Frankly, I would be very leery of a character creation option to let a player choose their orientation, even if it were on the table. For one, are the only options straight and homosexual? Would bisexual be added in? Too ofen it's ignored. What about pansexual, asexual, and all of the other labels that people use? Can you have the option to turn off every romance? Can you tell the engine that you're not interested in half-orcs, whatever their orientation? I find some of the characterization in the Aerie romance offensive and unnecessarily exaggerated; could I have a feminist button to turn that off? And what if I decided halfway through the game that hey, maybe I was wrong about this character's orientation and want a shot at this romance after all?
The suggestion to give the player options in how NPCs are or are not going to interact with them just seems open-ended and immersion breaking. I'm not sure why telling the NPC you're not interested--or not recruiting them at all if it's that much of a problem--isn't an acceptable solution. It's certainly the realistic one.
Until my last post i agreed with Jon ideas (have to read the new posts yet), then you come to refute it, i support it and then "poof!" i'm the villian of tiranny!
@Shawne, i could say the same about every post i made been taken as offensive/agressive/(or)/absolute by your "jugdment", but then, you would just disagree and refute this very post, so whatever, just take the compliment in the first part of the post and be done with it.
It's funny how something simple as a cursor limit to restrain romances is so averted and hated by homosexual and supporters. Before BG EE, when ppl requested gay romances, the speech "if you don't want don't use/pursue, it will not influence your game" was heavly used, now the same patern speech for a romance control cursor/button is used and then... the speech changes. Funny and convenient!
PS: i didn't saw in any moment any request for removal of gay/bi content or block of new gay/bi content, just to state.
Seems to me that gay gamers see in RPG´s a backdoor
Oh, har dee har. I see what you did there...
Would we even know if a character was gay in a Medal of Honor game? Unless they blatantly had the character constantly focussing on the other male characters butts and groins. how would the player know? Maybe all of the Medal of Honor protagonists have been gay, but hiding it, pretending to like women to blend in. After all, lots of gay men have done just that- gotten married, even had kids. You wouldn't know unless the game blatantly stated outright that the character was gay- or had the character himself mention it. Maybe any women your character hooks up with are Lesbian, and are just going along to get along. You'll never know. These things DO happen in real life, after all.
@kamuizin: I've said it before and I'll say it again - making yourself out to be a poor, persecuted victim isn't going to fool anyone who can look up your past comments on this forum. I have nothing more to say to you.
I am actually playing for both sides here, but you and your misplaced chivalry are obstinately trying to twist my words and make me look like a homophobic freak and a hater, which I am not. No way.
How exactly are you "playing for both sides here"? No one's asked for a toggle to disable heterosexual romances, presumably because they understand that if your character is trying for Dorn and Viconia flirts with you, you can just tell her "no" and the story can continue without the player being "traumatized".
I don't like to be called a hypocrite, my talk is not bullshit and I am certainly not puerile.
Your comments indicate differently. You are requesting a feature that will allow you to segregate content you don't like. And the content you don't like is specifically to do with same-sex romances. Rather than take the mature approach that has already been advocated in this forum - "Thanks, but no thanks" - you doubled down on wanting a button that would prevent you from ever encountering that situation. And in doing so, you've invoked characterization and storyline immersion and all sorts of things that, oddly enough, don't seem to bother you with the four women who could potentially "derail your story".
This - and really, I'm going to stress this again because you don't seem to get it - despite the fact that you will not be exposed to the content unless you trigger it yourself.
Everything you've said in this debate so far - everything - has been ill-informed conjecture about situations that you don't want to see happen, and which were never going to happen anyway unless you made them happen.
So for you to want an additional filter added on top of the existing triggers, just so you could feel safe from the scary gay content? I find that offensive, sir. And I respond in kind.
Why are you attacking me? Why are you taking this to a personal level? Why are you so angry? I am not responsible for any past trouble you personally (or as a group) previously had in life. Are you claiming to speak for *the people* as you say? This Schopenhauer crap will not work with me. Your quarrel is with me, do not try to make it some other group's war.
Facile psychology is a typical tactic for people who are on the losing end of a debate. I don't have any personal issue with you, I'm simply taking you to task for comments you've made on a public forum which I don't agree with. If you can't engage in a discussion - and you haven't, you've avoided every on-topic counterpoint I've made in favor of playing the victim card - then why persist?
You say that "clearly the actual system isn't good enough, otherwise people wouldn't be complaining about the issue."
No. The reason people complain about this issue is that they are homophobic. There, I said it. No more dancing and tiptoeing around the issue.
Asking for a toggle to eliminate gay people from the game is homophobic. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
How do I know this is a fact? Because you (and others) would not dare ask for such toggles for other types or classes of people (usually minorities), for (the justified) fear that they'd be called other type of Xenophobia.
If you were to ask for a toggle to eliminate black people, you'd be called racist. Because you would be.
If you were to ask for a toggle to eliminate women (especially adventuring women) from the game (because after all a woman's place is to stay at home), you'd be called misogynist. Because you would be.
BG does not have real world religions - but if it had, would you call for eliminating Muslims or Jews? And what would that make you?
The fact that @JonSnowIsAlive can not only ask for such a thing, but also claim that being hit on by a man is "deeply traumatizing", and in the same breath claim he means no offence and no disrespect, is not only a cognitive dissonance of epic proportions, it also shows not only homophobia, but a sense of deep deep privilege.
Large sections of this entire topic are ridiculous. It is as simple as this:
There are gay/lesbian/bisexual people in this world, and whereas some of you may not like this fact: they have rights too. Equal rights. As every person IS equal. Treating homosexuality as something that does not exist, or should not exist is NOT equal.
Advocating that whereas you have absolutely no problem with heterosexual in-game relationships yet strongly oppose homosexuality in games and would like an "anti-gay" button, advocates inequality - and quite frankly, is not the way the world works. I have been hit on by a man before and I can honestly say I didn't wish for there to be a button on his head so I can 'turn him off'. I told him nicely: 'Sorry mate, I don't swing that way'. He didn't try to press the issue, and we remain friends to this day.
The taboo for homosexual people to stay away from games, or deal with the notion that they are forced into heterosexual in-game relations in order to experience computer RPG's to their fullest - is disappearing.
It is the same with sexism in computer games. In Baldur's Gate 2, girls were often (without mods) forced into a relationship with Anomen, if they wanted to experience the game fully. Male gamers had the choice of three. Anyone saying there were no female gamers 15 years ago, obviously didn't know many females.
Remember that as straight people, there is always the option of us saying no to a homosexual NPC before any relationship begins. Just as we have the same choice with any NPC. Gay/lesbian/bisexual people (or even women) have never had that choice.
It genuinely is that simple. Requesting a 'sexual orientation' button advocates ignorance and xenophobia over real issues. Issues of inequality, discrimination and prejudice. These are real issues that have actually caused genuine harm to people. There is no room in computer games (or the world) for this kind of discrimination.
Whereas I genuinely believe that you do not wish to harm anybody, or even that you discriminate to a certain degree - there are strong ramifications for even the slightest hint of prejudice, especially in popular video games. The connotations involved in this is that people across the world will continue to believe that they are better that others, or that another is of lesser quality due to simple things: such as skin colour, sexual-orientation or sex.
I implore you, if you do *not* advocate inequality or discrimination, cease this line of debate - for that is surely the only outcome for these forms of requests.
I thought orientation could be specified at character creation
Well, sexuality is not static. It can change for many reasons. Also, this option would kill the role playing component of the game. What if I planned to romance Neera with my straight male but then change my mind after seeing Dorn? I would be forced to play with a character in which I would not identify myself.
@JonSnowIsAlive - Jon, I wasn't attempting in anyway to antagonise you. On the contrary I am simply trying to discuss with you a better way to see things.
The western world is only recently getting used to the idea that homosexuality exists in every day life, so it is logical to assume that there are still people, such as yourself, that will feel uncomfortable with this. With the same logic, it is presumable that there are a lot of ignorant, angry and violent people out there as well.
You have not in anyway advocated any violence or abuse in your discussion, and as I previously stated - I do not think you are a homophobe. A bit fearful perhaps and possibly ignorant to the real issues that exist, but not somebody who genuinely hates homosexuality.
What I ask you to understand, is that there are extremist homophobic people out there. Many with strong hateful feelings, who are willing to act violently and abusively. There are real issues away from gaming that can cause mental and physical harm.
Today, many people including children are growing up playing computer games. Underlying prejudices as simple as an 'anti-homosexual' switch in character creation, actually create clear distinctions between what people can consider 'normal' or 'correct'. Hiding them from certain people with the use of an option at character creation most certainly won't help things.
As long as this is the case, homosexual people will always be considered not 'normal' or not 'correct'. I mean imagine that for a second - growing up being told you are 'not correct'. Is this a way for people to be treated?
These kind of ideals fuel those who are more violent, more prejudice and more abusive - and instead of targeting those people who wish to harm those different from themselves, I truly believe we must eradicate this at the source and prevent it entirely - which would be popular media, such as: games, television etc.
As soon as people get used to the fact that this is normal, they will no longer feel uncomfortable and in turn perhaps we can completely remove this aspect of prejudice/abuse/violence from our world.
It's unfortunate that or people agree and suport radical behaviors or they're labeled as enemies. No, i don't defend sides, i defend my point of view and what i see as just.
Most of this forum became a political correct place where radical people manifest, even shouting or offend other people, here i'm homophobic, among other radical people that deny homosexual behavior and see it as a disease i'm a "fucking" sympathizer (as they said).
So to end this bullshit, lemme put it straight, I WANT a button/cursor control for gay content, i'm not alone in this and if you don't like you can... cos i don't care. What i ask will not harm you but your hipocrisy will @shawne.
Obs: most of your posts could be labeled as offensive, just an advice. Of course being on the political correct side got you a lot of forgiveness from the readers.
Just a brief clarification: There is a marked difference between being "homophobic" (where you feel uncomfortable in the presence of homosexual behavior) and being "anti-gay" (where you feel active thoughts of aggression toward homosexual behavior and those who take part in it).
There is nothing personally wrong with being homophobic; the fear comes from not knowing how to respond to a sexual advance from someone of the same sex, not from any sort of hatred. A lot of people feel that discomfort, and it's perfectly natural to be uncomfortable with something you don't understand.
I see "homophobe" bandied about as an insult a lot, and really that's not how the word should be used. It should be treated like any other phobia: something that needs to be treated (not clinically) and understood, not antagonized. You can't always control how you feel, especially when it comes to being afraid, and it's important to be able to speak up about that.
At the same time, requesting (demanding? I haven't seen much demanding going on) that the thing you are afraid of be removed from other people's experiences, or relegated to a toggle, isn't a rational response to that fear. That's where homophobia bleeds into anti-gay behavior, and that's not "okay", strictly speaking.
But this thread is getting incredibly off topic. The original request was for romance options for same-sex relationships, and that's a request that is already being fulfilled. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disagree that those options should exist; only disagreement about how those options should be made available--which is a separate request, and should probably have a separate thread.
That being said, I will once more remind everyone that the site has rules about antagonism and bullying, regardless of your point of view. I see some "dancing toward the line" going on, so please be mindful of how you present yourself publicly. If you can't act respectfully in a thread, even in disagreement, then perhaps you should find another thread to post in.
I do not mean to offend, but I think you need a new dictionary. Homophobia is not just "feeling uncomfortable around gays" (although that is certainly a homophobic emotion). Homophobia is a subtype of xenophobia on par with antisemitism and other form of racism.
The more you write, the more I'm shocked by what you say. And the more homophobic and prejudiced you reveal yourself to be. Without even realizing that.
Basically, you compared being hit on by a guy to sexual harassment and abuse of power by a superior. The reason being hit on by your boss is wrong is not because you weren't expecting it. In fact for many decades in most of the world if you were a woman you had no choice but to expect it. In many countries you still have to expect it. The reason it is damaging (and in fact illegal in all of the Western World, at least) is because it places the person being hit upon in an impossible situation where refusal to submit might mean the loss of livelihood. It is a violent abuse of power, and a demand for submission, not a come on by a guy you can easily blow away. Have the guys you say hit on you had that kind of authority over you? Are you seriously comparing sexual harassment to being hit on by a guy and still claim you are not homophobic? or that you mean "no disrespect"? That very comparison is disrespectful in the extreme.
Now for your use of the word "trauma". Psychological trauma (and that is what I assume you mean, unless you mean being hit on by guys causes you physical injury) is defined as "a type of damage to the psyche that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event. When that trauma leads to post traumatic stress disorder, damage may involve physical changes inside the brain and to brain chemistry, which changes the person's response to future stress." (from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_trauma) are you seriously saying that being hit on by a guy can cause you this kind of damage and claim you are not homophobic? And if that is so, just imagine how badly you have damaged any girl you have ever flirted with.
Most women I know have been hit on by men they did not want to be hit on by. I personally have been hit on by women several times, which is something I never wanted. Unless the person hitting on you is abusing you in some manner (be it by stalking you, incessantly pursuing you despite your refusals etc. in which case I would recommend talking to the police), you shrug it off and move on. To talk about "damage" and "trauma" is just so inappropriate, and so hateful, that cannot help but bring the vile "gay panic defence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) to mind. The more you speak in terms of "trauma" and "damage" the less sympathetic you points are, because they are clearly ignorant and hateful exaggerations. At best, you are acting like a cross between a southern belle and a drama queen. At worst... well... read the entry on gay panic defence.
As for your uncertainty of what privilege means, well:
Privilege is when you think there is no problem, because there is no problem for you. Privilege is when you are catered to, and you believe there is no problem with that because that is the way it has always been, and so that is the way it always should be.
Your wish for a world that is "clean of gays" in the game is one indication of your privilege. The fact that you feel so dramatically violated so as to use a term like "trauma" by something that every other group in the world (i.e. non straight males) experience with much more frequency than you ever will, and barely bat an eyelash, is another indicative of your privilege. The very expectation you have for everyone around you to be straight just like you (or else they may cause you trauma, no less) is indicative of your privilege.
The fact that you think you can say all of that and still think you are not offensive or disrespectful, is the utmost of privilege (and impertinence).
Here's a few tips in regards to those frightening gay guys in the village and outside it who are constantly throwing themselves at you: they are not threatening your manhood. You are still as much of a heterosexual man as you were before they hit on you. They apparently like the way you look and think (possibly erroneously, I don't know) that you are a nice person. You can take it as a compliment, even if you are not interested in them, in the same manner you would take a come on from a woman you are not attracted to (or is that also damaging to your fragile soul?).
If one or more of them persist despite your rejection, I suppose the police or a suit for a restraining order should be your next destination. And if it is your boss (regardless of gender) that is hitting on you, then courts and police are obviously where you should go. Not because it is "unexpected" but because it is abusive and illegal.
Protip: If you feel uncomfortable with characters of the same sex as your character hitting on you, don't play with the new characters in BG2EE. Fairly simple. Just don't recruit them.
Homophobic by costume #Dee, (in every place i know) is to antagonize homosexual directed persons, as xenophobic.
I'm not homosexual, sometimes i look on homo content (as i exausted everything else in the game) but sometimes, as @JonSnowIsAlive said, it's hard to imagine or roleplay in my view point a cold heart Dorn being gay without spoiling my story. Just that.
Am i'm right? The answer doesn't even matter as it's MY playgame so MY way of think there should be respected. Who gave ppl right to impose me content or not?
I want a control content to use it when i see fit or not, other ppl want it to shut off gay content to them forever (and anyone who want, could shut off heterosexual content as well with it). So i ask, isn't their right to want it? To ask for it? It's ridiculous the tiranny of ppl in this forum when someone get aside from the political correct, it always a witch hunt!
If what i and other ppl want will not be implemented, as many says, why ppl care about the request? Why being agressive with ppl that did nothing else but asking for what they want? Should i be afraid now in ask what i think would make better my games, what would make me feel better? Isn't what is done in real life against many homosexuals?
Of course some people that prefer to be agressive will always see anything said by the other side, most specifically, people that don't agree with them, as lies and excuses, so make a good use of your time, to whomever fit this description and just ignore what is posted here.
We are all expecting there to be a Baldur's Gate: 2 Enhanced Edition, or whatever you are going to call it lol, but I was wondering if the Gender lock in romances (only straight romances) could be removed for some characters, now I assume it wouldn't be something to major to ask for as there wouldn't be many things to change (or so I am thinking at this point in time) such as changes in the text eg: "he" change to "she", but even if it is a challenge I'm going to assume the BG/Gaming community would respond well to this should you consider, and if you can not because of reasons with no exceptions, then I (and many others) mourn the loss of an enjoyable trait to the game.
As i support restrict limits for people who want it, i also support extend content of romances to both sexual orientations freely, while i feel it will make some romances fall from their role, as they're not wroten from the begin to fit a homosexual behavior, but with ATARI bankrupcy, many possibilities are made, and maybe, just maybe, more indepth changes and rewrites on original content are going to be freed to change and adapt romances for this intent.
At the end of the day, I have to ask. Why does anyone really care? Homosexuals don’t’ go around announcing they’re gay, just like you don’t go around telling everyone you’re straight. When it comes right down to it, people are people. If it turned out that Minsc was gay, that still wouldn’t affect my opinion of him as a badass, sword wielding ranger with a hamster friend.
When it comes down to it, I don’t get why people seem to think that being gay has to be the defining characteristic of the character. We don’t see Edwin being straight as his defining character trait, or Aerie, nor Jan, or any of the other characters that Baldur’s Gate is known for. Give me a compelling character, give them a solid backstory that’s consistent with Faerun, and make me care about them enough to recruit them again and again. Don’t make them “rare” or “overpowered” classes just so that I recruit them as part of a min-maxing operation.
Nobody is forcing anyone into a romance with those characters; it’s easy enough to deactivate the romance trigger. Just say the “wrong” thing in the game dialogue and move on.
Protip: If you feel uncomfortable with characters of the same sex as your character hitting on you, don't play with the new characters in BG2EE. Fairly simple. Just don't recruit them.
By one side people that doesn't want to play with characters that have homosexual romances have to skip them, therefore losing content, and by another side people who suggest a button/scroll to limit content, what let eveyone use the new content and by no way interfere in ppl right to pursue homosexual content is trying to take rights from others.
That doesn't seems reasonable.
@Narcissist if people doesn't care truly why this protest against the scroll/button issue? Just let it be as it will not restrain anyone in pursuing what they want. By banish this idea, people IS forcing people into a romance, a brief one obviously, but no matter it's still forcing people into a romance.
The button idea force nothing into no one, people that doesn't like the idea doesn't even need to touch the possible new feature, or could use it to block heterosexual content if they want also.
Many here fight the content control idea by think it as offense to their principle, an idea that apparently comes from view anything that doesn't support homosexual content as the idea of the enemy, so i ask openly, by seeing everything else that doesn't agree with your (the actual reader) ideas, how would understand, acceptance or reasoning be achieved? If reason and dialogue isn't an objective then there's nothing else to discuss about the idea or options for it.
@kamuizin The button idea forces an unnecessary and immersion breaking mechanic upon people who don't have a problem with same-sex content. It's a little reminder to the LGBT community every time you fire up the game that there's an option to erase you from it entirely. I'm not sure why you can't see how that might be hurtful to some people. More hurtful, perhaps, than not having the content in it at all.
If it bothers you that much, you can play with Dorn as a female character instead. Problem solved.
Speaking about Dorn in particular -- being interested in men and women is as much a part of Dorn's character as his bloodlust. Gender is completely irrelevant to Dorn.
Removing his being interested in both men and women would be like removing his bloodlust. Whether you are uncomfortable with LGBT characters or not, Dorn is as much bisexual as he is bloodthirsty. Lots of people don't like Dorn's violence: that doesn't mean we're about to add an option to remove it if you so choose.
As it happens, though, there is already a "no same-sex character romance" button, and it will occur clearly in dialog. You are more than welcome to choose it.
Then i ask @Rhaella, unnecessary to whom? I feel it necessary and others also, as well.
And Force it how? If you don't touch the "button" nothing will change. a button/cursor by nature give options not orders, unlike what's being proposed as alternative (accept the content and say no at the first opportunity).
The problem is exactly in the personal emotional complex of many that project their angry and revolt against anything that doesn't follow their understand of what is right or wrong. should we take of any romance from the game to avoid hurt the feelings of any woman that has been raped and play BG? Should we remove romances in general cos someone is sexually impotent and romances remember them that? Should we remove gay content cos someone here was abused in childhood from someone of the same sex?
It's not reasonable impose restrictions to everywere in reason of the risk of hurt the feelings of part of the customers of BG EE. But if that's to be done, let's then implement content for every minority, otherwise a select minority will be choose to benefit of general changes.
By the way, except by a bard homosexual male playthrough (after exaust every other new content in BG EE) with Dorn in the party (which i didn't finshed as i didn't like much bards in BG), it bothered my roleplays in the begin when the game open the homosexual banters options with male characters for Dorn. So as you said i used most female characters to pursue evil playthroughs, what "limited" by nature options in my games (not a big problem as i enjoy female main characters, i pursued many times Anomen romance in BG2 for example, but still is a limit).
@Kaeloree i pursued Dorn romance to the end in BG EE with a female character and i can say without fear of mistake that his romance don't make any claim that he need to be bissexual. It's wroten well enough to allow homosexual romance for him also, but as no one is asking to remove the homosexual part of the romance, but limit it "personally" inside the pc of each player IF that player want will not affect in any way his behavior.
You made an assumption and gave your opinion about his bloodlust and homosexual behavior, i have a high degree of respect by you and all of your works as a modder (i'm serious in this), but i totally disagree. There's nothing linking his bloodlust to homosexuality, there's no causation or subjective bond between these features of his personality.
Ps: most games today have violence control slides, BG EE has an old graphic that maybe allowed it to pass as a 12 years age rating game, but being a game which copyrights are owned by HASBRO i highly doubt that unlimited levels of violence would be allowed by that company. By the way i believe HASBRO would have a similar opinion about sexuality restriction if the subject was brought to them, just saying.
Comments
The suggestion to give the player options in how NPCs are or are not going to interact with them just seems open-ended and immersion breaking. I'm not sure why telling the NPC you're not interested--or not recruiting them at all if it's that much of a problem--isn't an acceptable solution. It's certainly the realistic one.
@Shawne, i could say the same about every post i made been taken as offensive/agressive/(or)/absolute by your "jugdment", but then, you would just disagree and refute this very post, so whatever, just take the compliment in the first part of the post and be done with it.
It's funny how something simple as a cursor limit to restrain romances is so averted and hated by homosexual and supporters. Before BG EE, when ppl requested gay romances, the speech "if you don't want don't use/pursue, it will not influence your game" was heavly used, now the same patern speech for a romance control cursor/button is used and then... the speech changes. Funny and convenient!
PS: i didn't saw in any moment any request for removal of gay/bi content or block of new gay/bi content, just to state.
Oh, har dee har. I see what you did there...
Would we even know if a character was gay in a Medal of Honor game? Unless they blatantly had the character constantly focussing on the other male characters butts and groins. how would the player know? Maybe all of the Medal of Honor protagonists have been gay, but hiding it, pretending to like women to blend in. After all, lots of gay men have done just that- gotten married, even had kids. You wouldn't know unless the game blatantly stated outright that the character was gay- or had the character himself mention it. Maybe any women your character hooks up with are Lesbian, and are just going along to get along. You'll never know. These things DO happen in real life, after all.
@JonSnowIsAlive: How exactly are you "playing for both sides here"? No one's asked for a toggle to disable heterosexual romances, presumably because they understand that if your character is trying for Dorn and Viconia flirts with you, you can just tell her "no" and the story can continue without the player being "traumatized". Your comments indicate differently. You are requesting a feature that will allow you to segregate content you don't like. And the content you don't like is specifically to do with same-sex romances. Rather than take the mature approach that has already been advocated in this forum - "Thanks, but no thanks" - you doubled down on wanting a button that would prevent you from ever encountering that situation. And in doing so, you've invoked characterization and storyline immersion and all sorts of things that, oddly enough, don't seem to bother you with the four women who could potentially "derail your story".
This - and really, I'm going to stress this again because you don't seem to get it - despite the fact that you will not be exposed to the content unless you trigger it yourself.
Everything you've said in this debate so far - everything - has been ill-informed conjecture about situations that you don't want to see happen, and which were never going to happen anyway unless you made them happen.
So for you to want an additional filter added on top of the existing triggers, just so you could feel safe from the scary gay content? I find that offensive, sir. And I respond in kind. Facile psychology is a typical tactic for people who are on the losing end of a debate. I don't have any personal issue with you, I'm simply taking you to task for comments you've made on a public forum which I don't agree with. If you can't engage in a discussion - and you haven't, you've avoided every on-topic counterpoint I've made in favor of playing the victim card - then why persist?
You say that "clearly the actual system isn't good enough, otherwise people wouldn't be complaining about the issue."
No. The reason people complain about this issue is that they are homophobic. There, I said it. No more dancing and tiptoeing around the issue.
Asking for a toggle to eliminate gay people from the game is homophobic. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.
How do I know this is a fact? Because you (and others) would not dare ask for such toggles for other types or classes of people (usually minorities), for (the justified) fear that they'd be called other type of Xenophobia.
If you were to ask for a toggle to eliminate black people, you'd be called racist. Because you would be.
If you were to ask for a toggle to eliminate women (especially adventuring women) from the game (because after all a woman's place is to stay at home), you'd be called misogynist. Because you would be.
BG does not have real world religions - but if it had, would you call for eliminating Muslims or Jews? And what would that make you?
The fact that @JonSnowIsAlive can not only ask for such a thing, but also claim that being hit on by a man is "deeply traumatizing", and in the same breath claim he means no offence and no disrespect, is not only a cognitive dissonance of epic proportions, it also shows not only homophobia, but a sense of deep deep privilege.
There are gay/lesbian/bisexual people in this world, and whereas some of you may not like this fact: they have rights too. Equal rights. As every person IS equal. Treating homosexuality as something that does not exist, or should not exist is NOT equal.
Advocating that whereas you have absolutely no problem with heterosexual in-game relationships yet strongly oppose homosexuality in games and would like an "anti-gay" button, advocates inequality - and quite frankly, is not the way the world works. I have been hit on by a man before and I can honestly say I didn't wish for there to be a button on his head so I can 'turn him off'. I told him nicely: 'Sorry mate, I don't swing that way'. He didn't try to press the issue, and we remain friends to this day.
The taboo for homosexual people to stay away from games, or deal with the notion that they are forced into heterosexual in-game relations in order to experience computer RPG's to their fullest - is disappearing.
It is the same with sexism in computer games. In Baldur's Gate 2, girls were often (without mods) forced into a relationship with Anomen, if they wanted to experience the game fully. Male gamers had the choice of three. Anyone saying there were no female gamers 15 years ago, obviously didn't know many females.
Remember that as straight people, there is always the option of us saying no to a homosexual NPC before any relationship begins. Just as we have the same choice with any NPC. Gay/lesbian/bisexual people (or even women) have never had that choice.
It genuinely is that simple. Requesting a 'sexual orientation' button advocates ignorance and xenophobia over real issues. Issues of inequality, discrimination and prejudice. These are real issues that have actually caused genuine harm to people. There is no room in computer games (or the world) for this kind of discrimination.
Whereas I genuinely believe that you do not wish to harm anybody, or even that you discriminate to a certain degree - there are strong ramifications for even the slightest hint of prejudice, especially in popular video games. The connotations involved in this is that people across the world will continue to believe that they are better that others, or that another is of lesser quality due to simple things: such as skin colour, sexual-orientation or sex.
I implore you, if you do *not* advocate inequality or discrimination, cease this line of debate - for that is surely the only outcome for these forms of requests.
Also, this option would kill the role playing component of the game. What if I planned to romance Neera with my straight male but then change my mind after seeing Dorn? I would be forced to play with a character in which I would not identify myself.
The western world is only recently getting used to the idea that homosexuality exists in every day life, so it is logical to assume that there are still people, such as yourself, that will feel uncomfortable with this. With the same logic, it is presumable that there are a lot of ignorant, angry and violent people out there as well.
You have not in anyway advocated any violence or abuse in your discussion, and as I previously stated - I do not think you are a homophobe. A bit fearful perhaps and possibly ignorant to the real issues that exist, but not somebody who genuinely hates homosexuality.
What I ask you to understand, is that there are extremist homophobic people out there. Many with strong hateful feelings, who are willing to act violently and abusively. There are real issues away from gaming that can cause mental and physical harm.
Today, many people including children are growing up playing computer games. Underlying prejudices as simple as an 'anti-homosexual' switch in character creation, actually create clear distinctions between what people can consider 'normal' or 'correct'. Hiding them from certain people with the use of an option at character creation most certainly won't help things.
As long as this is the case, homosexual people will always be considered not 'normal' or not 'correct'. I mean imagine that for a second - growing up being told you are 'not correct'. Is this a way for people to be treated?
These kind of ideals fuel those who are more violent, more prejudice and more abusive - and instead of targeting those people who wish to harm those different from themselves, I truly believe we must eradicate this at the source and prevent it entirely - which would be popular media, such as: games, television etc.
As soon as people get used to the fact that this is normal, they will no longer feel uncomfortable and in turn perhaps we can completely remove this aspect of prejudice/abuse/violence from our world.
Most of this forum became a political correct place where radical people manifest, even shouting or offend other people, here i'm homophobic, among other radical people that deny homosexual behavior and see it as a disease i'm a "fucking" sympathizer (as they said).
So to end this bullshit, lemme put it straight, I WANT a button/cursor control for gay content, i'm not alone in this and if you don't like you can... cos i don't care. What i ask will not harm you but your hipocrisy will @shawne.
Obs: most of your posts could be labeled as offensive, just an advice. Of course being on the political correct side got you a lot of forgiveness from the readers.
There is nothing personally wrong with being homophobic; the fear comes from not knowing how to respond to a sexual advance from someone of the same sex, not from any sort of hatred. A lot of people feel that discomfort, and it's perfectly natural to be uncomfortable with something you don't understand.
I see "homophobe" bandied about as an insult a lot, and really that's not how the word should be used. It should be treated like any other phobia: something that needs to be treated (not clinically) and understood, not antagonized. You can't always control how you feel, especially when it comes to being afraid, and it's important to be able to speak up about that.
At the same time, requesting (demanding? I haven't seen much demanding going on) that the thing you are afraid of be removed from other people's experiences, or relegated to a toggle, isn't a rational response to that fear. That's where homophobia bleeds into anti-gay behavior, and that's not "okay", strictly speaking.
But this thread is getting incredibly off topic. The original request was for romance options for same-sex relationships, and that's a request that is already being fulfilled. I haven't seen anyone in this thread disagree that those options should exist; only disagreement about how those options should be made available--which is a separate request, and should probably have a separate thread.
That being said, I will once more remind everyone that the site has rules about antagonism and bullying, regardless of your point of view. I see some "dancing toward the line" going on, so please be mindful of how you present yourself publicly. If you can't act respectfully in a thread, even in disagreement, then perhaps you should find another thread to post in.
I do not mean to offend, but I think you need a new dictionary. Homophobia is not just "feeling uncomfortable around gays" (although that is certainly a homophobic emotion). Homophobia is a subtype of xenophobia on par with antisemitism and other form of racism.
For more, you can read this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
The more you write, the more I'm shocked by what you say. And the more homophobic and prejudiced you reveal yourself to be. Without even realizing that.
Basically, you compared being hit on by a guy to sexual harassment and abuse of power by a superior. The reason being hit on by your boss is wrong is not because you weren't expecting it. In fact for many decades in most of the world if you were a woman you had no choice but to expect it. In many countries you still have to expect it. The reason it is damaging (and in fact illegal in all of the Western World, at least) is because it places the person being hit upon in an impossible situation where refusal to submit might mean the loss of livelihood. It is a violent abuse of power, and a demand for submission, not a come on by a guy you can easily blow away. Have the guys you say hit on you had that kind of authority over you? Are you seriously comparing sexual harassment to being hit on by a guy and still claim you are not homophobic? or that you mean "no disrespect"? That very comparison is disrespectful in the extreme.
Now for your use of the word "trauma". Psychological trauma (and that is what I assume you mean, unless you mean being hit on by guys causes you physical injury) is defined as "a type of damage to the psyche that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event. When that trauma leads to post traumatic stress disorder, damage may involve physical changes inside the brain and to brain chemistry, which changes the person's response to future stress." (from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_trauma) are you seriously saying that being hit on by a guy can cause you this kind of damage and claim you are not homophobic? And if that is so, just imagine how badly you have damaged any girl you have ever flirted with.
Most women I know have been hit on by men they did not want to be hit on by. I personally have been hit on by women several times, which is something I never wanted. Unless the person hitting on you is abusing you in some manner (be it by stalking you, incessantly pursuing you despite your refusals etc. in which case I would recommend talking to the police), you shrug it off and move on. To talk about "damage" and "trauma" is just so inappropriate, and so hateful, that cannot help but bring the vile "gay panic defence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) to mind. The more you speak in terms of "trauma" and "damage" the less sympathetic you points are, because they are clearly ignorant and hateful exaggerations. At best, you are acting like a cross between a southern belle and a drama queen. At worst... well... read the entry on gay panic defence.
As for your uncertainty of what privilege means, well:
Privilege is when you think there is no problem, because there is no problem for you. Privilege is when you are catered to, and you believe there is no problem with that because that is the way it has always been, and so that is the way it always should be.
Your wish for a world that is "clean of gays" in the game is one indication of your privilege. The fact that you feel so dramatically violated so as to use a term like "trauma" by something that every other group in the world (i.e. non straight males) experience with much more frequency than you ever will, and barely bat an eyelash, is another indicative of your privilege. The very expectation you have for everyone around you to be straight just like you (or else they may cause you trauma, no less) is indicative of your privilege.
The fact that you think you can say all of that and still think you are not offensive or disrespectful, is the utmost of privilege (and impertinence).
Here's a few tips in regards to those frightening gay guys in the village and outside it who are constantly throwing themselves at you: they are not threatening your manhood. You are still as much of a heterosexual man as you were before they hit on you. They apparently like the way you look and think (possibly erroneously, I don't know) that you are a nice person. You can take it as a compliment, even if you are not interested in them, in the same manner you would take a come on from a woman you are not attracted to (or is that also damaging to your fragile soul?).
If one or more of them persist despite your rejection, I suppose the police or a suit for a restraining order should be your next destination. And if it is your boss (regardless of gender) that is hitting on you, then courts and police are obviously where you should go. Not because it is "unexpected" but because it is abusive and illegal.
I'm not homosexual, sometimes i look on homo content (as i exausted everything else in the game) but sometimes, as @JonSnowIsAlive said, it's hard to imagine or roleplay in my view point a cold heart Dorn being gay without spoiling my story. Just that.
Am i'm right? The answer doesn't even matter as it's MY playgame so MY way of think there should be respected. Who gave ppl right to impose me content or not?
I want a control content to use it when i see fit or not, other ppl want it to shut off gay content to them forever (and anyone who want, could shut off heterosexual content as well with it). So i ask, isn't their right to want it? To ask for it? It's ridiculous the tiranny of ppl in this forum when someone get aside from the political correct, it always a witch hunt!
If what i and other ppl want will not be implemented, as many says, why ppl care about the request? Why being agressive with ppl that did nothing else but asking for what they want? Should i be afraid now in ask what i think would make better my games, what would make me feel better? Isn't what is done in real life against many homosexuals?
Of course some people that prefer to be agressive will always see anything said by the other side, most specifically, people that don't agree with them, as lies and excuses, so make a good use of your time, to whomever fit this description and just ignore what is posted here. As i support restrict limits for people who want it, i also support extend content of romances to both sexual orientations freely, while i feel it will make some romances fall from their role, as they're not wroten from the begin to fit a homosexual behavior, but with ATARI bankrupcy, many possibilities are made, and maybe, just maybe, more indepth changes and rewrites on original content are going to be freed to change and adapt romances for this intent.
When it comes down to it, I don’t get why people seem to think that being gay has to be the defining characteristic of the character. We don’t see Edwin being straight as his defining character trait, or Aerie, nor Jan, or any of the other characters that Baldur’s Gate is known for. Give me a compelling character, give them a solid backstory that’s consistent with Faerun, and make me care about them enough to recruit them again and again. Don’t make them “rare” or “overpowered” classes just so that I recruit them as part of a min-maxing operation.
Nobody is forcing anyone into a romance with those characters; it’s easy enough to deactivate the romance trigger. Just say the “wrong” thing in the game dialogue and move on.
That doesn't seems reasonable.
@Narcissist if people doesn't care truly why this protest against the scroll/button issue? Just let it be as it will not restrain anyone in pursuing what they want. By banish this idea, people IS forcing people into a romance, a brief one obviously, but no matter it's still forcing people into a romance.
The button idea force nothing into no one, people that doesn't like the idea doesn't even need to touch the possible new feature, or could use it to block heterosexual content if they want also.
Many here fight the content control idea by think it as offense to their principle, an idea that apparently comes from view anything that doesn't support homosexual content as the idea of the enemy, so i ask openly, by seeing everything else that doesn't agree with your (the actual reader) ideas, how would understand, acceptance or reasoning be achieved? If reason and dialogue isn't an objective then there's nothing else to discuss about the idea or options for it.
The button idea forces an unnecessary and immersion breaking mechanic upon people who don't have a problem with same-sex content. It's a little reminder to the LGBT community every time you fire up the game that there's an option to erase you from it entirely. I'm not sure why you can't see how that might be hurtful to some people. More hurtful, perhaps, than not having the content in it at all.
If it bothers you that much, you can play with Dorn as a female character instead. Problem solved.
Removing his being interested in both men and women would be like removing his bloodlust. Whether you are uncomfortable with LGBT characters or not, Dorn is as much bisexual as he is bloodthirsty. Lots of people don't like Dorn's violence: that doesn't mean we're about to add an option to remove it if you so choose.
As it happens, though, there is already a "no same-sex character romance" button, and it will occur clearly in dialog. You are more than welcome to choose it.
And Force it how? If you don't touch the "button" nothing will change. a button/cursor by nature give options not orders, unlike what's being proposed as alternative (accept the content and say no at the first opportunity).
The problem is exactly in the personal emotional complex of many that project their angry and revolt against anything that doesn't follow their understand of what is right or wrong. should we take of any romance from the game to avoid hurt the feelings of any woman that has been raped and play BG? Should we remove romances in general cos someone is sexually impotent and romances remember them that? Should we remove gay content cos someone here was abused in childhood from someone of the same sex?
It's not reasonable impose restrictions to everywere in reason of the risk of hurt the feelings of part of the customers of BG EE. But if that's to be done, let's then implement content for every minority, otherwise a select minority will be choose to benefit of general changes.
By the way, except by a bard homosexual male playthrough (after exaust every other new content in BG EE) with Dorn in the party (which i didn't finshed as i didn't like much bards in BG), it bothered my roleplays in the begin when the game open the homosexual banters options with male characters for Dorn. So as you said i used most female characters to pursue evil playthroughs, what "limited" by nature options in my games (not a big problem as i enjoy female main characters, i pursued many times Anomen romance in BG2 for example, but still is a limit).
@Kaeloree i pursued Dorn romance to the end in BG EE with a female character and i can say without fear of mistake that his romance don't make any claim that he need to be bissexual. It's wroten well enough to allow homosexual romance for him also, but as no one is asking to remove the homosexual part of the romance, but limit it "personally" inside the pc of each player IF that player want will not affect in any way his behavior.
You made an assumption and gave your opinion about his bloodlust and homosexual behavior, i have a high degree of respect by you and all of your works as a modder (i'm serious in this), but i totally disagree. There's nothing linking his bloodlust to homosexuality, there's no causation or subjective bond between these features of his personality.
Ps: most games today have violence control slides, BG EE has an old graphic that maybe allowed it to pass as a 12 years age rating game, but being a game which copyrights are owned by HASBRO i highly doubt that unlimited levels of violence would be allowed by that company. By the way i believe HASBRO would have a similar opinion about sexuality restriction if the subject was brought to them, just saying.