Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Advice for Socially Conservative BG2:EE Playthrough?

2

Comments

  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    edited May 2014
    @Tresset: Your comparison presupposes that the reader has no say in the choice of romance novel. But the player is the one who determines which characters join the party, and (for the most part) what content in the gameworld is accessed/played through. Let's say a "social conservative" yearning for the good old days of the Antebellum South didn't want people of color in their party... well, don't take Valygar or Hexxat along. Problem solved. And since the OP is alluding very clearly to the specific content they want to avoid, it's not like this is some huge secret that you could accidentally stumble onto.

  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 7,887
    @shawne Since you ask for clarification I will clarify. That wasn't really my point. Of course choices can be made. With my comparison I was trying to explain why the choice would be made and not describe the state of what choices could or could not be made. I was not presupposing anything, and any guesses I made in my statement were worded quite purposefully with hypothetical language (i.e. words such as "could" or "may"). I even stated that I cannot speak for the OP.

    winters
  • simplessimples Member Posts: 540
    edited May 2014
    Tresset said:

    Now taking off the mod cap: Yeah, if you would rather avoid... how to word this... 'less than traditional relationships' avoiding Hexxat and Dorn (who are both evil anyway) should keep you out of trouble.

    honestly, when i first thought about this, i was a liiiittle bit offended, but i'm sure it wasn't intentional

    edit- also, i'm not the pc police, i found it more of a funny coincidence tbh

    [Deleted User]
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 7,887
    @simples It wasn't; I assure you. I said that because I assumed the OP would want a good/neutral aligned party. Probably not the best wording on my part.

  • simplessimples Member Posts: 540
    wasn't specifically talking about your comment @Tresset but the design of the two characters in general. "should we not be adding some gays into the mix?" "burn in hell!!!!" "problem solved."

    TressetLoub[Deleted User]
  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    simples said:

    wasn't specifically talking about your comment @Tresset but the design of the two characters in general. "should we not be adding some gays into the mix?" "burn in hell!!!!" "problem solved."

    I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.

    CrevsDaakcalifa
  • TressetTresset Member, Moderator Posts: 7,887
    @Loub I truly doubt it. I really don't think the shoreline mages had that big of a hand in the game.

    simples
  • simplessimples Member Posts: 540
    i agree, but @Loub what reputation? spill the beans!

  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    I find this whole thread very ironic because of that, mostly because by following early 80's values you would be admonishing D&D considering blaming it was still at large, and also because the eighties were a time for revelry and newfound freedom in artistic expression, as well as the time for sexual reforms and women's rights. It isn't for nothing that Post-Modernism was at the time the artistic status quo; where it suddenly became acceptable to wear condoms, watch porn, divorce and have pre-marital sex; where the porn industry really took over the market; where blacks finally won equality.
    Really, this whole thread is extremely hilarious due to is sheer hypocrisy - I guess the OP either never lived on the eighties and only knows of it because of hearsay, or because he lived in an amish farm in the rural south at the time.

    wintersMacHurtoDJKajuru
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,148
    TJ_Hooker said:

    meagloth said:

    I'm not old enough to know, but I think a lot of crazy sh*t came out of the '80s, just like any other point in time?

    I give you... the 80s:
    Why it's always the same song!!!?!?!??!!?!!
    That offends me D: (joke, joke, but why always that song?).

    jackjack
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    Loub said:

    I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.

    I think it's just a coincidence: when the three new characters were introduced in BG:EE, everyone assumed the same-sex romance would be Neera (since that plays into certain stereotypes). Dorn was literally the last person anyone expected; that's part of the reason his romance works as well as it does.

    The problem going into BG2:EE, though, is that they only had the resources to create one more character, and Hexxat had to be several things all at once: she was the designated female same-sex romance, she had to be a thief (because not everyone likes Jan), and she had to be evil because there weren't enough evil NPCs for a complete party until now.

    Tressetjackjackluskanwinters
  • SirK8SirK8 Member Posts: 527
    CrevsDaak said:

    TJ_Hooker said:

    meagloth said:

    I'm not old enough to know, but I think a lot of crazy sh*t came out of the '80s, just like any other point in time?

    I give you... the 80s:
    Why it's always the same song!!!?!?!??!!?!!
    That offends me D: (joke, joke, but why always that song?).
    Ah man, I just got rickrolled...

    CrevsDaak
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,249
    shawne said:

    Loub said:

    I theorize this is due to executive meddling on part of WotC, who, unlike Paizo, have shown several signs of homophobia, ironically enough, considering their reputation in the 80's.

    I think it's just a coincidence: when the three new characters were introduced in BG:EE, everyone assumed the same-sex romance would be Neera (since that plays into certain stereotypes). Dorn was literally the last person anyone expected; that's part of the reason his romance works as well as it does.

    The problem going into BG2:EE, though, is that they only had the resources to create one more character, and Hexxat had to be several things all at once: she was the designated female same-sex romance, she had to be a thief (because not everyone likes Jan), and she had to be evil because there weren't enough evil NPCs for a complete party until now.
    I completely agree.

    booinyoureyes
  • DeltharisDeltharis Member Posts: 124
    @Loub since we got explanation on the part I knew (their reputation in some circles) let's go to the one I don't get - homophobic? Quick google search doesn't turn up much (second result, a forum post, claims that WotC was actually for gay character in NWN2 and Hasbro was against the idea).

  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @Deltharis: Off the top of your head, how many gay characters can you think of in D&D literature/games? (Not counting drow, of course, since that's a whole other bag of Bhaalspawn.)

    Loub
  • DeltharisDeltharis Member Posts: 124
    @shawne I don't like that argument. I don't see not putting homosexuals into your work of fiction as homophobia. Why would it be? Do you want authors to, every time they write something, go through a checklist of minorities they need to represent? Now, if such a state of affairs is caused by WotC not licencing/endorsing/something gay characters in D&D literature/games that's something different.

    Tressetbooinyoureyesmeagloth
  • shawneshawne Member Posts: 3,239
    @Deltharis: You went for the "minority checklist" argument? Really?

    Of course not every single work of fiction has to have a minority checklist (though it'd be nice for authors to occasionally have that bit of self-awareness to say "Oh, wait, hang on, literally every single character in my book/movie/video game is white, I should maybe do something about that"). But WotC has been telling D&D stories for what, thirty years now? Forty? What have they done in all that time? Because that's the math that matters, not whether that one R.A. Salvatore book has enough representation of a particular minority.

    Loub
  • winterswinters Member Posts: 252
    edited May 2014
    @Deltharis, that's a tricky issue. Not putting any group, especially one of those which is somehow problematic irl (bc of age, background, gender, "race", sexual orientation, etc) into a work of fiction giving obvious opportunities to do so (the simplest example, describing a community as opposed to just a few chosen characters) doesn't improve their irl situation, which basically means worsening it. Invisible people don't matter, equals, they can't be hurt, right? Going through a checklist each and every time is obviously ridiculous, but how the author describes the fictional world s/he created says a lot about how this person sees, what thinks and very often, how much knows about their closest surroundings.

  • winterswinters Member Posts: 252
    Oh but of course. Still, both the writer and his work are the product of their time and environment, this way or another (see: J.R.R. Tolkien) and even the most fictional, fantastic and imaginative creation mirrors their worldview. This works the other way around too and this is what I wanted to say - there is no such thing as "so fictional it's irrelevant real world-wise".

    DJKajuru
  • DeltharisDeltharis Member Posts: 124
    edited May 2014
    @shawne I was't aware there were classical arguments, I could probably use a comprehensive guide to what's already been said about such issues.
    So it's not per-book checklist but per-bibliography one, and at some point a publisher has to go "wait, we crossed the treshhold" and force authors to do something about it? No possibility to, in absence of evidence for active discrimination in what they choose to publish, blame the authors who actually write the stories and not the publisher? No middleground, only "actively with us or against us"?

    @winters That argument is... strong one, in the sense that it has many implications. If we accept for a fact that not mentioning a group to improve their situation is basically worsening it... We are in deep trouble for not mentioning every single social issue that comes to mind. Homeless, those starving in third world countries, disabled, HIV-positive, depressed... What makes LGBT problems special in that regard?
    Also, how they describe their fictional world does say something about them, but not neccecerily bad things. I for example would never put LGBT (or black or disabled) character in my work if I were to write fiction. Reason? I don't know any in real life and therefore I deem myself incapable of giving them real personalities.

    And I suppose we should be talking about stuff like that in the offtopic section.

    winters
  • DeltharisDeltharis Member Posts: 124
    shawne said:

    But WotC has veto power over D&D storylines, and occasionally dictates the overall direction (see: the Spellplague, the Sundering).

    Mentioning that someone has the power to do harm is not showing that they did, I don't think that inaction on the side of publisher (even The Master of the Franchise) is equal to active discrimination and therefore I am still not persuaded about the whole WotC homophoby thing.

  • simplessimples Member Posts: 540
    just you wait until you see the new "lgbt hunter", "race traitor", "ladyboy lyncher" prestige classes in d&d next

    MacHurto
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,003
    shawne said:

    But WotC has been telling D&D stories for what, thirty years now? Forty?

    No, only 17--they bought out TSR back in 1997. They, in turn, were acquired by now-parent company Hasbro in 1999 but WotC retained its identity for name-recognition and licensing purposes.

    The question some people are dancing around is this: who decided that both new characters, which give the possibility of non-standard romantic involvement, should be evil? No, that question doesn't really need to be answered but it is still there. As for myself, I don't worry about such things--I don't play games for romance options, preferring to leave romance to my offline life.

    elementLoub
  • elementelement Member Posts: 833


    The question some people are dancing around is this: who decided that both new characters, which give the possibility of non-standard romantic involvement, should be evil? No, that question doesn't really need to be answered but it is still there.

    This thought crossed my mind some time ago its a slightly unfortunate situation what ever the reasoning behind it.

    Loubjackjack
This discussion has been closed.