Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
Without lecturing you on your admittedly subjective preferences, can I suggest you check out this person:
Hmm. I still find it somewhat misplaced in a medieval-type setting on principle. In a current day or futuristic Mass Effect-esque kind of setting I find it believeable, since it would probably be a common occurence the inhabitants wouldn't really think twice about.
It grates on the credibility to me. Yeah, in a world of dragons and magic, I know. So sue me.
Without lecturing you on your admittedly subjective preferences, can I suggest you check out this person:
(Other people who should check out this person: everyone who doesn't already know who they are)
Yeah, what about it?
Chevalier d'Eon is a pre-industrial transgender person. Debatably a transgender woman, specifically.
So... lemme get this straight: Because I feel that TG-etc.-persons are an oddity in a BG-type medieval setting, you're counterargument is a link to a French transgendered spy from the Romantic Era?
That's great and all, but I still have to ask: What about it?
That transgender people are not an oddity in any setting. What changes is how open they are about their existence.
BG's setting isn't medieval, either. It's quite far removed from that.
Call it whatever you like. You know, I appreciate the try, but I have that funny quirk in my personality. If I don't find that the two concepts blend perfectly, that's just the way it is.
If the author says so it's his or her world and his or her choice. Such a choice lacks verisimilitude and indicates a probable agenda (whether an agenda is bad or not is a separate question).
It's as verisimiliar as any other artistic choice - we'd grown above naivety of Stendhal's mirror and nineteenth century realism. Anyhow - fair enough.
As hard as I look, I simply cannot find any tangible and meaningful examples of this so-called PC, "social justice" agenda in games no matter where I look for it. I mean what is the real issue here?? Gay or transgender people being in games and not being caricatures or demeaned?? Does this qualify as a bad thing?? Someone point to some examples of games which are turning the gaming industry and it's consumers on it's head. One character in Dragon Age Inquisition?? A merchant in an expansion to a game that can be described as niche at best?? Much like the North Carolina bathroom bill, this entire argument and worry seems to be over a problem which doesn't seem to exist in any real way.
It's an example, that you might not have known about, of a famous transgendered person in a pre-modern setting. The intent was that it might make you reconsider the verisimilitude of tg people in a fantasy setting and how they might fit in (in contrast to how they might fit in in modern and futuristic settings), and if not, is at least an interesting piece of history.
So? I might be dense, but I still don't really see the relevance in it.
What part of what I said did you not understand? Legitimate question, I'm not seeing the source of your confusion. I thought my last post explained pretty clearly what the relevance was:
"The intent was that it might make you reconsider the verisimilitude of tg people in a fantasy setting and how they might fit in (in contrast to how they might fit in in modern and futuristic settings), and if not, is at least an interesting piece of history."
Chevalier d'Eon's example demonstrates that, however rare transgender folks might have been in a premodern environment, some did exist. Therefore, in a premodern environment like Faerun, transgender people could be expected to be present, albeit very uncommon.
The fact that Chevalier d'Eon existed supports @Ayiekie's point. The fact that Chevalier d'Eon was such a rare example supports @Yulaw9460's point.
Call it whatever you like. You know, I appreciate the try, but I have that funny quirk in my personality. If I don't find that the two concepts blend perfectly, that's just the way it is.
Ed Greenwood has said explicitly that openly gay and transgendered people exist in the Forgotten Realms settings.
Honestly, that should settle the realism question.
I really don't see why this is so hard a concept. People in Faerun don't need to sit around pretending that gays or blacks or jews are evil monsters, they have actual evil monsters to deal with.
Or as Terry Pratchett said: Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green. -- (Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad)
Since your stance is that it's misplaced and not that it's rare it doesn't actually support your stance.
It is specious to assume that Chevalier d'Eon was the only possible transgender person of her time. There were certainly others who lacked her social freedom, her resources, or her support. There's no reason to assume that transgender people are a modern development - only that calling them transgender and identifying their needs is a modern development (well, modern in as much as identifying and meeting those needs goes back as far as the 1920s and simple identification goes back farther).
I know you've said you won't change your opinion, so this post isn't exactly for your benefit. I think it does help to at least point out where a statement is factually wrong (you're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts).
So? I might be dense, but I still don't really see the relevance in it.
What part of what I said did you not understand? Legitimate question, I'm not seeing the source of your confusion. I thought my last post explained pretty clearly what the relevance was:
"The intent was that it might make you reconsider the verisimilitude of tg people in a fantasy setting and how they might fit in (in contrast to how they might fit in in modern and futuristic settings), and if not, is at least an interesting piece of history."
And why is it so important for you to get me to reconsider my stand, when it ought to be pretty clear by now that that boat has clearly sailed long ago? I find that it's misplaced in this particular setting. In how many different ways do I have to iterate the same statement? I'm starting to run out of ways to say it, and quite frankly, I'm not usually this patient about having to repeat myself.
So reading about Chevalier d'Eon was an interesting piece of history. Thanks for the history lesson, I suppose. I still fail to see how that adresses the issue. If nothing else, as pointed out above, the rarity of a Chevalier d'Eon-person in history would probably even validate my claim even more.
What exactly is your issue? That the predudices of an imaginary world, as dictated by the creator of said world, are different (not more, not less, just different) to the predudices of your particular corner of America?
If you want to create a setting for your game of D&D where transgender, gays, and women are feared more than dragons and vampires, you are, of course, free to do so.
And why is it so important for you to get me to reconsider my stand, when it ought to be pretty clear by now that that boat has clearly sailed long ago? I find that it's misplaced in this particular setting. In how many different ways do I have to iterate the same statement? I'm starting to run out of ways to say it, and quite frankly, I'm not usually this patient about having to repeat myself.
I wasn't attacking your stance. I actually said that at the beginning.
To sum up, here's all I said: "Here's something that might change your mind. If not, at least it may be something interesting you didn't know about before."
That's it. If it didn't change your mind, I'm not pushing you over it. You're allowed to think anything ruins your verisimilitude. For instance, I game with someone who hates guns and cannons in D&D, despite the fact that they existed in the time period D&D draws upon; que sera, sera.
It's not that important to me. I just threw out an interesting figure that I thought might change your mind on the verisimilitude of tg people in a historical-ish setting. If it didn't, it didn't. Your taste is your taste and I have no beef with you over that.
So reading about Chevalier d'Eon was an interesting piece of history. Thanks for the history lesson, I suppose. I still fail to see how that adresses the issue. If nothing else, as pointed out above, the rarity of a Chevalier d'Eon-person in history would probably even validate my claim even more.
Well, d'Eon was also a master spy and a world-class fencer. That's why we know who she was even today. Most people weren't any of those things! (Most people, needless to say, also couldn't have gotten away with demanding the king treat them as a female.)
It's the same way we can only say definitively a few towering figures of ancient Rome were definitively homosexual/bisexual (Sulla and Hadrian are two I know off-hand). Not because it was super-rare, but more because you had to be remembered centuries later AND have it be public knowledge that you were homosexual/bisexual (it was a common rumour that Julius Caesar was, but we don't really know if that was true or just scurrilous gossip).
But, of course, PCs and major NPCs are far more likely to resemble D'Eon or Sulla than they are farming peasants who never travelled more than thirty kilometers from home in their lives, or recruits who fought and died in the army without ever being remembered.
What exactly is your issue? That the predudices of an imaginary world, as dictated by the creator of said world, are different (not more, not less, just different) to the predudices of your particular corner of America?
If you want to create a setting for your game of D&D where transgender, gays, and women are feared more than dragons and vampires, you are, of course, free to do so.
To be fair here, @Yulaw9460 hasn't said anything particularly transphobic. He (I assume) has simply said he doesn't feel transgendered people "fit" in a setting like D&D, as opposed to a modern or futuristic setting.
The latter part indicates (at least to me) that this is more a verisimilitude thing than a prejudice thing. At the very least, it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.
(As an aside note, for a fantasy setting that does use gender dysphoria, White Wolf's Exalted has several different takes on it, including two different "third gender" cultures, a bi-gendered moon deity, and many other things. Exalted's setting is pretty kewl in general if one likes kitchen sink high fantasy.)
Exalted also had a hearthstone (magical gem-type thing) that would allow the owner to change gender at will, and one type of Exalted (Lunars) often could change gender at will anyway.
In third edition, a dereth (in this case a man who was assigned female at birth) is on the cover.
What exactly is your issue? That the predudices of an imaginary world, as dictated by the creator of said world, are different (not more, not less, just different) to the predudices of your particular corner of America?
If you want to create a setting for your game of D&D where transgender, gays, and women are feared more than dragons and vampires, you are, of course, free to do so.
To be fair here, @Yulaw9460 hasn't said anything particularly transphobic. He (I assume) has simply said he doesn't feel transgendered people "fit" in a setting like D&D, as opposed to a modern or futuristic setting.
It's not something you would even notice if you weren't transphobic.
The latter part indicates (at least to me) that this is more a verisimilitude thing than a prejudice thing. At the very least, it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.
Which, as has been pointed out a great many times, by many posters, for many reasons, is a completely invalid argument.
A refusal to accept them is blind prejudice, pure and simple.
The Realms settings (The most know setting for D&D) is the work of Ed Greenwood who have say publicly there not problem with trans character existence in the Realms.
D&D are currently a WotC licence who have agree publicly with Ed Greenwood. The "you can play whatever gender identity character you want" is a long detailled statement in the 5th edition of D&D in the character creation part.
But it seems people keep having more hard time with trans characters presence than dragons, giants seven legged spiders and childs of dead god having flashback of their dad death just by walking on a bridge.
But it seems people keep having more hard time with trans characters presence than dragons, giants seven legged spiders and childs of dead god having flashback of their dad death just by walking on a bridge.
And this is of course what alot of Baldurs-Gate-Gate can be distilled down to.
Without referring to anyone in particular, an opinion that there shouldn't be trans characters in Siege of Dragonspear can be explained quite simply as that - namely that it is one's opinion, and is equally as valid as someone else suggesting that there should be trans characters in the game.
The problem comes when we know people have used this justification to mask bigotry and prejudice. Anyone who has been around the forums over the last few weeks has seen it. Posters explicitly saying that trans characters should not be put into mainstream computer games. Posters explicitly saying that putting trans characters in computer games is immoral. Posters explicitly saying that trans people are abnormal. Posters explicitly saying that Beamdog are pursuing a political agenda, and have used SoD to promulgate and promote that agenda through the inclusion of a trans character. And so on and so on.
And at the same time as the bigots were spewing their bigotry, other posters were saying the trans character shouldn't be included for purely game playing reasons.... that the character wasn't written very well, that the character contributed to immersion breaking in the game, that the setting didn't justify the inclusion of said character, and so on (but of course never having a problem with any of the other myriad of immersion breaking elements of the BG series, or the poor writing found elsewhere, or the pronouncements of the game setting creators and publishers) etc.
Which, as has been pointed out a great many times, by many posters, for many reasons, is a completely invalid argument.
A refusal to accept them is blind prejudice, pure and simple.
No, I cannot agree with that.
You cannot say that what someone says "feels right" or doesn't feel right in a fantasy setting is a valid or invalid argument. It is an opinion, a purely subjective opinion.
Just like my friend who can't accept guns and cannons in his D&D-esque fantasy (despite the fact they did exist in the real time periods that fantasy is very loosely based upon) does not have some sort of radical anti-cannon agenda, you cannot simply presume that a personal sense of verisimilitude comes from any source other than what subjectively feels right.
We've had a lot of people here who have made their transphobic opinions plain. But @Yulaw9460 isn't one of them. Attacking him with the assumption he has them isn't being excellent to him, and it also isn't fair. His posting history in the thread shows he has no real beef with Mizhena, doesn't have an issue with tg characters in other game settings, and even noted that he appreciated the absurdity of feeling she wasn't "realistic" in a setting that includes dragons and such.
This isn't, or shouldn't be, a "if you're not with us you're against us" sort of situation. There's been lots of people here in the past couple of months who had real blind prejudice - nothing said here has come close.
Comments
BG's setting isn't medieval, either. It's quite far removed from that.
Even if the author says what?
Anyhow - fair enough.
"The intent was that it might make you reconsider the verisimilitude of tg people in a fantasy setting and how they might fit in (in contrast to how they might fit in in modern and futuristic settings), and if not, is at least an interesting piece of history."
The fact that Chevalier d'Eon existed supports @Ayiekie's point. The fact that Chevalier d'Eon was such a rare example supports @Yulaw9460's point.
Ed Greenwood has said explicitly that openly gay and transgendered people exist in the Forgotten Realms settings.
Or as Terry Pratchett said:
Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad)
It is specious to assume that Chevalier d'Eon was the only possible transgender person of her time. There were certainly others who lacked her social freedom, her resources, or her support. There's no reason to assume that transgender people are a modern development - only that calling them transgender and identifying their needs is a modern development (well, modern in as much as identifying and meeting those needs goes back as far as the 1920s and simple identification goes back farther).
I know you've said you won't change your opinion, so this post isn't exactly for your benefit. I think it does help to at least point out where a statement is factually wrong (you're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts).
If you want to create a setting for your game of D&D where transgender, gays, and women are feared more than dragons and vampires, you are, of course, free to do so.
To sum up, here's all I said: "Here's something that might change your mind. If not, at least it may be something interesting you didn't know about before."
That's it. If it didn't change your mind, I'm not pushing you over it. You're allowed to think anything ruins your verisimilitude. For instance, I game with someone who hates guns and cannons in D&D, despite the fact that they existed in the time period D&D draws upon; que sera, sera.
It's not that important to me. I just threw out an interesting figure that I thought might change your mind on the verisimilitude of tg people in a historical-ish setting. If it didn't, it didn't. Your taste is your taste and I have no beef with you over that. Well, d'Eon was also a master spy and a world-class fencer. That's why we know who she was even today. Most people weren't any of those things! (Most people, needless to say, also couldn't have gotten away with demanding the king treat them as a female.)
It's the same way we can only say definitively a few towering figures of ancient Rome were definitively homosexual/bisexual (Sulla and Hadrian are two I know off-hand). Not because it was super-rare, but more because you had to be remembered centuries later AND have it be public knowledge that you were homosexual/bisexual (it was a common rumour that Julius Caesar was, but we don't really know if that was true or just scurrilous gossip).
But, of course, PCs and major NPCs are far more likely to resemble D'Eon or Sulla than they are farming peasants who never travelled more than thirty kilometers from home in their lives, or recruits who fought and died in the army without ever being remembered.
The latter part indicates (at least to me) that this is more a verisimilitude thing than a prejudice thing. At the very least, it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.
(As an aside note, for a fantasy setting that does use gender dysphoria, White Wolf's Exalted has several different takes on it, including two different "third gender" cultures, a bi-gendered moon deity, and many other things. Exalted's setting is pretty kewl in general if one likes kitchen sink high fantasy.)
In third edition, a dereth (in this case a man who was assigned female at birth) is on the cover.
A refusal to accept them is blind prejudice, pure and simple.
D&D are currently a WotC licence who have agree publicly with Ed Greenwood. The "you can play whatever gender identity character you want" is a long detailled statement in the 5th edition of D&D in the character creation part.
But it seems people keep having more hard time with trans characters presence than dragons, giants seven legged spiders and childs of dead god having flashback of their dad death just by walking on a bridge.
Without referring to anyone in particular, an opinion that there shouldn't be trans characters in Siege of Dragonspear can be explained quite simply as that - namely that it is one's opinion, and is equally as valid as someone else suggesting that there should be trans characters in the game.
The problem comes when we know people have used this justification to mask bigotry and prejudice. Anyone who has been around the forums over the last few weeks has seen it. Posters explicitly saying that trans characters should not be put into mainstream computer games. Posters explicitly saying that putting trans characters in computer games is immoral. Posters explicitly saying that trans people are abnormal. Posters explicitly saying that Beamdog are pursuing a political agenda, and have used SoD to promulgate and promote that agenda through the inclusion of a trans character. And so on and so on.
And at the same time as the bigots were spewing their bigotry, other posters were saying the trans character shouldn't be included for purely game playing reasons.... that the character wasn't written very well, that the character contributed to immersion breaking in the game, that the setting didn't justify the inclusion of said character, and so on (but of course never having a problem with any of the other myriad of immersion breaking elements of the BG series, or the poor writing found elsewhere, or the pronouncements of the game setting creators and publishers) etc.
You say tomato, I say tomato!
You cannot say that what someone says "feels right" or doesn't feel right in a fantasy setting is a valid or invalid argument. It is an opinion, a purely subjective opinion.
Just like my friend who can't accept guns and cannons in his D&D-esque fantasy (despite the fact they did exist in the real time periods that fantasy is very loosely based upon) does not have some sort of radical anti-cannon agenda, you cannot simply presume that a personal sense of verisimilitude comes from any source other than what subjectively feels right.
We've had a lot of people here who have made their transphobic opinions plain. But @Yulaw9460 isn't one of them. Attacking him with the assumption he has them isn't being excellent to him, and it also isn't fair. His posting history in the thread shows he has no real beef with Mizhena, doesn't have an issue with tg characters in other game settings, and even noted that he appreciated the absurdity of feeling she wasn't "realistic" in a setting that includes dragons and such.
This isn't, or shouldn't be, a "if you're not with us you're against us" sort of situation. There's been lots of people here in the past couple of months who had real blind prejudice - nothing said here has come close.