Advice for Socially Conservative BG2:EE Playthrough?

SieurdeLaCornbread

Greetings. I did not pre-order BG1:EE but ultimately played and was impressed overall, which led to my pre-order of BG2:EE (and future patronage for wherever this company's ship may sail). I have not yet had the time to play, and am beginning to place thought into such an undertaking. However, I was a bit alarmed at some of the more morally progressive elements introduced into a 15 year old game, and I have gotten wind of some potentially disturbing ethical developments introduced into BG2:EE through my infrequent perusal of these forums.

Might my more traditional fellows of the forum community offer some playthrough advice to a simple gent with a fixed early 1980's code of ethics, who thinks in lockstep with what was and was not appropriate in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D and this time period in general? I do not want to be trampled by a rabid stampede of 2014 virtues if a new NPC joins my party, or if I accidentally wander into the wrong new content area. Will I be confronted and left aghast by a conundrum of deviant behavior, sunk into an unsolicited quicksand of uninhibited customs, and made an offer I cannot refuse to a festival of dionysian mores?

I am looking for helpful words of kindred wisdom to those who have successfully traversed the pitfalls I speak of, and offer my apology in advance for any offense imagined due to my lack of a membership card in the cult of fervent progress.

Sieur de La Cornbread

Blackraven

Interesting question. What kind of AD&D content or behavior in general was considered improper in the early 1980s but not anymore in 2014? I'm not sure whether I understood your post correctly, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Why not play a conservative paladin or cleric-type? Or in a way play yourself if you're conservative on issues such as homosexuality, hedonism, promiscuity etc. From your post ('dionysian mores' and 'uninhibited customs') I gather that these are the areas where your morals are offended.

Personally I think the real world both pre and post 1980s, and fantasy settings such as AD&D, present much more morally repugnant phenomena such as slavery and other forms of exploitation of defenseless people, racism, persecution of "deviants", etc but that's just my opinion.

In the game your character could surround himself/herself with more or less likeminded companions (types like Keldorn, Anomen and deal with any behavior you consider immoral in the way you see fit.
For your RL the only well-meant piece of advice I could give you is to accept that people are different and consequently have different morals.

Edit: Ignore my post if I misunderstood you. Apologies in that case for any incovenience caused.

FinneousPJ

Troll city, population 1

Aurorus

I am not sure if I understand exactly your meaning either, but I will just second some of the things that Blackraven said. I am in real life actually a missionary and soon-to-be pastor of a very conservative Christian church, so these are questions to which I have given some thought.

The origins of much of the fantasy genre were in Christian writings: those of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, who understood their joint project as using fantasy settings and characters to capture the imagination of young people and exhort a generation, fallen and destroyed by the experiences of the First World War, to virtue and to shun many of the excesses of the modern world. This tradition continued into early Dungeons and Dragons and into most of Bioware´s work, at least, up until Dragonage 2. (It is ironic that many conservative Christians have chosen to shun an entire genre, originally crafted as a Christian enterprise by prominent Christian thinkers and theologians).

Over the years, the fantasy genre has grown more dark as part of a general zeitgeist in the West. This is not exclusive to fantasy but can also be seen in science fiction, for example, where Star Wars and Star Trek, and their generally clear-cut good triumphing over evil in the future, have given way to Alien, Blade Runner, and modern apocalyptic films. Our visions of the future have grown more dark, just as our visions of fantasy have grown more dark (best exemplified in the Tales of Fire and Ice, Game of Thrones novels and TV shows).

The additions to this version of Baldur´s Gate continue in this vein, though not entirely. Most of the material that you would likely find offensive are in the quests and new content added by the evil characters: Dorn and Hexxat, in particular. I found nothing offensive or over-the-top in Neera´s quests, at least through Baldur´s Gate I.

My best advice, like that of Blackraven, is to play a good or neutral character, play as someone who wishes to remove evil from the world, and avoid associating with the evil characters if you may be offended by some of the content (which I am, actually). Good advice for RPGs as well as life. I think that in doing so you will not find anything objectionable in the new content.

TJ_Hooker

Edit: If you're looking for actual roleplaying advice, please disregard this post.

Alright, maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but you seem to be implying that you don't like the idea of your character being hit on by someone of the same sex? If so, I believe that any romance can be avoided simply by choosing the correct dialog option when the NPC tries to initiate. Alternatively, just avoid Dorn and Hexxat.

meagloth

Huh, you could just only play with LG and NG NPC's. Anomen, keldorn, arie. I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you liked bg1, bg2 is not that different morality wise.

SweetMagooMagoodle

Dude, perhaps I am falling for the bait, but so be it.


I appreciate the self deprecation and humor embedded in your question, but really -- you are playing a game filled with slavery, murder, and mayhem. Not to mention feudalism, dictatorship, militarism, genocide and generally anti humanistic, anti democratic, anti human rights values -- I can think, for instance, of an inquisitor I happen to know well (a lawful good sexist and racist willing to kill at the drop of a hat) who I bet you would be quite comfortable having in your party because he is "holy." Or possibly not. The point is, he upholds certain values considered "right" in a rigid fantasy sense but in reality are quite abhorrent. But he has a killer innate power, so I tend to have him along...

It is your game and provides escapist fun -- play it as you like and enjoy, but if you are going to raise the issues you raised publicly, well allow me to respond back publicly. With confusion -- if you are offended by encountering one type of behavior in a game FILLED with bloodthirsty and anti humanistic behavior (that your main character will no doubt be a part of by choice or happenstance), well, I could say que sera sera, but there are implications that go beyond letting it be... I mean if you try to avoid certain behaviors in the real world or certain people (not because they are necromancers or demigorgons but because they have different preferences in their personal affinities), well, that is a real world problem.

i would also say, the joy of the game is that there are masterful moments of complication and discomfort -- you will lose characters you love -- some of whom may kill each other. To go through it trying to avoid a couple of specific possible circumstances someone tells you about in advance defeats the purpose of the entire series.

OK, sorry -- I took the bait

FrozenCells

Grats on helping a bigot, guys.

Blackraven

FrozenCells said:

Grats on helping a bigot, guys.

Better not judge. Condemning someone as a bigot is as destructive as condemning homosexuality. One of the big challenges in our human experience is to live and let live, and accept people the way they are (as much as they annoy, fail or disappoint you).

TJ_Hooker

Blackraven said:

FrozenCells said:

Grats on helping a bigot, guys.

Better not judge. Condemning someone as a bigot is as destructive as condemning homosexuality. One of the big challenges in our human experience is to live and let live, and accept people the way they are (as much as they annoy, fail or disappoint you).

I'm not prepared to start hurling labels at the OP either, but your logic is flawed. Being tolerant does not mean you have to tolerate other's intolerance. That's like saying "it's wrong to imprison someone for the crime of false imprisonment, because then you're no better than they are". In both cases the primary victim (homosexual, person who was held captive) wasn't hurting anyone, while the secondary 'victim' (homophobe, criminal) was hurting someone.

CrevsDaak

When I read 'socially conservative' I thought (besides thinking of being logged out because of that new banner :P) that this was a joke thread about 1st may, which is the Marist's worker's day.

What I realized was that I am confused about everything. And that I still don't get what is this thread about besides confusing me so badly about everything.

If you mean to play a 'Classic' style of heroes party, I recommend following @meagloth advice

meagloth said:

Huh, you could just only play with LG and NG NPC's. Anomen, keldorn, arie. I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you liked bg1, bg2 is not that different morality wise.

atcDave

Just play a good aligned character and recruit a good aligned party. You really won't have any problems. I'm pretty "traditional" too!

Blackraven

@TJ_Hooker, I think your logic is flawed here. Who says that the homosexual does not or may not hurt (offend) the homophobe and his beliefs? Can you decide that? And does a homophobe necessarily hurt a homosexual, simply by being a homophobe? I'd say it takes more than that (e.g. discrimination, violence etc).

Don't get me wrong here. I'm very very liberal. Like I said, live and let live. But it's precisely for that reason that I don't think you or FrozenCells or any 'advocate of tolerance' is entitled to decide what other people like OP should believe or not believe. I think that would be dangerously judgmental.

And yes, in a way I'm for tolerating intolerance as long as it's merely opinions we're talking about, as in the original discussion. You're taking it quite a bit further with your example of imprisonment. I disapprove of that analogy, and I'm not going into that.

winters

Blackraven said:

And does a homophobe necessarily hurt a homosexual, simply by being a homophobe?

Well, yes, by definition.

Apart from that and before we all burst into argument, something doesn't smell right. If that's a legit question, why the smokescreen which makes it almost incomprehensible? Somehow I can't make myself treat seriously someone trying to sound like Kiser Jhaeri and this definitely is a serious matter.

TJ_Hooker

Blackraven said:

@TJ_Hooker, I think your logic is flawed here. Who says that the homosexual does not or may not hurt (offend) the homophobe and his beliefs? Can you decide that? And does a homophobe necessarily hurt a homosexual, simply by being a homophobe? I'd say it takes more than that (e.g. discrimination, violence etc).

There exist laws that restrict the liberties of homosexuals in many countries, whether it's simply denying them the ability to marry, anti-sodomy laws, or even making homosexuality outright illegal. These laws only exist because they are supported by people who disaprove of homosexuality. This is more what I had in mind when I said "hurt", not just that someone would read a homophobe's comments and get upset.

Blackraven said:

Don't get me wrong here. I'm very very liberal. Like I said, live and let live. But it's precisely for that reason that I don't think you or FrozenCells or any 'advocate of tolerance' is entitled to decide what other people like OP should believe or not believe. I think that would be dangerously judgmental.

Well, while I don't necessarily agree with you, don't take that as implying that I agree with FrozenCells. Also, my post wasn't really focused on this thread and was more a response to the general statement you seemed to be making. As you can see by my first post in this thread, I tried not to judge the OP, despite disagreeing with him.

Blackraven said:

And yes, in a way I'm for tolerating intolerance as long as it's merely opinions we're talking about, as in the original discussion. You're taking it quite a bit further with your example of imprisonment. I disapprove of that analogy, and I'm not going into that.

Fair enough. I was worried my analogy was a bit hyperbolic.

Blackraven

@winters, no smokescreen here. I'm probably as much against homophobia or any form of intolerance as you seem to be, given your reaction.

All I was saying was, that if I were a homophobe and you wouldn't notice it (because I kept it to myself), would I hurt you? I don't think so.
And as I said in my previous post, when intolerant beliefs are translated into actions of intolerance it's a whole different matter to me. I never defended that.

I just don't like people deciding what others have to believe, as mistaken as they may be or seem to be from one's own point of view. My apologies if I offended you.

TJ_Hooker

winters said:

Apart from that and before we all burst into argument, something doesn't smell right. If that's a legit question, why the smokescreen which makes it almost incomprehensible? Somehow I can't make myself treat seriously someone trying to sound like Kiser Jhaeri and this definitely is a serious matter.

Are you still referring to @Blackraven‌ here, or to the OP?

winters

Blackraven said:

@winters, no smokescreen here. I'm probably as much against homophoby or any form of intolerance as you seem to be, given your reaction.

Nah, not yours, I was talking about the original post all the time.

And we burst into argument anyway. This is so wrong. That's why I'm getting back to rolling my umpteenth Swashbuckler this evening, bye!

Edit: @TJ_Hooker, see above.

Blackraven

@Winters, ok sorry, I thought your entire post was directed at me. Good luck on the Swashy, I almost feared that I had brought mercenaries into trouble
@TJ_Hooker, I'm glad we managed this in a mature way. I think we understand each other, and I'm glad about that.

TJ_Hooker

I'd laugh if the OP comes back and is like "WTF are you guys talking about? I was referring to the fact that Dorn's a half-orc and yet is a paladin sub-class. I support traditional race/class combos, where only humans can be paladins!"

Blackraven

@TJ_Hooker Me too! Would be awesome.
However, I noticed the OP coming online in this thread various times after he first posted, but so far he hasn't bothered to clear things up or reply in any other way. Maybe he's just a troll after all? The surname is kind of corny...

winters

Blackraven said:

@TJ_Hooker Me too! Would be awesome.
However, I noticed the OP coming online in this thread various times after he first posted, but so far he hasn't bothered to clear things up or reply in any other way. Maybe he's just a troll after all? The surname is kind of corny...

If so, then let the game speak for us.

Protagonist: Why do you use so many big words? Are you trying to make me feel stupid?
Kiser Jhaeri: My utilization of complex locution is more a reflection of my own superincumbent mental acuity than an aspersion on your circumscribed lexicon.
Protagonist: Maybe your grandiose vocabulary is a pathetic compensation for an insufficiency in the nether regions of your anatomy.

If not, then I apologize, but this was waaaay too tempting.

meagloth

Blackraven said:

All I was saying was, that if I were a homophobe and you wouldn't notice it (because I kept it to myself), would I hurt you? I don't think so.

That would not be intolerant. If you have a differing opinion and keep it to yourself for the sake of you and and those around you, that is the definition of tolerance. Tolerance is not just being ok with everything and anything because you might offend someone, it's being respectful and decent even if you don't agree with them.

SieurdeLaCornbread

By tolerating all souls except those who do not tolerate something/someone, two hypocritical mirrors are created which reflect each other into infinity, until they combust, leaving a primordial amoral jelly which lacks opinionated sentience. This truly Western mindset must, out of necessity, shield itself from the existence of more ancient lands, for fear of the self-awareness of looking down upon the entire earth with scorn from the yellow pine throne of unbigotry. Are we willing to claim a race, culture, and religion/ethos of our own? Perhaps this is only acceptable in fictional games. However, in the hopes of easing the nerves and trigger fingers of the forum administrators, I will steer the wagon back to the main road.

I apologize for my lack of response, for although I did examine the gist, I preferred to keep my hands to myself and let the conversation develop in hopes of finding answers to my initial ponderance. Several courteous men have offered thoughtful advice on playing good or neutral aligned parties to avoid any of the over-the-top wickedness that would be unacceptable in the early 1980's. Specifically, I am told to shun Hexxat and Dorn in favor of Keldorn, Anomen, and Aerie. I thank you for your time and your helpful words. I must say that it is disappointing to navigate such a social gale in a sea of unsavory sinisterness, and would prefer to witness the inclusion of more sanitary and traditionally good/neutral/evil NPC's by Beamdog, but you sages have given me the charts I required. Luckily, I already possess the compass.

Several others disagree with the perceived implications of my post. Some even find distasteful my line of query, which seems to have strayed beyond the acceptable lines of 2014 orthodoxy, while a noble few defend my right to ask. I come from a land of cavaliers and cotton fields, so I apologize for the affinity I hold for tradition and its preservation, which I extend to my AD&D. I am much obliged to all for using their faculties of reason to consider my archaic but needful curiosity.

Sieur de La Cornbread

meagloth

SieurdeLaCornbread said:

By tolerating all souls except those who do not tolerate something/someone, two hypocritical mirrors are created which reflect each other into infinity, until they combust, leaving a primordial amoral jelly which lacks opinionated sentience. This truly Western mindset must, out of necessity, shield itself from the existence of more ancient lands, for fear of the self-awareness of looking down upon the entire earth with scorn from the yellow pine throne of unbigotry. Are we willing to claim a race, culture, and religion/ethos of our own? Perhaps this is only acceptable in fictional games. However, in the hopes of easing the nerves and trigger fingers of the forum administrators, I will steer the wagon back to the main road.

I apologize for my lack of response, for although I did examine the gist, I preferred to keep my hands to myself and let the conversation develop in hopes of finding answers to my initial ponderance. Several courteous men have offered thoughtful advice on playing good or neutral aligned parties to avoid any of the over-the-top wickedness that would be unacceptable in the early 1980's. Specifically, I am told to shun Hexxat and Dorn in favor of Keldorn, Anomen, and Aerie. I thank you for your time and your helpful words. I must say that it is disappointing to navigate such a social gale in a sea of unsavory sinisterness, and would prefer to witness the inclusion of more sanitary and traditionally good/neutral/evil NPC's by Beamdog, but you sages have given me the charts I required. Luckily, I already possess the compass.

Several others disagree with the perceived implications of my post. Some even find distasteful my line of query, which seems to have strayed beyond the acceptable lines of 2014 orthodoxy, while a noble few defend my right to ask. I come from a land of cavaliers and cotton fields, so I apologize for the affinity I hold for tradition and its preservation, which I extend to my AD&D. I am much obliged to all for using their faculties of reason to consider my archaic but needful curiosity.

Sieur de La Cornbread

1. It seems Cernd has gotten a forum account :P

2. I'm not old enough to know, but I think a lot of crazy sh*t came out of the '80s, just like any other point in time?

Wiggles

The best part of this thread is that the OP stated he bought both BG games and will continue to do so with future games.

I simply don't have time to praise/condemn people for their beliefs or views on the internet. I don't even like doing it in person, much less through text.

So....


....thanks for the support towards Overhaul...(?)

Tresset

FrozenCells said:

Grats on helping a bigot, guys.

@FrozenCells Believing that something someone else does is morally wrong does not make someone a bigot. Someone is a bigot only if they mistreat others based on those beliefs. The OP certainly did not mistreat anyone as far as I can tell.

To everyone else: I will be watching this topic carefully to make sure the discussion stays civil (and on topic). If it gets out of hand I will have to close it.

Now taking off the mod cap: Yeah, if you would rather avoid... how to word this... 'less than traditional relationships' avoiding Hexxat and Dorn (who are both evil anyway) should keep you out of trouble.

TJ_Hooker

meagloth said:

I'm not old enough to know, but I think a lot of crazy sh*t came out of the '80s, just like any other point in time?

I give you... the 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&feature=kp

mlnevese

Everyone knows name calling and flaming are strictly against forum rules, so I agree with @Tresset‌. As long as the thread remains polite and mature I see no need to close it.

This is just a friendly reminder for everyone to read the site rules.

shawne

Yeah, I wouldn't go anywhere near Aerie - premarital sex and a baby born out of wedlock? Tsk tsk.

Don't even get me started on Keldorn abandoning his wife, and Anomen's behavior promoting revenge!

In fact, if you're really committed to upholding a "socially conservative" code of ethics, I sincerely hope you're not going to be stealing money out of people's drawers, which is a thing you can do in these games. Nor should you employ thieves in your party, since they have no morals whatsoever and prey upon just about anyone, even if they're poor!

Temptation is everywhere! Be resolute! And good luck with the game!

Wiggles

I don't intend to 'strike a nerve' with you @SieurdeLaCornbread but if you're socially conservative and don't want the temptations of those fallen astray, then why do you play a game that practices polytheism? I'm not questioning 'you' as in everything you're saying is false, I'm more curious. Most people I know that are socially conservative disregard or look down upon my hobbies of fantasy, magic, polytheism, and role-playing as a 'sin', for lack of a better word.

*potential spoilers*

Again not being privy or questioning your beliefs or hobbies, but how can you play a game when your own character is the son or daughter of a god of murder? He or she will make very unquestionable decisions between two evils (the guild war for example), and will take the role of a fantasy creature to impersonate among them in their evil and vile ways. Your character will also fight multiple demons and devils and will even visit Hell because he or she's very soul is taken.

Do you as a person look the other way on this and ignore it? I don't care personally if you do, it's your life and values that matter to you and only you and that's what's important. I'm more curious on someone you who is socially conservative plays a role-playing fantasy game that is mostly frowned upon by others of the same social stature.

Even if you don't reply, thank you at least for reading.