Hello friends. If you do not agree with the perception of sexism or sexist undertones then how about if we look at it in this way: Jaheira from BG1 is kind of a jerk. She is bossy when you first meet her and her selection sounds are all pretty haughty. Khalid is cowardly, he runs away from battle easily and he stutters which is a bit uncool. In Siege of Dragonspear they are more relaxed and talk to you like real people.
Also talking about any of the NPCs in BG1 is mostly a matter of perception anyway. Most of them have one or two lines then just their normal selection sounds and battle cries etc. I think we all infer a lot about the characters and we should be try to be patient with other's interpretations. Even if you don't agree and yes, this goes both ways.
Unless it's xzar/montaron, or khalid/jaheira who, to the best of my remembrance, have the only banters in BG1EE beyond just "you are awesome" "why thankyou" or "I hate you go die" "get away from me surface scum!"
Dungeon and dragons is great. Sadly, it's an artistic world that has been sold and bought, rights temporarily sold for games to a third party ( or should I say, fourth party? ), and that always brings complications, problems. The best work are always those still in control of the original artist ( Ed Greenwood ).
Dungeon and dragons is great. Sadly, it's an artistic world that has been sold and bought, rights temporarily sold for games to a third party ( or should I say, fourth party? ), and that always brings complications, problems. The best work are always those still in control of the original artist ( Ed Greenwood ).
That, is the result.
Hello friend. You may be surprised to know that that a large portion of our most treasured literary traditions come from adapting the work of the artists who came before us. Consider The Aeneid or Dante's Divine Comedy. Great classics that build on work from other writers to make something new and incredible.
Fair point but it also doesn't challenge the concept of a man being the head of a household. It isn't satirical, the humor comes from "isn't it funny when women try to be men?"
It is satire about conventional, traditional gender roles. It doesn't have to challenge anything to be entertaining.
Yet if it does, in any way, challenge something it is traditional gender roles, by challenging men to see how they would feel if the roles were reversed.
Hello friends. If you do not agree with the perception of sexism or sexist undertones then how about if we look at it in this way: Jaheira from BG1 is kind of a jerk. She is bossy when you first meet her and her selection sounds are all pretty haughty. Khalid is cowardly, he runs away from battle easily and he stutters which is a bit uncool. In Siege of Dragonspear they are more relaxed and talk to you like real people.
Just so we are all clear.
My issue with the interview is that I understand they say the GAME is sexist - which is 100% wrong IMO.
The game has "sexist" stereotypes for both ways (good, bad, funny and ugly)? Yes, it absolutely does. I do not deny that.
It has stuff like Edwin as a man who thinks himself better than women, Korgan who is completely vulgar, it has Aerie who starts has little princess that can't anything by herself. But hey, guess what, it also has Aerie developing into a strong woman, even ending the romance with the PC because she wants to be free and learn about the world. It has Nalia that ends up becoming a very strong willed person at the end, inheriting her keep against tradition and becoming a driving force. And so on.
The GAME itself is not "sexist" because it portraits a few characters/situations in a stereotypical format.
IMO, the GAME is "neutral".
It does a damn good job, specially if we consider the time it was created, to embrace the diversity of society, showcasing all there is without shying away from it, hiding portion of it because the writer thinks, personally, it is a "wrong personality", or showing this "wrong personality" only in a pejorative way to put them only in a "bad light".
I do not see this "prejudice" in the original BG, rather I see the diversity and find it interesting and well put.
So, going back to the issue, my concern with the interview and what I find to be dead wrong is for the writers to come out and say that they will "hide / destroy" the diversity of the original games so well portrayed, because they want to waive some social justice flag and have the game conform with what they think is the "right way".
That is poor writing in my opinion, and, if that is not enough, it is also against what D&D role playing is all about (having a ton of diversity).
This is what makes me concerned about future content Beamdog develops and this very DLC that the developers brought to the table.
Hello friend. You may be surprised to know that that a large portion of our most treasured literary traditions come from adapting the work of the artists who came before us. Consider The Aeneid or Dante's Divine Comedy. Great classics that build on work from other writers to make something new and incredible.
Oh. Sounds like someone's taking exceptions and talking like they're common. Where did I see that pattern before...
Honestly, the best Dragonlance novels I MO are those that Hickman and Weiss didn't write, just like the best FR novels are by Salvatore and not Greenwood. Just because Greenwood invented a good setting (he did) does not make him a good writer (he is terrible.)
The original games were not "neutral. " Just because the sexism wasn't rubbed in your face like it is in Twilight doesn't mean it wasn't there. The very fact you won't recognize the sexist tropes (Aerie gets stronger because a big strong man came into her life and saved her; Edwin thinks he's better than EVERYONE, not just women, but it'd be bizarre to see a woman in his role, and if there was she'd have probably been an evil enchantress; I've never kept Nalia around, so that is genuinely interesting, but that doesn't change how she starts out and continues to act like a stereotypical naive princess) proves how much we have grown to blindly accept these tropes as "the way things are", as though this is the natural order of things.
Men don't show emotion except through anger and lashing out violently (Minsc, Anomen, Korgan as examples). Women should be soft and gentle, unless they're "strong women" in which case they should be stern, motherly figures, or evil (Aerie, Nalia, Jaheira, and Viconia respectively). After all, Viconia only becomes good if a big strong man comes into her life to show her a better way.
By not challenging these tropes, the story enforces culturally bred sexism. Men don't cry, they bottle it up and get angry. Women have to be prissy and nice unless they're evil. Women need men to make their lives better. If you're a man and insert enough niceness coins, sex pops out.
Also, I disagree with BG being "sexist", BG had a lot of diversity and a lot of interesting characters - thinking it is sexist is isolating a few points in the story and ignoring the whole diversity of the game.
I don't know if I would call BG "sexist" so much as a product of its time. It is no longer the 20th century, and things that once passed without comment get looked at with a different lens now.
And that is part of the problem, seeing the world through a lens is still seeing the world through a skewed perception and bot as it really is
I'm sorry but shared work is horrible. And it's sad that it's so often the case with Dnd books. More plot holes, more incoherent stuff, things are dropped from one book to the other, and the list goes on. Gotta love book one of the spider queen war, all our anti drow heroes traveling dangerous paths for an answer to a question, only to have them summon a demon in book two and get an answer that way. Why not summon him in the first place? lol. Shared work. Lol!
Because plot holes and dropped plot threads never happen when a single author writes a series of books. Never, ever, ever.
That's a fault of the writers, not the idea of shared works. For instance, nonexistent is the TV series that has a single writer. Same with video games. But with proper management of the writers, you can have games and TV series that are relatively devoid of the issues you mentioned. Yet they are "shared works."
Some authors are good, others are bad. With shared work, a bad author or two always shows up, mathematical laws dictates that. But with authors keeping to their work, all you need is to find a good one, and it's done.
I've read good authors who've written terrible stuff. Like Stephen King, or George RR Martin. I've read authors who are supposedly good and found them to be terrible, like Ed Greenwood and R.A Salvatore.
I've read good authors who've written terrible stuff. Like Stephen King, or George RR Martin. I've read authors who are supposedly good and found them to be terrible, like Ed Greenwood and R.A Salvatore.
Try reading Elaine Cunningham's FR books. She is damn great.
Start a no-reload run through of BGEE, progress very nicely, build the eager anticiptation of moving seemlessly into SoD, feel the excitement levels rise.
And then die. Foolishly. A stupid, silly, easily avoidable mistake*
And then, rather than restart and rush through the game to get back to where you were, you give in to the dark side. To all those terrible, negative emotions. The anger and the frustration builds. The gutteral, primeval scream that builds inside. Why. Why. WHY.
And then, like all good super villains, you devote your life to exacting revenge. You apply yourself to work, starting a little company, that grows over the years. Turnover creeps up. It moves from local to regional to national, and then the first branch opens overseas. Turnover moves from the thousands to the millions to the billions. And at the heart of it? That all consuming anger and rage.
A mysterious take over bid buys Wizard of the Coast. A (very large) suitcase of money buys and closes down Beamdog. Expensive lawyers begin to take down Baldurs Gate fan sites. The games are all withdrawn from sale, and Modders are arrested in the middle of the night and carted off to prison. And gradually, slowly, Baldurs Gate is forced into the shadows. Copies sell for ridiculous amounts on auction sites. People reminisce in hushed whispers about Boo.
And over time people forget about BG. Everyone, of course, except that one bitter, twisted soul, who cackles in his lair.
*I should point out my no-reload run of BGEE is still going strong, but in the event of a silly, easily avoidable mistake... well.... who knows?
I've read good authors who've written terrible stuff. Like Stephen King, or George RR Martin. I've read authors who are supposedly good and found them to be terrible, like Ed Greenwood and R.A Salvatore.
Try reading Elaine Cunningham's FR books. She is damn great.
I don't want her fired, silenced, or scared. I don't even know her. Even after reading that interview. And I'm certainly not part of any campaign. I'm just one guy who plays Baldur's gate games.
But I still think it's sad that characters like Jaheira and Safana have to be "corrected". First, because I find nothing sexist about their portrayal at all. I mean, female characters played for comedy? What about Minsc? What about Tiax? What about Corran? Or Xan? All male characters played far more for laughs.
Secondly, it manipulates already established characters and makes them act...out of character. Like rewriting Han Solo to not shoot first in '"A New Hope"
I get that not every character is for everybody. People may find this or that character repellent. Maybe even offensive. Maybe you don't want a vampy femme fatale in your group. Maybe you find Jaheira's take-charge attitude grating. That's fine. But there are so many companion characters to choose from here. We can always find another to take her place. Heck, the Enhanced Edition has already added four!
Then, if that is indeed the case then know that you are -- wittingly or not -- contributing to and promoting a narrative designed for that very task. If you don't identify with that movement it should concern you that you have adopted their talking points.
And besides, this is the best Jaheria to date. In BG1 she nagged her husband even as he died. In BG2 she assures you she loved him. Now we a bridge between the two characters.
And Safana? I never had her in many of my parties so I don't see what's the problem? She's seductive, sensual and manipulative -- just like she was in BG1 only she says much more. She actually seems like her BG1 self on steroids.
Frankly, I suspect that the majority of people are primed be upset haven't actually played those NPCs. This is Baldur's Gate. Minsc is Minsc, Jaheria is Jaheria and Khalid is . . . improved.
@Tenrecc I agree with you that there were some legitimate criticisms (some of which I shared) and that some of them were offered constructively. But there was also a bullying campaign and an early flood of transphobic attacks before the devs started playing drums with the banhammer. I am totally for gamergate's right to complain, come here and argue, lash out at the devs on twitter (sans threats), etc. I can't get behind you on the idea that review bombing should be seen as a natural consequence, however. And I wouldn't be nearly as upset about it if this were EA or Bethesda or some other large company that could handle it...people's livelihoods were potentially on the line with this release..
But it is a natural consequence. Since it happens. Not sure how you can argue against the existance of a clearly established phenomenon. It shouldn't be one, I can agree with that, but that's not really what's up for debate.
The source is the Mary Sue, which you might find objectionable, but it is a trans perspective nonetheless. I don't know if she's played the game, but I don't think that's a criteria we should be requiring given how many gamergaters clearly haven't played it either. The article is well-researched.
I would like to post the other one but I have a meeting in about 30 minutes and can't seem to find it. I originally stumbled across both using the keywords "Siege of Dragonspear Metacritic" on Google if that helps.
Thanks, gonna read it once I get home. I don't care about the source really, and I only mentioned that having played the game is a requirement because I can see transgendered people being happy with being included in the game, as long as they're unaware of how it actually was implemented. I have a hard time seeing someone who played the game, or is well-researched on the subject praising it, but I'm all up for being proven wrong, hence why I wanted to read the articles.
Men don't show emotion except through anger and lashing out violently (Minsc, Anomen, Korgan as examples). Women should be soft and gentle, unless they're "strong women" in which case they should be stern, motherly figures, or evil (Aerie, Nalia, Jaheira, and Viconia respectively). After all, Viconia only becomes good if a big strong man comes into her life to show her a better way.
In a game where most companions are some type of warrior it's not unexpected to have a lot of them with a strong or agressive personnality. Minsc doesn't only show anger, he is also seen as laughing just as much and crying sometime. What about Garrick, Khalid, Jan, Gayle, etc. They are not the strong angry types. Sarevok can also get an alignment change in ToB, not just Viconia.
The only true gender difference is that there was more romance with female companions and that's why more female characters are seen as being influenced by the protagonist. It's not because they are weaker, it's just because they have an elaborate romance. And that's not really sexisms IMO (although some would disagree), it's just based on the average target audience at the time.
I don't want her fired, silenced, or scared. I don't even know her. Even after reading that interview. And I'm certainly not part of any campaign. I'm just one guy who plays Baldur's gate games.
But I still think it's sad that characters like Jaheira and Safana have to be "corrected". First, because I find nothing sexist about their portrayal at all. I mean, female characters played for comedy? What about Minsc? What about Tiax? What about Corran? Or Xan? All male characters played far more for laughs.
Secondly, it manipulates already established characters and makes them act...out of character. Like rewriting Han Solo to not shoot first in '"A New Hope"
I get that not every character is for everybody. People may find this or that character repellent. Maybe even offensive. Maybe you don't want a vampy femme fatale in your group. Maybe you find Jaheira's take-charge attitude grating. That's fine. But there are so many companion characters to choose from here. We can always find another to take her place. Heck, the Enhanced Edition has already added four!
Then, if that is indeed the case know that you are -- wittingly or not -- contributing to a promoting a narrative designed for that very task. If you don't identify with that movement it should concern you that you have adopted their talking points.
And besides, this is the best Jaheria to date. In BG1 she nagged her husband even as he died. In BG2 she assures you she loved him. Now we a bridge between the two characters.
And Safana? I never had her in many of my parties so I don't see what's the problem? She's seductive, sensual and manipulative -- just like she was in BG1 only she says much more. She actually seems like her BG1 self on steroids.
Frankly, I suspect that the majority of people are primed be upset haven't actually played those NPCs. This is Baldur's Gate. Minsc is Minsc, Jaheria is Jaheria and Khalid is . . . improved.
I think the writing is pretty good.
safana is a living porn gif enough content to summarize in a single line and is mostly about sex
For what it's worth, I didn't see any changes or differences in Safana at all. Most of her interactions with me were about complementing her, or getting her a shiny present of some kind.
Men don't show emotion except through anger and lashing out violently (Minsc, Anomen, Korgan as examples). Women should be soft and gentle, unless they're "strong women" in which case they should be stern, motherly figures, or evil (Aerie, Nalia, Jaheira, and Viconia respectively). After all, Viconia only becomes good if a big strong man comes into her life to show her a better way.
By not challenging these tropes, the story enforces culturally bred sexism. Men don't cry, they bottle it up and get angry. Women have to be prissy and nice unless they're evil. Women need men to make their lives better. If you're a man and insert enough niceness coins, sex pops out.
Men don't cry / have issues in the game? Minsc has a lot of emotions - in fact, he has a memorable moment with Aerie in which he asks her to be the witch he would protect after showing how depressed / sad he is for failing to protect Dynaheir. (Completely not sexual btw)
What about Keldorn? His wife cheats on him - and against all the "lawfulness" of a Paladin he can even go as far as think he was to blame for that and not apply the law in place (prison) and work better to be someone for his family. Sure it is not a lot liberal, but for the character, it is.
Anemon has a ton of ups and downs and various emotions that he can't deal with - and in fact he is a lot sexist and dismisses a lot of the female PC achievements for being a woman (but you can totally challenge him on this) - and if you get the "bad ending" with his romance quest the guy throws a tantrum and goes crazy.
As for Aerie, guess we will have to disagree. You think all of that is dependent on her finding a "man to rescue her", I rather focus on the fact that she realizes she is a strong and independent individual - something she had never stopped to consider in her life of slavery - and doesn't need that "knight in shining armor".... different ways to view something I guess.
Could the game have added more? Could the game have added a lot of other different personalities and stories?
It for certain could!
I would really appreciate it too because I like playing with all characters, meeting all of them and even sticking with those I don't particularly like just so that I can have the full experience of the story .
But you can't deny that the game took a very "neutral approach", particularly so for its time (1998 and 2000). It brought a lot of progressiveness and interesting stories:
You had Imoen little afraid child growing into a strong willed woman without the need of the PC. You had Cern with a sad ending due to the consequences of being an absent father and husband. You had Mazzy becoming a powerful adventurer and leader. We went over Nalia.
And so on.
My issue with this perception of "wrong" in the game's writing is exactly this:
People single out things they don't like and start with the train of thought "that needs to be deleted because I don't believe it is right", no character can have personality X or Y because I believe it is wrong, no character can develop this or that way because it is "offensive/oppressive".
When you do that, you are willingly turning a blind eye to the different points of view of our society and trying to create a fake one dimensional world - this, in my view, completely alienates the story and creates something that I don't feel is real or immersive.
What I say should be done, and how I hope the developers approach things when writing (because I love BG and want to have even more story now and in all the replays I will continue to do of all games):
Bring a pool of everything and let the players have the various experiences from it. Bring all there is to it, bring the sexist characters, bring the vulgar characters, bring the progressive characters, bring the liberal characters, bring the conservatives, etc etc etc.
Portrayed all that mesh of characters in a gray form, i.e., not one of them is "perfect" they all have virtues and flaws - and they can be allies and enemies in various mixes.
To me this create a multi-dimensional story, which can be an interesting and deep story - it let us see a bit of how our world is, thus being more immersive.
Otherwise, you have crazy situations where it is 100% fine to have the character be a psychopath and enter a temple in the middle of a wedding, kill the couple, all their family and all knights there - but when this blood thirsty psychopathic killer meets a peasant woman that decides to break tradition and empower herself his only dialogue option should be a "politically correct" text?
Honestly, the best Dragonlance novels I MO are those that Hickman and Weiss didn't write, just like the best FR novels are by Salvatore and not Greenwood. Just because Greenwood invented a good setting (he did) does not make him a good writer (he is terrible.)
The original games were not "neutral. " Just because the sexism wasn't rubbed in your face like it is in Twilight doesn't mean it wasn't there. The very fact you won't recognize the sexist tropes (Aerie gets stronger because a big strong man came into her life and saved her; Edwin thinks he's better than EVERYONE, not just women, but it'd be bizarre to see a woman in his role, and if there was she'd have probably been an evil enchantress; I've never kept Nalia around, so that is genuinely interesting, but that doesn't change how she starts out and continues to act like a stereotypical naive princess) proves how much we have grown to blindly accept these tropes as "the way things are", as though this is the natural order of things.
Men don't show emotion except through anger and lashing out violently (Minsc, Anomen, Korgan as examples). Women should be soft and gentle, unless they're "strong women" in which case they should be stern, motherly figures, or evil (Aerie, Nalia, Jaheira, and Viconia respectively). After all, Viconia only becomes good if a big strong man comes into her life to show her a better way.
By not challenging these tropes, the story enforces culturally bred sexism. Men don't cry, they bottle it up and get angry. Women have to be prissy and nice unless they're evil. Women need men to make their lives better. If you're a man and insert enough niceness coins, sex pops out.
Except for the fact that Aerie becomes just as strong with a female Charname.
As for Edwin, is there any noticable difference with the characters sex change mid game? Does he suddenly express the idea that he is not still better than everyone? I find it quite incredible that you can't imagine the Edwin character not being female, and yes of course they would still have an evil alignment.
Women show emotion in BG by lashing out. Jaheira is a bitch, full stop. The only NPC I cannot keep in party even when wanting to do the quest. Even Korgan shows more nuanced emotions IMO.
But the point is, that's my reading of the characters, me as a female player. You need to understand that each player reads each NPC through their own lens. BG managed to accomodate that to a huge extent, the massive amount of player generated content is a testiment to how well they succeded.
Dismissing the game as "sexist" is an appaling error to make. One which the original writers managed to avoid.
1. Female PCs don't receive a -2 modifier to all attribute rolls during character creation. 2. Female PCs are allowed to take classes that require a "Good" alignment (Paladin & Ranger). 3. Female PCs can use the area map without penalty.
I was able to accept the above since the game is set in a fantasy setting. Regardless, BG1 was nothing less than a boon (of Lathander?) to the female cause.
"Dismissing the game as "sexist" is an appaling error to make"
Who said I was dismissing the game? I was not. However, I was pointing out that the game does have sexist content, regardless of what others may wish to believe.
Keep in mind that after his sex change, Edwin did not suddenly change his gender identity: he was still male, just now he happened to have a female body. This was not played to seriously address issues of gender identity, it was played as a joke.
Korgan may have more nuanced emotions, and that's fine. But he's still a type.
Lots of films that I enjoy have sexist undertones. Many, MANY video games I love have sexist undertones. That's fine, and it is because I love them that I point these issues out. It is because I am a fan of the Baldur's Gate games that I point out the issues with them, especially with the understanding these games are over 20 years old. David Gaider worked on Baldur's Gate 2, and even he understands that these were hardly progressive pinnacles of amazingness.
As for female PCs not getting -2s, or not being allowed to be good, and not being able to use the area map... that's not sexism. That's outright chauvinism. Sexism, as I said, does NOT have to be shoved in your face for it to exist. Sexism is inculturated, it's subtle, it effects how we look at others. It's not pulling women out in the street and stoning them for voting (I mean, it can be that, but that's certainly not it's only manifestation). Instead, it's dismissing women as being "emotional." It's not just forcing women to wear fully covering clothing. It's dismissing a women's rape charge against a man because she was wearing a cropped top and a miniskirt when it happened, because clearly she should have just been dressing better.
It's not just forcing female PCs into particular roles. It's surrounding those same PCs with gender stereotypes like "the Temptress" and "The Bitchy Wife" and "The Naive Princess." It's saying that men can't cry, they can only get angry. It's saying that to be a strong woman, a woman needs to act in stereotypically masculine ways (cf. Jaheira, Brahnwen). It's saying there's no strength to be found in femininity, only in masculinity.
It's not just forcing female PCs into particular roles. It's surrounding those same PCs with gender stereotypes like "the Temptress" and "The Bitchy Wife" and "The Naive Princess." It's saying that men can't cry, they can only get angry. It's saying that to be a strong woman, a woman needs to act in stereotypically masculine ways (cf. Jaheira, Brahnwen). It's saying there's no strength to be found in femininity, only in masculinity.
That's sexism.
Wait, how is being a "nagging wife" the same as being "stereotypically masculine"?
For that matter, how is being an assertive woman either?
Comments
Also talking about any of the NPCs in BG1 is mostly a matter of perception anyway. Most of them have one or two lines then just their normal selection sounds and battle cries etc. I think we all infer a lot about the characters and we should be try to be patient with other's interpretations. Even if you don't agree and yes, this goes both ways.
That, is the result.
I don't think we can be friends anymore. :P
Seriously, though. I love FR as a setting, but I despise Elkins term and Volo as characters. Even Drizzt irritates me.
Yet if it does, in any way, challenge something it is traditional gender roles, by challenging men to see how they would feel if the roles were reversed.
My issue with the interview is that I understand they say the GAME is sexist - which is 100% wrong IMO.
The game has "sexist" stereotypes for both ways (good, bad, funny and ugly)? Yes, it absolutely does. I do not deny that.
It has stuff like Edwin as a man who thinks himself better than women, Korgan who is completely vulgar, it has Aerie who starts has little princess that can't anything by herself. But hey, guess what, it also has Aerie developing into a strong woman, even ending the romance with the PC because she wants to be free and learn about the world. It has Nalia that ends up becoming a very strong willed person at the end, inheriting her keep against tradition and becoming a driving force. And so on.
The GAME itself is not "sexist" because it portraits a few characters/situations in a stereotypical format.
IMO, the GAME is "neutral".
It does a damn good job, specially if we consider the time it was created, to embrace the diversity of society, showcasing all there is without shying away from it, hiding portion of it because the writer thinks, personally, it is a "wrong personality", or showing this "wrong personality" only in a pejorative way to put them only in a "bad light".
I do not see this "prejudice" in the original BG, rather I see the diversity and find it interesting and well put.
So, going back to the issue, my concern with the interview and what I find to be dead wrong is for the writers to come out and say that they will "hide / destroy" the diversity of the original games so well portrayed, because they want to waive some social justice flag and have the game conform with what they think is the "right way".
That is poor writing in my opinion, and, if that is not enough, it is also against what D&D role playing is all about (having a ton of diversity).
This is what makes me concerned about future content Beamdog develops and this very DLC that the developers brought to the table.
The original games were not "neutral. " Just because the sexism wasn't rubbed in your face like it is in Twilight doesn't mean it wasn't there. The very fact you won't recognize the sexist tropes (Aerie gets stronger because a big strong man came into her life and saved her; Edwin thinks he's better than EVERYONE, not just women, but it'd be bizarre to see a woman in his role, and if there was she'd have probably been an evil enchantress; I've never kept Nalia around, so that is genuinely interesting, but that doesn't change how she starts out and continues to act like a stereotypical naive princess) proves how much we have grown to blindly accept these tropes as "the way things are", as though this is the natural order of things.
Men don't show emotion except through anger and lashing out violently (Minsc, Anomen, Korgan as examples). Women should be soft and gentle, unless they're "strong women" in which case they should be stern, motherly figures, or evil (Aerie, Nalia, Jaheira, and Viconia respectively). After all, Viconia only becomes good if a big strong man comes into her life to show her a better way.
By not challenging these tropes, the story enforces culturally bred sexism. Men don't cry, they bottle it up and get angry. Women have to be prissy and nice unless they're evil. Women need men to make their lives better. If you're a man and insert enough niceness coins, sex pops out.
That's a fault of the writers, not the idea of shared works. For instance, nonexistent is the TV series that has a single writer. Same with video games. But with proper management of the writers, you can have games and TV series that are relatively devoid of the issues you mentioned. Yet they are "shared works."
Start a no-reload run through of BGEE, progress very nicely, build the eager anticiptation of moving seemlessly into SoD, feel the excitement levels rise.
And then die. Foolishly. A stupid, silly, easily avoidable mistake*
And then, rather than restart and rush through the game to get back to where you were, you give in to the dark side. To all those terrible, negative emotions. The anger and the frustration builds. The gutteral, primeval scream that builds inside. Why. Why. WHY.
And then, like all good super villains, you devote your life to exacting revenge. You apply yourself to work, starting a little company, that grows over the years. Turnover creeps up. It moves from local to regional to national, and then the first branch opens overseas. Turnover moves from the thousands to the millions to the billions. And at the heart of it? That all consuming anger and rage.
A mysterious take over bid buys Wizard of the Coast. A (very large) suitcase of money buys and closes down Beamdog. Expensive lawyers begin to take down Baldurs Gate fan sites. The games are all withdrawn from sale, and Modders are arrested in the middle of the night and carted off to prison. And gradually, slowly, Baldurs Gate is forced into the shadows. Copies sell for ridiculous amounts on auction sites. People reminisce in hushed whispers about Boo.
And over time people forget about BG. Everyone, of course, except that one bitter, twisted soul, who cackles in his lair.
*I should point out my no-reload run of BGEE is still going strong, but in the event of a silly, easily avoidable mistake... well.... who knows?
Yeah, I'm "right behind you with my two flaming fists."
The only true gender difference is that there was more romance with female companions and that's why more female characters are seen as being influenced by the protagonist. It's not because they are weaker, it's just because they have an elaborate romance. And that's not really sexisms IMO (although some would disagree), it's just based on the average target audience at the time.
What about Keldorn? His wife cheats on him - and against all the "lawfulness" of a Paladin he can even go as far as think he was to blame for that and not apply the law in place (prison) and work better to be someone for his family. Sure it is not a lot liberal, but for the character, it is.
Anemon has a ton of ups and downs and various emotions that he can't deal with - and in fact he is a lot sexist and dismisses a lot of the female PC achievements for being a woman (but you can totally challenge him on this) - and if you get the "bad ending" with his romance quest the guy throws a tantrum and goes crazy.
As for Aerie, guess we will have to disagree. You think all of that is dependent on her finding a "man to rescue her", I rather focus on the fact that she realizes she is a strong and independent individual - something she had never stopped to consider in her life of slavery - and doesn't need that "knight in shining armor".... different ways to view something I guess.
Could the game have added more? Could the game have added a lot of other different personalities and stories?
It for certain could!
I would really appreciate it too because I like playing with all characters, meeting all of them and even sticking with those I don't particularly like just so that I can have the full experience of the story .
But you can't deny that the game took a very "neutral approach", particularly so for its time (1998 and 2000). It brought a lot of progressiveness and interesting stories:
You had Imoen little afraid child growing into a strong willed woman without the need of the PC.
You had Cern with a sad ending due to the consequences of being an absent father and husband.
You had Mazzy becoming a powerful adventurer and leader.
We went over Nalia.
And so on.
My issue with this perception of "wrong" in the game's writing is exactly this:
People single out things they don't like and start with the train of thought "that needs to be deleted because I don't believe it is right", no character can have personality X or Y because I believe it is wrong, no character can develop this or that way because it is "offensive/oppressive".
When you do that, you are willingly turning a blind eye to the different points of view of our society and trying to create a fake one dimensional world - this, in my view, completely alienates the story and creates something that I don't feel is real or immersive.
What I say should be done, and how I hope the developers approach things when writing (because I love BG and want to have even more story now and in all the replays I will continue to do of all games):
Bring a pool of everything and let the players have the various experiences from it. Bring all there is to it, bring the sexist characters, bring the vulgar characters, bring the progressive characters, bring the liberal characters, bring the conservatives, etc etc etc.
Portrayed all that mesh of characters in a gray form, i.e., not one of them is "perfect" they all have virtues and flaws - and they can be allies and enemies in various mixes.
To me this create a multi-dimensional story, which can be an interesting and deep story - it let us see a bit of how our world is, thus being more immersive.
Otherwise, you have crazy situations where it is 100% fine to have the character be a psychopath and enter a temple in the middle of a wedding, kill the couple, all their family and all knights there - but when this blood thirsty psychopathic killer meets a peasant woman that decides to break tradition and empower herself his only dialogue option should be a "politically correct" text?
Except for the fact that Aerie becomes just as strong with a female Charname.
As for Edwin, is there any noticable difference with the characters sex change mid game?
Does he suddenly express the idea that he is not still better than everyone?
I find it quite incredible that you can't imagine the Edwin character not being female, and yes of course they would still have an evil alignment.
Women show emotion in BG by lashing out. Jaheira is a bitch, full stop. The only NPC I cannot keep in party even when wanting to do the quest. Even Korgan shows more nuanced emotions IMO.
But the point is, that's my reading of the characters, me as a female player.
You need to understand that each player reads each NPC through their own lens. BG managed to accomodate that to a huge extent, the massive amount of player generated content is a testiment to how well they succeded.
Dismissing the game as "sexist" is an appaling error to make. One which the original writers managed to avoid.
1. Female PCs don't receive a -2 modifier to all attribute rolls during character creation.
2. Female PCs are allowed to take classes that require a "Good" alignment (Paladin & Ranger).
3. Female PCs can use the area map without penalty.
I was able to accept the above since the game is set in a fantasy setting. Regardless, BG1 was nothing less than a boon (of Lathander?) to the female cause.
Who said I was dismissing the game? I was not. However, I was pointing out that the game does have sexist content, regardless of what others may wish to believe.
Keep in mind that after his sex change, Edwin did not suddenly change his gender identity: he was still male, just now he happened to have a female body. This was not played to seriously address issues of gender identity, it was played as a joke.
Korgan may have more nuanced emotions, and that's fine. But he's still a type.
Lots of films that I enjoy have sexist undertones. Many, MANY video games I love have sexist undertones. That's fine, and it is because I love them that I point these issues out. It is because I am a fan of the Baldur's Gate games that I point out the issues with them, especially with the understanding these games are over 20 years old. David Gaider worked on Baldur's Gate 2, and even he understands that these were hardly progressive pinnacles of amazingness.
As for female PCs not getting -2s, or not being allowed to be good, and not being able to use the area map... that's not sexism. That's outright chauvinism. Sexism, as I said, does NOT have to be shoved in your face for it to exist. Sexism is inculturated, it's subtle, it effects how we look at others. It's not pulling women out in the street and stoning them for voting (I mean, it can be that, but that's certainly not it's only manifestation). Instead, it's dismissing women as being "emotional." It's not just forcing women to wear fully covering clothing. It's dismissing a women's rape charge against a man because she was wearing a cropped top and a miniskirt when it happened, because clearly she should have just been dressing better.
It's not just forcing female PCs into particular roles. It's surrounding those same PCs with gender stereotypes like "the Temptress" and "The Bitchy Wife" and "The Naive Princess." It's saying that men can't cry, they can only get angry. It's saying that to be a strong woman, a woman needs to act in stereotypically masculine ways (cf. Jaheira, Brahnwen). It's saying there's no strength to be found in femininity, only in masculinity.
That's sexism.
For that matter, how is being an assertive woman either?