All of these controversial distractions that take away from the game were solved back in 1974 !!!
sb81848889
Member Posts: 51
There is no need for a Gay, Lesbian, Trans or any other combination of NPC to be written or used in a dungeons & dragons game, at least certainly in a Baldur's Gate game.
Back in 1998 playing Baldur's Gate in the first chapter when you kill the Ogre with the cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity I tried it on and to my shock I was a woman.
Naturally after I calmed down, I discovered the belt was cursed, but I kept it anyway. I have used it to play as a woman on occasions just for fun completely within the immersion of the game and there was no controversy then.
The beauty of this item is that you can choose to be any Gender you want and even better yet you can be "BI-GENDER".
The only thing the writers should have done was remove the cursed aspect of the girdle so you did'nt have to use a remove curse spell or go to a temple all the time.
Another great feature of this girdle was that no one had to know what your gender was other than the one you want them to see. So there would be complete autonomy and privacy and nobody would have been offended on either side of this ridiculous debate that has taken 10,000 plus posts on this site instead of talking about the real game.
Back in 1998 playing Baldur's Gate in the first chapter when you kill the Ogre with the cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity I tried it on and to my shock I was a woman.
Naturally after I calmed down, I discovered the belt was cursed, but I kept it anyway. I have used it to play as a woman on occasions just for fun completely within the immersion of the game and there was no controversy then.
The beauty of this item is that you can choose to be any Gender you want and even better yet you can be "BI-GENDER".
The only thing the writers should have done was remove the cursed aspect of the girdle so you did'nt have to use a remove curse spell or go to a temple all the time.
Another great feature of this girdle was that no one had to know what your gender was other than the one you want them to see. So there would be complete autonomy and privacy and nobody would have been offended on either side of this ridiculous debate that has taken 10,000 plus posts on this site instead of talking about the real game.
0
Comments
This is why it's wrong to say "there's no need". There's nothing preventing it from existing.
Obviously people reacted very strongly to Mizhena, but that doesn't mean her inclusion detracted from the product's goals. The response from people who actually own SoD seems to be primarily positive, if Steam is anything to go by.
Also, being transgender is not classified as a mental illness (and your ideas about mental illness seem pretty messed up). In the DSM-5, gender dysphoria is included as the effects of growing up transgender in a society with a lot of negative attitudes about transgender people.
Being transgender was classified as a mental illness, but so was being gay at one point. "Mental illness" is itself a social construct and inclusion of any particular diagnosis under that category does not reflect some kind of objective "truth."
But even aside from the status of being transgender as a mental illness, it is widely accepted that the only effective treatment is social and medical transition - that transgender people who need to transition improve greatly in terms of personal functioning and mental health upon transition. Considering the high rates of depression among transgender people who need transition but can't or don't, this is pretty impressive.
I thought that girdle solved this problem beautifully back in 1998 and could have been written better in SOD with a much different approach without any controversy at all.
You could have taken out the girdle in BG1 and made it a rare item in SOD that the player character had to go on a deep quest to find it and change their gender to their true self, allowing those who enjoy that to experience it and those who dont to leave it alone or steal it and sell it for mega gold.
You also could have written in these girdles to be sold at every Inn and allow anyone interested to easily change their gender as they see fit.
Anything would be better than this onslaught of posts that detract from Dungeons and Dragons, wether justified or not it simply would not have been an issue if written differently.
Thank you Dee for censoring this and proving to me your true intentions.
If we cant talk about the writing in your games then at least be honest and admit it.
Some of you say that you don't think that gay or trans characters don't "fit" with the setting. I don't wish to attack your personal interpretations of such things of course but consider this: who does it hurt, really? Maybe you get a bit taken out of the world, but think of a small child who feels different and gravitates to fantasy world where they can explore being different people like an elf maybe or a gnome wizard. Then they come across some NPC who likes people of the opposite gender or who feels like they were not the gender they were born as. This kid is like wow, I didn't know other people could feel like I do! Or maybe they get inspired by something like Dorn who can like men but also be strong and fearless?
Maybe not even a child but a grown up who came to realise things about themselves later in life. They see there is new content for a game they played as a kid and some familiar gaming content could be comforting. They are having fun seeing all the old faces but now there are some new ones and they are touching on some of the issues this person is going through right now. Well if their old friend Baldur's Gate is with them then maybe everything will be ok.
I think even if there is a chance that something like this could happen I think thats worth a bit of immersion breakage. Thank you for listening.
What about having a character who's black? Or Hispanic? Or blue with webbed fingers?
What about having a character who's a woman? Or a man? Or a shapeshifter who can change his or her gender at will?
What about having a cast of characters who comprise ONLY of white, heterosexual, able-bodied men? All from the same culture, who speak the same language, who all share a hatred of pixie-dust and tights. Doesn't that also tell us something about the story-teller's so-called "political agenda"?
What about having a character who's not human or humanoid at all? What if you write a story about an ant? A white ant. With red pokka-dots. What's the political agenda there?
I'll tell you.
Writers and artists choose to create these characters because they f*cking want to.
Stop trying to tell everyone that LGBTQ shouldn't be in X form of media. They are and they should be, just like straight people are and should be in X media. And black people. And white people. And men and women. And children and adults and teenagers. And elves and gnomes and dwarves. And aliens from outer space. And leprechauns who live under the sea. And gods with ten limbs and two tails that like wearing fox masks.
Better yet:
Stop trying to censor our creativity.
You don't like it? Fine. You don't have to like it. Just don't tell us what to do.
I believe there is real discrimination flying all over these forums and people should have the right to be offended and dis-appointed. But the fault lies with Beamdog and them alone. This is their consequence for being careless and presumptuous. Unfortunately they took us all with them through this menagerie.
Kind of.
(No, I just feel really really exhausted and awful.
The Internet has caused many of us to forget how to ignore each other. Back in the good old pre-Internet days we knew when to voice our opinions--and, more importantly, when *not* to voice them--but we also knew how to tune out someone saying something with which we disagreed. Given that the Internet is still primarily text-based and many people who frequent the Internet feel the need to keep checking in with their social media almost constantly, when a random troll comes along we feel the need to defend ourselves. Their desire to see us get worked up by getting in our face (so to speak) puts us on the defensive and we start taking things personally.
The reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth. (well, some things are farther away from the truth than that but we'll get to those topics later) The random person you meet at the store, on the street, in a restaurant, or wherever you happen to be really couldn't care less about you (not you, personally, Nonnah, the generic "you", which includes me), your opinions, your feelings, your right to self-determination, or the manner in which you express yourself as you see fit. They are too busy living their own life to be concerned with how you live yours....or, at least, that is how it *should* be.
This may sound counter-intuitive to many of you but in general we need to start learning how to care *less* about each other, at least in some aspects. Now...before you misunderstand me, let me clarify. If you see your neighbor going hungry but you have food you can share then share it--"not caring" doesn't mean "not caring if my neighbor starves to death". If, on the other hand, your neighbor decides to become a furry or an Otherkin then, well, that really isn't any of your business so leave them alone. Your neighbor isn't trying to tell you how to live your life so you should treat them likewise. There is an old Hank Williams song which says, in part, "if you mind your own business then you won't be minding mine".
What does all this mean to the current discussion, most of which I, quite thankfully, missed? It means that you--now I am including you, Nonnah, but also myself and anyone else bothering to still be reading at this point--should keep your nose out of other people's business and realize that most things are, ultimately, irrelevant. Mizhena is irrelevant. Someone else's gender identity is irrelevant (at least to you--it is relevant to *them* since they are the ones who have to live their own life). Whether or not a political statement is being made via a video game or movie or TV show or book or whatever is irrelevant.
"Well, then, Mathy", you may ask, "since you are so damned smart why don't you tell us what *is* relevant?". Gladly. Every person may be placed into one of three equivalence classes:
1) your life makes the lives of other people around you more enjoyable and/or better
2) your life has only minimal impact on the lives of other people around you, either for better or for worse
3) your life makes the lives of other people around you less enjoyable and/or worse
As long you are *not* in category 3 then you are doing quite well. If you are in category 3--you will know if you are if you take a step back and look at your impact...unless you are completely oblivious to your impact on other people's lives, in which case are you still in category 3--then the problem is *you*, not what other people around you are doing. I can state with a clear conscience that I am firmly in category 2...and that's the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it.
On the other hand, if you did know me in real life and you knew I hadn't eaten anything all day then you would either offer to buy me some food or chit-chat to figure out is wrong. Again, that still isn't really "caring" beyond the "you have an obvious need which I can fulfill" type of caring.
"Civil" and "polite" are not mutually exclusive from "caring" even though they are not subsets of each other. Okay, I suppose they could be, but often they are not.