Forgotten Realms was never a "medieval" setting in this regard. (Calling it D&D is disingenous anyway - the setting is called Forgotten Realms. I do acknowledge that with all the multiverse propagation and mixing Spelljammer, Eberron, Feywild, the rewritten Barovia all together lately by Hasbro/Wizards makes it really hard to separate the settings these days, I mean BG3 literally starts with a Spelljammer intro before settling into FR and I've met with people who thought the Raven Queen was also part of FR despite it originating from the Points of Light setting) This setting was created by Ed Greenwood in the '80s and was always portrayed with sexual freedom. I even got some quotes from him regarding this.
Yes, males participate in almost all rituals, as lay worshippers (as Zandilar quite correctly pointed out). This includes the High Hunt, the Run, and the Circle of Song. Yes, there are rituals that males are excluded from, AS MALES (such as almost all of the longer, more passionate dances). However, increasingly males openly plead with Eilistraeen priestesses to be magically shapechanged so as to take part in such rituals, and the priestesses (if they have the means to do so), oblige them (sometimes the change is brief and temporary, fading out as the ritual ends, and sometimes it lasts for days or much longer, while the shapechanged being undertakes a service for the clergy).
The Making of Mage, 1994.
"Ed quote: [[Roedele Thornmantle, knighted by Azoun for her services to the Crown (some have cattily referred to these as "personal services," but they seem to center around alley-fighting in rebellious Arabel, not anything romantic with the Purple Dragon), uses as her arms a circular white unicorn, head to the sinister, on a circular field of dark green bordered with white flames, and is a CG hf W9 who dwells in Suzail with her two lovers, the War Wizards Abrult Morglam (CG hm W6, darkly handsome, short, whittling wooden caricatures and dragons is his constant hobby) and Jakanna Bruen (NG hf W7, short-tempered, energetic, tanned, loves to climb trees and play pranks); the three are inseparable. Roedele's known for a polite public manner that displays a very dry humour. [I don't think TSR was ready to show the world two bisexual ladies in 1986].]] Not just bisexual, but a true triad if the two women are both bisexual... A full on polyamorous relationship. So I can see even more reason why they might not have appeared in print. Hard enough to get people to accept sexualities other than heterosexual, let alone true polyamory. Though I suppose if it was somehow presented as the two women being Abrult's wives it might have been marginally more acceptable to some, since polygamy has a long history... Particularly in the judeo-christian faith (though it has fallen out of favour in recent times... there are still some Mormons who practice polygamy, so I understand - not sure if there are any Jewish or Muslim sects that still practice it)."
[[I have heard that there are, but yes, I agree that it developed into a true triad, and that such a thing would have been verboten in TSR novels at the time, except as a very 'hidden and inexplicit, in the background, buddy movie' sort of way. I tend to be so matter-of-fact about such relationships that I'm often surprised, even after all this time, when editors gasp and say, "We can't include THAT!" about various matters. After all, I work in a library in a town where two wrinkled and very 'proper' ladies in their eighties, unmarried and living together, can openly stand in the most public spot in the town library, as I, about a foot away from them, check out the library books they've chosen, and angrily tell a third lady that they've just driven all the way to Toronto and back, and their favourite shop in which to buy dildoes has closed down and gone! The general local attitude is "Live and let live" and "None of my business what X and Y do, so long as it don't scare the horses," but local attitudes in other locales around the world can, of course, be VERY different.]]
This is from a collection of Ed Greenwood's Q&A segments which were collected on the Candlekeep site @ http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/sse/sse_101112-06.htm with the particular segment from 2006. Candlekeep probably has other comments in various places pointing this out which predate the New Tens.
I see it as too twisted, less is more.
Baldur's gate region in the BG1 videogame has a very medieval feeling, like late middle age in central Europe/France. And in Baldur's Gate 2, Amn is like Spain or Spanish Empire, with Maztika (Americas) and all this.
Yes... I don't understand this obsession with needing to "feel represented"
You’re literally complaining the game doesn’t give you 100% representation. Have some self-awareness.
a kind of "medieval" setting (if it was our world), and I want that feeling, not [] half-orcs, [] vampires
Neither half-orcs nor vampires existed in the middle ages. Yet you’re fine with them. That shows you don’t actually want a medieval setting—you just don’t want certain things, and “medieval” is a convenient excuse.
And you play the “medieval” card for a world where six followers of six different gods can travel together and respect each other. Real medieval Europe was defined by monotheism. You can’t speak of medieval culture while ignoring the grip of Christianity, which only functioned because it claimed to be the one true faith. It’s a dishonest argument from start to finish.
For the record, I also find Mizhena mildly annoying—not because of her identity, but because you must affirm it to unlock her second quest. Minor gripe though. The real preachiness comes from Caelar. Her plan is nonsense, but the game never lets you challenge it.
She claims her nightly kidnapping attempt wasn’t hostile because the poison used was nonlethal, and the “wise” dialogue check is to nod along.
She loses her entire army and claims to be on the “cusp of victory,” and you can’t ask what all the bloodshed was for.
She insists she’d “do it again,” after being proven that it was futile from the beginning, and you don’t get to point out how absurd that is.
Every ridiculous line of hers is permitted to stand.
Then there’s Irenicus. If you want to complain about forced content, he's your guy:
If you never talked to a certain nameless NPC, he still references that conversation, calling you insecure (for failure to give specific answers in a conversation you didn't have).
He shows up while you're in the tunnels underneath Dragonspear Castle to say Caelar has “already bested you,” even as you’re dismantling her defenses and massacring her troops.
Finally, the dialogue system itself undercuts nuance. When the usefulness of torture is brought up, the “good/neutral/evil” responses are:
Good: “torture is bad.”
Evil: “torture is awesome.”
Neutral: “I didn’t come here to discuss morals.” (no one is discussing morals though?!)
Notably absent? The obvious counterpoint: why not use Charm or Domination instead of torture.
I could keep going, but I’ll stop. Bottom line: Siege of Dragonspear still beats Throne of Bhaal. That’s not much of an achievement—ToB is a rushed slaughterfest with scraps of what could’ve been a real third installment in the series.
@GraionDilach ”calling it D&D is disingenuous…” is very odd statement! I mean, Forgotten Realms is *THE* official D&D game setting from 2E on. The fact that Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Planesscape, Dark Sun etc were also published is somewhat beside the point. All of those tied in to or through Forgotten Realms in one way or another, and they were ALL D&D.
Now that said, Forgotten Realms and its tangents and alternates were all *very* high fantasy. But that doesn’t mean it’s everyone’s cup of tea. As a PnP gamer I never played it. One DM I gamed with ran Greyhawk (the official setting for 1E and earlier) and I’ve played some shorter games in Ravenloft and Dragonlance. And different DMs ran everything from very high fantasy (much like Forgotten Realms) to very low fantasy (I played in one that was presented as “Dark Ages fantasy” where we never even met a mage and weren’t allowed to run one).
Which is all just to say, very high fantasy like the Forgotten Realms is at the outer edge of what I can enjoy as a gamer. I like history, mythology, and more foundational lore like Tolkien. So when playing games like BG I’m starting at the outer limits of what I will enjoy. It is often not a huge leap to get into weirdness I won’t enjoy. Planescape does that. Some of BG and its periphery do that. Certainly many mods do that.
So when I comment on such things, it’s just where I’m at. For example, I love the design and technical improvements brought to the game by the EEs. But many of the new characters, classes even story details simply strike me as “too much”. Too over done, too “outre”.
And that’s fine, sort of. I can ignore or avoid most of the things I don’t care for. I may observe on occasion I find such details “too much”. But I mostly keep it to myself. As long as I can play the game the way I like without it being hijacked (and I mostly can) I don’t really care what someone else does with it. Although it is sometimes amusing to notice the differences in taste and style.
eh, feel free to ignore this whole comment. I’m fine with a range of taste and opinion on these things. But that’s mine.
Yes... I don't understand this obsession with needing to "feel represented" for such things,
Unsurprisingly, privileged peoples aren't even aware they are privileged.
If you lived in a world where 90% of the peoples were LGBT, you will be the first wanting to be a little represented too as a straight guy.
even at times when it simply doesn't fit well with the atmosphere of a game.
It fits it very well actually.
For me, Baldur's Gate is played in a kind of "medieval" setting (if it was our world), and I want that feeling, not bisexual half-orcs, lesbian vampires or trans someones popping out of nowhere 🙃.
There were also bisexual and lesbian peoples in medieval times of our world you know... And also people feeling to be more akin to another gender, even if the word trans was not used back then.
I said I'm not straight and I don't think I need a romance with a half-orc in a game to feel represented 🙃.
Edit: Not only that, or better said... I don't need to feel represented for that, at all.
Yes... I don't understand this obsession with needing to "feel represented"
You’re literally complaining the game doesn’t give you 100% representation. Have some self-awareness.
a kind of "medieval" setting (if it was our world), and I want that feeling, not [] half-orcs, [] vampires
Neither half-orcs nor vampires existed in the middle ages. Yet you’re fine with them. That shows you don’t actually want a medieval setting—you just don’t want certain things, and “medieval” is a convenient excuse.
And you play the “medieval” card for a world where six followers of six different gods can travel together and respect each other. Real medieval Europe was defined by monotheism. You can’t speak of medieval culture while ignoring the grip of Christianity, which only functioned because it claimed to be the one true faith. It’s a dishonest argument from start to finish.
For the record, I also find Mizhena mildly annoying—not because of her identity, but because you must affirm it to unlock her second quest. Minor gripe though. The real preachiness comes from Caelar. Her plan is nonsense, but the game never lets you challenge it.
She claims her nightly kidnapping attempt wasn’t hostile because the poison used was nonlethal, and the “wise” dialogue check is to nod along.
She loses her entire army and claims to be on the “cusp of victory,” and you can’t ask what all the bloodshed was for.
She insists she’d “do it again,” after being proven that it was futile from the beginning, and you don’t get to point out how absurd that is.
Every ridiculous line of hers is permitted to stand.
Then there’s Irenicus. If you want to complain about forced content, he's your guy:
If you never talked to a certain nameless NPC, he still references that conversation, calling you insecure (for failure to give specific answers in a conversation you didn't have).
He shows up while you're in the tunnels underneath Dragonspear Castle to say Caelar has “already bested you,” even as you’re dismantling her defenses and massacring her troops.
Finally, the dialogue system itself undercuts nuance. When the usefulness of torture is brought up, the “good/neutral/evil” responses are:
Good: “torture is bad.”
Evil: “torture is awesome.”
Neutral: “I didn’t come here to discuss morals.” (no one is discussing morals though?!)
Notably absent? The obvious counterpoint: why not use Charm or Domination instead of torture.
I could keep going, but I’ll stop. Bottom line: Siege of Dragonspear still beats Throne of Bhaal. That’s not much of an achievement—ToB is a rushed slaughterfest with scraps of what could’ve been a real third installment in the series.
It's a feeling, not a literal medieval setting. Medieval legends talk about magical creatures such as dragons, and stuff.
Well, for me ToB is nice, and I like that it's short after that long SoA tbh. SoD is not even needed imo.
It's a feeling that you load up with whatever meaning you want, just so that it can fit your argument. Women and men being treated equally in the army? No problem. That's just standard fare for my "medieval" setting.
Some literal outcast being gay? Immersion ruined.
[Edit: This argument is weaker than I thought it would be. Outside of SoD, there are not a whole lot of women serving in any regular armed forces - not none, but certainly not a near 50% quota like in SoD - also, Corwin or Glint are not exactly outcasts, and I don't remember them being incredibly secretive about their inclinations either. Still, it's nitpicking to point to homosexuality as the one item that can't stand when throughout the series, the aristocratic hierarchy is barely present (and usually undermined, such as with Nalia) and the whole has way too modern a culture to qualify for even an attempt at medieval culture]
You say that medieval people knew of dragons, therefore dragons are okay to have in your setting. But medieval people also knew about homosexuality. They didn't call it that, because the term was invented much later. But they were plenty aware that such acts were committed by some.
Your logic just does not hold up. Stop trying to use the middle ages as your crutch.
It's a feeling that you load up with whatever meaning you want, just so that it can fit your argument. Women and men being treated equally in the army? No problem. That's just standard fare for my "medieval" setting.
Some literal outcast being gay? Immersion ruined.
[Edit: This argument is weaker than I thought it would be. Outside of SoD, there are not a whole lot of women serving in any regular armed forces - not none, but certainly not a near 50% quota like in SoD - also, Corwin or Glint are not exactly outcasts, and I don't remember them being incredibly secretive about their inclinations either. Still, it's nitpicking to point to homosexuality as the one item that can't stand when throughout the series, the aristocratic hierarchy is barely present (and usually undermined, such as with Nalia) and the whole has way too modern a culture to qualify for even an attempt at medieval culture]
You say that medieval people knew of dragons, therefore dragons are okay to have in your setting. But medieval people also knew about homosexuality. They didn't call it that, because the term was invented much later. But they were plenty aware that such acts were committed by some.
Your logic just does not hold up. Stop trying to use the middle ages as your crutch.
As I said it's a feeling, feelings are personal, and not "facts". Anyway it's a fantasy world, but the references from our world are there...
The main reason is "how" and "why" this "lgtbiq+ thing' was introduced when it didn't matter in the original game:
"How": very poorly, forcedly, with two repulsive characters. Is that inclusion, when the bisexual and lesbian characters are an evil half-orc and a vampire weirdo?
"Why": in favor of the woke inclusivity imposed by the LGBTIQ+ lobby culture, not to add anything crucial or interesting to the game.
When you say “it’s just a feeling,” you’re using that word as a shield. A feeling would be “I don’t like seeing this in my game.” But you didn’t stop there — you claimed it breaks the “medieval” atmosphere. That’s no longer just a feeling, it’s a statement about setting consistency. And statements like that can be examined and challenged.
It also seems you made your judgment before you even tried the content, which makes the “how and why” read more like excuses than reasons. That’s why I’ve called your argument dishonest — not because you dislike gay stuff, but because you frame that dislike in shifting justifications.
For the record, I’m not defending these romances. I don’t like the ones I’ve tried either. But disliking them is very different from dressing the dislike up as an appeal to history or setting.
Notably absent? The obvious counterpoint: why not use Charm or Domination instead of torture.
Ooh. Can I note this down and maybe use this in one of my SoD mods where I insert more reply options (probably SoD Tweaks)?
What would you like to be able to reply here?
I agree 100% to your points about Caelar and the dialogue structure.
EDIT to add a tagg because the forum gives no notification of one's post gets quoted: @Humanoid_Taifun
@GraionDilach ”calling it D&D is disingenuous…” is very odd statement! I mean, Forgotten Realms is *THE* official D&D game setting from 2E on. The fact that Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Planesscape, Dark Sun etc were also published is somewhat beside the point. All of those tied in to or through Forgotten Realms in one way or another, and they were ALL D&D.
Up until my post, OP referred "D&D" as a setting, and even compared it against Planescape. If you're aware of all these other settings, then you should also be aware that these settings don't play seamlessly with each other and you can't just interchange FR with D&D. Personally I view Spelljammer as the glue which holds all the others together instead of FR anyway, considering that spelljammers themselves are the primary methods to travel through the planes. (BTW, Points of Light aka Greyhawk-in-everything-but-name was the 4e primary setting, not FR.)
It's not my lack of knowledge about the multiverse what you should find unsettling here.
I see no point in refuting with OP though. If they ignore everything the author of the setting states about what the setting should have and dismisses that in favor of their own delusion, then I'll just reminsce about how amusing that they are also appalled by the representation, while playing up to it.
Huh. I can’t imagine a life worth living if ... And find a little romance. Almost any story is better with a romance included.
Aro/ace here. Romance, to me, is not very important. I'll usually skip stories centered on it because there isn't enough else there for me, and romance badly done can seriously drag a story down. So ... don't just tack it on. Include romance when it fits with the characters and advances them in a way that isn't solely about the romance.
Then again, I don't tend to insert myself very deeply into the characters I play in a game like this. I'm fine with those characters being very different from me, including that they can be romantic.
Regarding that torture discussion in SoD dialogue, one thing that's sorely missing is any way to address the comment that first brings it up:
"That's assuming the information we have is accurate. Torture usually gets you answers, but it doesn't always get you the truth."
You don't get the chance to agree with that, and say the intelligence is unreliable. Which ... well, you're still going to have to investigate that lead, because it's what's there in the game. Oops.
I don't mind the "evil" response here; it's not really "torture is awesome", but rather "hurting our enemies is a worthy goal, and torture does that". Undeniably evil, but it is actually something that torture is effective for.
@jastey I'm afraid the notification doesn't work if the tag is added in an edit.
What I'm usually missing the most is really the option to not say something silly. When a character genuinely doesn't want to discuss the morals of torture, they shouldn't be bringing them up.
I can think of two possible additions:
“Fair point. But let’s assume for the moment it is true — there’s no harm in checking it out.”
and
“If accuracy is in doubt, why not use magic to test it? Surely our mages can confirm a prisoner’s tale before we risk lives on it.”
The former has the advantage of not requiring any further writing, since it directly lead to the "We have reason to believe..."
I am hesitant about giving you real suggestions on how to write dialog. I've seen how complicated these trees can get.
@jmerry I agree with that. I just briefly summarized the good and evil options to explain what's there. They would be fine if there was an alternative to them that I didn't hate.
Comments
I see it as too twisted, less is more.
Baldur's gate region in the BG1 videogame has a very medieval feeling, like late middle age in central Europe/France. And in Baldur's Gate 2, Amn is like Spain or Spanish Empire, with Maztika (Americas) and all this.
And you play the “medieval” card for a world where six followers of six different gods can travel together and respect each other. Real medieval Europe was defined by monotheism. You can’t speak of medieval culture while ignoring the grip of Christianity, which only functioned because it claimed to be the one true faith. It’s a dishonest argument from start to finish.
For the record, I also find Mizhena mildly annoying—not because of her identity, but because you must affirm it to unlock her second quest. Minor gripe though. The real preachiness comes from Caelar. Her plan is nonsense, but the game never lets you challenge it.
- She claims her nightly kidnapping attempt wasn’t hostile because the poison used was nonlethal, and the “wise” dialogue check is to nod along.
- She loses her entire army and claims to be on the “cusp of victory,” and you can’t ask what all the bloodshed was for.
- She insists she’d “do it again,” after being proven that it was futile from the beginning, and you don’t get to point out how absurd that is.
Every ridiculous line of hers is permitted to stand.Then there’s Irenicus. If you want to complain about forced content, he's your guy:
If you never talked to a certain nameless NPC, he still references that conversation, calling you insecure (for failure to give specific answers in a conversation you didn't have).
He shows up while you're in the tunnels underneath Dragonspear Castle to say Caelar has “already bested you,” even as you’re dismantling her defenses and massacring her troops.
Finally, the dialogue system itself undercuts nuance. When the usefulness of torture is brought up, the “good/neutral/evil” responses are:
I could keep going, but I’ll stop. Bottom line: Siege of Dragonspear still beats Throne of Bhaal. That’s not much of an achievement—ToB is a rushed slaughterfest with scraps of what could’ve been a real third installment in the series.
Now that said, Forgotten Realms and its tangents and alternates were all *very* high fantasy. But that doesn’t mean it’s everyone’s cup of tea. As a PnP gamer I never played it. One DM I gamed with ran Greyhawk (the official setting for 1E and earlier) and I’ve played some shorter games in Ravenloft and Dragonlance. And different DMs ran everything from very high fantasy (much like Forgotten Realms) to very low fantasy (I played in one that was presented as “Dark Ages fantasy” where we never even met a mage and weren’t allowed to run one).
Which is all just to say, very high fantasy like the Forgotten Realms is at the outer edge of what I can enjoy as a gamer. I like history, mythology, and more foundational lore like Tolkien. So when playing games like BG I’m starting at the outer limits of what I will enjoy. It is often not a huge leap to get into weirdness I won’t enjoy. Planescape does that. Some of BG and its periphery do that. Certainly many mods do that.
So when I comment on such things, it’s just where I’m at. For example, I love the design and technical improvements brought to the game by the EEs. But many of the new characters, classes even story details simply strike me as “too much”. Too over done, too “outre”.
And that’s fine, sort of. I can ignore or avoid most of the things I don’t care for. I may observe on occasion I find such details “too much”. But I mostly keep it to myself. As long as I can play the game the way I like without it being hijacked (and I mostly can) I don’t really care what someone else does with it. Although it is sometimes amusing to notice the differences in taste and style.
eh, feel free to ignore this whole comment. I’m fine with a range of taste and opinion on these things. But that’s mine.
I said I'm not straight and I don't think I need a romance with a half-orc in a game to feel represented 🙃.
Edit: Not only that, or better said... I don't need to feel represented for that, at all.
It's a feeling, not a literal medieval setting. Medieval legends talk about magical creatures such as dragons, and stuff.
Well, for me ToB is nice, and I like that it's short after that long SoA tbh. SoD is not even needed imo.
Some literal outcast being gay? Immersion ruined.
[Edit: This argument is weaker than I thought it would be. Outside of SoD, there are not a whole lot of women serving in any regular armed forces - not none, but certainly not a near 50% quota like in SoD - also, Corwin or Glint are not exactly outcasts, and I don't remember them being incredibly secretive about their inclinations either. Still, it's nitpicking to point to homosexuality as the one item that can't stand when throughout the series, the aristocratic hierarchy is barely present (and usually undermined, such as with Nalia) and the whole has way too modern a culture to qualify for even an attempt at medieval culture]
You say that medieval people knew of dragons, therefore dragons are okay to have in your setting. But medieval people also knew about homosexuality. They didn't call it that, because the term was invented much later. But they were plenty aware that such acts were committed by some.
Your logic just does not hold up. Stop trying to use the middle ages as your crutch.
As I said it's a feeling, feelings are personal, and not "facts". Anyway it's a fantasy world, but the references from our world are there...
The main reason is "how" and "why" this "lgtbiq+ thing' was introduced when it didn't matter in the original game:
"How": very poorly, forcedly, with two repulsive characters. Is that inclusion, when the bisexual and lesbian characters are an evil half-orc and a vampire weirdo?
"Why": in favor of the woke inclusivity imposed by the LGBTIQ+ lobby culture, not to add anything crucial or interesting to the game.
It also seems you made your judgment before you even tried the content, which makes the “how and why” read more like excuses than reasons. That’s why I’ve called your argument dishonest — not because you dislike gay stuff, but because you frame that dislike in shifting justifications.
For the record, I’m not defending these romances. I don’t like the ones I’ve tried either. But disliking them is very different from dressing the dislike up as an appeal to history or setting.
What would you like to be able to reply here?
I agree 100% to your points about Caelar and the dialogue structure.
EDIT to add a tagg because the forum gives no notification of one's post gets quoted: @Humanoid_Taifun
Up until my post, OP referred "D&D" as a setting, and even compared it against Planescape. If you're aware of all these other settings, then you should also be aware that these settings don't play seamlessly with each other and you can't just interchange FR with D&D. Personally I view Spelljammer as the glue which holds all the others together instead of FR anyway, considering that spelljammers themselves are the primary methods to travel through the planes. (BTW, Points of Light aka Greyhawk-in-everything-but-name was the 4e primary setting, not FR.)
It's not my lack of knowledge about the multiverse what you should find unsettling here.
I see no point in refuting with OP though. If they ignore everything the author of the setting states about what the setting should have and dismisses that in favor of their own delusion, then I'll just reminsce about how amusing that they are also appalled by the representation, while playing up to it.
Then again, I don't tend to insert myself very deeply into the characters I play in a game like this. I'm fine with those characters being very different from me, including that they can be romantic.
Regarding that torture discussion in SoD dialogue, one thing that's sorely missing is any way to address the comment that first brings it up:
"That's assuming the information we have is accurate. Torture usually gets you answers, but it doesn't always get you the truth."
You don't get the chance to agree with that, and say the intelligence is unreliable. Which ... well, you're still going to have to investigate that lead, because it's what's there in the game. Oops.
I don't mind the "evil" response here; it's not really "torture is awesome", but rather "hurting our enemies is a worthy goal, and torture does that". Undeniably evil, but it is actually something that torture is effective for.
What I'm usually missing the most is really the option to not say something silly. When a character genuinely doesn't want to discuss the morals of torture, they shouldn't be bringing them up.
I can think of two possible additions:
“Fair point. But let’s assume for the moment it is true — there’s no harm in checking it out.”
and
“If accuracy is in doubt, why not use magic to test it? Surely our mages can confirm a prisoner’s tale before we risk lives on it.”
The former has the advantage of not requiring any further writing, since it directly lead to the "We have reason to believe..."
I am hesitant about giving you real suggestions on how to write dialog. I've seen how complicated these trees can get.
@jmerry I agree with that. I just briefly summarized the good and evil options to explain what's there. They would be fine if there was an alternative to them that I didn't hate.