@Wiggles From what I understand, there is disagreement about whether role playing is wrong even in those circles. I, too, have had several friends/acquaintances in those circles say that D&D is a sin. Others in the exact same circles, however, have no problem with it and may have even done similar games themselves. My best guess is that those in the 'D&D is ok' group have more experience with the game, or at least enough to realize that it is, for the most part, simply a harmless game.
As for preferring to avoid certain new romances; I can't claim to speak for @SieurdeLaCornbread, but I may have a guess as to why it would bother some people. It could be simply that such situations just make some people uncomfortable. Why this would make people more uncomfortable than killing a bunch of people in a game may have to do with how real the two situations seem relative to each other. It is one thing to kill a bunch of blurry cartoony characters in a game, but something completely different to read words and hear voices that could just as easily have come from a real person (err, minus the fantasy references of course). Similar to how if the game had very realistic and gory graphics you would expect the game to appeal to a different crowd. I know several people who play the game (including a few homosexual people) who just hate all the romances in general because they make them feel a similar amount of discomfort. It is like reading a romance novel I guess. Some people are into that and some aren't. Now imagine a homosexual romance novel being read by a straight person or vice-versa... Not exactly something you would expect to find for obvious reasons.
That was a bit longer of a ramble about psychology than I expected it to be... Anyway, hopefully that offers some insight as to what may be going on here and answers some of people's questions.
@Tresset: Your comparison presupposes that the reader has no say in the choice of romance novel. But the player is the one who determines which characters join the party, and (for the most part) what content in the gameworld is accessed/played through. Let's say a "social conservative" yearning for the good old days of the Antebellum South didn't want people of color in their party... well, don't take Valygar or Hexxat along. Problem solved. And since the OP is alluding very clearly to the specific content they want to avoid, it's not like this is some huge secret that you could accidentally stumble onto.
@shawne Since you ask for clarification I will clarify. That wasn't really my point. Of course choices can be made. With my comparison I was trying to explain why the choice would be made and not describe the state of what choices could or could not be made. I was not presupposing anything, and any guesses I made in my statement were worded quite purposefully with hypothetical language (i.e. words such as "could" or "may"). I even stated that I cannot speak for the OP.
Tresset thanks for being more even in tone. I've dealt with profound bias from both extremes over the last 35 years, it does get tiresome. Most who take offense at D&D also take offense at a broad range of games, books, movies... Entertainment at large. I enjoy the TV show "Grimm", all of the "Avengers" movies, I play a variety of games and I'm taking my wife to a secular concert next weekend. So by some measures I'm a hopeless heathen. But I've always found such restrictions silly and I don't really worry about it. Well apart from the fact I'll mostly keep my mouth shut when visiting my sister and her family in a couple weeks...
But as far as areas of specific morality, whether it's violence, sex or fantasy settings in general; things can get quite complicated. For me personally, I don't struggle with the morality of violence at all. I've never been tempted to actually hurt anyone, I've never been a victim of violent crime, or gone to war, or lived in a war zone. So it's fairly impersonal to me. I'm always comfortable with the international legal standard on the use of deadly force (it is acceptable to protect your life or the life of another). I'm comfortable expanding that definition a little where evil is a little more overt than in our own world. So really, the violence aspect doesn't phase me. Magic is a little more dicey. I'm okay with fantasy, but if it approaches anything from the real world I get a little uncomfortable. I can mostly live with the AD&D take on it all. Although I've gamed with groups that got a little weird that I wound up leaving. But apart from a few extra restrictions I put on myself it's implementation in BG doesn't bother me at all. Sexual morality is different for many of us because it's real. I've seen friends destroy their families with affairs. I see and live in our very sexually charged culture every day. I'm not even interested in labeling anything wrong or evil here, I just prefer a story that's traditional and pretty tame by contemporary standards. I like romance quite a lot; but I don't need innuendo or graphic activity. And it is amazing to me that this preference has become so deviant!
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.
honestly, when i first thought about this, i was a liiiittle bit offended, but i'm sure it wasn't intentional
edit- also, i'm not the pc police, i found it more of a funny coincidence tbh
@simples It wasn't; I assure you. I said that because I assumed the OP would want a good/neutral aligned party. Probably not the best wording on my part.
wasn't specifically talking about your comment @Tresset but the design of the two characters in general. "should we not be adding some gays into the mix?" "burn in hell!!!!" "problem solved."
wasn't specifically talking about your comment @Tresset but the design of the two characters in general. "should we not be adding some gays into the mix?" "burn in hell!!!!" "problem solved."
I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.
i agree, but @Loub what reputation? spill the beans!
Y' know, demon-worshipping, baby-sacrificing, bacchanal cults where teenagers were corrupted by forces from beyond and below. Don't tell me you've never heard of it?
I find this whole thread very ironic because of that, mostly because by following early 80's values you would be admonishing D&D considering blaming it was still at large, and also because the eighties were a time for revelry and newfound freedom in artistic expression, as well as the time for sexual reforms and women's rights. It isn't for nothing that Post-Modernism was at the time the artistic status quo; where it suddenly became acceptable to wear condoms, watch porn, divorce and have pre-marital sex; where the porn industry really took over the market; where blacks finally won equality. Really, this whole thread is extremely hilarious due to is sheer hypocrisy - I guess the OP either never lived on the eighties and only knows of it because of hearsay, or because he lived in an amish farm in the rural south at the time.
I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.
I think it's just a coincidence: when the three new characters were introduced in BG:EE, everyone assumed the same-sex romance would be Neera (since that plays into certain stereotypes). Dorn was literally the last person anyone expected; that's part of the reason his romance works as well as it does.
The problem going into BG2:EE, though, is that they only had the resources to create one more character, and Hexxat had to be several things all at once: she was the designated female same-sex romance, she had to be a thief (because not everyone likes Jan), and she had to be evil because there weren't enough evil NPCs for a complete party until now.
I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.
I think it's just a coincidence: when the three new characters were introduced in BG:EE, everyone assumed the same-sex romance would be Neera (since that plays into certain stereotypes). Dorn was literally the last person anyone expected; that's part of the reason his romance works as well as it does.
The problem going into BG2:EE, though, is that they only had the resources to create one more character, and Hexxat had to be several things all at once: she was the designated female same-sex romance, she had to be a thief (because not everyone likes Jan), and she had to be evil because there weren't enough evil NPCs for a complete party until now.
@Loub since we got explanation on the part I knew (their reputation in some circles) let's go to the one I don't get - homophobic? Quick google search doesn't turn up much (second result, a forum post, claims that WotC was actually for gay character in NWN2 and Hasbro was against the idea).
@Deltharis: Off the top of your head, how many gay characters can you think of in D&D literature/games? (Not counting drow, of course, since that's a whole other bag of Bhaalspawn.)
@shawne I don't like that argument. I don't see not putting homosexuals into your work of fiction as homophobia. Why would it be? Do you want authors to, every time they write something, go through a checklist of minorities they need to represent? Now, if such a state of affairs is caused by WotC not licencing/endorsing/something gay characters in D&D literature/games that's something different.
@Deltharis: You went for the "minority checklist" argument? Really?
Of course not every single work of fiction has to have a minority checklist (though it'd be nice for authors to occasionally have that bit of self-awareness to say "Oh, wait, hang on, literally every single character in my book/movie/video game is white, I should maybe do something about that"). But WotC has been telling D&D stories for what, thirty years now? Forty? What have they done in all that time? Because that's the math that matters, not whether that one R.A. Salvatore book has enough representation of a particular minority.
@Deltharis, that's a tricky issue. Not putting any group, especially one of those which is somehow problematic irl (bc of age, background, gender, "race", sexual orientation, etc) into a work of fiction giving obvious opportunities to do so (the simplest example, describing a community as opposed to just a few chosen characters) doesn't improve their irl situation, which basically means worsening it. Invisible people don't matter, equals, they can't be hurt, right? Going through a checklist each and every time is obviously ridiculous, but how the author describes the fictional world s/he created says a lot about how this person sees, what thinks and very often, how much knows about their closest surroundings.
An artist has the right to produce the work as he sees fit. He doesn't need to cater to any minority or majority, no matter how many volumes he produces.
Oh but of course. Still, both the writer and his work are the product of their time and environment, this way or another (see: J.R.R. Tolkien) and even the most fictional, fantastic and imaginative creation mirrors their worldview. This works the other way around too and this is what I wanted to say - there is no such thing as "so fictional it's irrelevant real world-wise".
@shawne I was't aware there were classical arguments, I could probably use a comprehensive guide to what's already been said about such issues. So it's not per-book checklist but per-bibliography one, and at some point a publisher has to go "wait, we crossed the treshhold" and force authors to do something about it? No possibility to, in absence of evidence for active discrimination in what they choose to publish, blame the authors who actually write the stories and not the publisher? No middleground, only "actively with us or against us"?
@winters That argument is... strong one, in the sense that it has many implications. If we accept for a fact that not mentioning a group to improve their situation is basically worsening it... We are in deep trouble for not mentioning every single social issue that comes to mind. Homeless, those starving in third world countries, disabled, HIV-positive, depressed... What makes LGBT problems special in that regard? Also, how they describe their fictional world does say something about them, but not neccecerily bad things. I for example would never put LGBT (or black or disabled) character in my work if I were to write fiction. Reason? I don't know any in real life and therefore I deem myself incapable of giving them real personalities.
And I suppose we should be talking about stuff like that in the offtopic section.
An artist has the right to produce the work as he sees fit. He doesn't need to cater to any minority or majority, no matter how many volumes he produces.
And that work will be evaluated accordingly. You don't have to agree with it - indeed, you can still enjoy problematic things anyway - but if a writer "sees fit" to create a world in which there are no black people... well, that's saying something too.
So it's not per-book checklist but per-bibliography one, and at some point a publisher has to go "wait, we crossed the treshhold" and force authors to do something about it? No possibility to, in absence of evidence for active discrimination in what they choose to publish, blame the authors who actually write the stories and not the publisher? No middleground, only "actively with us or against us"?
D&D is a franchise. Any and all authors working within that franchise are beholden to the publisher in ways that aren't true for, say, J.K. Rowling or George R.R. Martin. They can do anything they want within their worlds because they own those worlds. But WotC has veto power over D&D storylines, and occasionally dictates the overall direction (see: the Spellplague, the Sundering).
I for example would never put LGBT (or black or disabled) character in my work if I were to write fiction. Reason? I don't know any in real life and therefore I deem myself incapable of giving them real personalities.
More broadly, that probably explains why you don't see the need for representation - if you don't know a single black, disabled or LGBT person in your entire life, then you're not going to understand why they want to see themselves in stories with the same ease that you do.
But WotC has veto power over D&D storylines, and occasionally dictates the overall direction (see: the Spellplague, the Sundering).
Mentioning that someone has the power to do harm is not showing that they did, I don't think that inaction on the side of publisher (even The Master of the Franchise) is equal to active discrimination and therefore I am still not persuaded about the whole WotC homophoby thing.
But WotC has been telling D&D stories for what, thirty years now? Forty?
No, only 17--they bought out TSR back in 1997. They, in turn, were acquired by now-parent company Hasbro in 1999 but WotC retained its identity for name-recognition and licensing purposes.
The question some people are dancing around is this: who decided that both new characters, which give the possibility of non-standard romantic involvement, should be evil? No, that question doesn't really need to be answered but it is still there. As for myself, I don't worry about such things--I don't play games for romance options, preferring to leave romance to my offline life.
The question some people are dancing around is this: who decided that both new characters, which give the possibility of non-standard romantic involvement, should be evil? No, that question doesn't really need to be answered but it is still there.
This thought crossed my mind some time ago its a slightly unfortunate situation what ever the reasoning behind it.
Comments
As for preferring to avoid certain new romances; I can't claim to speak for @SieurdeLaCornbread, but I may have a guess as to why it would bother some people. It could be simply that such situations just make some people uncomfortable. Why this would make people more uncomfortable than killing a bunch of people in a game may have to do with how real the two situations seem relative to each other. It is one thing to kill a bunch of blurry cartoony characters in a game, but something completely different to read words and hear voices that could just as easily have come from a real person (err, minus the fantasy references of course). Similar to how if the game had very realistic and gory graphics you would expect the game to appeal to a different crowd. I know several people who play the game (including a few homosexual people) who just hate all the romances in general because they make them feel a similar amount of discomfort. It is like reading a romance novel I guess. Some people are into that and some aren't. Now imagine a homosexual romance novel being read by a straight person or vice-versa... Not exactly something you would expect to find for obvious reasons.
That was a bit longer of a ramble about psychology than I expected it to be... Anyway, hopefully that offers some insight as to what may be going on here and answers some of people's questions.
But as far as areas of specific morality, whether it's violence, sex or fantasy settings in general; things can get quite complicated. For me personally, I don't struggle with the morality of violence at all. I've never been tempted to actually hurt anyone, I've never been a victim of violent crime, or gone to war, or lived in a war zone. So it's fairly impersonal to me. I'm always comfortable with the international legal standard on the use of deadly force (it is acceptable to protect your life or the life of another). I'm comfortable expanding that definition a little where evil is a little more overt than in our own world. So really, the violence aspect doesn't phase me.
Magic is a little more dicey. I'm okay with fantasy, but if it approaches anything from the real world I get a little uncomfortable. I can mostly live with the AD&D take on it all. Although I've gamed with groups that got a little weird that I wound up leaving. But apart from a few extra restrictions I put on myself it's implementation in BG doesn't bother me at all.
Sexual morality is different for many of us because it's real. I've seen friends destroy their families with affairs. I see and live in our very sexually charged culture every day. I'm not even interested in labeling anything wrong or evil here, I just prefer a story that's traditional and pretty tame by contemporary standards. I like romance quite a lot; but I don't need innuendo or graphic activity. And it is amazing to me that this preference has become so deviant!
edit- also, i'm not the pc police, i found it more of a funny coincidence tbh
Don't tell me you've never heard of it?
Really, this whole thread is extremely hilarious due to is sheer hypocrisy - I guess the OP either never lived on the eighties and only knows of it because of hearsay, or because he lived in an amish farm in the rural south at the time.
That offends me
The problem going into BG2:EE, though, is that they only had the resources to create one more character, and Hexxat had to be several things all at once: she was the designated female same-sex romance, she had to be a thief (because not everyone likes Jan), and she had to be evil because there weren't enough evil NPCs for a complete party until now.
Of course not every single work of fiction has to have a minority checklist (though it'd be nice for authors to occasionally have that bit of self-awareness to say "Oh, wait, hang on, literally every single character in my book/movie/video game is white, I should maybe do something about that"). But WotC has been telling D&D stories for what, thirty years now? Forty? What have they done in all that time? Because that's the math that matters, not whether that one R.A. Salvatore book has enough representation of a particular minority.
So it's not per-book checklist but per-bibliography one, and at some point a publisher has to go "wait, we crossed the treshhold" and force authors to do something about it? No possibility to, in absence of evidence for active discrimination in what they choose to publish, blame the authors who actually write the stories and not the publisher? No middleground, only "actively with us or against us"?
@winters That argument is... strong one, in the sense that it has many implications. If we accept for a fact that not mentioning a group to improve their situation is basically worsening it... We are in deep trouble for not mentioning every single social issue that comes to mind. Homeless, those starving in third world countries, disabled, HIV-positive, depressed... What makes LGBT problems special in that regard?
Also, how they describe their fictional world does say something about them, but not neccecerily bad things. I for example would never put LGBT (or black or disabled) character in my work if I were to write fiction. Reason? I don't know any in real life and therefore I deem myself incapable of giving them real personalities.
And I suppose we should be talking about stuff like that in the offtopic section.
The question some people are dancing around is this: who decided that both new characters, which give the possibility of non-standard romantic involvement, should be evil? No, that question doesn't really need to be answered but it is still there. As for myself, I don't worry about such things--I don't play games for romance options, preferring to leave romance to my offline life.