An exchange between a fan and Trick Weekes, former lead writer for Dragon Age: The Veilguard (DATV), was recently leaked:
Fan: YEAH
Fan: i love that choice
Fan: to show how the empire is -- people
Fan: and how Southern Thedas is bigoted in other ways
Fan: yeah i'd have liked to see the slaves BUT Dock Town wouldn't have slaves! it's a working class place!
Fan: you have people peopling
Fan: probably -- the biggest thing i learned from living in the US is that USians are... regular people lol
Fan: I knew that of course
Fan: I had USian friends online I'd been to the US
Trick Weekes: Yeah, we DO have the slavery -- it's in the Blood of Arlathan plot, with Venatori sitting on people posed like thrones.
Trick Weekes: Yeah, "Slavery Bad" was a pretty simple message that didn't need a lot of space.
Trick Weekes: (Like, a good message! Slavery is bad! But after you show it, continuing to hammer it in stars to feel superfluous.)
Fan: and it was unnecessary
I would argue that this very exchange proves that it was, in fact, necessary. But that would require writers who actually care to risk bruising their white fragility, and we can’t have that now, can we?
Before tackling the root of this exchange, however, I believe it is crucial to take a step back and look at the Dragon Age’s franchise established history with depicting slavery. The state it in DATV has not always been the case, and it is baffling, after recently replaying Dragon Age: Origins (DAO) again, just how far things have progressively fallen in terms of quality on this subject matter.
Slavery in Dragon Age: Origins
Despite being released in 2009, I believe that DAO remains the best depiction of slavery in the Dragon Age franchise to date. I say this so easily, because the way in which enslavement is depicted starts first with the long-term damage done to a group of people, then works back to the history of it. Introducing slavery into your fantasy setting this way makes it easier to digest and understand the implications on a stronger level, both narratively and empathetically.
The player is immediately given the information that elves were enslaved to humans for a very long time, regardless of the origin chosen, through NPC dialogue or narration. While they may no longer be officially enslaved in Ferelden, the elves of current time still suffer from intergenerational trauma and ongoing oppression. While the effects of this worldbuilding are scattered throughout the entire game, it becomes an integral part of the story once you reach the main quest “Unrest in the Alieange”. In this quest, the player discovers that the antagonist Loghain has made an agreement to sell the elves of Denerim to slavers from Tevinter. This is accomplished through the slavers pretending to bring help for a plague, when in reality, they are trafficking the elves back to their homeland. When this is brought up to the nobility later, one of the reactions from a noble is “there is no slavery in Ferelden!” This one line of dialogue tells so much about how this slavery ring was even possible; because the humans would rather live in ignorance. We are shown time and again throughout the game how many humans treat elves like dirt, benefiting from their underpaid labour and lack of rights as people… only to turn around and yell “there is no slavery in Ferelden!” There was already slavery in Ferelden before Loghain’s deal with Tevinter; it was just dressed up prettier.
The depiction of slavery in DAO runs a brutally honest parallel to real life, and forces the player to see it. The player may make evil choices in their game – it is a roleplaying game after all – but in some ways, you could even say allowing the player to be evil enhances the showcasing of how slavery is wrong, by making it so unquestionable that those options are the evil ones. DAO does not bother to ask the question, “is slavery wrong?” It states as a fact that yes, it is, and then backs up that fact with examples of why.
Slavery in Dragon Age II
Dragon Age II (DA2) carries through with what was already established in DAO, when it comes to slavery in Thedas. The main difference is, through adding a companion like Fenris, who himself is an escaped slave, it takes a more personal and emotional approach to the subject rather than touching it on a larger systemic scale. The player can hear Fenris’s story, and learn how even though he is now free, he is severely traumatized from his experiences when enslaved. Narrowing the topic of slavery down to a single example this way, does a pretty good job growing what has already been pre-established when it comes to the worldbuilding in Thedas.
In addition to everything involving Fenris, there are just regular Tevinter slavers preying on the people of Kirkwall that Hawke fights throughout the game. Much like Ferelden, Kirkwall does not officially sanction enslavement, but apparently does not do much to prevent it either.
Slavery in Dragon Age: Inquisition
Storytelling involving slavery took a turn for the worse in Dragon Age: Inquisition (DAI). For starters, the only voices on slavery now come from Tevinter, in Dorian and Calpernia. Dorian, the companion with whom you are supposed to appreciate, does actually ask the question “is slavery wrong?” and follows up with disapproval if you tell him yes. Throughout the entire game, this is never followed up on. It isn’t until Dragon Age: Tevinter Nights where we get confirmation that he has actually changed his mind, and if you didn’t read that book, your only chance to learn it is if you find a specific codex entry in DATV. (But more on that later.) Calpernia, one of the antagonists, may not even appear at all in the game depending on if you choose to do the quest “In Hushed Whispers” over “Champions of the Just”. Calpernia is a former slave herself, and yet somehow believes that working with the Venatori, blatant slavers, are the key to her goal of ending slavery in Tevinter. It does not actually make any sense that Calpernia would be kept in the dark about all the slavery from the Venatori until the player tells her, yet be one of their leaders at the same time. I like Calpernia as a character in concept, but she definitely suffers from a weak personal plot.
So, there is no more personal level to discussing slavery from a character perspective. That must mean there is at least a systemic approach to addressing this part of the main antagonistic force in the game, the Venatori, right? Well, no! There is none of that, either! We only know that the Venatori are even actively using slaves through easily missed or avoidable side quests, and war table missions. DAI somehow accomplishes fighting slavery without actually saying much about slavery at all.
Slavery in Dragon Age: The Veilguard
Despite the Tevinter Imperium taking up a large portion of the setting in DATV, there is very minimal discussion or depiction of the slavery we know from previously established lore the empire runs on. We know that the Shadow Dragons help free slaves through ambient dialogue and a few scattered notes, and if you play as a Shadow Dragon, part of your Rook’s backstory is that they helped free slaves personally. However, one thing is made very clear over and over: every time slavery is even remotely brought up, it is always blamed on Venatori alone… as if Tevinter in its entirety isn’t run on legalized slavery, and has been that way for far longer than the Venatori have even existed! There is no sign of everyday slavery; it is always exclusively the actions of the Venatori, or people connected to the Venatori. This is a blatant attempt to simplify or dodge altogether portraying systemic slavery; by putting the blame solely on one single cult, it both pretends that fixing slavery is a simple answer of just getting rid of a few fringe bad guys, and tries to rid the rest of the nation of culpability… and while I say “try”, apparently the attempt worked on some fans, because it sure sounds like the one in the exchange with Weekes is under a poor impression.
Slavery is NOT Simple
To claim that “Dock Town wouldn’t have slaves” because “it’s a working class place” is absolutely false in every way. The myth that only the rich were slave owners during the age of chattel slavery in the Americas is just that – a myth. While merchants owned the largest number, even your average farmers and the Church owned slaves. [X] Additionally, Dock Town has a dock, with ships. Ships that you would think transport a lot of enslaved people in and out of Minrathous. There is every reason to expect to see signs of slavery in Dock Town as much as anywhere else in Tevinter, if not arguably even more so.
What especially disgusts me from that anonymous fan though, is the classification of “regular people” apparently not including anyone enslaved. Going on to compare “regular people” of Tevinter to “regular people” of the USA is especially telling. Why does this fan believe that it is the privileged settlers of colonial empires who are the ones needing sympathy and normalization?
You may question if perhaps the intention of the writers was to do what was done in DAO, and show that most people are blissfully ignorant of it. If that is the case, then they failed, because in order to do that, you have to actually show the slavery happening in tangent with the people not caring.
Weekes makes reference to the slaves shown during the “Blood of Arlathan” quest in their response. However, yet again I must stress the issue of only ever associating slavery with the Venatori: trying to turn legalized slavery into a problem only sourced from a single cult, diminishes the entire conversation about how slavery operates in Tevinter. In the heart of the slave trade in Thedas, we could and should have realistically seen and heard so much more.
Most white settlers are never satisfied with already always being the centre of attention; they need their asses wiped and baby bottles full at all times, too. Then the minute the conversation gets slightly uncomfortable, they either throw a tantrum or start to cry big tears about how they don’t like feeling so guilty. If the topic of slavery was as simple as Weekes claims, then why is it currently being banned to discuss in classrooms across the United States? [X] The only people who benefit from not learning about or discussing slavery, be it in media or in a real life, are the people who want it to continue.
I keep thinking about Trick Weekes' claim that the only point of showing slavery at all was to say "slavery bad", and that message didn't require much space. But that isn't the impression I get from the game itself. To be honest, I get the impression from the game that the writers kinda think slavery is not necessarily that bad because the ones benefiting from it are shown as people with lives that matter, while the slaves are literally reduced to furniture. And then we get no ending options other than enslaving Solas to keep the Veil going, and are told this is the unambiguously good and right thing to do. That's not a message that slavery is bad; it's a message that slavery is a bit justified if enough people benefit from it.
I said this in the comments of someone else’s post, but I’m going to say this here. Taash identifying as non-binary is good actually, and in fact better than the dev’s making up some new term for them. Let’s get into it.
So for a bit of background, I’m non-binary and Thai. If you don’t know, Thai has specific terms for different gender-sexual identities, they’re quite old, they date back a few hundred years. However, the thing about culturally specific terms is just that, they’re culturally specific. The reason you use them is because you are tied to the culture in such a way that you gender-sexual identity cannot be disassociated from it. Because, to be clear, these terms are never just about your gender or sexual identity. They encompass a role you play within society itself.
For instance, in Thai culture we have tom/tomboys. These are AFAB folks who occupy a masculine societal role and date women. If you’re AMAB you cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and feminine? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and not attracted to women? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc and mostly date men? You cannot be tom. If you’re transmasc but don’t particularly feel like taking care of the girl you date, taking her out, being the ‘man’ in the relationship? You can’t really be tom.
Because the thing about culturally specific genders is that they come with a lot of rules. Being tom isn’t being non-binary. There are cis women who are tom, and there are non-binary people who are toms. You do not get eschew gender roles in these cases. You are quite literally taking one on. You have a role and place in society that has been made for you, and you are expected to carry it out.
Because of this, none of these terms are a one-to-one for other identities, and nor should they be. Being kathoey or hijra is not the same as being a trans woman or non-binary, and visa versa. You can be kathoey and not be trans. You can be trans and not be kathoey. Being aqun-athlok or any other specific term shouldn’t be either. The idea that it is, is more ahistorical and inaccurate than the word non-binary itself. Giving Taash some new, culturally specific term, would inherently tie them to a culture, and one perhaps that they didn’t feel apart of. Especially since Taash’s entire story is about struggling to figure out where they belong. Arguably the biggest issue with their story is that you have to make them decide, and fundamentally tying them to a term would’ve compounded that problem.
The reason I identify as non-binary and not a tom, is because I am not occupying some specific role in Thai culture. Despite living in LA, I rarely interact with other Thai people who aren’t my family. I do not live in a cultural context that would allow me to identify as a tom.
The thing about terms like non-binary, or trans, or agender, is that they’re meant to be acultural terms encapsulating the concept of truth to oneself and ones identity. Whereas culturally specific terms aren’t, they’re about the role you hold in society and where you fit in. It’s about your identity within a status quo. Taash is a character who is eschewing societal roles, and breaking the status quo, giving them those terms just wouldn’t work.
And finally? Using non-binary itself allows the writers to very specifically say where they stand. There is no space given to transphobes. You either accept that DA is queer-friendly or bust. And that’s a very important stance to make in an era where trans and non-binary folks are being actively targeted. There’s no ‘well Taash isn’t actually trans or non-binary they’re [insert term here]!’ Because people would’ve done that, we know they would’ve. This means people can’t do that. They have to just say that they have an issue with the term, and thus we can call them for what they are. Transphobes. Plain and simple.
So yeah, Taash’s identity does have nuance, it has a lot of it. And to be honest with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trick Weekes, a non-binary person whose wife is First Nations and thus from a group with culturally specific gender identities, knows about the difference between something like two-spirit and trans. And to be honest with you, using something like non-binary has nuance I doubt was actually afforded to Krem, considering they cast a cis woman to play Krem.
