Not a medieval setting?
Oh well... the armors, the weapons (from swords, to halberds, to flails, to crossbows),
the typical inns, the knights, the Orders, the castles, the feudal systems (Roenall, anyone?),
the pyres, the stories of witches, the very concept of alchemists, potions...
Not very close to a western/cowboys setting, or anything else...
Indeed in time the AD&D world has been expanded, "contaminated" (for example the oriental
classes and weapons) but in the times I used to play it, there was no mistery about the
original concept being a Medieval environment, forever static 'cause the presence of magic
was making changes and science unnecessary.
Anyway, I was simply stating my opinion 'cause I was asked to, then everyone sees it freely.
Why Imoen should be romanceable
Started by Renmauzo, Oct 14 2002 08:45 PM
216 replies to this topic
#102
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 26 January 2003 - 01:56 AM
Thank you for that. I understand where you're coming from now. But, of course, I must beg to differ.. or at least mildy protest 
Arbitrary...
I'm reminded that Imoen shows little to no interest (romantic or otherwise) in anyone other than the PC. She reminds us that she would give her life for the PC in ToB; that's the only reference to her 'feeling' anything for anyone.. at least that I can remember. Mostly, I'm reminded of how little character development went into Imoen so she really could be made into anyone so long as she maintained a glimmer of her 'happy-go-lucky' disposition. What's so arbitrary with a sound story to back it up? Bah.
For that matter, she could even be asexual and put us all in our places.
Lastly, it has quite a bit to do with commercial statistics as Interplay (et.al) put this game on the shelves to make money. But I guess you're saying that it has nothing to do with your reasoning?
I was recently informed (and you now confirm) that there is no mention of homo or bi sexuality. However there is also little mention of sexuality in general; almost as if it's an afterthought. I mention it for no other reason than to say that I didn't realize that. But actually, I guess it helps the 'arguement' that is a fantasy setting because homosexuality has always existed. Anyway, knowing that now, I can see how people would argue against homosexual relationships for reasons OTHER than bias, kewl? If nothing else, it does serve as another explaination for Interplay (et.al) not including homo-bi relations in their game. All that's left for me to say, again, is that I now understand where you're coming from. Since that's the core of your reason, that's all you had to say.
@Gospel: Uhmm.. Gospel... sometimes I have a hard time following what you're saying.. :grins: ..and this is one of those times. Was there a question in that last line? Was it answered? If not, what was it? Otherwise, you sum my views up quite purrrfectly.
That makes sense, still happens today, but based on it: Because she says nothing could then be indicative of her lesbianism; at the very least it makes a stronger arguement for it.I can hardly see it as an open society where one speaks freely of his/her uncommon sexual orientation.
In truth, I see it as the opposite (after all, homosexuals *were* burned in Mediaval times). So, while homosexuals may exist, they most likely are willing to keep it all secret.
Arbitrary...
I'm reminded that Imoen shows little to no interest (romantic or otherwise) in anyone other than the PC. She reminds us that she would give her life for the PC in ToB; that's the only reference to her 'feeling' anything for anyone.. at least that I can remember. Mostly, I'm reminded of how little character development went into Imoen so she really could be made into anyone so long as she maintained a glimmer of her 'happy-go-lucky' disposition. What's so arbitrary with a sound story to back it up? Bah.
Uhm.. do you fall in-love with someone because you think you can make lots of babies with them? No offense, but I have fallen in-love because someone entrances me (and in my case I don't attach gender to it beforehand, it just happens or it doesn't), and I think you do as well (not the gender thing obviously, but..). This part of your arguement confused me before and is doing so again. (This, IMO, is where the arguement can turn deadly (read: fiery or flaming) and has in that 'other' post.) Procreation has nothing to do with who she can/could or would love. Leave it to the rest of the 'society' to procreate, we're talking about Imoen's potential love interest. To sum up I think it could be anyone who's kind, blah, blah. Statistics mean nothing for the purposes of our discussion. IE: Obviously she isn't but "statistically" she could be into beastiality!First, statistics. We're not talking about commercial statistics, but about how life works and propagates itself.
For that matter, she could even be asexual and put us all in our places.
Lastly, it has quite a bit to do with commercial statistics as Interplay (et.al) put this game on the shelves to make money. But I guess you're saying that it has nothing to do with your reasoning?
I was recently informed (and you now confirm) that there is no mention of homo or bi sexuality. However there is also little mention of sexuality in general; almost as if it's an afterthought. I mention it for no other reason than to say that I didn't realize that. But actually, I guess it helps the 'arguement' that is a fantasy setting because homosexuality has always existed. Anyway, knowing that now, I can see how people would argue against homosexual relationships for reasons OTHER than bias, kewl? If nothing else, it does serve as another explaination for Interplay (et.al) not including homo-bi relations in their game. All that's left for me to say, again, is that I now understand where you're coming from. Since that's the core of your reason, that's all you had to say.
@Gospel: Uhmm.. Gospel... sometimes I have a hard time following what you're saying.. :grins: ..and this is one of those times. Was there a question in that last line? Was it answered? If not, what was it? Otherwise, you sum my views up quite purrrfectly.
#103
Gospel
-
- Member
- 338 posts
Posted 26 January 2003 - 02:06 AM
Oh, thankies ^_^ Rrr :)@Gospel: Uhmm.. Gospel... sometimes I have a hard time following what you're saying.. :grins: ..and this is one of those times. Was there a question in that last line? Was it answered? If not, what was it? Otherwise, you sum my views up quite purrrfectly. ;)
It was sort of a question :) I was talking about how it would be niceies if a romance would be open to both genders, and the last line was just to tell evewyone that I know it's a possibility that there won't even *be* a romance, yiss ^_^ Hopefully there will be, though :D
Mrowr :)
Is kitty 
#104
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 26 January 2003 - 02:40 AM
Ah, Okay. I'm glad I asked then, I completely misunderstood.the last line was just to tell evewyone that I know it's a possibility that there won't even *be* a romance, yiss
Hopefully there will be, though
And yes, hopefully there will be. I do happen to like the one that's out there, but I'll never object to a good romance.
#105
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 27 January 2003 - 09:48 AM
Frankly this makes no sense.That makes sense, still happens today, but based on it: Because she says nothing could
then be indicative of her lesbianism; at the very least it makes a stronger arguement for it.
I was using the argument to explain that IMHO, in the environment we are talking about,
the subject is simply ignored, so I would tend to keep ignoring it in any mod and/or expansion.
This per se can't be an argument to make decisions about the "real" inclinations of the
characters, I really couldn't see the logic behind that
That would make me in love with half of the world's population, which isn't the case...Uhm.. do you fall in-love with someone because you think you can make lots of babies with them?
The pool of people with whom I *may* fall in love anyway, is indeed that half
of the world.
Love is a complicated matter. But when you're tied to someone, physical contact comes
always into play. It may be a minimal part, or it may matter only in determinate moments,
but you have to feel the need to touch, or caress, or kiss the loved one.
Well I, personally, can't even think to do any of these things with another man.
To be clearer, the simple thought of ME passionately kissing another guy makes me sick.
Unless you're an arrogant, you have no right to feel offended by this statement,
as it refers to me. And if you do, I'm offended by the fact you try to apply your
life system, your inclinations and preferences to me.
If you may have the freedom of stating your likings, while shouldn't I have it too?
I know that people have been discriminated for non-straight sexual orientations..
But now let's try not to make the opposite, please!
Anyway.
People are in prevalance hetros (often with different degrees, maybe). It won't harm you
to accept such a thing. It is simply so, dot (hey, if you want, you may consider you among
the lucky for not being that way). That's why I spoke about statistic, to cut it short,
and this is the only argument I used, in the end.
I don't completely understand where I'm coming from in your opinion, yet I recognize the ironyAll that's left for me to say, again, is that I now understand where you're coming from.
Since that's the core of your reason, that's all you had to say.
and the common attitude of presumed wisdom. Or am I mistaken?
You presume you're more "progredite" than me, simply 'cause you do/like things that I don't.
The point is, I shouldn't have to demonstrate anything. I am progredite as I need, I never
do harm to anybody, and my words are always a product of my own reasoning.
I can be proud enough.
I've not the political correctness to say I appreciate things that I don't, instead
I have the correctness to let people live and do what they enjoy in their life, which is
what matters in the end.
Damn, you managed to drag me again into this discussion...
( )
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#106
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 27 January 2003 - 06:10 PM
No matter how I say some things (and by the nature of this method of communication) they get taken the wrong way.. sound familiar? So let's try this.. a few facts as to my views:
I believe that homo's make up 10 to 15% (at best) percent of the population. I know the hetro and bi sexuals make up the rest. What are the proportions? I don't care because it doesn't matter for the purposes of our debate. Imoen is supposed to be an individual; she could be anywhere in there.
I know that you are a straight man and never tried to dispute that. So stop defending yourself in that area, I am not questioning your sexuality. As I said "I have fallen in-love because someone entrances me (and in my case I don't attach gender to it beforehand, it just happens or it doesn't), and I think you do as well (not the gender thing obviously, but..)"
Absorb the entire thought before you go off ranting, and stop making assumptions about me
I am trying not to presume ANYTHING, which is why we are debating. I was questioning the nature of sexuality in general, and specifically as it relates to Imoen, and it seemed you were tying it to procreation; procreation comes after you've fallen in-love. We're 'on the same page' there. Right?
SO in the interest of sanity, and because I got an answer to my original question, and because I can feel/see this debate deteriorating (one of us is going to start taking this personally and we're almost completely off subject), and because I KNOW I'm not as wise or intelligent as I would like to be I will simply say what I tried to say in the previous post; what I "understand" is: The most fundamental basis for your arguement/understanding of the NPC Imoen being hetro is based on the fact that there is no mention of bi or homo sexuality in DnD; the other 'minor' debates are used to shore it up.
btw, what does "progredite" mean? It's not in my dictionary
I believe that homo's make up 10 to 15% (at best) percent of the population. I know the hetro and bi sexuals make up the rest. What are the proportions? I don't care because it doesn't matter for the purposes of our debate. Imoen is supposed to be an individual; she could be anywhere in there.
I know that you are a straight man and never tried to dispute that. So stop defending yourself in that area, I am not questioning your sexuality. As I said "I have fallen in-love because someone entrances me (and in my case I don't attach gender to it beforehand, it just happens or it doesn't), and I think you do as well (not the gender thing obviously, but..)"
Absorb the entire thought before you go off ranting, and stop making assumptions about me
I am trying not to presume ANYTHING, which is why we are debating. I was questioning the nature of sexuality in general, and specifically as it relates to Imoen, and it seemed you were tying it to procreation; procreation comes after you've fallen in-love. We're 'on the same page' there. Right?
SO in the interest of sanity, and because I got an answer to my original question, and because I can feel/see this debate deteriorating (one of us is going to start taking this personally and we're almost completely off subject), and because I KNOW I'm not as wise or intelligent as I would like to be I will simply say what I tried to say in the previous post; what I "understand" is: The most fundamental basis for your arguement/understanding of the NPC Imoen being hetro is based on the fact that there is no mention of bi or homo sexuality in DnD; the other 'minor' debates are used to shore it up.
btw, what does "progredite" mean? It's not in my dictionary
#107
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:20 AM
Oh, come on, you used your amount of sarcasm
("do you fall in-love with someone because you think you can make lots of babies with them?"
etc...)
Anyway, I think we've understood each other's positions, now, right?
(On a side note, I have to add that often we "hetro guys" tend to "appreciate" homesexuality
when speaking about lesbians, basically 'cause they, uh, ah-ehm, "look cool"! 
But this isn't a valid argument to make Immie a lesbian, either )
("do you fall in-love with someone because you think you can make lots of babies with them?"
etc...)
Anyway, I think we've understood each other's positions, now, right?
(On a side note, I have to add that often we "hetro guys" tend to "appreciate" homesexuality
when speaking about lesbians, basically 'cause they, uh, ah-ehm, "look cool"!
But this isn't a valid argument to make Immie a lesbian, either
)
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#108
Gospel
-
- Member
- 338 posts
Posted 29 January 2003 - 04:45 AM
Hmmph :((On a side note, I have to add that often we "hetro guys" tend to "appreciate" homesexuality
when speaking about lesbians, basically 'cause they, uh, ah-ehm, "look cool"! :D :blink:
But this isn't a valid argument to make Immie a lesbian, either :lol: :D :lol: )
Is kitty
#109
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 29 January 2003 - 05:52 AM
I know, I know....Hmmph
I'm risking my neck with that one
I feel daring today... B) (
)EDIT: ok to prevent unwanted reactions..
I meant only to joke a little because of the tone (close to contrast) of the
precedents posts, don't take me too seriously
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#110
VorpalStick
-
- Member
- 24 posts
lay-about slacker
Posted 29 January 2003 - 07:26 AM
It's cool, Littiz. Whether or not they admit it, there are a lot of guys here that agree with you (Myself included).I know, I know....
I'm risking my neck with that one
I feel daring today... B) (
EDIT: ok to prevent unwanted reactions..
I meant only to joke a little because of the tone (close to contrast) of the
precedents posts, don't take me too seriously
Regardless, it was a much needed joke in this string. Man, people get angry in this thread that they really don't have that much control over.
Who're you calling a terrorist?
#111
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 29 January 2003 - 01:39 PM
Yet the thought of kissing a male sickens you? What hypocracy. <_<I have to add that often we "hetro guys" tend to "appreciate" homesexuality when speaking about lesbians
Be grateful you can afford to joke about it. I'm done talking; this proves we've nothing left to discuss.
One question remains: WTF does "progredite" mean?
#112
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 29 January 2003 - 05:05 PM
Nope, uncorrect, technically it's called "personal taste", while hypocracy involvesYet the thought of kissing a male sickens you? What hypocracy. <_<
somehow the concept of lying, which isn't my ground definitely (as I value Truth,
My Word, Honour and similar things
)I said it was a joke, anyway, you are the "intolerant" again: you don't understand/share
someone else's tastes, so you don't approve him! See? Who's the hypocrite(sp?) then???
Now that I showed you the flaws in your logic, I hope we can stop being hostile, ok?
I hate to look like a hateful person, while I am only a prideful one..
"Progredite".. uhm, I happened to invent a neologism, so...
I thought I heard that word before..
Anyway, I meant "more evolute"
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#113
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 29 January 2003 - 07:17 PM
Oh good lord.Now that I showed you the flaws in your logic, I hope we can stop being hostile, ok?
Whatever. I'm not being hostile, yet, which is why I am done. B)
#114
-unvoiced-
-unvoiced-
-
- Guest
Posted 30 January 2003 - 07:06 AM
[quote name='Littiz' date='Jan 30 2003, 03:05 AM']
[/QUOTE]
I said it was a joke, anyway, you are the "intolerant" again: you don't understand/share
someone else's tastes, so you don't approve him! See? Who's the hypocrite(sp?) then???
[/quote]
Tolerance has nothing to do with approval or acceptance it only has to do with putting up with it and keeping your opinions to yourself. If it was meant to mean approval or acceptance they would call it that.
[/QUOTE]
I said it was a joke, anyway, you are the "intolerant" again: you don't understand/share
someone else's tastes, so you don't approve him! See? Who's the hypocrite(sp?) then???
[/quote]
Tolerance has nothing to do with approval or acceptance it only has to do with putting up with it and keeping your opinions to yourself. If it was meant to mean approval or acceptance they would call it that.
#115
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 30 January 2003 - 09:27 AM
Sorry my "unvoiced" friend but you're in error too.
Tolerance means tolerance, not silence.
Why on earth should I keep my likings for myself, when the rest of the
world cries out them, especially those who continually lament to be
discriminated????
Tolerance is just what *I* do, that is, acceptance of just about everything
(as long as it brings no harm to me or others).
And while I may say that *I* don't appreciate certain *things*, I don't say
I dislike even *people* who do appreciate them.
These are two different concepts, and actually the difference is pretty big.
While our friend cybercat (a she?) upon hearing about my *likings*, that I'm free
to have, says that I'm a hypocrite, so she moves the matter on a different
plane. She implies she dislikes the person (me) somehow.
So she's the intolerant, in this case.
My "unvoiced" friend, take the time to register and think a moment longer
before you post again, 'cause this way is TOO easy for me to reply.
EDIT: and the fun part anyway is that I *was* silent, but my opinions have been explicitly requested..... go figure
Tolerance means tolerance, not silence.
Why on earth should I keep my likings for myself, when the rest of the
world cries out them, especially those who continually lament to be
discriminated????
Tolerance is just what *I* do, that is, acceptance of just about everything
(as long as it brings no harm to me or others).
And while I may say that *I* don't appreciate certain *things*, I don't say
I dislike even *people* who do appreciate them.
These are two different concepts, and actually the difference is pretty big.
While our friend cybercat (a she?) upon hearing about my *likings*, that I'm free
to have, says that I'm a hypocrite, so she moves the matter on a different
plane. She implies she dislikes the person (me) somehow.
So she's the intolerant, in this case.
My "unvoiced" friend, take the time to register and think a moment longer
before you post again, 'cause this way is TOO easy for me to reply.
EDIT: and the fun part anyway is that I *was* silent, but my opinions have been explicitly requested..... go figure
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#116
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 30 January 2003 - 03:04 PM
edit: I won't spam the board, responding to unsubstantiated statements. Even though (it seems to me) yer all but begging for it, it will only prompt more inane arguing.
#118
Littiz
-
- Modder
-
- 1078 posts
Posted 31 January 2003 - 01:05 AM
Apologies, I meant "cybersquirt", not "cybercat".
My arguing isn't insane, cybersquirt, and your avoidance of specific replies confirms it.
Anyway, I'm done too, and I assure, next time I join a board, I will introduce myself as
a racist, bigot, intolerant and all that I can think of.
Maybe this way people will leave me in peace, and I won't be forced to waste my time
in explaining things to people who don't want to do just a *minimal* use of their brain
to understand them. I'm really growing tired of it.
Peace.
My arguing isn't insane, cybersquirt, and your avoidance of specific replies confirms it.
Anyway, I'm done too, and I assure, next time I join a board, I will introduce myself as
a racist, bigot, intolerant and all that I can think of.
Maybe this way people will leave me in peace, and I won't be forced to waste my time
in explaining things to people who don't want to do just a *minimal* use of their brain
to understand them. I'm really growing tired of it.
Peace.
Ever forward, my darling wind...
#119
-Cybersquirt-
-Cybersquirt-
-
- Guest
Posted 31 January 2003 - 02:47 AM
my choice of words was "Inane" and the use of it was intentional.
edit: against my better judgement, I will add (since you're taking this way too personal now) that the inane arguing applied to both of us; I did mention a few posts back that this "debate" had gotten way off topic. And all of that is the reason for my "non-response".
edit: against my better judgement, I will add (since you're taking this way too personal now) that the inane arguing applied to both of us; I did mention a few posts back that this "debate" had gotten way off topic. And all of that is the reason for my "non-response".
#120
VorpalStick
-
- Member
- 24 posts
lay-about slacker
Posted 31 January 2003 - 09:37 AM
Now, (hopefully) peace has been restored to the topic...
Who're you calling a terrorist?
