Here's something to think about. If Baldur's Gate didn't have that line originally, and Siege of Dragonspear added it, would people be complaining about its hamfistedness? My guess is "definitely."
November 9, 1966 Now I have nothing against negroes or chinamen but I do object your hamfisted portrayal of the characters. If you are going to put a negress on the screen her character should be fully developed and do more than simply answer the phone. At present the characters 'Uhura' and 'Sulu' serve no purpose except to signal support for race mixing. Indeed a good friend of mine, a negro himself, sees the Uhura character as a token.
ANOTHER CASE OF GUILTY WHITES USING "NEGROS" TO PROVE A POLITCAL POINT!!!!! some of us NEGROS don't like to be used to prove a political point, if you really had the ONE NEGRO FRIEND he would tell you that. i can tell this was written by a "white boy". To this day the one black guy in movies is the norm and its BS. We all know Finn should have been the Jedi in the new starwars movie but ever since the glass ceiling fell skinny white girls are taking the lead (just look at Rogue One). The world is not ready for a black man to run the show so we just get a replacement for Billy-D. That's why we were pissed about the Grammys. It makes guilty whites perhaps like you feel good to see a black guy in a movie. Its typical for guilty whites to justify themselves with "but I have a black friend" or "my favorite football star is black". As a black man when I see the one "Negro", I see the same old crap, "white guilt". Were glad you want us in your movies or your games but were not here to appease your guilt. As I said before to the gays and transgenders on here, get used to being that "one" person in the game so the guilty people can feel good about themselves. You don't see "negro" developers doing this. We, "Negros" have seen that political crap all our lives. Were happy that the gays and others have come out of closet and are getting all the attention now. After a while you will see that people are just using you for their own agendas. Diversity, at least real diversity, isn't a political statement. A game with real diversity makes the players blind to differences. There isn't just one "negro" or "transgender". If there is there not an abnormality or a poor victim to make us feel guilt but are a part of the context of the reality.
Here's something to think about. If Baldur's Gate didn't have that line originally, and Siege of Dragonspear added it, would people be complaining about its hamfistedness? My guess is "definitely."
Actually, wasn't that line introduced in the Enhanced Edition? IIRC, it said something else in the original games.
"When writing medieval fiction, you must consider the ramifications of the setting."
"Well, they openly ignored the ramifications of women's position in medieval society, so-"
"Excuse me, nobody brought that up."
Game UI adressing player is not part of the story setting.
That being said, women in Baldur's Gate are obviously more empowered than real life medieval women. But I wouldn't say devs completely ignored archaic gender norms. For example, Nalia de'Arnise can't inherit her late father's estate unless she marries her bethroted whom she loathes.
Do you think devs were being sexist when they wrote this?
Here's something to think about. If Baldur's Gate didn't have that line originally, and Siege of Dragonspear added it, would people be complaining about its hamfistedness? My guess is "definitely."
Actually, wasn't that line introduced in the Enhanced Edition? IIRC, it said something else in the original games.
Now that I look at it, it's the other way around. The original Baldur's Gate had the whole "Females are easily the equal of males" part. EE removed that and just had both texts say "Males/Females can excel in any area."
It also says "This is a purely aesthetic choice" before you even select a gender, so I don't know why they'd need to hammer that tidbit home. I smell politics.
Hello friend. The fact that the devs did not consider an Agnatic-Cognatic or even Absolute Cognatic system of succession is interesting but I think in this case it was simply an excuse for Charname to aquire the keep themselves.
Here's something to think about. If Baldur's Gate didn't have that line originally, and Siege of Dragonspear added it, would people be complaining about its hamfistedness? My guess is "definitely."
Actually, wasn't that line introduced in the Enhanced Edition? IIRC, it said something else in the original games.
Now that I look at it, it's the other way around. The original Baldur's Gate had the whole "Females are easily the equal of males" part. EE removed that and just had both texts say "Males/Females can excel in any area."
It also says "This is a purely aesthetic choice" before you even select a gender, so I don't know why they'd need to hammer that tidbit home. I smell politics.
Yet no one cared about this. Doesn't this go against your argument? Perhaps this controversy is not just some entitled bigots making a big deal out of every little thing?
Game UI adressing player is not part of the story setting.
Ah. So if, for example, the player could select "nonbinary" as their gender, and when they did, they got a spiel about how gender is actually a social construct and it's perfectly fine for someone to identify as neither male nor female, that would be okay?
That being said, women in Baldur's Gate are obviously more empowered than real life medieval women. But I wouldn't say devs completely ignored archaic gender norms. For example, Nalia de'Arnise can't inherit her late father's estate unless she marries her bethroted whom she loathes.
She does inherit the keep. She specifically says "It is my right as heir to choose who leads this place." The only reason she has to marry Isaea is that her father agreed to it before he died.
Even ignoring that, D&D is already more progressive than it "should" be. Homosexuality is no crime, for example. If you take issue with that then you take issue with the whole setting, not just Siege of Dragonspear.
Game UI adressing player is not part of the story setting.
Ah. So if, for example, the player could select "nonbinary" as their gender, and when they did, they got a spiel about how gender is actually a social construct and it's perfectly fine for someone to identify as neither male nor female, that would be okay?
That being said, women in Baldur's Gate are obviously more empowered than real life medieval women. But I wouldn't say devs completely ignored archaic gender norms. For example, Nalia de'Arnise can't inherit her late father's estate unless she marries her bethroted whom she loathes.
She does inherit the keep. She specifically says "It is my right as heir to choose who leads this place." The only reason she has to marry Isaea is that her father agreed to it before he died.
Even ignoring that, D&D is already more progressive than it "should" be. Homosexuality is no crime, for example. If you take issue with that then you take issue with the whole setting, not just Siege of Dragonspear.
Sex with animals is also not a crime just ask Minsc and Boo, ""After frolicking in a bush that we now consider to be of suspicious nature, both Boo and I have contracted the Calimshite Itch in rather... private places. A salve would be most joyously anticipated!" . I should contact PETA. Stuff like this is obviously used to justify Denmark's beast love laws.
Oh come now, @Grum, we all know what "frolicking" is a euphemism for, don't we?
But seriously, I don't think I'll ever stop being confused by people talking about how ham-handed Mizhena is, or how the inclusion of a trans character somehow breaks the forth wall, is too progressive for the Realms, or is social commentary that really shouldn't take place within a game. None of those points seem to have any real merit. Allow me to explain why.
Ham-handedness: If memory serves, the dialog in question was "my parents mistook me for a boy", when you ask about her name. I'm not sure how that's ham-handed. She's trans, and she exists. That's it. No giant rant about trans-inclusivity or anything. Just a trans character existing in a video game. That's what everyone's upset over.
Breaks the forth wall: I'm not really sure I understand this argument to begin with, but anyone who claims BG is totally immersive has a very selective memory of those games. Larry, Darryl, and Darryl, anyone? Lord Foreshadow? Jaheira, Edwin, and Tiax referencing the fact that you're playing a game? Bondari reloading his game? Let's face it, Baldur's Gate's forth wall is a door.
Too progressive for the Realms: Leaving out the fact that this apparently isn't true according to Ed Greenwood, how do you figure? Because a trans woman exists? Trans people have always existed, whether they've been accepted or not. Because no one seems to have a problem with her, and she doesn't have a problem telling people the story behind her name? She's the camp's main cleric, a fervent devotee of the Lord of Battles, and has no qualms about engaging the Hero of Baldur's Gate in a threat-off later in the game. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that the people of Baldur's Gate don't like trans people. I still don't see them starting anything with her.
Social commentary: The OP of this thread makes a strong argument, but let's tie that into Baldur's Gate, shall we? Baldur's Gate is a game where the main villains are a group of corrupt corporate executives who use underhanded means to corner a market and start a war that they'll profit from. At one point, the main character is asked to steal from a merchant guild, and the response options are essentially "okay, sure" and "stealing would make me no better than the merchants themselves." If that's not a political statement, I don't know what is. Gender is a new issue to bring up, certainly, but social commentary? That's been there the whole time.
Consider this also friends. Dungeons and Dragons has a long history of being a sort of "safe space" that people can retreat to. Nerds or Goths or whoever that didn't have a great time in high school could have a fun time playing D&D where they could be mighty barbarians or charismatic bards and everyone was welcome as long as they helped fight the dragon. To turn around now and say "actually no, these people don't fit" is to discard that legacy and take up the place of the oppressors that so many turned to these games to escape. Thank you.
Consider this also friends. Dungeons and Dragons has a long history of being a sort of "safe space" that people can retreat to. Nerds or Goths or whoever that didn't have a great time in high school could have a fun time playing D&D where they could be mighty barbarians or charismatic bards and everyone was welcome as long as they helped fight the dragon. To turn around now and say "actually no, these people don't fit" is to discard that legacy and take up the place of the oppressors that so many turned to these games to escape. Thank you.
Look, bro. Please don't use progressive words like "safe space", as it will give the ultra liberal writers even more excuses to force in more political statements.
... Wait. Isn't a safe space a place where you do not get to talk about politics? Or is it a one sided safe space where only one side of politics is accepted? *scratches his head in wonder*
I mean safe space as in a friendly environment where everybody can feel free to be themselves. Except for when they are pretending to be an elf, but you know what I mean friend.
I mean safe space as in a friendly environment where everybody can feel free to be themselves. Except for when they are pretending to be an elf, but you know what I mean friend.
But if I am myself and say that I'm tired of the politically correct messages of transgender and other stuff, everybody gets on my back. So not really a safe space, more like a one sided safe space. Dungeon and Dragons has become an extreme liberal world, for extreme liberals only.
I mean safe space as in a friendly environment where everybody can feel free to be themselves. Except for when they are pretending to be an elf, but you know what I mean friend.
But if I am myself and say that I'm tired of the politically correct messages of transgender and other stuff, everybody gets on my back. So not really a safe space, more like a one sided safe space. Dungeon and Dragons has become an extreme liberal world, for extreme liberals only.
In which case you are rejecting the inclusionary attitude that D&D fostered and choosing instead to remain in an insular and unchanging world. You are entitled to this of course but you should know where you stand. The times change and we must change with them or get out of the way. Thank you for reading my friend.
The Forgotten Realms does not take place in a medieval setting, it takes place in a high fantasy setting. People travel across alternate dimensions and talk with giant floating masses of eyeballs.
The Forgotten Realms is a medieval fantasy setting, and Baldur's Gate is a medieval fantasy franchise.
But by your logic, we then have to apply medieval realities to Baldur's Gate. That means no women's advancement and no black characters rising to power. If you're ok with those things being handwaved, why is LGBTQ inclusion any different?
You realize I am not the creator of the original games, right? You should ask them. I'm guessing they thought skin color based racism among humans would be redundant when you have elves and dwarves around. (If this matter occured to them at all.)
In any event, it's not at all strange that many people think an interquel which proposes to bridge the two original games should have a similar atmosphere to them.
Deflection. Your argument was about LGBTQ inclusion not belonging in a "medieval" setting, not about maintaining atmospheric cohesion between the three titles. And even if it were, I trust you were here protesting the inclusion of gay and lesbian characters when bg:ee was originally released?
You're wanting to have this both ways. Either the Forgotten Realms are a medieval setting and therefore need to apply era norms (oppression of women, minorities, and LGBTQ people alike) or they, as described by creator Ed Greenwood, aren't. You don't get to decide what the "setting" is, he does – and Greenwood has stated that LGBTQ people exist in the realms. Why this conversation keeps coming up despite his statements is beyond me.
November 9, 1966 Now I have nothing against negroes or chinamen but I do object your hamfisted portrayal of the characters. If you are going to put a negress on the screen her character should be fully developed and do more than simply answer the phone. At present the characters 'Uhura' and 'Sulu' serve no purpose except to signal support for race mixing. Indeed a good friend of mine, a negro himself, sees the Uhura character as a token.
ANOTHER CASE OF GUILTY WHITES USING "NEGROS" TO PROVE A POLITCAL POINT!!!!! some of us NEGROS don't like to be used to prove a political point, if you really had the ONE NEGRO FRIEND he would tell you that. i can tell this was written by a "white boy". To this day the one black guy in movies is the norm and its BS. We all know Finn should have been the Jedi in the new starwars movie but ever since the glass ceiling fell skinny white girls are taking the lead (just look at Rogue One). The world is not ready for a black man to run the show so we just get a replacement for Billy-D. That's why we were pissed about the Grammys. It makes guilty whites perhaps like you feel good to see a black guy in a movie. Its typical for guilty whites to justify themselves with "but I have a black friend" or "my favorite football star is black". As a black man when I see the one "Negro", I see the same old crap, "white guilt". Were glad you want us in your movies or your games but were not here to appease your guilt. As I said before to the gays and transgenders on here, get used to being that "one" person in the game so the guilty people can feel good about themselves. You don't see "negro" developers doing this. We, "Negros" have seen that political crap all our lives. Were happy that the gays and others have come out of closet and are getting all the attention now. After a while you will see that people are just using you for their own agendas. Diversity, at least real diversity, isn't a political statement. A game with real diversity makes the players blind to differences. There isn't just one "negro" or "transgender". If there is there not an abnormality or a poor victim to make us feel guilt but are a part of the context of the reality.
You keep quoting "negro" like it was presented as a slur. The OP was using parallelism and absurdism to criticise people in this forums who used words like "tranny" while claiming to have no problem with trans inclusion. The word was being used ironically.
"real diversity makes players blind to differences."
This line of thinking has LONG been debunked – real diversity encourages the acceptance and celebration of differences, not their erasure. You might want to check out Critical Race Theory and the general consensus re: colorblindness among black sociologists. Travis Smiley and Cornell West are smarter than both of us combined; could provide some interesting food for thought.
You said that if those lines in gender selection was introduced by SoD, people would be complaining about its hamfistedness. Turns out, those lines were different in the original games and were made identical for males and females in the Enhanced Edition games. And no one raised a complaint about it as far as I know. So you are wrong.
Ah. So if, for example, the player could select "nonbinary" as their gender, and when they did, they got a spiel about how gender is actually a social construct and it's perfectly fine for someone to identify as neither male nor female, that would be okay?
No, it wouldn't be okay, but neither would it be the same thing as characters talking about gender issues in modern/postmodern terminology. No more reductio ad absurdum please.
She does inherit the keep. She specifically says "It is my right as heir to choose who leads this place." The only reason she has to marry Isaea is that her father agreed to it before he died.
She doesn't inherit the keep unless a barbarian/fighter/monk Charname agrees to help her. The Roenalls take over the keep in that case. And this is only because she is a woman.
Even ignoring that, D&D is already more progressive than it "should" be. Homosexuality is no crime, for example. If you take issue with that then you take issue with the whole setting, not just Siege of Dragonspear.
Let me remind you that it was the writer of SoD who opened a can of worms by saying the sexism in the original games doesn't mesh with modern gamers. It is not like people on the opposing camp were calling for "regressive" changes.
Has the world become a much more progressive place since 1998-2001? Perhaps. But does this have to be acknowledged in a Baldur's Gate interquel of all places? I don't think so.
Now, I haven't played SoD yet (replaying BG:EE with 2.0 features), so there is a chance I will find out that the progressive themes in SoD weren't put in place for the sake of progressivism alone and work seamlessly with everything. I hope that's the case.
Deflection. Your argument was about LGBTQ inclusion not belonging in a "medieval" setting, not about maintaining atmospheric cohesion between the three titles. And even if it were, I trust you were here protesting the inclusion of gay and lesbian characters when bg:ee was originally released?
You seem to have misunderstood me. I never said LGBT didn't belong in medieval-based settings. How could anyone say that when LGBT existed in real life medieval era? You will notice my first post in this thread is about how LGBT people were handled in Game of Thrones, which has a medieval-based setting. (I'm not saying other medieval-based settings have to handle them in the same way.)
What I'm against, or let's say, what I'm skeptical of is this: "Updating" a medieval-based setting with progressive themes parallel with actual progresses in real world. Especially in a Baldur's Gate interquel. And this is not just about LGBT. Progressive themes can be about abortion laws, climate change, drug legalization, gender pay gap, gun control, you name it.
I'm very happy to be educated about these things elsewhere, just not in a Baldur's Gate interquel.
Indeed. And many of us think this is the case. So?
Well, good for you. Others seem to disagree. I haven't started SoD yet, but I hope I will in your camp when I do. I was troubled by Amber Scott's interview, but many who played SoD said she didn't change the characters as much as she said she would. And the opposing camp didn't respond to these feedback with concrete examples. So I'm hopeful.
Safana's been completely and utterly changed. It's horrible.
@Purudaya Lets see the OP toss that phrase around a bunch of real "Negros" in real life. Will see how absurd it is then wont we. So, a few brothers have another "theory", more like a "general consensus" from a few "Negros". I'm glad you know a few "Negros" that you can quote. If you want to study more of us we don't all agree and there is no such thing as a "general consensus", nice try. Even if there was one, So what, they are all theories and they don't debunk shit. Diversity celebrations are in fact not real. Every time you see one on TV there are politics involved. In order to celebrate others you need first to not have an agenda, a certain blindness to the difference. Putting one negro, gay, and transgender person into something just so that they can be there to make a statement is celebrating nothing.
You said that if those lines in gender selection was introduced by SoD, people would be complaining about its hamfistedness. Turns out, those lines were different in the original games and were made identical for males and females in the Enhanced Edition games. And no one raised a complaint about it as far as I know. So you are wrong.
I'm wrong because nobody complained about the opposite of the thing I was talking about?
No, it wouldn't be okay, but neither would it be the same thing as characters talking about gender issues in modern/postmodern terminology. No more reductio ad absurdum please.
Why would it not be okay?
And I don't know why you keep complaining about reductio ad absurdum as if it's some kind of fallacy, but that's neither here nor there.
She doesn't inherit the keep unless a barbarian/fighter/monk Charname agrees to help her. The Roenalls take over the keep in that case.
Yes, because she's betrothed to Isaea and she can't stand against the Roenalls alone. She's still heir to the keep, and says as much herself. Also, a female Charname gets to run the place just as much as a male one does.
Let me remind you that it was the writer of SoD who opened a can of worms by saying the sexism in the original games doesn't mesh with modern gamers. It is not like people on the opposing camp were calling for "regressive" changes.
So? I was objecting to this idea that because the setting's based on (but not actually set in) medieval Europe, people's attitudes have to mirror that era. If that's what you think, fine, but again, D&D was already doing it long before this game came out. Take it up with WotC, not Beamdog.
Has the world become a much more progressive place since 1998-2001? Perhaps. But does this have to be acknowledged in a Baldur's Gate interquel of all places? I don't think so.
"Doesn't have to be" isn't the same as "Shouldn't be."
I'm wrong because nobody complained about the opposite of the thing I was talking about?
Wait, why is opposite? Isn't saying "males and females are equal" slightly more egalitarian than "females are just as good as males"? That's the change the Enhanced Editions made.
Because I think non-binary gender selection would have been a completely unnecessary character creation mechanic in a game such as Baldur's Gate. Do you disagree?
So? I was objecting to this idea that because the setting's based on (but not actually set in) medieval Europe, people's attitudes have to mirror that era. If that's what you think, fine, but again, D&D was already doing it long before this game came out. Take it up with WotC, not Beamdog.
...
"Doesn't have to be" isn't the same as "Shouldn't be."
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I dare say the best Baldur's Gate interquel would be a game that feels like it was released in early 2000, around the same time as Planescape Torment (plus the technical enhancements, of course).
I don't mean this just in terms of presence of progressive themes either. For example, the idea of easter eggs in SoD making reference to fairly recent things makes me just as uneasy. (Speaking of which, are they any?)
To me, Baldur's Gate has a great deal of nostalgia value. But I appreciate not everyone feels the same way.
Comments
"Well, they openly ignored the ramifications of women's position in medieval society, so-"
"Excuse me, nobody brought that up."
i can tell this was written by a "white boy". To this day the one black guy in movies is the norm and its BS. We all know Finn should have been the Jedi in the new starwars movie but ever since the glass ceiling fell skinny white girls are taking the lead (just look at Rogue One). The world is not ready for a black man to run the show so we just get a replacement for Billy-D. That's why we were pissed about the Grammys. It makes guilty whites perhaps like you feel good to see a black guy in a movie. Its typical for guilty whites to justify themselves with "but I have a black friend" or "my favorite football star is black". As a black man when I see the one "Negro", I see the same old crap, "white guilt". Were glad you want us in your movies or your games but were not here to appease your guilt. As I said before to the gays and transgenders on here, get used to being that "one" person in the game so the guilty people can feel good about themselves. You don't see "negro" developers doing this. We, "Negros" have seen that political crap all our lives. Were happy that the gays and others have come out of closet and are getting all the attention now. After a while you will see that people are just using you for their own agendas. Diversity, at least real diversity, isn't a political statement. A game with real diversity makes the players blind to differences. There isn't just one "negro" or "transgender". If there is there not an abnormality or a poor victim to make us feel guilt but are a part of the context of the reality.
That being said, women in Baldur's Gate are obviously more empowered than real life medieval women. But I wouldn't say devs completely ignored archaic gender norms. For example, Nalia de'Arnise can't inherit her late father's estate unless she marries her bethroted whom she loathes.
Do you think devs were being sexist when they wrote this?
It also says "This is a purely aesthetic choice" before you even select a gender, so I don't know why they'd need to hammer that tidbit home. I smell politics.
Even ignoring that, D&D is already more progressive than it "should" be. Homosexuality is no crime, for example. If you take issue with that then you take issue with the whole setting, not just Siege of Dragonspear.
But seriously, I don't think I'll ever stop being confused by people talking about how ham-handed Mizhena is, or how the inclusion of a trans character somehow breaks the forth wall, is too progressive for the Realms, or is social commentary that really shouldn't take place within a game. None of those points seem to have any real merit. Allow me to explain why.
Ham-handedness: If memory serves, the dialog in question was "my parents mistook me for a boy", when you ask about her name. I'm not sure how that's ham-handed. She's trans, and she exists. That's it. No giant rant about trans-inclusivity or anything. Just a trans character existing in a video game. That's what everyone's upset over.
Breaks the forth wall: I'm not really sure I understand this argument to begin with, but anyone who claims BG is totally immersive has a very selective memory of those games. Larry, Darryl, and Darryl, anyone? Lord Foreshadow? Jaheira, Edwin, and Tiax referencing the fact that you're playing a game? Bondari reloading his game? Let's face it, Baldur's Gate's forth wall is a door.
Too progressive for the Realms: Leaving out the fact that this apparently isn't true according to Ed Greenwood, how do you figure? Because a trans woman exists? Trans people have always existed, whether they've been accepted or not. Because no one seems to have a problem with her, and she doesn't have a problem telling people the story behind her name? She's the camp's main cleric, a fervent devotee of the Lord of Battles, and has no qualms about engaging the Hero of Baldur's Gate in a threat-off later in the game. Let's pretend, just for a moment, that the people of Baldur's Gate don't like trans people. I still don't see them starting anything with her.
Social commentary: The OP of this thread makes a strong argument, but let's tie that into Baldur's Gate, shall we? Baldur's Gate is a game where the main villains are a group of corrupt corporate executives who use underhanded means to corner a market and start a war that they'll profit from. At one point, the main character is asked to steal from a merchant guild, and the response options are essentially "okay, sure" and "stealing would make me no better than the merchants themselves." If that's not a political statement, I don't know what is. Gender is a new issue to bring up, certainly, but social commentary? That's been there the whole time.
... Wait. Isn't a safe space a place where you do not get to talk about politics? Or is it a one sided safe space where only one side of politics is accepted? *scratches his head in wonder*
You're wanting to have this both ways. Either the Forgotten Realms are a medieval setting and therefore need to apply era norms (oppression of women, minorities, and LGBTQ people alike) or they, as described by creator Ed Greenwood, aren't. You don't get to decide what the "setting" is, he does – and Greenwood has stated that LGBTQ people exist in the realms. Why this conversation keeps coming up despite his statements is beyond me.
"real diversity makes players blind to differences."
This line of thinking has LONG been debunked – real diversity encourages the acceptance and celebration of differences, not their erasure. You might want to check out Critical Race Theory and the general consensus re: colorblindness among black sociologists. Travis Smiley and Cornell West are smarter than both of us combined; could provide some interesting food for thought.
Has the world become a much more progressive place since 1998-2001? Perhaps. But does this have to be acknowledged in a Baldur's Gate interquel of all places? I don't think so.
Now, I haven't played SoD yet (replaying BG:EE with 2.0 features), so there is a chance I will find out that the progressive themes in SoD weren't put in place for the sake of progressivism alone and work seamlessly with everything. I hope that's the case.
What I'm against, or let's say, what I'm skeptical of is this: "Updating" a medieval-based setting with progressive themes parallel with actual progresses in real world. Especially in a Baldur's Gate interquel. And this is not just about LGBT. Progressive themes can be about abortion laws, climate change, drug legalization, gender pay gap, gun control, you name it.
I'm very happy to be educated about these things elsewhere, just not in a Baldur's Gate interquel.
Everything else is pretty much fine.
And I don't know why you keep complaining about reductio ad absurdum as if it's some kind of fallacy, but that's neither here nor there. Yes, because she's betrothed to Isaea and she can't stand against the Roenalls alone. She's still heir to the keep, and says as much herself. Also, a female Charname gets to run the place just as much as a male one does. So? I was objecting to this idea that because the setting's based on (but not actually set in) medieval Europe, people's attitudes have to mirror that era. If that's what you think, fine, but again, D&D was already doing it long before this game came out. Take it up with WotC, not Beamdog. "Doesn't have to be" isn't the same as "Shouldn't be."
I don't mean this just in terms of presence of progressive themes either. For example, the idea of easter eggs in SoD making reference to fairly recent things makes me just as uneasy. (Speaking of which, are they any?)
To me, Baldur's Gate has a great deal of nostalgia value. But I appreciate not everyone feels the same way.