Wait, why is opposite? Isn't saying "males and females are equal" slightly more egalitarian "females are just as good as males"? That's the change the Enhanced Editions made.
It doesn't say that. If you choose male, it says "Males of the Realms can excel in whatever profession they choose," and if you choose female it says the same thing. It's the originals that belabour the point of women being equal to men.
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 is electric blue hair, but it's still nice to have for people who might want it.
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.
BGII has been one of my favourite games since the day of release, but as far as I'm concerned, all Siege of Dragonspear needed was fun gameplay, cool characters and an engaging story. Whether it has those or not is another discussion; truth told, Beamdog's writing has never impressed me much. But in terms of whether the game is more progressive than what it used to be? I don't care. Just entertain me.
@spacehamzter When I created this thread I decided to let it go and not contribute to it. And I think that was a good decision because many of the contributions to this thread were better than my contributions would have been.
When I saw your first post I wasn't sure if you -- an internet being with a Minsc avatar and a username that references Minsc -- were channeling your character or if you were expressing the sincere opinions of the person behind the persona. And I'm still not. But I'm going to take a chance, assume it is the later and reply not as a viscous rabbit but in my everyday garb as Captain Serious. I'd rather ruin the thread than let your points go unremarked upon.
Your point about tokenism is spot on. There is a rule that there can only be one black guy per movie. He is often there in the form of black-best-friend. The character whose only purpose is to assure the audience that the main character is not a racist. Having served that purpose he can then serve his secondary purpose -- to die at the hands of the villain; an act that shows the villain is truly evil. And this trope has real effects -- the black guy doesn't get many lines and the actor walks away with significantly less money in his pocket. Yes it happened in Star Wars and it looks like it is going to happen in the newest Captain America. To ignore this sort of information is to walk around with a certain form of blindness, to let it be the only thing you see to allow others to make your life miserable. [*]
(this is why it befuddles me that people are upset that a writer, channeling captain obvious, noted that BG1 Jaheria was sexist. it is possible to be both a critic and a fan)
And it is sad that TV and Movies have progressed so little since the time of Star Trek but Roddenberry's decision to put Uhura on the main set -- where audiences saw her for large portions of the episode -- was a progressive, political act. And a controversial one at the time. Her character was competent, the actress was beautiful and her mere presence was a statement against racism. @Purudaya has described my intentions well -- thank you -- one of the things I was trying to do is show how acts that no longer seem 'political' were indeed political in their time. [**]
Another thing I was trying to do was comment on shielding and the strategy that-will-not-be-named. I wanted to show how easy it is to make a claim such as 'I am not racist' and how easy it is for a modern audience to detect that the author is indeed racist despite the disclaimer. The author of this letter picks up the concept of tokenism but uses that important concept *against* the civil rights movement. We only have the author's assurance that his black acquaintance is a friend -- and we doubt that don't we -- but he isn't doing his friend any favors. This is a one way relationship, the black 'friend' serves a shield for the author's racist attitudes.
And I this is one the parallels I see to the controversy at hand: people who have never done a damn thing on behalf of trans people are picking up the 'undeveloped' / 'shoehorned' narrative and using against the developers who put a trans character into a game. Because they care so very much about fully developed trans characters and have said so before now. Tokenism is an important concept and one that should be used a tool to argue for inclusivity, diversity and pay equity *but* when the tool is the hands of the-author-of-this-letter it being used against those goods; a pipe wrench can be used to fix pipes or it can be used as a club.
In the Beamdog case, words that should be used on behalf on trans people are being used against their interests; an important tool is being misused.
killerrabbit
[*] There is hope -- Sleepy Hollow is an exception. And a fun show.
@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.
I would never attempt to speak for an entire group and frankly neither should you. As a sociologist, I was obviously speaking to a growing consensus among academics in a field that spends a good deal of time studying inequality, ethnicity, and representation. Consensus does not mean universality, either.
Good luck with whatever you're trying to accomplish.
I am offended by the previous letter from the man (or woman) who was offended by interracial fraternization between men (or women) and women (or women or men or women) in the Star Trek show. I don't think the letter is authentic, and was merely included for a cheap laugh.
Now I have nothing against humor. No one likes a good laugh more than I do. Except my wife. And that man (or woman) I met in the cafeteria last week. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point! Also, many of my best friends are lumberjacks, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully, Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mrs.
P.S. I have never kissed the editor of the Radio Times.
There is a rule that there can only be one black guy per movie. He is often there in the form of black-best-friend. The character whose only purpose is to assure the audience that the main character is not a racist. Having served that purpose he can then serve his secondary purpose -- to die at the hands of the villain; an act that shows the villain is truly evil. And this trope has real effects -- the black guy doesn't get many lines and the actor walks away with significantly less money in his pocket
Does this description evoke in anyone else the same relevant vision that I'm having?...
For anyone reading the initial post of this thread who has never been a Star Trek fan and doesn't understand, here is an interview with the actress who played the black female officer in the show, Nichelle Nichols, telling the story of how Martin Luther King, Jr. convinced her not to quit the show after the first year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSq_UIuxba8
Here, she tells the story of how a former "skin head" at a fan convention told her that seeing her character on the show changed his life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2AX34Fs4wQ
Here, she tells about the reaction from the U.S. public to the first ever interracial kiss in television history, between her and William Shatner. The NBC executives hated the idea so much, that the only way Gene Roddenberry could get the episode approved was to rewrite his original script (sound familiar, anyone?) so that the kiss was forced by telepathic aliens, against the characters' wills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRfRXcP1Gsg
Even though Beamdog may have failed with what they were trying to do (although that remains to be seen), I think their hearts were in the right place, and they were trying to follow in Gene Roddenberry's footsteps in trying to change hearts and minds through good storytelling in fantasy and sci-fi. At the least, they've gotten a lot of people to start talking and thinking about their attitudes. In that much, I think they've succeeded.
Comments
When I saw your first post I wasn't sure if you -- an internet being with a Minsc avatar and a username that references Minsc -- were channeling your character or if you were expressing the sincere opinions of the person behind the persona. And I'm still not. But I'm going to take a chance, assume it is the later and reply not as a viscous rabbit but in my everyday garb as Captain Serious. I'd rather ruin the thread than let your points go unremarked upon.
Your point about tokenism is spot on. There is a rule that there can only be one black guy per movie. He is often there in the form of black-best-friend. The character whose only purpose is to assure the audience that the main character is not a racist. Having served that purpose he can then serve his secondary purpose -- to die at the hands of the villain; an act that shows the villain is truly evil. And this trope has real effects -- the black guy doesn't get many lines and the actor walks away with significantly less money in his pocket. Yes it happened in Star Wars and it looks like it is going to happen in the newest Captain America. To ignore this sort of information is to walk around with a certain form of blindness, to let it be the only thing you see to allow others to make your life miserable. [*]
(this is why it befuddles me that people are upset that a writer, channeling captain obvious, noted that BG1 Jaheria was sexist. it is possible to be both a critic and a fan)
And it is sad that TV and Movies have progressed so little since the time of Star Trek but Roddenberry's decision to put Uhura on the main set -- where audiences saw her for large portions of the episode -- was a progressive, political act. And a controversial one at the time. Her character was competent, the actress was beautiful and her mere presence was a statement against racism. @Purudaya has described my intentions well -- thank you -- one of the things I was trying to do is show how acts that no longer seem 'political' were indeed political in their time. [**]
Another thing I was trying to do was comment on shielding and the strategy that-will-not-be-named. I wanted to show how easy it is to make a claim such as 'I am not racist' and how easy it is for a modern audience to detect that the author is indeed racist despite the disclaimer. The author of this letter picks up the concept of tokenism but uses that important concept *against* the civil rights movement. We only have the author's assurance that his black acquaintance is a friend -- and we doubt that don't we -- but he isn't doing his friend any favors. This is a one way relationship, the black 'friend' serves a shield for the author's racist attitudes.
And I this is one the parallels I see to the controversy at hand: people who have never done a damn thing on behalf of trans people are picking up the 'undeveloped' / 'shoehorned' narrative and using against the developers who put a trans character into a game. Because they care so very much about fully developed trans characters and have said so before now. Tokenism is an important concept and one that should be used a tool to argue for inclusivity, diversity and pay equity *but* when the tool is the hands of the-author-of-this-letter it being used against those goods; a pipe wrench can be used to fix pipes or it can be used as a club.
In the Beamdog case, words that should be used on behalf on trans people are being used against their interests; an important tool is being misused.
killerrabbit
[*] There is hope -- Sleepy Hollow is an exception. And a fun show.
[**] And yes we now need to move beyond that.
Good luck with whatever you're trying to accomplish.
Dear Sirs,
I am offended by the previous letter from the man (or woman) who was offended by interracial fraternization between men (or women) and women (or women or men or women) in the Star Trek show. I don't think the letter is authentic, and was merely included for a cheap laugh.
Now I have nothing against humor. No one likes a good laugh more than I do. Except my wife. And that man (or woman) I met in the cafeteria last week. Come to think of it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the point!
Also, many of my best friends are lumberjacks, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully, Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong, Mrs.
P.S. I have never kissed the editor of the Radio Times.
Here, she tells the story of how a former "skin head" at a fan convention told her that seeing her character on the show changed his life:
Here, she tells about the reaction from the U.S. public to the first ever interracial kiss in television history, between her and William Shatner. The NBC executives hated the idea so much, that the only way Gene Roddenberry could get the episode approved was to rewrite his original script (sound familiar, anyone?) so that the kiss was forced by telepathic aliens, against the characters' wills:
Even though Beamdog may have failed with what they were trying to do (although that remains to be seen), I think their hearts were in the right place, and they were trying to follow in Gene Roddenberry's footsteps in trying to change hearts and minds through good storytelling in fantasy and sci-fi. At the least, they've gotten a lot of people to start talking and thinking about their attitudes. In that much, I think they've succeeded.