BG2 Jaheira is as important as the BG1 Jaheira, since BG2 expands on the same character.
Or are you saying that the character should be completely different in each game, even if each part of the game are pieces of a whole story?
*facepalm*
Your argument is that Amber comes off "as someone who hadn't even played the original games", and that she's "tampering with existing character's". Except she didn't write BG2 Jaheira. BG2 Jaheira hasn't been altered in any way. BG2 Jaheira isn't part of this discussion.
And what you have not done is present any evidence - not a screenshot, not a single line of dialogue - that proves SoD Jaheira is "completely different" from BG1 Jaheira. You don't have a single fact to back you up. So maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking and do your homework before you come in here with nothing more than misinformed opinions and BS.
BG2 Jaheira is as important as the BG1 Jaheira, since BG2 expands on the same character.
Or are you saying that the character should be completely different in each game, even if each part of the game are pieces of a whole story?
*facepalm*
Your argument is that Amber comes off "as someone who hadn't even played the original games", and that she's "tampering with existing character's". Except she didn't write BG2 Jaheira. BG2 Jaheira hasn't been altered in any way. BG2 Jaheira isn't part of this discussion.
And what you have not done is present any evidence - not a screenshot, not a single line of dialogue - that proves SoD Jaheira is "completely different" from BG1 Jaheira. You don't have a single fact to back you up. So maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking and do your homework before you come in here with nothing more than misinformed opinions and BS.
First off. Resorting to insults makes you lose a discussion by default. You have moved away from the topic of the discussion, and tried to make the opposition the subject of the discussion. Using a meme to do it just makes you seem like a young teen.
Secondly, I never mentioned anything in game in the point I made. I strictly went with what the writer had said in that interview. And how she came off when she said what she did. So with you putting words in my mouth and all that, it is actually you who need to look at your own misinformed opinions.
I won't be schooled on etiquette by people who take pride in their own ignorance, and parrot misinformation as if there's some value in it beyond white noise.
I won't be schooled on etiquette by people who take pride in their own ignorance, and parrot misinformation as if there's some value in it beyond white noise.
I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.
I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.
No, just people who go on and on and on about things they think they heard that may or may not be in games they haven't played or don't remember, and have nothing to say when little details like the game script contradict what they think they know. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.
I guess a lot of people must seem ignorant to you. Given that you just keep putting words in their mouths and ignore what they are actually saying. That is actually creating misinformation for yourself.
No, just people who go on and on and on about things they think they heard that may or may not be in games they haven't played or don't remember, and have nothing to say when little details like the game script contradict what they think they know. Sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.
I never said anything about that. I only went by the interview with the writer. Where she said this and that character needed a bit of a change. Since they are only this and that. And that made her come off a certain way.
Never once mentioned any in-game quotes from the characters. That is all on you. Adding words and meanings to the whole thing.
Try reading what Actually said a page back. Drink less Kool-Aid this time. Might be you have had enough of it for today.
There's a lot of ad hominem going on in this thread. Everyone could stand to calm down a bit and focus on the discussion, rather than the people participating in it.
BG2 is a factor too. If you are going to expand on a character you can't just go by how the character is in the first few chapters of the whole story. A character is the sum of its parts, and that means BG2 is vital to this too.
Putting aside everything else, BG2 is absolutely not a factor to the fact that Jaheira was played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. First, because they're different games. Second, because Jaheira and Khalid ceased to be married in BG2 due to certain reasons.
If Jaheira hadn't reappeared in the second game, "nagging wife" would be the only thing most people remembered about her.
So, in SoD, Khalid and Jaheira are still together. The option existed to basically have all her dialogue be nagging Khalid, which would be completely consistent with BG1. Amber Scott presumably didn't want to go that way because, amongst other things, playing a nagging wife for humour is a sexist trope.
What's the problem with the statement, then? She was only talking about BG1, and as has been noted, it is beyond question that she was indeed being played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. What she was in BG2 does not enter into the statement that was made, because she isn't a wife anymore in BG2 and thus there's no basis for comparison to that aspect of her character in SoD.
Surely, people who can't help but fixate and take offence at the trope are witch-hunters.
First, it was not said that she or anyone else "took offence" at the trope. It was said they didn't feel the need to still continue using the sexist tropes on SoD.
Second, precisely when did "noticing" and "avoiding in future" become "fixate and take offence"? Is anybody ever allowed to say "That's kinda sexist" about something?
Were all the people that finally made blackface unacceptable for use in popular culture "witch-hunters", too?
@Ayiekie A. I might come off as ignorant, so be it, but I actually don't know what blackface means... sorry for the inconvenience.
That's fine; I'm not, after all, sure what part of the world you're from and it was more prominently exported in some places than others. Wikipedia has a reasonable primer and its manifestations in different places (including in modern times):
B. As far as trope are concerned, I feel the word "sexist" to be negatively charged, hence me saying that she, one way or another, must have taken offense (mildy or greatly, I couldn't say which). Why else use such a word? You could say Jaheira's character was too "one-dimensional", "under-developped" or "limited". To me, voluntarily labeling it as sexist implies some sort of underlying offence.
It was definitely all of those things, but what it was also was a specific, very gendered type of stereotype, and you wouldn't get that across with any of those words.
I do find it curious that you do get that implication from it, when I and others (and I would guess Amber Scott herself) took it more as a "product of the time"; there was no offence meant because it wasn't something that was often considered at the time the game was created.
I think that may tie into why some people have trouble with recognising that, e.g., Anita Sarkeesian is not calling for censorship of game that have problematic sexist elements, or saying that anybody who enjoys them are bad people.
Food for thought, anyway. In a more direct response, I'd just say that I don't think what she said there or elsewhere, or what she claimed she was doing in the game (such as, for instance, making some sweet romantic scenes with Khalid and Jaheira), supports the notion that she really found it offensive so much as she found those tropes to be things she no longer wanted to continue in SoD (so Jaheira isn't JUST a nagging wife, and Safana isn't JUST a sexy thief with absurdly silly dialogue). That's the impression I get from her statements, though. And remember, of course, that she loves BG too.
Still, I'd disagree. Sexist tropes are definitely a bad thing (I will decline to get into a big debate over the effect of media on people and social responsibility versus artistic freedom in media creators, at least in this post). Which isn't to say they can't be used, but they shouldn't be used thoughtlessly, and context can be considered. Isabela from Dragon Age 2 is ALSO a sexy thief, but I wouldn't consider her a sexist character at all.
Look, a nagging wife played for comedy may not be appreciated by all, it is sexist. Thing is, I think some people need to acknowledge that some cliches exist for a reason. Like it or not, there is lived experience behind cliches and tropes. Including the nagging wife and the oafish lout of a husband.
However that doesn't make it bad to actually develop a character beyond those cliches and tropes when the character is finally given some screen time. BG1 didn't give a whole lot of text and dialogue so when SOD offers a more BG2 experience it seems fine to explore and develop characters. When those characters are in large part blank slates with touches of flavor around the edges like Safana and Jaheira it's easy for different gamers to have hang different layers and ideas on those slates. The only problem is if we try and write out those traits entirely in an attempt to erase things we disagree with and do so without explanation or good story arcs. I don't like Jaheira, I don't have her on my team so I'm not sure that's what happened or if we are just attacking a writer for having a critical opinion of writers who did the original work 20 years ago and who frankly didn't initially develop the characters much leaving us to do that in our heads
BG2 is a factor too. If you are going to expand on a character you can't just go by how the character is in the first few chapters of the whole story. A character is the sum of its parts, and that means BG2 is vital to this too.
Putting aside everything else, BG2 is absolutely not a factor to the fact that Jaheira was played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. First, because they're different games. Second, because Jaheira and Khalid ceased to be married in BG2 due to certain reasons.
If Jaheira hadn't reappeared in the second game, "nagging wife" would be the only thing most people remembered about her.
So, in SoD, Khalid and Jaheira are still together. The option existed to basically have all her dialogue be nagging Khalid, which would be completely consistent with BG1. Amber Scott presumably didn't want to go that way because, amongst other things, playing a nagging wife for humour is a sexist trope.
What's the problem with the statement, then? She was only talking about BG1, and as has been noted, it is beyond question that she was indeed being played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. What she was in BG2 does not enter into the statement that was made, because she isn't a wife anymore in BG2 and thus there's no basis for comparison to that aspect of her character in SoD.
Jaheira talks about her past a lot in BG2. That is what makes BG2 Jaheira relevant in the grand scheme of things when it comes to SoD too.
Look, a nagging wife played for comedy may not be appreciated by all, it is sexist. Thing is, I think some people need to acknowledge that some cliches exist for a reason. Like it or not, there is lived experience behind cliches and tropes. Including the nagging wife and the oafish lout of a husband.
However that doesn't make it bad to actually develop a character beyond those cliches and tropes when the character is finally given some screen time. BG1 didn't give a whole lot of text and dialogue so when SOD offers a more BG2 experience it seems fine to explore and develop characters. When those characters are in large part blank slates with touches of flavor around the edges like Safana and Jaheira it's easy for different gamers to have hang different layers and ideas on those slates. The only problem is if we try and write out those traits entirely in an attempt to erase things we disagree with and do so without explanation or good story arcs. I don't like Jaheira, I don't have her on my team so I'm not sure that's what happened or if we are just attacking a writer for having a critical opinion of writers who did the original work 20 years ago and who frankly didn't initially develop the characters much leaving us to do that in our heads
They did develop Jaheira in BG2. Which is the second part of the whole story.
Of course Jaheira is "a nagging wife" in BG1, what on earth is wrong with that? People since time began have taken for granted what they have until they lose it. Have used percieved weaknesses in others for their own advantage, have misunderstood strengths, have been forced/fallen into behaviors, ect. It's a relationship and the same is repeated in RL over and over again.
That she changes in BG2 is because Khalid dies. For any change to happen before that catastrophic event in her life makes a nonsense of chracter development throughout the saga.
How can Jaheira in BG2 have any affect on Jahera before BG2 when what happens in BG2 is what shapes her?
Regardless of how social scientists may have been defining and using the word sexist, it has very much been used across the population as a shame word. Failing to consider this, be you scientist or writer, is looking for trouble and insensitive (at least to me, and many others I guess). Especially if what you are saying is being recorded for an interview.
You shouldn't discontinue the use of tropes for continuing characters. It is inconsistent and will make characters appear as though they possess multiple personalities. Its just wrong. Yeah, you can develop them further and add to those characters, but certainly not substract from them. Again, to me that would indicate a dislike ("taking offence") with certain of their personnality traits. You may very well love BG, and have very strong moral preferences. The real question is which one is gonna prevail as far as writing BG expensions is concerned?
In a certain measure (no black and white here), her inability to choose the former might just as well be what certain gamers perceived as an "agenda". Of course there's no Beamdog-wide agenda to preach and enforce social justice, that would be crazy (they are businessmen, after all). What we might actually have here is writers in conflict with themselves over what they love (BG) and what moral sensibilities they possess (sexism, racism, etc.).
Also, as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing with BG as a product of its time. A nagging wife is just as funny and relevant today as it was 15 years ago.
Edit: spelling...
This is where it all comes down to perspective. A lot of men (inb4 reverse sexism; I'm a man) become unconsciously defensive when they hear the word "sexism" - they feel that the word is targeted against men as a gender. In reality, sexism refers more to a system of inequality perpetuated by institutions and social mores - some instances of sexism are major (unequal pay for equal work), while some are minor (women fighting in armored bikinis) but no less insidious. "Shame" is attached to the word "sexism" only insofar as men choose to take identifications of sexism personally. We should all be fighting to combat sexism, men and women alike.
With regard to discontinuing tropes, BG2 does exactly that. Jaheira goes from being a 1-dimensional nag to a strong, independent, nuanced character overnight. Amber Scott is simply following along in that progression, abandoning what is basically Jaheira's incessant complaining in BG1 for an *actual personality* that gives the player a little more insight into who she is. Asking SoD to be faithful to both Jaheira's BG1 and BG2 personalities is an impossible standard because they're totally different characters.
If anyone has any concrete examples of narrative inconsistencies to show, I'll be glad to take a look. Otherwise, this might just be a case of *assuming* that Jaheira is different because a feminist you don't like wrote her. I don't mean that to sound caustic, really - I just don't think anyone would have had any problems with Jaheira's "changes" had Amber Scott not made her (fairly innocuous) comments.
Of course Jaheira is "a nagging wife" in BG1, what on earth is wrong with that?
Don't move the goalposts. The complaints here are centered around the perception that Amber Scott isn't a "true fan" of BG because that's how she defines Jaheira's characterization in BG1. That definition is factual, supported by the game script, and has nothing to do with BG2.
@Purudaya I hope I don't come across as one promoting sexism for that is not my intent. Outlawing tropes such as the nagging wife on the basis that they are hurtful to women is where I feel very uncomfortable. Again, as a concept, I'm sure sexism isn't targeted at men, but insofar as its popular use, it is almost always used to target them, whereas accusing a woman of sexism is rubbed off as nonsensical and unfounded (that too is sexism by the way and I don't like it very much). So yeah, maybe I am feeling the unconscious need to defend myself, but that might actually not be the worse of things.
I also hope you didn't perceive everything I said as "Amber Scott is feminist I don't like". I did not say that and do not think it to be true as well. What I think is that she may have some issues over the source materials that are unfounded and will from time to time lead to conflicted and unconvincing writing.
I was worried that you might take that as a direct attack, which it wasn't meant to be - "feminist you don't like" was an attempt to refer to people who are projecting their disagreements with Amber Scott onto the actual content of the game, the word "you" being used in the royal sense. I had a misunderstanding with another person on these forums once for similarly inartful wording and probably should have used "people don't like" instead. Although we often disagree, I did not mean to be aggressive toward you or single you out.
I do believe, however, that sexism is not a two-sided coin and people are often quick to call women sexist whenever they criticize patriarchal institutions or observe sexism themselves. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I don't generally believe that "women are sexist against men" any more than I believe "blacks are racist against whites." Just my stance.
Comments
Your argument is that Amber comes off "as someone who hadn't even played the original games", and that she's "tampering with existing character's". Except she didn't write BG2 Jaheira. BG2 Jaheira hasn't been altered in any way. BG2 Jaheira isn't part of this discussion.
And what you have not done is present any evidence - not a screenshot, not a single line of dialogue - that proves SoD Jaheira is "completely different" from BG1 Jaheira. You don't have a single fact to back you up. So maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking and do your homework before you come in here with nothing more than misinformed opinions and BS.
Secondly, I never mentioned anything in game in the point I made. I strictly went with what the writer had said in that interview. And how she came off when she said what she did. So with you putting words in my mouth and all that, it is actually you who need to look at your own misinformed opinions.
Never once mentioned any in-game quotes from the characters. That is all on you. Adding words and meanings to the whole thing.
Try reading what Actually said a page back. Drink less Kool-Aid this time. Might be you have had enough of it for today.
If Jaheira hadn't reappeared in the second game, "nagging wife" would be the only thing most people remembered about her.
So, in SoD, Khalid and Jaheira are still together. The option existed to basically have all her dialogue be nagging Khalid, which would be completely consistent with BG1. Amber Scott presumably didn't want to go that way because, amongst other things, playing a nagging wife for humour is a sexist trope.
What's the problem with the statement, then? She was only talking about BG1, and as has been noted, it is beyond question that she was indeed being played as a nagging wife for humour in BG1. What she was in BG2 does not enter into the statement that was made, because she isn't a wife anymore in BG2 and thus there's no basis for comparison to that aspect of her character in SoD.
"Magical negro" is a trope. It still gets used sometimes, too. That doesn't (magically!) make it a non-problematic thing to use. First, it was not said that she or anyone else "took offence" at the trope. It was said they didn't feel the need to still continue using the sexist tropes on SoD.
Second, precisely when did "noticing" and "avoiding in future" become "fixate and take offence"? Is anybody ever allowed to say "That's kinda sexist" about something?
Were all the people that finally made blackface unacceptable for use in popular culture "witch-hunters", too? So, let's break down your statement here. There are two ways it can work:
1) There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexist tropes, just like there is absolutely nothing wrong with transgender characters.
2) Sexist tropes are bad, just like transgendered characters, but a few of them don't hurt anything too much.
Which is what you were getting at?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface It was definitely all of those things, but what it was also was a specific, very gendered type of stereotype, and you wouldn't get that across with any of those words.
I do find it curious that you do get that implication from it, when I and others (and I would guess Amber Scott herself) took it more as a "product of the time"; there was no offence meant because it wasn't something that was often considered at the time the game was created.
I think that may tie into why some people have trouble with recognising that, e.g., Anita Sarkeesian is not calling for censorship of game that have problematic sexist elements, or saying that anybody who enjoys them are bad people.
Food for thought, anyway. In a more direct response, I'd just say that I don't think what she said there or elsewhere, or what she claimed she was doing in the game (such as, for instance, making some sweet romantic scenes with Khalid and Jaheira), supports the notion that she really found it offensive so much as she found those tropes to be things she no longer wanted to continue in SoD (so Jaheira isn't JUST a nagging wife, and Safana isn't JUST a sexy thief with absurdly silly dialogue). That's the impression I get from her statements, though. And remember, of course, that she loves BG too. Okay, that's definitely better than the second.
Still, I'd disagree. Sexist tropes are definitely a bad thing (I will decline to get into a big debate over the effect of media on people and social responsibility versus artistic freedom in media creators, at least in this post). Which isn't to say they can't be used, but they shouldn't be used thoughtlessly, and context can be considered. Isabela from Dragon Age 2 is ALSO a sexy thief, but I wouldn't consider her a sexist character at all.
However that doesn't make it bad to actually develop a character beyond those cliches and tropes when the character is finally given some screen time. BG1 didn't give a whole lot of text and dialogue so when SOD offers a more BG2 experience it seems fine to explore and develop characters. When those characters are in large part blank slates with touches of flavor around the edges like Safana and Jaheira it's easy for different gamers to have hang different layers and ideas on those slates. The only problem is if we try and write out those traits entirely in an attempt to erase things we disagree with and do so without explanation or good story arcs. I don't like Jaheira, I don't have her on my team so I'm not sure that's what happened or if we are just attacking a writer for having a critical opinion of writers who did the original work 20 years ago and who frankly didn't initially develop the characters much leaving us to do that in our heads
Of course Jaheira is "a nagging wife" in BG1, what on earth is wrong with that?
People since time began have taken for granted what they have until they lose it. Have used percieved weaknesses in others for their own advantage, have misunderstood strengths, have been forced/fallen into behaviors, ect.
It's a relationship and the same is repeated in RL over and over again.
That she changes in BG2 is because Khalid dies. For any change to happen before that catastrophic event in her life makes a nonsense of chracter development throughout the saga.
How can Jaheira in BG2 have any affect on Jahera before BG2 when what happens in BG2 is what shapes her?
The remarks from the writer are shallow.
With regard to discontinuing tropes, BG2 does exactly that. Jaheira goes from being a 1-dimensional nag to a strong, independent, nuanced character overnight. Amber Scott is simply following along in that progression, abandoning what is basically Jaheira's incessant complaining in BG1 for an *actual personality* that gives the player a little more insight into who she is. Asking SoD to be faithful to both Jaheira's BG1 and BG2 personalities is an impossible standard because they're totally different characters.
If anyone has any concrete examples of narrative inconsistencies to show, I'll be glad to take a look. Otherwise, this might just be a case of *assuming* that Jaheira is different because a feminist you don't like wrote her. I don't mean that to sound caustic, really - I just don't think anyone would have had any problems with Jaheira's "changes" had Amber Scott not made her (fairly innocuous) comments.
I do believe, however, that sexism is not a two-sided coin and people are often quick to call women sexist whenever they criticize patriarchal institutions or observe sexism themselves. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I don't generally believe that "women are sexist against men" any more than I believe "blacks are racist against whites." Just my stance.