As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
Don't straw man what I said, and all I said was that the Social Justice movement and its member's use of the transgender community is a modern phenomenon. I never said that such a thing was going on in the game. So perhaps you best clean up your own logic, before you lecture others about theirs.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
Well SOD made a specific reference to Gamer Gate, which is rather different from the spirit of the original two games.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
Well SOD made a specific reference to Gamer Gate, which is rather different from the spirit of the original two games.
An oblique reference, not a specific one and again friend, it is being removed.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
Well SOD made a specific reference to Gamer Gate, which is rather different from the spirit of the original two games.
An oblique reference, not a specific one and again friend, it is being removed.
"It's about ethics in adventuring" is a direct allusion to a motto developed by one side of the gamer gate debate, it was also made to be said by a very iconic character who is beloved by both sides. As for the line being removed, that does not matter to our discussion, all I'm doing is explaining that the poster who said that the old games were 'apolitical' simply used the wrong word. What he (or perhaps she) was lamenting, was a time when Baldur's Gate's political problems were those found within the continuity of the Forgotten Realms, and the fourth wall breakers were not political statements concerning the real world but just funny pop culture references. The commenter in question perhaps feels as I do, that SOD is not quite in the same spirit as the original games.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
Don't straw man what I said, and all I said was that the Social Justice movement and its member's use of the transgender community is a modern phenomenon. I never said that such a thing was going on in the game. So perhaps you best clean up your own logic, before you lecture others about theirs.
If you were not making a statement about the game politicking on behalf of transgendered people then why did you say, "but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left?" Feel free to explain why you would make that comment in the context of this discussion.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
Well SOD made a specific reference to Gamer Gate, which is rather different from the spirit of the original two games.
An oblique reference, not a specific one and again friend, it is being removed.
"It's about ethics in adventuring" is a direct allusion to a motto developed by one side of the gamer gate debate, it was also made to be said by a very iconic character who is beloved by both sides. As for the line being removed, that does not matter to our discussion, all I'm doing is explaining that the poster who said that the old games were 'apolitical' simply used the wrong word. What he (or perhaps she) was lamenting, was a time when Baldur's Gate's political problems where those found within the continuity of the Forgotten Realms, and the forth wall breakers were not political statements concerning the real world but just funny pop culture references. The commenter in question perhaps feels as I do, that SOD is not quite in the same spirit as the original games.
In the context of that single line then I can understand how you or others could feel that the game is trying to push some kind of political view. However I feel that the rest of the game is very much in keeping with the spirit of the original games. That's obviously a subjective opinion though so you are free to see things through your own lens. Again, thank you friend for the courteous discussion.
Something that I think is interesting is that the RPG genre seems to be inherently left-wing. Heroes go out and help people with their problems instead of asking why they don't do it themselves. Refusing material rewards and thus being charitable is "good" while negotiating for more money from those you are in a position of power over is "evil." If anyone is trying to take over the world/government/high school drama club and rule over others then the hero goes out to stop them and free the underclasses from the yoke of their oppressor. Executing prisoners is evil. Solving the inherent problems that lead to violence is better than simply attacking the people who are causing it. Etc etc. So I think that adding in new ideas from current political discourse isn't totally out there.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
Don't straw man what I said, and all I said was that the Social Justice movement and its member's use of the transgender community is a modern phenomenon. I never said that such a thing was going on in the game. So perhaps you best clean up your own logic, before you lecture others about theirs.
If you were not making a statement about the game politicking on behalf of transgendered people then why did you say, "but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left?" Feel free to explain why you would make that comment in the context of this discussion.
Well read Diogenes' first comment to me, he said that I could have been referencing the Minsc line or the 'inclusion of the trans character.' He also said that the use of trans people is not a modern phenomenon. I said that in fact it is exclusively a modern phenomenon, I asked him at what point during per-modernity was the trans community used by a social justice movement? I did not mean that the trans character in SOD was inherently politicized, I was only making reference back to that first comment, I thought that saying that the aforementioned was not a modern phenomenon was, incorrect, and that perhaps my saying so was a bit off topic from what Diogenes and I were discussing. The rest of the discussion I think is rather clear in the comments that followed.
Why is the gamergate community against that line? Why not own it and say that Minsc is supporting you? There is the automatic assumption of being victimized. Wouldn't it have been a greater victory and the high road to take it and make it yours?
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
It's hardly a stretch to believe the developers of the game are trying to make a statement when one of the writers says:
“I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don’t care if people think that’s “forced” or fake. I find choosing to write from a straight default just as artificial. I’m happy to be an SJW and I hope to write many Social Justice Games in the future”
I don't have much of a problem with the writer sending whatever message she wants with the story or the characters. Those can stand or fall on their own merits within the game, but to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game. That has not been at all productive to actually improving the game and ensuring the franchise continues.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
Don't straw man what I said, and all I said was that the Social Justice movement and its member's use of the transgender community is a modern phenomenon. I never said that such a thing was going on in the game. So perhaps you best clean up your own logic, before you lecture others about theirs.
If you were not making a statement about the game politicking on behalf of transgendered people then why did you say, "but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left?" Feel free to explain why you would make that comment in the context of this discussion.
Well read Diogenes' first comment to me, he said that I could have been referencing the Minsc line or the 'inclusion of the trans character.' He also said that the use of trans people is not a modern phenomenon. I said that in fact it is exclusively a modern phenomenon, I asked him at what point during per-modernity was the trans community used by a social justice movement? I did not mean that the trans character in SOD was inherently politicized, I was only making reference back to that first comment, I thought that saying that the aforementioned was not a modern phenomenon was, incorrect, and that perhaps my saying so was a bit off topic from what Diogenes and I were discussing. The rest of the discussion I think is rather clear in the comments that followed.
Okay, fair enough. So what IS your view of the transgendered character? Also, I should point out that politicking on behalf of transgendered people is not a product of the left, its a product of the progression of society in general. Society is constantly evolving as humanity grows as a species and leaves behind our prejudices. There will always be stragglers who will fight it every step of the way but the majority of people will eventually side with the group that is being discriminated against, whether the people are liberal, moderate conservatives, atheists, christians, etc... There are countless examples throughout history. We witnessed a perfect one in recent years when same-sex marriage was finally accepted by most people in the United States. It wasn't just people like me on the left. It was many politically independent people, christians, conservatives, etc...
With the Gamergate joke, I think it wasn't just offending to gamergaters (keep in mind I find the Gamergate label to have been irreversibly toxic by now), it was offensive to people who actually do care about journalistic ethics, yes the majority of GG is usually quite batty, but there were people with real concerns who just happened to get assigned into the group by kneejerk reaction, or drawn to the group in it's early days before it got super (more) crazy. It might also offend those who consider the "GG vs SJW" debate to be a complete non-issue by now, they may also find the origin of the joke in very poor taste threats against people (yes, I know that both sides of the argument engaged in doxxing, and not every GGer or "SJW" is does this) and the rending of forums by two extremely easily agitated groups is not very funny. I support the lines removal, especially since the team discussed removing it first before coming to a concensus (which is why I hate the people who rag on Beamdog for "giving in" to a hate group, if they had given in, several writers would have been fired for no good reason, and worse.)
to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game.
That quote is from last year and isn't even about this game.
to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game.
That quote is from last year and isn't even about this game.
She made the comment on THIS forum.
Are we not supposed to take her at her word? She felt that way then but did not feel that way when writing this game?
With the Gamergate joke, I think it wasn't just offending to gamergaters (keep in mind I find the Gamergate label to have been irreversibly toxic by now), it was offensive to people who actually do care about journalistic ethics, yes the majority of GG is usually quite batty, but there were people with real concerns who just happened to get assigned into the group by kneejerk reaction, or drawn to the group in it's early days before it got super (more) crazy. It might also offend those who consider the "GG vs SJW" debate to be a complete non-issue by now, they may also find the origin of the joke in very poor taste threats against people (yes, I know that both sides of the argument engaged in doxxing, and not every GGer or "SJW" is does this) and the rending of forums by two extremely easily agitated groups is not very funny. I support the lines removal, especially since the team discussed removing it first before coming to a concensus (which is why I hate the people who rag on Beamdog for "giving in" to a hate group, if they had given in, several writers would have been fired for no good reason, and worse.)
I find it interesting that GamerGaters were even demanding for the line to be removed, considering how often they scream at me about "artistic integrity" and how developers should be free to say what they want without having people complain. I guess free speech only matters when the developer is doing something they agree with....
GG automatically claims victimhood and demands it be removed.
Why not say: "I think Mith is a SWJ, but Minsc is GG! We win!"
Instead there is all this drama when you lot could have claimed victory from the get go. Rather baffling how some people would rather be butt hurt than happy.
I find it interesting that GamerGaters were even demanding for the line to be removed, considering how often they scream at me about "artistic integrity" and how developers should be free to say what they want without having people complain. I guess free speech only matters when the developer is doing something they agree with....
Well, that's what I like to call a universal hypocrisy, everyone does it. The rules apply to everyone except me/us. Also, artistic integrity I think is misunderstood. When a person is constantly bombarded by harassment and then changes something and states "I am changing this so you'll leave me alone", that is a violation of a person's artistic integrity by others. When a person is faced with complaints about something and then changes it while saying "I and members of my team took a look at what people were talking about, and can see where the complaints have merit, therefore we will remove it." That is artistic integrity, because the artist decided, with some thought, to change it. These things sound similar, because artistic integrity is a very fine line, and I don't think certain parties understand the distinction.
GG automatically claims victimhood and demands it be removed.
Why not say: "I think Mith is a SWJ, but Minsc is GG! We win!"
Instead there is all this drama when you lot could have claimed victory from the get go. Rather baffling how some people would rather be butt hurt than happy.
That is actually pretty insightful, groups around the world have appropriated jokes and appelations in their favor, kinda curious for them GG fellas ain't it?
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
It's hardly a stretch to believe the developers of the game are trying to make a statement when one of the writers says:
“I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don’t care if people think that’s “forced” or fake. I find choosing to write from a straight default just as artificial. I’m happy to be an SJW and I hope to write many Social Justice Games in the future”
I don't have much of a problem with the writer sending whatever message she wants with the story or the characters. Those can stand or fall on their own merits within the game, but to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game. That has not been at all productive to actually improving the game and ensuring the franchise continues.
You are missing the point. I'm talking about the game. The views of the developers are completely irrelevant to what is actually presented in the game. The game itself is making no actually statements about supporting transgendered people if you have an issue with that. If you think it is then feel free to show us how the particular dialogue line or action that is making the political statement regarding transgendered people.
The GamerGate line is about GamerGate, not transgendered people. What a person believes personally and what is presented in their work are separate issues. From my point of view, the reality is that the game doesn't actually make any political statements other than mocking GamerGate.
Who knows. Maybe the next edition will "innovate" even more. The perform skill will be divided in "rapping", "breakdancing" and "gypsy con artist" Maybe we'll have presidents instead of kings. Gnomes will invent spray cans and baggy pants. Wizards will invent portable tablets with unlimited sending spells per day and young folk can communicate with each other all throughout Faerun. Maybe the Paladin class will be adjusted and will be mostly a social skill class ; use violence only once to solve a problem and lose your paladin powers forever. Maybe you will be allowed one quest of atonement, where you pass out flyers and inform ignorant people about prejudice and generalization of opinions.
I disagree on the game mocking gamergate. A character who is all about justice and ethics uses their line. It is up to the player to take it as being positive or negative.
It is telling that GGers were so thin skinned that they just assumed it was against them.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not "politicking" anymore than having an atheist character in a game is a statement about religion. You can infer whatever you choose from it but the character's existence in the game is logically not a political statement of any kind. They are not saying you need to support transgendered people or LGBT issues by simply having the character in the game. You are choosing to draw this conclusion even though it is entirely baseless. According to your logic, the developers of games like Hatred must think that everyone should die because the main character is a pyschopath who murders people. Its a political statement!
It's hardly a stretch to believe the developers of the game are trying to make a statement when one of the writers says:
“I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don’t care if people think that’s “forced” or fake. I find choosing to write from a straight default just as artificial. I’m happy to be an SJW and I hope to write many Social Justice Games in the future”
I don't have much of a problem with the writer sending whatever message she wants with the story or the characters. Those can stand or fall on their own merits within the game, but to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game. That has not been at all productive to actually improving the game and ensuring the franchise continues.
You are missing the point. I'm talking about the game. The views of the developers are completely irrelevant to what is actually presented in the game. The game itself is making no actually statements about supporting transgendered people if you have an issue with that. If you think it is then feel free to show us how the particular dialogue line or action that is making the political statement regarding transgendered people.
The GamerGate line is about GamerGate, not transgendered people. What a person believes personally and what is presented in their work are separate issues. From my point of view, the reality is that the game doesn't actually make any political statements other than mocking GamerGate.
And I think your missing my point. As I stated earlier in another thread, many people are arguing about two different things here.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BGIII.
So now instead of talking about the game itself, and how to make it better and how to ensure there are more games in the future, we're talking about this. Beamdogs actions and statements were irresponsible and invited this kind of debate when it should never have been taking place here. At the same time they've antagonized and literally silenced a large number of people who were part of the core customer base for Baldurs Gate.
The whole thing has hurt the franchise and the developer is responsible for that. That's my biggest issue and why I have little faith in them at this point.
@GreenWarlock A good point and well made friend, I can accept this.
@Camus34 I feel like this is slightly disingenuous since Siege of Dragonspear doesn't do this either. If you are referring to the Minsc line then it was a fourth wall breaking joke of which there were many in Baldur's Gate and in any case it has since been removed. If you are referring to in the inclusion of a trans character then that is not really a modern phenomenon obviously, just a hot topic in modern discussions.
You may feel that such an inclusion in itself is inherently political. That's fine.
Let's think about this: The plot of Baldur's Gate is the manipulation of economics through shadowy manoeuvring by the main villain. Later you learn that he is attempting to force the country into a pointless war to achieve his political goals and become more powerful.
You may or may not see this as some kind of metaphor for the First Gulf War. However you cannot escape the implicit views of the writers that it is wrong to do such things.
Thank you for letting my voice my thoughts friends and I look forward to hearing what you think.
I'm not going to rehash everything that I wrote about the Minsc line, but comparing it to the fourth wall breakers in the original game is what I would call disingenuous, as they were not allusions to months of vicious debate between two socio-polical entities. If you are interested on the rest of what I wrote on the Minsc line, it is on pg.13 of this thread just CTRL F and type Camus34.
As for the trans character, not that I care if it's a modern phenomenon or not, (I think this aspect is a bit of a red herring discussion) but the politicking of transgender is an issue of more recent, modern times,it is a product of the new left. At what point in pre-modernity did we see this used in politics, and political movements?
Now on that point about the Gulf War actually being 'referenced' in Baldur's Gate; that is confirmation bias, starting a war to try and gain power can be analogous to any war in history, but it is not analogous to any one war in particular. The only way that it can become a direct reference (as is), is if you just say that it is in your own head. The Gulf war did not start over brittle Iron, doppelgangers killing and replacing a guild, and an increase in banditry, it was a slow boiling process that began in 1974 when the CIA and Henry Kissinger hung the Kurds out to dry and crowned Saddam Hussein as monster of Iraq. Your analogy misses all the history, and politics behind the first Gulf War.
Thank you for your thoughts friend.
I think it is best if we don't get in a debate about whether the Gulf War was about oil prices/availability or not which is what I meant in terms of the Iron Crisis being able to be viewed as a metaphor. Obviously thats something that the individual can derive from the text and not necessarily the intent of the writers.
I think you can take the incredibly simplistic and generalised point though that "war is a bad thing" as an idea the writers want to forward. Also most of the nobles (and therefore the rich) you come across are idiotic fops with no regard for anyone but themselves.
You could make an interesting argument for a kind of (unintentional) push of anti-intellectualism throughout the game. One of the first people you meet-Phlydia is an absent minded dope and most of the monks in Candlekeep are portrayed or weak or cowardly. Wizards are self-absorbed, total loons or cackling evil masterminds. The only people of any use are those who go out and do things for themselves and use their hands. They can get things done, unlike those useless people who sit around in libraries all day. The player becomes a hero by going out and getting into fights, everyone else is useless because they sit around worrying about their problems. Notice the first major conflict of the game: the scholar Gorion is defeated by the man of action Sarevok.
Obviously this is all just for fun my friends and I'm not saying anyone who made the game wanted to perpetuate such ideas.
I'm not trying to start a debate about the Gulf War, I mentioned the point at which the process began... As for the rest, I'll make this simple, do you think that the original Bladur's Gate made references to real life political problems in the 90s or not?
Not specific references but general political issues, yes.
Well SOD made a specific reference to Gamer Gate, which is rather different from the spirit of the original two games.
An oblique reference, not a specific one and again friend, it is being removed.
"It's about ethics in adventuring" is a direct allusion to a motto developed by one side of the gamer gate debate, it was also made to be said by a very iconic character who is beloved by both sides. As for the line being removed, that does not matter to our discussion, all I'm doing is explaining that the poster who said that the old games were 'apolitical' simply used the wrong word. What he (or perhaps she) was lamenting, was a time when Baldur's Gate's political problems where those found within the continuity of the Forgotten Realms, and the forth wall breakers were not political statements concerning the real world but just funny pop culture references. The commenter in question perhaps feels as I do, that SOD is not quite in the same spirit as the original games.
In the context of that single line then I can understand how you or others could feel that the game is trying to push some kind of political view. However I feel that the rest of the game is very much in keeping with the spirit of the original games. That's obviously a subjective opinion though so you are free to see things through your own lens. Again, thank you friend for the courteous discussion.
Something that I think is interesting is that the RPG genre seems to be inherently left-wing. Heroes go out and help people with their problems instead of asking why they don't do it themselves. Refusing material rewards and thus being charitable is "good" while negotiating for more money from those you are in a position of power over is "evil." If anyone is trying to take over the world/government/high school drama club and rule over others then the hero goes out to stop them and free the underclasses from the yoke of their oppressor. Executing prisoners is evil. Solving the inherent problems that lead to violence is better than simply attacking the people who are causing it. Etc etc. So I think that adding in new ideas from current political discourse isn't totally out there.
As I said "not quite in the spirit," I was not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. As for the second point, helping people is not inherently left-wing (and I actually grew up politically as a Trotskyist). I think that we are better off politically when we are empiricists, which is sort of like being closer to the center of the political spectrum, from there we can examine both sides of the spectrum, and make better judgements about what works and what doesn't work politically, and morally. I'm not sure if many video games are as left wing as you say, I think that many actually fall closer to fascism. The idea of an all powerful ubermench, a judge, jury and executioner, who is seen as morally superior to the average Joe, or a party of them who 'know better', all for the 'betterment' of everyone else, is closer to the fantasies of the far right. Rarely do we have games (though the Witcher seems to question it somewhat) where we see the notion of what I call, the 'benign' dictatorship (I take the term from Christopher Hitchens) questioned. The danger of the benign dictatorship, is that people stop asking questions, they are more likley to shut-up and drink their victory gin without asking 'what's with this victory thing?' or 'Where did this gin come form?' and 'why does this farm boy turned demigod have all this authority'?
As for this good and bad dichotomy, I don't think that there is anything new about the distinction of good and evil. And nuanced discussion in contemporary moral issues don't really fit well into D&D, I doubt that we will see things like stem cell ethics in D&D. I doubt that we will see quests that are closer to real life where everything you do seems to cause suffering, and your best is just to mitigate the loss. I also think that transgender issues from our current political discourse do not seem to fit in the Forgotten Realms, as 'issues'. I think a speculative fiction would be better, as the Forgotten Relams is world with magic, where changing gender is more simple (sometimes it happens by accident), and there is a pantheon of gods who interfere in the lives of mortals, and some of these gods seem to support gender change. So instead of transgenderism being an 'issue', as it is often portrayed in many different mediums that try to reflect on real life, the Forgotten realms could be an examination of a place where changing gender is seen as normal.
And I think your missing my point. As I stated earlier in another thread, many people are arguing about two different things here.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BDGIII.
So now instead of talking about the game itself, and how to make it better and how to ensure there are more games in the future, we're talking about this. Beamdogs actions and statements were irresponsible and invited this kind of debate when it should never have been taking place here. At the same time they've antagonized and literally silenced a large number of people who were part of the core customer base for Baldurs Gate.
The whole thing has hurt the franchise and the developer is responsible for that. That's my biggest issue and why I have little faith in them at this point.
Well, the first problem is that it doesn't matter if people are arguing about two different things. You were specifically responding to MY post (about the uproar over the transgendered issue) and said that you could understand how people think the developers are making a political statement due to their personal views. As for the GamerGate statement, even if it wasn't included, I am pretty certain that many of the same people would still be angry over the transgendered character. Look at the comments on here about it.
The GamerGate people shouldn't even have a problem with the developers choosing to make the comment about GamerGate in the first place. I mean, considering how often they tell other people how important it is to let game developers make games they way they want. Its funny how GamerGaters like to talk about how they think Feminists and other groups get upset over things they consider trivial, such as something in a video game.... And yet they get upset about the very same types of things. lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I just find all of the hypocrisy quite amazing. Its like they have a complete lack of self-awareness.
The GamerGate people shouldn't even have a problem with the developers choosing to make the comment about GamerGate in the first place. I mean, considering how often they tell other people how important it is to let game developers make games they way they want. Its funny how GamerGaters like to talk about how they think Feminists and other groups get upset over things they consider trivial, such as something in a video game.... And yet they get upset about the very same types of things. lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I just find all of the hypocrisy quite amazing. Its like they have a complete lack of self-awareness.
Here's a thread for you illustrating the lack of your perceived hypocrisy actually occurring in reality.
Why is the gamergate community against that line? Why not own it and say that Minsc is supporting you? There is the automatic assumption of being victimized. Wouldn't it have been a greater victory and the high road to take it and make it yours?
There's also a third possibility. People who aren't involved in either the SJW or GG community and would like to see the GG references removed as well.
For people on the sidelines watching this and the GG thing over the last 18 months or so, we don't want to be involved in the politics, we don't want to see the politics spread from the internet into games, especially in games like this one. All we want to do is play games. You can keep the politics out of it and it's what should have been done in the first place.
And I think your missing my point. As I stated earlier in another thread, many people are arguing about two different things here.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BDGIII.
So now instead of talking about the game itself, and how to make it better and how to ensure there are more games in the future, we're talking about this. Beamdogs actions and statements were irresponsible and invited this kind of debate when it should never have been taking place here. At the same time they've antagonized and literally silenced a large number of people who were part of the core customer base for Baldurs Gate.
The whole thing has hurt the franchise and the developer is responsible for that. That's my biggest issue and why I have little faith in them at this point.
Well, the first problem is that it doesn't matter if people are arguing about two different things. You were specifically responding to MY post (about the uproar over the transgendered issue) and said that you could understand how people think the developers are making a political statement due to their personal views. As for the GamerGate statement, even if it wasn't included, I am pretty certain that many of the same people would still be angry over the transgendered character. Look at the comments on here about it.
The GamerGate people shouldn't even have a problem with the developers choosing to make the comment about GamerGate in the first place. I mean, considering how often they tell other people how important it is to let game developers make games they way they want. Its funny how GamerGaters like to talk about how they think Feminists and other groups get upset over things they consider trivial, such as something in a video game.... And yet they get upset about the very same types of things. lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I just find all of the hypocrisy quite amazing. Its like they have a complete lack of self-awareness.
What you think other people should or shouldn't have a problem with has little bearing on what those other people feel they have a problem with. What should happen and what did happen are not the same.
You're here to debate GamerGate and argue about all of that other stuff. I find none of it amusing.
I find it interesting that GamerGaters were even demanding for the line to be removed, considering how often they scream at me about "artistic integrity" and how developers should be free to say what they want without having people complain. I guess free speech only matters when the developer is doing something they agree with....
Well, that's what I like to call a universal hypocrisy, everyone does it. The rules apply to everyone except me/us. Also, artistic integrity I think is misunderstood. When a person is constantly bombarded by harassment and then changes something and states "I am changing this so you'll leave me alone", that is a violation of a person's artistic integrity by others. When a person is faced with complaints about something and then changes it while saying "I and members of my team took a look at what people were talking about, and can see where the complaints have merit, therefore we will remove it." That is artistic integrity, because the artist decided, with some thought, to change it. These things sound similar, because artistic integrity is a very fine line, and I don't think certain parties understand the distinction.
While that is true, it really only becomes an issue of hypocrisy if the group in question is constantly yelling about free speech. GamerGaters put themselves in this position by claiming free speech is important and then proceeding to stomp all over it when it involves a view they don't support.
Wait a minute... And how exactly do you determine what is a valid complaint and what is harassment? If a group of people send a lot of complaints about a character making a sexist comment and a group of GamerGaters send a lot of complaints about a character making a joke about their group, what is the difference between them? Careful, I have a feeling you are dangerously close to putting yourself in an untenable position.
However, regardless of whether it is harassment or just complaints, it doesn't change the fact that they are trying to convince the developers to change something that offended them instead of letting the devs express themselves freely. If GamerGaters truly believed in artistic freedom then they should be telling the developers to leave the comment in the game.
Once again, you bring up GG boogeymen. There is a place where over 60,000 of them congregate. Want to see a top rated thread asking for the removal of that GG line? Won't find one. But you will find one on how nobody was really asking for it.
The GamerGate people shouldn't even have a problem with the developers choosing to make the comment about GamerGate in the first place. I mean, considering how often they tell other people how important it is to let game developers make games they way they want. Its funny how GamerGaters like to talk about how they think Feminists and other groups get upset over things they consider trivial, such as something in a video game.... And yet they get upset about the very same types of things. lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I just find all of the hypocrisy quite amazing. Its like they have a complete lack of self-awareness.
Here's a thread for you illustrating the lack of your perceived hypocrisy actually occurring in reality.
And Beamdog removing the line instead of admitting that it was a case of bad writing makes the people who criticized it look worst, and the writers save a little bit of face. lol
Comments
Something that I think is interesting is that the RPG genre seems to be inherently left-wing. Heroes go out and help people with their problems instead of asking why they don't do it themselves. Refusing material rewards and thus being charitable is "good" while negotiating for more money from those you are in a position of power over is "evil." If anyone is trying to take over the world/government/high school drama club and rule over others then the hero goes out to stop them and free the underclasses from the yoke of their oppressor. Executing prisoners is evil. Solving the inherent problems that lead to violence is better than simply attacking the people who are causing it. Etc etc. So I think that adding in new ideas from current political discourse isn't totally out there.
“I consciously add as much diversity as I can to my writing and I don’t care if people think that’s “forced” or fake. I find choosing to write from a straight default just as artificial. I’m happy to be an SJW and I hope to write many Social Justice Games in the future”
I don't have much of a problem with the writer sending whatever message she wants with the story or the characters. Those can stand or fall on their own merits within the game, but to come out and make that statement, in addition to the other actions that Beamdog took in public, was to invite this debate to take place around the game. That has not been at all productive to actually improving the game and ensuring the franchise continues.
She made the comment on THIS forum.
Are we not supposed to take her at her word? She felt that way then but did not feel that way when writing this game?
"It's all about ethics in adventuring."
GG automatically claims victimhood and demands it be removed.
Why not say: "I think Mith is a SWJ, but Minsc is GG! We win!"
Instead there is all this drama when you lot could have claimed victory from the get go. Rather baffling how some people would rather be butt hurt than happy.
The GamerGate line is about GamerGate, not transgendered people. What a person believes personally and what is presented in their work are separate issues. From my point of view, the reality is that the game doesn't actually make any political statements other than mocking GamerGate.
It is telling that GGers were so thin skinned that they just assumed it was against them.
From what I've seen, the game doesn't make too much of an overt political statement. The one they did make, the line from Minsc, has been removed but the damage was done. That line seemed to be included to do nothing more that give a poke in the eye to a group the developers didn't like. Then the public statements that the writer made, the tweets Dee made to involve feminist frequency... The net effect of all of that, was to bring in both sides of this huge argument over culture and politics, leaving the game right in the middle of it. Why do that to this game? This was a chance to show that they can do Baldurs Gate right and hopefully make BGIII.
So now instead of talking about the game itself, and how to make it better and how to ensure there are more games in the future, we're talking about this. Beamdogs actions and statements were irresponsible and invited this kind of debate when it should never have been taking place here. At the same time they've antagonized and literally silenced a large number of people who were part of the core customer base for Baldurs Gate.
The whole thing has hurt the franchise and the developer is responsible for that. That's my biggest issue and why I have little faith in them at this point.
As for this good and bad dichotomy, I don't think that there is anything new about the distinction of good and evil. And nuanced discussion in contemporary moral issues don't really fit well into D&D, I doubt that we will see things like stem cell ethics in D&D. I doubt that we will see quests that are closer to real life where everything you do seems to cause suffering, and your best is just to mitigate the loss. I also think that transgender issues from our current political discourse do not seem to fit in the Forgotten Realms, as 'issues'. I think a speculative fiction would be better, as the Forgotten Relams is world with magic, where changing gender is more simple (sometimes it happens by accident), and there is a pantheon of gods who interfere in the lives of mortals, and some of these gods seem to support gender change. So instead of transgenderism being an 'issue', as it is often portrayed in many different mediums that try to reflect on real life, the Forgotten realms could be an examination of a place where changing gender is seen as normal.
The GamerGate people shouldn't even have a problem with the developers choosing to make the comment about GamerGate in the first place. I mean, considering how often they tell other people how important it is to let game developers make games they way they want. Its funny how GamerGaters like to talk about how they think Feminists and other groups get upset over things they consider trivial, such as something in a video game.... And yet they get upset about the very same types of things. lol If a developer made a game that made a joke about Feminists do you think these GamerGaters would say "Hey, they are right! The developers shouldn't have included that line because it antagonized and silenced them!" Of course not, they would be saying something like "See, feminists get upset over silly things like a joke in a video game!"
I just find all of the hypocrisy quite amazing. Its like they have a complete lack of self-awareness.
For people on the sidelines watching this and the GG thing over the last 18 months or so, we don't want to be involved in the politics, we don't want to see the politics spread from the internet into games, especially in games like this one. All we want to do is play games. You can keep the politics out of it and it's what should have been done in the first place.
You're here to debate GamerGate and argue about all of that other stuff. I find none of it amusing.
It's hurt the game, and that makes me sad.
Have a good night.
Wait a minute... And how exactly do you determine what is a valid complaint and what is harassment? If a group of people send a lot of complaints about a character making a sexist comment and a group of GamerGaters send a lot of complaints about a character making a joke about their group, what is the difference between them? Careful, I have a feeling you are dangerously close to putting yourself in an untenable position.
However, regardless of whether it is harassment or just complaints, it doesn't change the fact that they are trying to convince the developers to change something that offended them instead of letting the devs express themselves freely. If GamerGaters truly believed in artistic freedom then they should be telling the developers to leave the comment in the game.