Sex, sexual orientation, and race matter a lot. It has nothing to do with choice or lack thereof, and it has a lot to do with how people are treated because of their sex, sexual orientation, race, gender identity, culture, presence or absence of disability, etc. Representation for women, racial minorities, LGBT people etc. matters because of how such people are treated in general. Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. are real things that have a real impact, and taking time to not engage in those things is meaningful, which is why representation is meaningful.
This. 100%.
Reading this thread reminds me of a story Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek TV series) told about one time she considered leaving Star Trek.
She had submitted her resignation to Gene Roddenberry at the end of the first season. That evening she happened to meet Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a charity dinner and told him she was leaving the show (Dr. King was a huge Trekkie). He told her "You cannot do that. Don't you understand what this man [Roddenberry] has achieved? For the first time, we are being seen the world over as we should be seen."
The role of Uhura was not a "black role" or a "female role". Uhura was a Starfleet officer, a gifted linguist, and fourth in command of the Enterprise. By casting a black woman in the role, Gene Roddenberry opened a door. It allowed others to see a person of color in a role where she is an equal. If Nichelle left the show, her replacement could easily be a white female, a white male, or a green-skinned alien. Which was why Dr. King implored her (successfully, of course) not to leave.
The role also was inspiring. A young Whoopi Goldberg saw Lt. Uhura on Star Trek and ran through the house yelling "Momma! There's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid!" Dr. Mae Jemison, the first African American astronaut, was inspired to join NASA by Uhura. She actually started each shift aboard the Shuttle by radioing to NASA "hailing frequencies open".
So, yeah, representation *is* important.
EDIT: Added a note about Nichelle Nichols' role for those who aren't familiar with Star Trek TOS.
@UnderstandMouseMagic We have both men and women as part of the highest authority shown in game though (the Grand Dukes anyone?). In light of that, saying that Baldur's Gate was crafted specifically to keep men/women unequal kinda falls apart.
Remembering my 3E campaign guide, Fearûn has been very even in representation between the genders, at least since the 90s.
As for race and sex mattering... well race matters in the sense that there are races that are dictated by alignment, but these are the fantasy races, so that may not be what @UnderstandMouseMagic means. Other than certain areas of Fearûn being the homelands of certain skintones, races in humans alone don't matter all that much in-story, so you could put any skintone in as you wish, maybe even offering a little backstory of where their ancestry goes back to.
3E was also pretty ecumenical and sex and even BG itself said as much - women could do practically anything men could. There were a lot of very powerful female characters in D&D lore, and though it seems some of them were lost in 4E fluff, I'm sure more will appear. Helll, two of the best Goddesses who were killed have been brought back for 5E.
The only thing I feel is a bit of an odd thing out is transgender because when BG has the Belt of Femininity/Masculinity it does not seem totally out of reason that someone could permanently change sex by magic. The only problem may be getting to money to have it done, because I suspect a permanent change would be expensive.
It would be utterly ridiculous in context what you suggest. Quasi medievil world, small village, monsters all around. Yep totally believable that men/women have equality, not immersion breaking at all. Never ever would occur for somebody to say "you're a man, get out there and look for him".
You don't have the option to tell Farmer Brun "you're a man, go look for your son yourself" ... or Dink, or Zhurlong, or Purdue, or Berrun Ghastkill, or Oublek, or Emerson, or a truckload of other male quest-givers in BG1. So, why would that option be required for a "Marion's Husband" quest?
As you say, it's a world with real monsters. Why would anyone, male or female, go wandering in the woods, unless they were a trained warrior or spellcaster? Assuming Marion would be just as untrained in martial and magical arts as Mirianne (that is, completely untrained), there's no reason for requiring a special "be a man" dialog response to Marion.
Representation is as fine as every other storytelling tool that allows us to enrich stories we tell. And like every other tool, there is nothing inherently "right" or "wrong" in using it, nor there is any moral obligation to do so (or refrain from using it).
I don’t mids diversity per se as long as things are well-written. It’s when it feels forced, clumsy, or crow-barred in that it bothers me because it messes with the flow of the story.
In SoA, Valygar is a dark-skinned man but it never really enters into the picture. His quest and character development are about the nature of magic, its effect on humans, and a person facing lifeling assumptions based on new knowledge. Its one reason I like Valygar in my party, even though he isn’t the most OP of characters.
Now, it can be that race is important to the story if that is what the story is about. Most often, though, people are just people, and as long as the author isn’t trying to shoehorn a Maori tribesman into a story about Leif Ericson’s exploration of Newfoundland, who cares?
There are only so many choices that can be offered in a game like BG. If there had to be a response for every potential race, gender, alignment, political view, etc... the response tree would be like 150 lines! I guess it could be done if a check was run at the beginning of a dialogue that would limit the responses to your particular pc but even then you'd have to have more than just male/female to choose from at character creation for gender and you might have to place your character somewhere on the political spectrum as well. That would be a huge undertaking (but I have to admit it would be pretty cool!)...
In SoA, Valygar is a dark-skinned man but it never really enters into the picture.
How would you do that with sexuality? Skin color is visible, sexuality is not, at least not to our eyes.
So how do you create, for example, a lesbian character who shows no sign of being a lesbian?
I am especially interested in side characters here. How can side characters - in the context of sexuality - "show" that they are diverse without getting this reaction:
"A Diverse Character™ however who is always "I'm Diverse! See how Diverse I am? See my Diversity! Did I mention how Diverse I am?" is annoying. "
Here is the issue, you don't have them as side characters unless you can fit it into the story/quest naturally.
You gave a good example of a man wanting to find his lover. Who says the lover needs to be female?
If it doesnt fit, leave it out. I doubt you tell everyone you meet "hi! I'm gay!" Why would a character in a story do that?
Now if a writer can expand the universe he or she is creating so that it doesnt revolve around the player character all the time, then you might be able to squeeze things like this in.
Mass Effect 2 had the NPC side banters that Shepard could over hear. It wouldn't seem out of place if he overheard two females squabbling over their relationship (which actually does happen in the game).
If the same technique was applied to the Transgender doctor who immediately opened up to Ryder in Andromeda, less people would feel like it was crow barred in. It would have been more natural seeing a person talk about thier issues with a close friend.
So it can be done, it just needs to be done right and if cant be done right, don't do it as everyone will take issue for it. Not because the person is a minority, but because it is bad writing.
My question is how to do it without it being... setting-breaking, I guess? Star Trek ToS, having no defined precedent, was perfectly within its setting's rules to have Lieutenant Uhura. But Baldur's Gate, specifically, is set in the Forgotten Realms where there's probably lore or canon or something about some of these representations. Are there any gods or goddesses that either condemn or affirm a certain type of lifestyle, no matter what it is? Is there a culture that either condemns or affirms those lifestyles? For an example, BG2's managed to get people talking about racism and innate evil and whatnot through Viconia and (sometimes) Keldorn. This forum's seen its own number of "Is Keldorn right for..." while I've been here. But no one ever claims that the scene of the burning or the people's hatred is irrational: everyone's reactions make sense!
So yeah, if one can write good representation that doesn't conflict with everything else we know about the setting, I see no problem. If, on the the other hand, a representation character causes a huge warp in the setting (I'm looking at Hexxat here, and how all the Good characters are suddenly bumbling idiots in front of her,) then... Eh. Not a fan.
In SoA, Valygar is a dark-skinned man but it never really enters into the picture.
How would you do that with sexuality? Skin color is visible, sexuality is not, at least not to our eyes.
So how do you create, for example, a lesbian character who shows no sign of being a lesbian?
I am especially interested in side characters here. How can side characters - in the context of sexuality - "show" that they are diverse without getting this reaction:
"A Diverse Character™ however who is always "I'm Diverse! See how Diverse I am? See my Diversity! Did I mention how Diverse I am?" is annoying. "
Here is the issue, you don't have them as side characters unless you can fit it into the story/quest naturally.
You gave a good example of a man wanting to find his lover. Who says the lover needs to be female?
If it doesnt fit, leave it out. I doubt you tell everyone you meet "hi! I'm gay!" Why would a character in a story do that?
Now if a writer can expand the universe he or she is creating so that it doesnt revolve around the player character all the time, then you might be able to squeeze things like this in.
Mass Effect 2 had the NPC side banters that Shepard could over hear. It wouldn't seem out of place if he overheard two females squabbling over their relationship (which actually does happen in the game).
If the same technique was applied to the Transgender doctor who immediately opened up to Ryder in Andromeda, less people would feel like it was crow barred in. It would have been more natural seeing a person talk about thier issues with a close friend.
So it can be done, it just needs to be done right and if cant be done right, don't do it as everyone will take issue for it. Not because the person is a minority, but because it is bad writing.
In games like Baldur's Gate, NPCs exposition dump in unnatural conversations all the time. When you barge into Mirianne's home and her reaction is to immediately tell you and your band of heavily armed followers (a group of people she has never met before) all about her missing husband and asks you to track him down. That's a pretty unnatural conversation. But, it's fairly typical for quest-givers in BG.
Now, as MouseMagic's reaction showed, when you suggest way to make that character more diverse, some people demand that the diverse character be held to a different standard than the non-diverse version of the character. Mirianne as a woman is written fine "as is", but Mirianne can't be a man unless the PC can suggest he go looking for his husband himself (nevermind all the male quest-givers already in the game you can't make a similar statement to).
Wanting well-written characters is fine, but if one is going to hold the writing of diverse characters to a higher standard than non-diverse characters, and demand they be excluded unless they meet that standard, then that will lead to less diversity.
I am not holding the expectation of a character to a different standard, I'm asking for the settings to be respected or at least coherent.
Want some rainbow world/equal rights utopia? Fine, don't set in "Ye Oldie England" in large part because it suits the rest of the game to do so, then pretend we don't notice.
Yes, men and women in the society portrayed are held to different standards.
So how do you create, for example, a lesbian character who shows no sign of being a lesbian?
Interesting question. I have worked and/or lived in a few places where the percentage of homosexuals was probably higher than the national average, and some places where it wasn’t. Over time I picked up signals in dress, speech, mannerisms, etc. Which is fine; we all do this and have our favorite shibboleths. I offer Monty Python fans as Exhibit A, m’lud. Doing this is one possibility, but these will vary in time and space, and who knows how they’d translate to other cultures here in the real world, let alone to another world. And even if you do get an obvious one, SOMEone will find it offensive. So you can’t be too subtle.
But if you are too UNsubtle, like the writng for one or two fictional characters I can think of, it looks forced, pretentious, and clumsy. I guess it comes down to the writer and the writer knowing her strengths. I would never presume to be able to write a good character who is Native American simply because i don’t know many. But I could probably write a decent African American blue collar guy, as one of my best friends is African-Ameriacn and has worked for forty years in construction.
All I can say is, if @David_Gaider is willing to do it, great.
EDIT: altered for less inflammatory wording. Thanks, @BelleSorciere
In SoA, Valygar is a dark-skinned man but it never really enters into the picture.
How would you do that with sexuality? Skin color is visible, sexuality is not, at least not to our eyes.
So how do you create, for example, a lesbian character who shows no sign of being a lesbian?
I am especially interested in side characters here. How can side characters - in the context of sexuality - "show" that they are diverse without getting this reaction:
"A Diverse Character™ however who is always "I'm Diverse! See how Diverse I am? See my Diversity! Did I mention how Diverse I am?" is annoying. "
Here is the issue, you don't have them as side characters unless you can fit it into the story/quest naturally.
You gave a good example of a man wanting to find his lover. Who says the lover needs to be female?
If it doesnt fit, leave it out. I doubt you tell everyone you meet "hi! I'm gay!" Why would a character in a story do that?
Now if a writer can expand the universe he or she is creating so that it doesnt revolve around the player character all the time, then you might be able to squeeze things like this in.
Mass Effect 2 had the NPC side banters that Shepard could over hear. It wouldn't seem out of place if he overheard two females squabbling over their relationship (which actually does happen in the game).
If the same technique was applied to the Transgender doctor who immediately opened up to Ryder in Andromeda, less people would feel like it was crow barred in. It would have been more natural seeing a person talk about thier issues with a close friend.
So it can be done, it just needs to be done right and if cant be done right, don't do it as everyone will take issue for it. Not because the person is a minority, but because it is bad writing.
In games like Baldur's Gate, NPCs exposition dump in unnatural conversations all the time. When you barge into Mirianne's home and her reaction is to immediately tell you and your band of heavily armed followers (a group of people she has never met before) all about her missing husband and asks you to track him down. That's a pretty unnatural conversation. But, it's fairly typical for quest-givers in BG.
Now, as MouseMagic's reaction showed, when you suggest way to make that character more diverse, some people demand that the diverse character be held to a different standard than the non-diverse version of the character. Mirianne as a woman is written fine "as is", but Mirianne can't be a man unless the PC can suggest he go looking for his husband himself (nevermind all the male quest-givers already in the game you can't make a similar statement to).
Wanting well-written characters is fine, but if one is going to hold the writing of diverse characters to a higher standard than non-diverse characters, and demand they be excluded unless they meet that standard, then that will lead to less diversity.
IIRC, she first asks why you are in her house, and if you reply "got any info about the mines," she goes into her missing husband expo. As I said, this would still fit if it was a male or female character giving the expo.
And no, I do demand well written games, especially RPGs, to the same standard across the board. Playing Andromeda now, and it is a freaking chore not to hurl my controller as the story progresses.
Personally, I don't care if a male NPC asks for me to help his wife or husband or vice versa for a female NPC as long as the XP reward is the same. Call me a mercenary...
@UnderstandMouseMagic I don't see it. Every job that we see held by male NPCs, is ALSO held by female ones as well. I simply don't see the inequality that you do. Farun also isn't simply based off european middle ages. Its a hodge podge of literally everything fictional that has been consumed since its inception. It technology and social structure are so different to what the historical middle ages were, the I find most comparisons to be superficial AT BEST.
This is the first thing Mirianne says, to a group of complete strangers coming into her house uninvited:
"My husband had to make a sudden business trip to Amn and I'm so worried for him. "Mirianne," he always said, "Mirianne, who knows the road better than old Roe?" But the highways just aren't as safe as they once were and there hasn't been a messenger from Amn here in months. Could you keep your eyes open along the southern roads and let me know if you find anything?"
You would wonder, why does she not ask what the group of strangers want in her house. Right off the bat she tells them her worries.
Notice, this behavior is completely fine and makes sense as long as she is heterosexual. If Mirianne was a man missing his male lover, or if Mirianne was a lesbian missing her female lover, this would not make sense at all.
In that moment it would be required that the Mirianne encounter was "well written" and not "forced".
And THAT is what @AstroBryGuy means with different standards.
Thanks, @Shandaxx. You said that much better than I did.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I don't see it. Every job that we see held by male NPCs, is ALSO held by female ones as well. I simply don't see the inequality that you do. Farun also isn't simply based off european middle ages. Its a hodge podge of literally everything fictional that has been consumed since its inception. It technology and social structure are so different to what the historical middle ages were, the I find most comparisons to be superficial AT BEST.
miners courtesans fishermen farmers barmen storekeepers except for two in BG (and both are connected with thieving) Candlekeep readers guards FF
Of course there are exceptions, the base which the exceptions are set against is a male dominated society.
It wasn't done deliberately, BG uses shorthand to some extent to tell a story. It uses easily recognisable stereotypes that have the broadest recognition for the audience. That peoples' perceptions have changed since it was made doesn't affect why it was made as it was. They were making a fantasy game to entertain, that's all. They used a setting that had broad recognition where the most number of players would understand the "rules" of the setting.
BG is far from being a hodge podge of "everything fictional that has been consumed"
Shoehorning more modern concerns into BG will always be obvious. Make Marianne/partner a same sex couple and they become "the only gays in the village". And then you have to ignore that it's evoking a time/place where tolerance is far from being the norm.
Noober is a bit of a simpleton and it's played for laughs in game. And he gets rocks thrown at him. Tolerant yep, that's the Sword Coast.
Miners-I'll give you that one. Question, how many women are in the mining business today? Courtesans- yup, there are both male and female courtesans. Fishermen- I'll have to double check Farmers- Nope just talked to some female farmers in Nashkel Barman-Owner of the Elfsong Tavern Storekeepers- yup both there. Candlekeep readers-You mean you can tell under those robes? guards/ff-How about Vai of the flaming fist? Corwin?
The fact of the matter is, Faerun's social structure is actually more equal in many ways than what most countries have today.
Lets see here, the forgotten realms includes: Eqyptian Deities, Norse deities, Lovecraft's elder gods, Samurai, steampunk, sharkme, spaceships, space gnomes, multiple planes of existence, etc. So yes, faerun IS a mashup of many different folklores and mythologies.
This is the first thing Mirianne says, to a group of complete strangers coming into her house uninvited:
"My husband had to make a sudden business trip to Amn and I'm so worried for him. "Mirianne," he always said, "Mirianne, who knows the road better than old Roe?" But the highways just aren't as safe as they once were and there hasn't been a messenger from Amn here in months. Could you keep your eyes open along the southern roads and let me know if you find anything?"
You would wonder, why does she not ask what the group of strangers want in her house. Right off the bat she tells them her worries.
Notice, this behavior is completely fine and makes sense as long as she is heterosexual. If Mirianne was a man missing his male lover, or if Mirianne was a lesbian missing her female lover, this would not make sense at all.
In that moment it would be required that the Mirianne encounter was "well written" and not "forced".
And THAT is what @AstroBryGuy means with different standards.
As I said, that is fine and a good example of adding a persons sexuality to a minor NPC. It's already done with Marianne and the minor's wife I got confused with. We know they are in a committed heterosexual relationship.
If it was Reevor stating his sexuality as he asks you to clear out the rats then not so much. If the developers wanted to show that Reevor was gay, they'd have to write it in a more thoughtful way (sharing a drink at the Inn flirting with another male for example).
This is the first thing Mirianne says, to a group of complete strangers coming into her house uninvited:
"My husband had to make a sudden business trip to Amn and I'm so worried for him. "Mirianne," he always said, "Mirianne, who knows the road better than old Roe?" But the highways just aren't as safe as they once were and there hasn't been a messenger from Amn here in months. Could you keep your eyes open along the southern roads and let me know if you find anything?"
You would wonder, why does she not ask what the group of strangers want in her house. Right off the bat she tells them her worries.
Notice, this behavior is completely fine and makes sense as long as she is heterosexual. If Mirianne was a man missing his male lover, or if Mirianne was a lesbian missing her female lover, this would not make sense at all.
In that moment it would be required that the Mirianne encounter was "well written" and not "forced".
And THAT is what @AstroBryGuy means with different standards.
As I said, that is fine and a good example of adding a persons sexuality to a minor NPC. It's already done with Marianne and the minor's wife I got confused with. We know they are in a committed heterosexual relationship.
My point was rather that I think if a similar encounter to the one with Mirianne was used in a game just with a same sex relationship then the encounter would not be fine and good anymore.
The way Mirianne reacts to complete strangers coming uninvited to her house is fine and good as long as she is heterosexual. In the moment she would be in a same-sex relationship, that would be "forced" and not "well-written".
We have two standards here: 1.) For heterosexual Mirianne it is fine and good to not mind complete strangers coming uninvited into her house. She does not mind and tells them her worries right off and it's totally okay. 2.) If homosexual Mirianne did the same thing she would be called out as a "forced" encounter. She would be criticized for not minding complete strangers coming uninvited into her house and telling them her worries right off. The entire encounter with homosexual Mirianne would be called unrealistic, "forced" and not "well-written".
I disagree unless you have another encounter from another game where this happened and there was recent backlash against it. It would also be a good troll job to insert this quest as written into a new game and see if there is any backlash and people hiding behind the "it's poor writing," excuse.
Now as someone else and Gaider has stated, there will be people who, regardless of situation will not want homosexuality or something else in the game period. And I agree with Gaider, that's not the writer's problem, it's theirs.
Krem from DA:I is a character who I thought was introduced properly and included canon from the world explaining his position in the Qun.
With reference to FR canon (and Greenwood's representation of sexuality), in the novel Spellfire Elminster's scribe Lhaeo is noted as affecting to be "a lisping man-lover from Baldur's Gate". Lhaeo is pretending to be homosexual as a ruse to help conceal his true identity, an interesting inversion of the more common situation where homosexuals have hidden their own sexual preferences. I therefore concluded early on that alternative sexual preferences were certainly known in the Realms, though Elminster's tone is a little pejorative, suggesting that they may not be encouraged. On the other hand Elminster is allowing himself to be implicated as the butch half of a relationship to Lhaeo's effeminate role as his 'companion', as other characters comment, so his own attitude can be treated as being a little more flexible.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I don't see it. Every job that we see held by male NPCs, is ALSO held by female ones as well. I simply don't see the inequality that you do. Farun also isn't simply based off european middle ages. Its a hodge podge of literally everything fictional that has been consumed since its inception. It technology and social structure are so different to what the historical middle ages were, the I find most comparisons to be superficial AT BEST.
miners courtesans fishermen farmers barmen storekeepers except for two in BG (and both are connected with thieving) Candlekeep readers guards FF
Of course there are exceptions, the base which the exceptions are set against is a male dominated society.
It wasn't done deliberately, BG uses shorthand to some extent to tell a story. It uses easily recognisable stereotypes that have the broadest recognition for the audience. That peoples' perceptions have changed since it was made doesn't affect why it was made as it was. They were making a fantasy game to entertain, that's all. They used a setting that had broad recognition where the most number of players would understand the "rules" of the setting.
BG is far from being a hodge podge of "everything fictional that has been consumed"
Shoehorning more modern concerns into BG will always be obvious. Make Marianne/partner a same sex couple and they become "the only gays in the village". And then you have to ignore that it's evoking a time/place where tolerance is far from being the norm.
Noober is a bit of a simpleton and it's played for laughs in game. And he gets rocks thrown at him. Tolerant yep, that's the Sword Coast.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I remember this being discussed before and doing my own review of characters in the game. I agree that there is a certain amount of stereotyping by gender, but overall I think BG lives up pretty well to its original promise that "females of the Realms can excel in any area they wish, and are easily the equals of their male counterparts in every skill or respect" (I loved that statement by the way and am a bit sad that the EE felt the need to replace it with something more neutral).
I think that you're being too influenced by your view that BG is set in a medieval world. While the architecture used in BG may suggest that, the culture of the Forgotten Realms was never meant to be medieval. In relation to the issue of sexuality in particular, attitudes were always intended to be far more tolerant than would have been the norm in western medieval cultures. Here's a quote from Ed Greenwood (creator of the Forgotten Realms) about that: "Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn’t a sex game, and we generally don’t rub the reader’s nose in sex unless there’s a good in-story reason for it.
But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to “spend time as the other” to learn what life is like.
So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms."
As with most discussions, why a particular point is being emphasised gets lost.
My initial post was about the suggestion that the Mariane letter quest could have been easily made a same sex partnership. That's what I have been arguing against for reasons of coherence with setting ect.
Not the whole of BG/BG2/TOB, but the setting we are presented with in BG in Beregost.
I understand the point about FR not being medievil Europe. But that's what the developers used for the aesthetic for the game, and I have outlined the reasons of why I think they did. They wanted to sell their game, they wanted it to appeal to a wide range of people, they wanted that familiarity.
Let's face it, they were already trying to sell D&D.
I am not suggesting that BG doesn't live up to the premise, particularly for the player. But, to get the game out, there were limitations obviously. Not every random NPC needed to be looked at in detail to see if it ticked the various boxes for inclusivity.
Comments
Reading this thread reminds me of a story Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek TV series) told about one time she considered leaving Star Trek.
She had submitted her resignation to Gene Roddenberry at the end of the first season. That evening she happened to meet Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a charity dinner and told him she was leaving the show (Dr. King was a huge Trekkie). He told her "You cannot do that. Don't you understand what this man [Roddenberry] has achieved? For the first time, we are being seen the world over as we should be seen."
The role of Uhura was not a "black role" or a "female role". Uhura was a Starfleet officer, a gifted linguist, and fourth in command of the Enterprise. By casting a black woman in the role, Gene Roddenberry opened a door. It allowed others to see a person of color in a role where she is an equal. If Nichelle left the show, her replacement could easily be a white female, a white male, or a green-skinned alien. Which was why Dr. King implored her (successfully, of course) not to leave.
The role also was inspiring. A young Whoopi Goldberg saw Lt. Uhura on Star Trek and ran through the house yelling "Momma! There's a black lady on TV and she ain't no maid!" Dr. Mae Jemison, the first African American astronaut, was inspired to join NASA by Uhura. She actually started each shift aboard the Shuttle by radioing to NASA "hailing frequencies open".
So, yeah, representation *is* important.
EDIT: Added a note about Nichelle Nichols' role for those who aren't familiar with Star Trek TOS.
As for race and sex mattering... well race matters in the sense that there are races that are dictated by alignment, but these are the fantasy races, so that may not be what @UnderstandMouseMagic means. Other than certain areas of Fearûn being the homelands of certain skintones, races in humans alone don't matter all that much in-story, so you could put any skintone in as you wish, maybe even offering a little backstory of where their ancestry goes back to.
3E was also pretty ecumenical and sex and even BG itself said as much - women could do practically anything men could. There were a lot of very powerful female characters in D&D lore, and though it seems some of them were lost in 4E fluff, I'm sure more will appear. Helll, two of the best Goddesses who were killed have been brought back for 5E.
The only thing I feel is a bit of an odd thing out is transgender because when BG has the Belt of Femininity/Masculinity it does not seem totally out of reason that someone could permanently change sex by magic. The only problem may be getting to money to have it done, because I suspect a permanent change would be expensive.
As you say, it's a world with real monsters. Why would anyone, male or female, go wandering in the woods, unless they were a trained warrior or spellcaster? Assuming Marion would be just as untrained in martial and magical arts as Mirianne (that is, completely untrained), there's no reason for requiring a special "be a man" dialog response to Marion.
And like every other tool, there is nothing inherently "right" or "wrong" in using it, nor there is any moral obligation to do so (or refrain from using it).
In SoA, Valygar is a dark-skinned man but it never really enters into the picture. His quest and character development are about the nature of magic, its effect on humans, and a person facing lifeling assumptions based on new knowledge. Its one reason I like Valygar in my party, even though he isn’t the most OP of characters.
Now, it can be that race is important to the story if that is what the story is about. Most often, though, people are just people, and as long as the author isn’t trying to shoehorn a Maori tribesman into a story about Leif Ericson’s exploration of Newfoundland, who cares?
You gave a good example of a man wanting to find his lover. Who says the lover needs to be female?
If it doesnt fit, leave it out. I doubt you tell everyone you meet "hi! I'm gay!" Why would a character in a story do that?
Now if a writer can expand the universe he or she is creating so that it doesnt revolve around the player character all the time, then you might be able to squeeze things like this in.
Mass Effect 2 had the NPC side banters that Shepard could over hear. It wouldn't seem out of place if he overheard two females squabbling over their relationship (which actually does happen in the game).
If the same technique was applied to the Transgender doctor who immediately opened up to Ryder in Andromeda, less people would feel like it was crow barred in. It would have been more natural seeing a person talk about thier issues with a close friend.
So it can be done, it just needs to be done right and if cant be done right, don't do it as everyone will take issue for it. Not because the person is a minority, but because it is bad writing.
So yeah, if one can write good representation that doesn't conflict with everything else we know about the setting, I see no problem. If, on the the other hand, a representation character causes a huge warp in the setting (I'm looking at Hexxat here, and how all the Good characters are suddenly bumbling idiots in front of her,) then... Eh. Not a fan.
Now, as MouseMagic's reaction showed, when you suggest way to make that character more diverse, some people demand that the diverse character be held to a different standard than the non-diverse version of the character. Mirianne as a woman is written fine "as is", but Mirianne can't be a man unless the PC can suggest he go looking for his husband himself (nevermind all the male quest-givers already in the game you can't make a similar statement to).
Wanting well-written characters is fine, but if one is going to hold the writing of diverse characters to a higher standard than non-diverse characters, and demand they be excluded unless they meet that standard, then that will lead to less diversity.
I am not holding the expectation of a character to a different standard, I'm asking for the settings to be respected or at least coherent.
Want some rainbow world/equal rights utopia?
Fine, don't set in "Ye Oldie England" in large part because it suits the rest of the game to do so, then pretend we don't notice.
Yes, men and women in the society portrayed are held to different standards.
But if you are too UNsubtle, like the writng for one or two fictional characters I can think of, it looks forced, pretentious, and clumsy. I guess it comes down to the writer and the writer knowing her strengths. I would never presume to be able to write a good character who is Native American simply because i don’t know many. But I could probably write a decent African American blue collar guy, as one of my best friends is African-Ameriacn and has worked for forty years in construction.
All I can say is, if @David_Gaider is willing to do it, great.
EDIT: altered for less inflammatory wording. Thanks, @BelleSorciere
And no, I do demand well written games, especially RPGs, to the same standard across the board. Playing Andromeda now, and it is a freaking chore not to hurl my controller as the story progresses.
courtesans
fishermen
farmers
barmen
storekeepers except for two in BG (and both are connected with thieving)
Candlekeep readers
guards
FF
Of course there are exceptions, the base which the exceptions are set against is a male dominated society.
It wasn't done deliberately, BG uses shorthand to some extent to tell a story. It uses easily recognisable stereotypes that have the broadest recognition for the audience. That peoples' perceptions have changed since it was made doesn't affect why it was made as it was. They were making a fantasy game to entertain, that's all. They used a setting that had broad recognition where the most number of players would understand the "rules" of the setting.
BG is far from being a hodge podge of "everything fictional that has been consumed"
Shoehorning more modern concerns into BG will always be obvious.
Make Marianne/partner a same sex couple and they become "the only gays in the village". And then you have to ignore that it's evoking a time/place where tolerance is far from being the norm.
Noober is a bit of a simpleton and it's played for laughs in game. And he gets rocks thrown at him.
Tolerant yep, that's the Sword Coast.
Courtesans- yup, there are both male and female courtesans.
Fishermen- I'll have to double check
Farmers- Nope just talked to some female farmers in Nashkel
Barman-Owner of the Elfsong Tavern
Storekeepers- yup both there.
Candlekeep readers-You mean you can tell under those robes?
guards/ff-How about Vai of the flaming fist? Corwin?
The fact of the matter is, Faerun's social structure is actually more equal in many ways than what most countries have today.
Lets see here, the forgotten realms includes: Eqyptian Deities, Norse deities, Lovecraft's elder gods, Samurai, steampunk, sharkme, spaceships, space gnomes, multiple planes of existence, etc. So yes, faerun IS a mashup of many different folklores and mythologies.
If it was Reevor stating his sexuality as he asks you to clear out the rats then not so much. If the developers wanted to show that Reevor was gay, they'd have to write it in a more thoughtful way (sharing a drink at the Inn flirting with another male for example).
Now as someone else and Gaider has stated, there will be people who, regardless of situation will not want homosexuality or something else in the game period. And I agree with Gaider, that's not the writer's problem, it's theirs.
Krem from DA:I is a character who I thought was introduced properly and included canon from the world explaining his position in the Qun.
I think that you're being too influenced by your view that BG is set in a medieval world. While the architecture used in BG may suggest that, the culture of the Forgotten Realms was never meant to be medieval. In relation to the issue of sexuality in particular, attitudes were always intended to be far more tolerant than would have been the norm in western medieval cultures. Here's a quote from Ed Greenwood (creator of the Forgotten Realms) about that:
"Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn’t a sex game, and we generally don’t rub the reader’s nose in sex unless there’s a good in-story reason for it.
But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to “spend time as the other” to learn what life is like.
So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms."
As with most discussions, why a particular point is being emphasised gets lost.
My initial post was about the suggestion that the Mariane letter quest could have been easily made a same sex partnership.
That's what I have been arguing against for reasons of coherence with setting ect.
Not the whole of BG/BG2/TOB, but the setting we are presented with in BG in Beregost.
I understand the point about FR not being medievil Europe. But that's what the developers used for the aesthetic for the game, and I have outlined the reasons of why I think they did.
They wanted to sell their game, they wanted it to appeal to a wide range of people, they wanted that familiarity.
Let's face it, they were already trying to sell D&D.
I am not suggesting that BG doesn't live up to the premise, particularly for the player.
But, to get the game out, there were limitations obviously. Not every random NPC needed to be looked at in detail to see if it ticked the various boxes for inclusivity.