dialogue - is the ignorance, which is not well-meaning. 

 

A person totally divorced from the issue can't be expected to know it's intricacies, or what the experience is like. But a random person can certainly be expected to know the basics. 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly about the bold and underlined. If someone is genuinely well-meaning an ignorant, then it's not some unreasonable Herculean effort to become less ignorant. An "honest" attempt to learn would involve "Google" and about an hour of someone's life. An "honest" attempt would involve some actual effort. Not just blurting out basic questions to the first person who happens to come across your way. That's not an honest or well-meaning attempt - that's just laziness, and a demand that other people accommodate laziness and disinterest. 

 

The moral narrative you've developed is about a group of well-meaning people who just can't find this out elsewhere, and we shouldn't blame them for not being able to learn. But that's silly. That's not the situation at all. 

 

Asking incredibly personal questions of another person because someone can't be bothered to spend a few hours of their life reading up on a topic is absolutely not respectful. 

I'm not saying people shouldn't do research In Exile, but if someone's first substantial exposure to the idea is meeting a transgender person and they want to know more and they ask questions, this situation I'm talking about may happen.  I am not suggesting that the onus is on the person being asked to cure someone else's ignorance, as I repeatedly told you.  I am only suggesting that while everyone being educated on the topic would be ideal, not everyone is and the assumption of malice helps exactly nobody.  The attitude that "Everyone who hasn't thoroughly studied the topic before meeting a transgender person is lazy" is thoroughly unhelpful in the real world.

 

Outside the realm of ideals, there are many people that don't know much about transgenderism because they've never encountered a transgender person before and it has never been relevant to their lives.  The reality is that most people aren't very interested in things that happen outside their daily life.  Meeting a transgender person might be the first time the issue has ever been presented to them up front and that meeting may very well be what spurs them to go do research.  It is not unreasonable that this person will want to ask questions in that meeting (if ill advised).  Even if those questions are offensive, they are caused by thoughtlessness rather than malice THAT MATTERS.  That is not to say that their offense should be excused, they should be told off, but courteously, not scolded like a child and accused of transphobia.

 

Your entire moral model is appears to rely on attributing malice to anyone that hasn't already educated themselves beforehand, which would make sense in an ideal reality, but i feel is impractical.

 

I completely reject the idea that people deserve to be demonized for entirely unintentional disrespect.

 

I think that's it for me, I've procrastinated my work long enough.

[Abyss108]

This has nothing to do with "malice". Something doesn't have to be done with malice to be hurtful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. 

 

You're projecting common decency today to a world that technologically and culturally speaking is still stuck somewhere in the Dark Ages. Gay and transgender individuals existed back then, too, but it's not a stretch to assume the common person might not even have considered the idea of it. Especially in a world like DA where the Chantry doesn't seem to really have an official opinion on the latter whereas the Bible and other popular religions today have condemned the idea of both for centuries. 

 

http://dragonage.wik...ality_in_Thedas

 

Perfectly acceptable in Thedas.

[vbibbi]

I disagree, vehemently.You say "that's not helping anyone". But what you're really getting at is precisely the point that I am objecting to: the idea that somehow someone is entitled to start judging a group based on whatever interaction they have with a random member of that group, and that it's somehow incumbent on each member of that group to maintain an image.

 

People ask stupid questions all the time. Getting told off should have absolutely no connection with anything other than one's personal relationship with the person who got told off. It comes back to things like racism or sexism. If they're going to start generalizing about groups of people, or start forming opinions of entire groups based off isolated interactions, that's again on them. 

 

I think people should be generally polite. I think people should always take the time to educate others. That's because I really, really, dislike rudeness. But that has nothing to do with a socially sensitive topic, or with sexuality, or with anything other than the basic manners we should all have as participants in society.

I'm still not sure where you're getting the idea that anyone is saying ignorant people are entitled to judge the trans community. It's not an either/or situation where the majority either does their research and doesn't ask offensive questions to a trans person or else they refuse to do their research and judge the person.

 

I agree that neither party is entitled or obligated to do anything; the trans community should not feel obligated to educate anyone or deal with personal questions if they don't want to, nor be subjected to judgment. It's not fair that a minority comes under scrutiny because the majority is not well educated. But it's also not realistic to expect someone from the majority who has an interaction with someone from the minority not to be influenced on their opinions based on that interaction. It's basic human nature that we internalize our interaction with our environment. Again, it's not fair that a minority feels like they have to educate others or always be polite in the face of ignorance. But it's not realistic to expect the majority to take on the burden of educating themselves without any assistance from the minority. Society doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

 

No. Because as I said: implicit in this proposition is a moral judgment about how justifiable ignorance on the part of the majority. What I'm saying is that this type of ignorance is a failing on the part of the majority, and it's the majority who should take steps to cure themselves of their ignorance.

 

There's also the implication that people will form negative opinions about a group based on their interactions, which is just unjustifiable. Obviously people will do this - this is a basic human adaptive feature and a form of how we reason - but this doesn't mean we should actually condone that behaviour. 

 

As I said above - people should be polite because that's how we should all be in a functional and well-mannered society. But failing to be polite is a personal failing, and totally independent from the issue of the majority's ignorance. 

There's a difference between condoning human instincts and recognizing that it's going to happen. Ideally, the majority would seek to learn about any type of minority community that they don't have much interaction with. Realistically, people don't seek out new information until they're confronted with something new. An example is the recent surge in popularity for gay marriage in the U.S. A lot of commentary I've read from heterosexuals is that they always thought gay people were just like the caricatures seen in the media, but once they either met a gay person or found out that someone they already knew was gay, they realized gay people are just like anyone else. It's not that straight people were entitled to think this way or that they intentionally didn't seek out information on gay people, it's that they were never confronted with the idea of gay people until gay activist groups forced the issue on a national level.

 

You say this is about "respectful" dialogue. But respect is a two way street. The type of questions we're talking about here - the kind the Inquisitor can ask Krem or the IB - are incredibly basic. The ignorance itself is not respectful. You imply that the onus for respect is on others. That's wrong. The lack of respect - and the thing that undermines respectful dialogue - is the ignorance, which is not well-meaning. 

 

A person totally divorced from the issue can't be expected to know it's intricacies, or what the experience is like. But a random person can certainly be expected to know the basics. 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly about the bold and underlined. If someone is genuinely well-meaning an ignorant, then it's not some unreasonable Herculean effort to become less ignorant. An "honest" attempt to learn would involve "Google" and about an hour of someone's life. An "honest" attempt would involve some actual effort. Not just blurting out basic questions to the first person who happens to come across your way. That's not an honest or well-meaning attempt - that's just laziness, and a demand that other people accommodate laziness and disinterest. 

 

The moral narrative you've developed is about a group of well-meaning people who just can't find this out elsewhere, and we shouldn't blame them for not being able to learn. But that's silly. That's not the situation at all. 

 

Asking incredibly personal questions of another person because someone can't be bothered to spend a few hours of their life reading up on a topic is absolutely not respectful. 

Saying ignorance is disrespectful seems really harsh. I know nothing about the culture of Somalia or the issues currently going on in that country. There is a large Somali immigrant population in my city. If a Somalian was hired in my office and I met that person, I would be ignorant of their background and culture. That's not disrespectful, I have just never interacted with anyone from Somalia before. Yes, I should research the country before I go to that coworker and start asking them a bunch of questions about their life, and probably shouldn't even be asking them anything too personal, at least until we're on a friendly basis, but in no way have I been disrespectful to that coworker.

 

Also, as I mentioned above, people aren't going to educate themselves on a topic until they've been confronted by that topic. If I met the Somali coworker without any prior notice of their hire, I wouldn't have any reason to research Somalia on my own. So if I met the coworker and found myself trying to make conversation, it's possible I could ask about their country and maybe say something ignorant or disrespectful unintentionally. I didn't intentionally avoid educating myself, I was put into a position where I didn't have a chance to do any research.

 

Getting back to the game, I didn't really pick up that Krem is trans until the IB conversation. Should my PC have asked IB to hold that thought and go do some research before rejoining him and the Chargers? We learn about Krem as we're in a conversation with the group. It's either feign knowledge we don't have, keep quiet and don't say anything, or ask Krem about his life. If IB or Krem didn't want to discuss his trans identity, they probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

 

I'm not saying people shouldn't do research In Exile, but if someone's first substantial exposure to the idea is meeting a transgender person and they want to know more and they ask questions, this situation I'm talking about may happen.  I am not suggesting that the onus is on the person being asked to cure someone else's ignorance, as I repeatedly told you.  I am only suggesting that while everyone being educated on the topic would be ideal, not everyone is and the assumption of malice helps exactly nobody.  The attitude that "Everyone who hasn't thoroughly studied the topic before meeting a transgender person is lazy" is thoroughly unhelpful in the real world.

 

Outside the realm of ideals, there are many people that don't know much about transgenderism because they've never encountered a transgender person before and it has never been relevant to their lives.  The reality is that most people aren't very interested in things that happen outside their daily life.  Meeting a transgender person might be the first time the issue has ever been presented to them up front and that meeting may very well be what spurs them to go do research.  It is not unreasonable that this person will want to ask questions in that meeting (if ill advised).  Even if those questions are offensive, they are caused by thoughtlessness rather than malice THAT MATTERS.  That is not to say that their offense should be excused, they should be told off, but courteously, not scolded like a child and accused of transphobia.

 

Your entire moral model is appears to rely on attributing malice to anyone that hasn't already educated themselves beforehand, which would make sense in an ideal reality, but i feel is impractical.

 

I completely reject the idea that people deserve to be demonized for entirely unintentional disrespect.

 

I think that's it for me, I've procrastinated my work long enough.

Yup.

[Dai Grepher]

No, smoking is a habit, or an addiction. It is not something that is an unchangeable part of a person.

 

Sexuality is a core feature. What you have been told is that sexuality doesn't dictate what a person is like, but it is a part of them.

 

You're still comparing outrage over adultery with outrage over homosexuality. And again, it's not petty, it's a reasonable response of any self-respecting gay person. Petty is thinking that homosexuality is somehow a negative trait that you can oh so kindly look past.

 

For any adult person, religion is a choice. They decide to worship a god that way and not another. And no, there is no proof.

 

And I've already said it, if an option like that is included, it should come with a penalty of loosing that companion.

 

Not the point, but whatever. The person engages in the behavior of smoking. So, can a person find smoking disgusting but still value the friend who smokes? Would the smoker be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with smoking?

 

Okay, doesn't dictate what the person is like. But the person engages in the behavior of homosexuality. So, can a person find homosexuality disgusting but still value the friend who is homosexual? Would the homosexual be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with homosexuality?

 

I'm not comparing anything. I'm giving you an example of something bad so you can understand how the person who disagrees with homosexuality sees the situation. Your friend does something you disagree with or find disgusting or immoral. You look past it to maintain the friendship. Is your friend right to end the friendship because you don't accept and agree with his behavior?

 

All right, then let me phrase it this way. Your friend disagrees with homosexuality and is disgusted by it. Are you willing to look past this belief you see as petty and negative that you disagree with, and maintain the friendship? If so, is the friend right to end the friendship with you because you disagree with his belief?

 

Religion is a choice, but the religious also believe that it is a core part of their being. Whether there is proof or not of sexuality being biologically based is irrelevant to this issue, so I won't discuss it here.

 

Well, that's a strange standard to have. Removing the character from the game simply because the player character has a belief seems like a complete waste, and it would anger many players. It would be the same as not including the choice because it would force people to pick a different answer or else lose out on a part of the storyline. That doesn't make sense. It would be like Cassandra leaving the party simply because you don't believe in the Maker.

 

As a chronic, heavy, multiple-decade smoker who quit just half a year ago (cold turkey, w00t me), I'm horrified at the suggestion that smoking is "a core feature of a person."

 

Well, isn't it?

 

Also, good job quitting.

[vbibbi]

This has nothing to do with "malice". Something doesn't have to be done with malice to be hurtful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. 

 

 

http://dragonage.wik...ality_in_Thedas

 

Perfectly acceptable in Thedas.

The codex doesn't mention anything about transgender individuals being commonly understood, only same sex relationships. As has already been mentioned, we're not asking about an individual's genitalia so how would we know/assume a person's gender if they have not disclosed it? In the comics, I assumed Maevaris was a cis female until her dress was torn and her flat chest was revealed. At that point her identity expanded for me.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Well this thread got off track real fast.

[Dean_the_Young]

This has nothing to do with "malice". Something doesn't have to be done with malice to be hurtful.

 

So what?

 

Let's carry this on- where does the line get drawn, and who gets to draw it? What sort of pentalties, social or compensatory, should someone get to draw on the line of hurt feelings... and where does it stop? Is first accuser right, but no counter-accusations? Do we judge by a jury of peers?

 

 

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

 

 

That would be an excellent warning for the intentions of condemning ignorance as bigotry.
 

[Capone666]

Transcript: 
 

AB: When did you decide on Iron Bull’s ideology, I guess, on [his] sexuality?

 

PW: So we were looking at how the qun handled sexuality and we went back and forth about it. We had different ideas. There was the puritan version, there was the holy thing, there was the ‘he’s basically no different from any other mercenary’ option. We eventually kicked it around and said if we’re going to do this, if this is something he’s going to talk about, we better make it interesting, because if he’s not interested in sex in any capacity and if he’s buttoned down about it then he’s not really covering any ground that we didn’t already cover really really well with Sten. And if he’s basically a mercenary who likes sleeping with people, well we’ve also done that before with other characters, so this was a chance for something new.

 

Looking at how the qunari treat sex and what sex means for them and what is and isn't’ considered taboo, that was, in addition to just being goofy fun–which is certainly part of the reason we wrote him–it would be interesting to see, okay, here is a culture that is really in touch with their physical side and just completely removes the taboo on things. ‘Oh, okay this is what you need? Well, great, we’re gonna calm you down, we’re gonna have fun, alright, awesome, great, have a good day.’

 

AB: One of the amazing things though in the relationship with Iron Bull if you do kinda progress towards it, just like all of these great relationships–I think of Jack in Mass Effect–when you take a step deeper, you see that that relationship and this form of sexual identity can be a lot stronger.

 

When developing this sort of idea for his sexuality, did you look at or speak to any experts, any people that deal with BDSM or other things like this when trying to express this very complicated and often, I would say misunderstood form of sexual expression?

 

PW: Oh, it’s absolutely complicated and often misunderstood. And yes, I’m fortunate to have friends in the community that I could talk to and say, ‘okay, how does this work, how does this go?’

 

The original, if I’m remembering this right, was Mike Laidlaw, our creative director and lead designer, he and I at lunch, I said, ‘you know, I kinda would like to see if the Iron Bull could maybe be romanceable.’ and he went, ‘Really?’ and I went ‘yeah okay I know, but we got Cullen, we got all the quote ‘normal’ romances, we got those, but just imagine if he like, you know, leaned in and pinned your arms to the wall and said ‘[deep voice] are you ready to do this’, and Mike went ‘okay! You clearly have a vision.’ We were there with our wives, his wife Mel and my wife Karen and both of them went ‘Yes. Please. That. Do that thing you just described’. Okay! Apparently there’s a target audience for that! So we took it from that.

 

I took it to […] my friends in the community and said, ‘okay here’s what I’d like to do, I am aware that 50 Shades of Gray–it wasn’t a movie yet when we were writing it [Bull’s romance] but we knew the movie was coming, we knew the books had sold zillions and zillions of copies so there was obviously some market for something like this. And at the same time I had also seen criticism from people saying ‘here’s what 50 Shades did wrong, here’s the things that were not healthy about it’, so how can we do these things and get it done in a way that is tricker than in 50 Shades.

 

Because in 50 Shades you are a reader reading about what another character is doing. And it is okay if the other character does something in a way that causes them to be degraded or feel disrespected because you’re not that character. But in a video game, you ARE that character. ANYTHING along those lines that happens has to be so carefully managed in a way that, if we take power away from you we are doing so after you have said unequivocally ‘I want you to do this. I am happy that you are doing this. Please do the thing you have just telegraphed you are going to do.’

 

And so that was the reason why, relative to some of the other romance options, [with] Iron Bull […] you have to flirt with him–a lot–have no other romances open. And then […] he’s waiting in your bedroom saying ‘I’ve seen the signals, I’m not sure you know what you’re getting into.’ You have to say ‘Yes, I want to do this’ twice before he even touches you. And then after he touches you, you get a little hint of ‘oh this is going to be, OH this might not be reading love poetry by the river!’ Then you have another chance to say ‘oh, yeah, never mind. I wanted something else.’

 

And then, again, just like everything else, because making a video game of this sort, we are making something and our goal is to give the players the type of fantasy fulfillment they want. And no one wants a type of fantasy fulfilment where someone hits on them, they say, ‘no i’m not interested,’ and the other person gets angry and bitter. And brings it up later in passive aggressive ways, or stalks them or gets creepy on them. So if you’re like ‘Ok Iron Bull that could be fun, that could be interesting’ and then he pins your arms up over your head and you go ‘Nope! Not interested!’, he immediately backs off, goes ‘Hey, no worries, have a good one, talk to you later’ and leaves. Those were all things we hit really, really carefully.

 

The cinematic designer was John Epler and he’s an amazing guy, fantastic to work with, and he and I got real comfortable to the point of […]–we actually staged out the scene. He and I, in a room, going, ‘okay and then this happens, and we’ll have the camera here, okay, pin my arms here,’ […] And we’re laughing about it because you know, we’re a couple of dudes, but if you can’t get to the point where you can have that conversation with someone you’re working with about it, then how are you supposed to deliver that to the audience? I feel like our players can tell when we don’t actually believe or respect something that we’re making. There are times where I feel ‘wow that movie was phoned in’ or ‘wow that book was, that was someone writing that for a paycheck’ you know, so it was a little bit of interesting growth on all our parts to get to a point where we were comfortable with that.

[Biotic Apostate]

Not the point, but whatever. The person engages in the behavior of smoking. So, can a person find smoking disgusting but still value the friend who smokes? Would the smoker be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with smoking?

 

Okay, doesn't dictate what the person is like. But the person engages in the behavior of homosexuality. So, can a person find homosexuality disgusting but still value the friend who is homosexual? Would the homosexual be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with homosexuality?

 

I'm not comparing anything. I'm giving you an example of something bad so you can understand how the person who disagrees with homosexuality sees the situation. Your friend does something you disagree with or find disgusting or immoral. You look past it to maintain the friendship. Is your friend right to end the friendship because you don't accept and agree with his behavior?

 

All right, then let me phrase it this way. Your friend disagrees with homosexuality and is disgusted by it. Are you willing to look past this belief you see as petty and negative that you disagree with, and maintain the friendship? If so, is the friend right to end the friendship with you because you disagree with his belief?

 

Religion is a choice, but the religious also believe that it is a core part of their being. Whether there is proof or not of sexuality being biologically based is irrelevant to this issue, so I won't discuss it here.

 

Well, that's a strange standard to have. Removing the character from the game simply because the player character has a belief seems like a complete waste, and it would anger many players. It would be the same as not including the choice because it would force people to pick a different answer or else lose out on a part of the storyline. That doesn't make sense. It would be like Cassandra leaving the party simply because you don't believe in the Maker.

Ah and there it is. Homosexuality is not a behaviour. Gay people who never had sex are still gay. While people who never smoked are not smokers.

 

"Would the homosexual be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with homosexuality?"

Yep.

 

Finding objectively bad things bad, like adultery or smoking, is not in any way comparable to finding homosexuality morally bad. In those 2 cases you're disagreeing with actions, in the case of sexuality you're disapproving of a part of a person.

 

If my friend was disgusted by homosexuality then yes, I would end this relationship. I want a circle of friends, who can can accept me and would not be disturbed to see me hugging my boyfriend. I'm strange that way, wanting friends I can feel comfortable around.

 

It would anger many gay players to have that character take those stupid views and just go "you hate what I am, but you still want to be a friend, thank you master." If you want a role playing choice, you have to be prepared to face the consequences. You don't get to insult someone, and expect them to be ok with that. And the maker example is irrelevant, it was badly implemented in the game. You get called herald of Andraste no matter what you say, and the options to say you don't believe in all of that felt like they were an afterthought.

[Abyss108]

The codex doesn't mention anything about transgender individuals being commonly understood, only same sex relationships. As has already been mentioned, we're not asking about an individual's genitalia so how would we know/assume a person's gender if they have not disclosed it? In the comics, I assumed Maevaris was a cis female until her dress was torn and her flat chest was revealed. At that point her identity expanded for me.

 

I know it doesn't mention Transgender people, the post I quoted it at mentioned gay people not being accepted.

[fhs33721]

Not the point, but whatever. The person engages in the behavior of smoking. So, can a person find smoking disgusting but still value the friend who smokes? Would the smoker be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with smoking?

 

Okay, doesn't dictate what the person is like. But the person engages in the behavior of homosexuality. So, can a person find homosexuality disgusting but still value the friend who is homosexual? Would the homosexual be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with homosexuality?

 

I'm not comparing anything. I'm giving you an example of something bad so you can understand how the person who disagrees with homosexuality sees the situation. Your friend does something you disagree with or find disgusting or immoral. You look past it to maintain the friendship. Is your friend right to end the friendship because you don't accept and agree with his behavior?

So how would this hypothetical conversation go?

 

Even if your Inquisitor did think homosexual acts are disgusting for some reason but still liked Doran for example as a friend otherwise why would he bring up that he thought it was disgsting in the first place? Unless Dorian is having gay sex right next to them I see no reason for the Inquisitor to not keep their resentment to themselves. Hell to stay with your smoking example (Even though it's a horrendous example in the first place), I do think smoking is utterly disgusting. However I don't randomly tell my smoking friends that they are disgusting for smoking unless they blow the smoke directly into my face. And even then I usually just politely step outside of the smoke-range instead of telling them that I think they are being disgusting.

 

Do you want something along those lines:

"My dear friend Dorian, I think you are a swell guy but I just have to just randomly say that the homosexual behavior you are engaging in while I am personally not around is absolutely disgusting. Just thinking about it makes me want to puke. Just throwing that out here now so we are clear about that. Now let's get back to fighting Venatori my buddy."

 

Because that kind of petty nonsense should at least gain you a "Dorian very, very, very Greatly dissaproves -500 points".

[AlanC9]

Finding objectively bad things bad, like adultery or smoking, is not in any way comparable to finding homosexuality morally bad. In those 2 cases you're disagreeing with actions, in the case of sexuality you're disapproving of a part of a person.

I presume you mean "adultery" as in cheating, rather than as in, say, an open relationship, swinging, etc. and so forth.

[AlanC9]

Do you want something along those lines:
"My dear friend Dorian, I think you are a swell guy but I just have to just randomly say that the homosexual behavior you are engaging in while I am personally not around is absolutely disgusting. Just thinking about it makes me want to puke. Just throwing that out here now so we are clear about that. Now let's get back to fighting Venatori my buddy."
 
Because that kind of petty nonsense should at least gain you a "Dorian very, very, very Greatly dissaproves -500 points".

And even assuming we can come up with a tolerable version of this conversation, in what universe does it pass an ROI test? I can see wanting to throw a few more zots into RP-based companion interactions, but to start with this?

[Biotic Apostate]

I presume you mean "adultery" as in cheating, rather than as in, say, an open relationship, swinging, etc. and so forth.

Since Dai Grepher mentioned it as a morally wrong thing, I'm assuming we're talking about cheating on a spouse here.

[fhs33721]

And even assuming we can come up with a tolerable version of this conversation, in what universe does it pass an ROI test? I can see wanting to throw a few more zots into RP-based companion interactions, but to start with this?

In no universe most likely. Maybe someone can come up with a fictional universe where this would pass an ROI test?

It would no doubt be an incredibly crappy fictional universe though.

[rapscallioness]

My only issue with the questions asked of Krem during the party was that they felt to me to be very personal questions, and I barely knew this guy.

 

It just didn't feel appropriate for me to be asking such questions of someone that I essentially just met. It assumed a certain familiarity that was not there. And the only other choice was, "And the others?"

 

If Krem had been a companion and we had spent time together throughout the game, then I could see being close enough to ask about it.

 

**until Krem got with Maryden in Trespasser, I actually thought he had a thing for IB. It was something about how he said the line, "Let me know if you need help with that binding.." I thought, "Ooohh."

[BansheeOwnage]

 

What was the line? Was the paraphrase unclear? I thought the paraphrase was pretty clear it was going be an dumb line. 

True, but my main issue was that if you wanted to ask a question, you had to ask it stupidly. Asking something neutral and written in a less ignorant way wouldn't have been hard to do, but I'm not sure that's what Weekes wanted to do in the first place.

 

 

You can ask Krem about that, re: magic. So it's a concept that notionally exists, though clearly not via surgery. 

Lore-wise, something like the Mirror of Transformation would likely do the trick. You can already use it to change your bone and muscle structure, among other very precise and complicated things, like changing your voice. The only reasons you can't do more with it are gameplay/story/engine limitations.

 

As a chronic, heavy, multiple-decade smoker who quit just half a year ago (cold turkey, w00t me), I'm horrified at the suggestion that smoking is "a core feature of a person."

Well done!

[BansheeOwnage]

Well this thread got off track real fast.

Did it? I was under the impression this was the only route a Krem thread could travel

 

Which is utterly depressing.

 

My only issue with the questions asked of Krem during the party was that they felt to me to be very personal questions, and I barely knew this guy.

 

It just didn't feel appropriate for me to be asking such questions of someone that I essentially just met. It assumed a certain familiarity that was not there. And the only other choice was, "And the others?"

 

If Krem had been a companion and we had spent time together throughout the game, then I could see being close enough to ask about it.

 

**until Krem got with Maryden in Trespasser, I actually thought he had a thing for IB. It was something about how he said the line, "Let me know if you need help with that binding.." I thought, "Ooohh."

Yes, it would have helped if we got to know him better beforehand.

[Dai Grepher]

Transcript: 
 

AB: When did you decide on Iron Bull’s ideology, I guess, on [his] sexuality?

 

PW: So we were looking at how the qun handled sexuality and we went back and forth about it. We had different ideas. There was the puritan version, there was the holy thing, there was the ‘he’s basically no different from any other mercenary’ option. We eventually kicked it around and said if we’re going to do this, if this is something he’s going to talk about, we better make it interesting, because if he’s not interested in sex in any capacity and if he’s buttoned down about it then he’s not really covering any ground that we didn’t already cover really really well with Sten. And if he’s basically a mercenary who likes sleeping with people, well we’ve also done that before with other characters, so this was a chance for something new.

 

Looking at how the qunari treat sex and what sex means for them and what is and isn't’ considered taboo, that was, in addition to just being goofy fun–which is certainly part of the reason we wrote him–it would be interesting to see, okay, here is a culture that is really in touch with their physical side and just completely removes the taboo on things. ‘Oh, okay this is what you need? Well, great, we’re gonna calm you down, we’re gonna have fun, alright, awesome, great, have a good day.’

 

Thanks for posting. I have a problem with the last part. I don't know where Weekes gets the idea that the Qunari have no taboos about sex when it is clearly stated that the Qunari do not have sex with their friends or anyone they love. Clearly you can't just have sex with anyone. So there are taboos. And why would all taboos suddenly disappear when you go to a tamassran? Sex is for breeding, and it is never used between different races. So why would the Qunari, an uptight race that focuses on discipline, allow sex in a temple? Does this apply to anyone under the Qun? In which case, are there tamassrans of each race picked out for each race of person under the Qun?

 

Seems to me that the Qunari tamassrans would simply instruct each "applicant" to push a stone block across the room, take a cold shower, follow that up with meditation, have a hot meal, and then finally rest... with cheese wheels over the eyes.

 

Ah and there it is. Homosexuality is not a behaviour. Gay people who never had sex are still gay. While people who never smoked are not smokers.

 

"Would the homosexual be justified in ending the friendship just because the friend disagrees with homosexuality?"

Yep.

 

Finding objectively bad things bad, like adultery or smoking, is not in any way comparable to finding homosexuality morally bad. In those 2 cases you're disagreeing with actions, in the case of sexuality you're disapproving of a part of a person.

 

If my friend was disgusted by homosexuality then yes, I would end this relationship. I want a circle of friends, who can can accept me and would not be disturbed to see me hugging my boyfriend. I'm strange that way, wanting friends I can feel comfortable around.

 

It would anger many gay players to have that character take those stupid views and just go "you hate what I am, but you still want to be a friend, thank you master." If you want a role playing choice, you have to be prepared to face the consequences. You don't get to insult someone, and expect them to be ok with that. And the maker example is irrelevant, it was badly implemented in the game. You get called herald of Andraste no matter what you say, and the options to say you don't believe in all of that felt like they were an afterthought.

 

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, as opposed to something like skin color, which is defined by a physical trait. Sex is not required. There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex. So I don't know why you brought up the action of sex.

 

So what if a Christian ended a friendship with someone who is an atheist? Would the Christian be justified as well?

 

Okay that's how YOU see it. But other people see those other things as part of the person also. Those behaviors are part of who they are. They can disagree with those behaviors but still accept the person with those behaviors.

 

But the friend would accept you, just not agree with homosexuality. I think that might be the part you're missing here. From my own perspective, if one of my homosexual friends were to say that he finds heterosexuality disgusting and doesn't agree with it, I would not end my friendship with him. This would just be his opinion. But even if he called me a "filthy breeder" as other homosexuals have called me in the past, I would just laugh and dismiss it. I don't know why people having a different opinion than you regarding this issue makes you feel uncomfortable. Aren't people allowed to think differently?

 

Sir, why are you trying to take this to absurdities? No one wrote that the homosexual character would have to be an appeaser about it. Just don't write him out of the damn game if the player selects a response that says "I disagree with that behavior, but I accept you as a person".

 

It isn't irrelevant. It's the same case you are posing. You gave a response Cassandra didn't like. You disagree with her Maker. So she leaves the game.

 

So how would this hypothetical conversation go?

 

Hell to stay with your smoking example (Even though it's a horrendous example in the first place), I do think smoking is utterly disgusting. However I don't randomly tell my smoking friends that they are disgusting for smoking unless they blow the smoke directly into my face. And even then I usually just politely step outside of the smoke-range instead of telling them that I think they are being disgusting.

 

There is talk of how his father wanted to change his sexual preference. Perhaps Dorian could have asked the Inquisitor his opinion about it. The Inquisitor could have said that while he doesn't approve of homosexuality, he accepts Dorian as he is regardless, and that bloodmagic is not the answer. Dorian could say, "Well... that's something at least".

 

Okay, but taking your own example, a friend of a homosexual doesn't voice his or her disapproval of homosexuality like that either. So I don't know what you're getting at here.

 

And on the subject of people who announce their disapproval of you, Dorian is a prime example of it.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, as opposed to something like skin color, which is defined by a physical trait. Sex is not required. There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex. So I don't know why you brought up the action of sex.

 

So what if a Christian ended a friendship with someone who is an atheist? Would the Christian be justified as well?

 

Okay that's how YOU see it. But other people see those other things as part of the person also. Those behaviors are part of who they are. They can disagree with those behaviors but still accept the person with those behaviors.

 

But the friend would accept you, just not agree with homosexuality. I think that might be the part you're missing here.

 

Sure, you can have homosexual behaviour, but simply being homosexual is a trait like any other, and unchangeable.

 

We've already explained that religion is not a fundamental part of someone. It may be very important to them, and that's fine. But as an adult, it's something you choose, and it's possible to convert. As for the question: Sure? If someone being an atheist is an irreconcilable difference for a Christian, then that's that. You can't force people to be friends.

 

No, those things are not fundamental aspects of their person. I say fundamental, because they cannot be changed. Someone's religion, or anything else may be extremely important to them, and that's fine. My sexuality isn't "really important to me", it's just part of who I am. It was as much a choice as when I chose to have green eyes. Oh, wait, I didn't.

 

For the umpteenth time (but in all likelihood, not the last): That "friend". Would not. Be accepting you. Punctuated for emphasis. By it's very nature, not accepting your homosexuality is... not accepting it.

 

And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop using terms like "disagree". Sexuality is not an opinion. You can't disagree with it. And stop using nonsense terminology like "sexual preference". It has nothing to do with preference. Just like it's not a "lifestyle choice".