Ah, I messed up who asked who then. Yeah, it's also kinda funny when people accuse Josh Sawyer of being one as he's actually pretty big gun nut.
Please no political rubbish
- Thread starter WorldViper
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Ah, I messed up who asked who then. Yeah, it's also kinda funny when people accuse Josh Sawyer of being one as he's actually pretty big gun nut.
You can't do a story like AC without pushing a certain anti establishment agenda. Also AC stories are nonsense.
I'll tell you.
They edited a joke headstone written by a backer.
OH THE HORROR THE GAME VISION IS RUINED.
FIERY WHORE!
*ahems*
sorry.
That's not what ancient rome's stance on homosexuality was (they didn't have a concept for homosexuality). Roman sexual identity revolved around power dynamic. A man penetrating is masculine. A man being penetrated is feminine and is not particularly respected in Roman culture.
CK2 doesn't represent male suffrage, much less female suffrage
Most games just transplant modern social customs into them.
I'll be shocked if tyranny doesn't do the same.
Eh yeah you can, AC is basically a cyberpunk (Or maybee conspiracy punk) story there's an entire genre called postcyberpunk in which the state of the world is not an evil that needs to be fought but mere a canvas or framework for telling stories set in the world. In fact the first AC was kind of like that, it was very ambivalent about wheter there was really any diffrence between the assassins and the templars. You can really tell that AC2 was made by a diffrent team that wanted to make a game that was easier to approach and more mainstream.
Last edited:
Yes, but there we go into a more nuanced matter regarding the dynamics of the relations themselves, which certainly varied a lot depending on whether it was a relationship between a patrician and a slave or between a master and a pupil, etc. The main point was that, in the Tevinter society, the main concern seems to be securing a dynastic, pureblood heir, there were no ethical points made regarding why the act would be seen as "wicked", it's just stated to be, without believable reasons.
Indeed.
Roman medical thinking on sex often accorded with the Galenic "one sex" model, meaning men were defined by the presence of vital heat. A man was a man because he was virile, active, dominant and desired active penetration (with men, with women, didn't matter) all of which were seen as expressions of his vital heat and inherent manliness, if a man didn't manifest these traits then he risked not being seen as a man at all (but rather, it's increasingly believed, as a kind of eunuch, which was not the worst fate in the world - eunuchs often had it pretty good prior to the adoption of Christianity).
It wasn't male-male intercourse in and of itself that upset the Romans so much as any kind of gender non-conformity. The idea that a man (a real man, not a eunuch) would accept penetration by another man or being put in the womanly position during sex was deeply unsettling, and occasionally punishable by death.
Of course, all of this went out the window with the adoption of Christianity, which imposed a much more strict and anatomical view of sex (interestingly though, the Galenic view made a revival during the renaissance). Most of the Christian prohibitions and doctrinal arguments regarding same-sex intercourse (between men, at least) actually came out of Rome and later Byzantium and were strictly enforced there, so in context I think it totally makes sense.
"Decadence" is a 19th century (or late 18th century at best, although its connotations of sexual permissiveness are very 19th century) concept. Applying the concept of decadence to any pre-19th century society as an argument as to why a fictional society based on it should be sexually permissive is an anachronism. Romans were not particularly sexually permissive, they just had a different view of sexual morality to the one which would be recognizable to modern Christians and post-Christians.
Last edited:
As said above, that is a very specific situation. The point originally made was that the guy in question, as a free and noble scion, would have been free to have intercourse with the person he preferred, as long as he also provided an heir.
Well, that's a bit of a stretch, early Christians portraied the Patricians as decadent and dissolute, that is partly why the stereotypes of the orgiastic Ancient Romans exist in the first place. In fact, without even going there, didn't Augustus himself pontificate against the dissolution of his own generation and made laws encouraging regular marriages? Saying that "decadence" is a modern concept is somewhat curious when pretty much every Roman orator went on and on and on about how the Romans of his time had become degenerates and effeminate fools who did not care about the oh-so-precious traditions of their forefathers.
My main point was not that though.
My main point in that example was that the fictional culture moved more or less in line with the stereotypical representation of its real life corrispective culture, but for that single issue. Now, obviously, in real-life Byzantium male on male intercourse was not looked well upon under any circumstance, but real-life Byzantium had had centuries to develop that new stance due to the influence of Christianity, Ancient Tevinter did not.
The excuses that are brought forth in the game to justify their stance on that issue feel weak and far-fetched, which makes the issue stand out, especially since it is given such space and insight during the plot.
It's not that it wouldn't be conceivable that that specific stance was taken by the fictional government, it is, after all, fictional, but the way it is presented does not look realistic to me at all.
Andrastian Tevinter had been depicted up to that point as a deceptive and morally bankrupt society (this both from people that were against it, people that were part of it and codex entries), where everything was fine behind closed doors (blood magic, assassination, daemon summoning, etc.), so, when you want to write in that one thing where they do draw their genuine moral stand, I would expect it to have legitimate reasons, especially if it is part of a major plot point.
Last edited:
Ah a classic Bad Politics debate, where the brave Conservatives cross swords with the enlightened Progressives. With both generally having no idea in what the hell they're talking about. Also DAI wasn't pushing a agenda? DAI featured characters of just about every sexual preference, and had changed Ferelden which previously had a homogeneous white population in past games into a multi-racial utopia where every other person was black or brown. Yeah, one could accurately call it PC and focus group the game.
As for Tyranny, I'll put this out here: the game takes place in the Bronze Age where genocide was the modus operanti for conquering armies and human sacrifice was a common affair even in the "advanced" lands of Khemet and Sumeria. Do scenes in GOT or Borgias shock you when they reveal how Medieval people acted? Well, you're going to be just downright morbid after seeing just how alien and bloodthirsty people like the Assyrians were in real life, and that's before you witness what made everyone in the local area team up to finally put those bastards in their place.
Nobody in Tyranny should remotely act or think like a person in the modern era and that's simply that.
As for Tyranny, I'll put this out here: the game takes place in the Bronze Age where genocide was the modus operanti for conquering armies and human sacrifice was a common affair even in the "advanced" lands of Khemet and Sumeria. Do scenes in GOT or Borgias shock you when they reveal how Medieval people acted? Well, you're going to be just downright morbid after seeing just how alien and bloodthirsty people like the Assyrians were in real life, and that's before you witness what made everyone in the local area team up to finally put those bastards in their place.
Nobody in Tyranny should remotely act or think like a person in the modern era and that's simply that.
- 1
Ferelden did not have many people of colour, Orlais did to some extent but not Ferelden.
These things are why we need Orcs, elves or other humaniod races. As Terry Pratchett said why hate brown/black/white or yellow when we can all gang up and hate green.
Also technically as this is not our own world and the situation is very different we can not really use our own historical time line as a guide.
Also technically as this is not our own world and the situation is very different we can not really use our own historical time line as a guide.
I think realistically the addition of new races would increase potential targets for racism, not decrease them. Like, if we made contacts with intelligent extraterrestrial life tomorrow, do you really think the KKK would adopt a more open-minded attitude towards... anyone?
Adding platonic and Aristotelian politics, with a healthy dose of slave revolts would be cool.
- 1
I know the whole "Really it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring" line had our panties in a wad, I hated it too. I don't want to place any restrictions on the devs, not that I think they will accept our restrictions anyway. Obsidian has always delivered on narrative and character so I trust them to give us something mature and nuanced, not college freshman level "activism" that we saw from that other developer.
So keep the faith and reserve judgement.
So keep the faith and reserve judgement.
Devs, please don't let this be another shill piece for omnivorous. #NoMeatInTyranny
'Whatever you chose is wrong' Krea, KotorIIYeah... no. The OP is right to be concerned. The philosophy of Pillars was the gibbering of college freshmen who glanced over their Philosophy 101 textbooks and misconstrued everything, then jogged along a murder railroad to an irrational and senseless end, completely unrelated to anything that happened along the way.
- 1
There are a couple of choices which she actually likes, but are usually those that reward less.
But yes, that is the point, it goes into how the problems of how the costant relying on emotions by the Sith makes them loose focus and reason, while the lack of emotions in Jedi makes them apathetic and ineffectual. It shows how the dogma that has been presented in previous Star Wars material, when examined, works against its own goals.
- 1
- Status