I've had my first play-through of SoD - and I like it.

I thought the story device to bridge BG to BG2 was pretty brilliant and satisfying. Old friends. To get more of Minsc, Imo, Viconia - even original narrator - heck yeah, I'm sold! :-D The combat was fairly challenging on core. But scaling is generous if need be.

So you OP: "I don't like it, neither should you!"


"Wäääh, wääh, wääh - my gaming joy is very fragile, a minor detail destroys it, and thence it requires mass validation! Let me mount a campaign against non-mainstream publisher too, because I have such a great gaming solidarity!"

I thought those "SWJs" were supposed to be very fussy and unforgiving about the tiniest detail?

Yet here you are, throwing your toys out of the pram ... for a minor detail.

Us BG and Beamdog fans will get on with gaming, maybe just a little bit more joyfully! ;-)

If you referred to Ano romance specifically, I might get you - though still thinking you never bothered to consider the secondary layer of his behaviour. I've grown to like Ano over years. :-)

Even Ano notwithstanding: romances are entirely voluntary content. Those whom dislike such, just ignore. It's easy, rest assured.

I actually like romances, but never ever have ended up dragged unto the fictional bed-chamber kicking and screaming. And eventual very naïve romance haters can just reload, surely? ;-)

Actually, the latter doesn't follow from the former.

Just because something is true in real life, you don't need to implement said rule in a game, especially since there is the strong Amazonian warrior trope that appears in fantasy, and the strength limit prevents you from playing one. Also, the female strength limit *will* alienate many female gamers, and it doesn't benefit the gameplay, so why have it?

If realism is your concern, why are there no rules about going to the bathroom?

(Of note, one AD&D mechanic I actually dislike is weapon proficiencies, and I especially dislike how they increased the number of them in BG2 (compared to BG1); why should I need to pick between bastard swords and long swords?)

Read the Dark elf trilogy (it actually ties directly into Viconia's storyline) and find out what dark elf priestesses has to do when they are growing up. Sacrificing other drow and people is very common. And the drow males gets tortured and abused on a daily basis. Hence her "Male! Fetch me something to eat" comment (or whatever the comment was).

+ if you have an evil alignment it is because you have done evil things. Simple as that. Alignments shift when you do good\evil things.

Coming from an American, that's very sad indeed.
I know it's futile, but please stop lashing out at everything that contradicts your point of view. You are entitled to it as everyone else is. You can discuss, insist, maybe even preach your credo. But in indifferently insulting whole nations you just ridicule yourself.

Okay, normally I do not participate in hate threads, but this time I have to jump in.


Fucking please. Get over yourself; these few lines of dialogue - that you have to go looking for - no more ruin your game than Jar Jar Binks ruined your childhood.

If you have a real, honest assessment of the bugs that crash the program; yes - that "ruins" the game.

If you have problems with the levelling, pacing, monsters, or other legitimate concerns about the operations of the game, then yes, they might "ruin" the game.

Having A trangender person in a fantasy setting does not 'ruin' your game.

You know, when you cry and whine and winge on about "oh my god, a transgender character is in my game" you make the case FOR social justice warriors; you reinforce hate and bigotry, you waste everyone's time and energy telling you what a sad, mouth breathing, ignorant fuckhead of a troll you are, AND you accomplish absolutely nothing other than proving the point that trangender people cannot go anywhere without feeling like they might be harassed, assaulted, or even killed.


so shut the ever-loving fuck up, you big, spoiled, over-privileged whiny baby.

No, as I don't support butchery of the D&D lore, as it is asinine that a cleric who is a merchant that is trans is too stupid to get the gender switch spell.

Also the fact that they change beloved characters to different personalities just does not make since, as they change from Baldur's gate 1, then change back to there old personalities in Baldur's gate 2.

But that is just part of the icing of the big shit cake that is dragonspear, as the story is very shitty, the removal of so much of the rpg elements that the original games had, combat design like icewind dale, and the glorious retarded bugs in the game.

Examples please. Real ones.
From what I've seen so far, Beamdog did a decent job which will bring new fans to the series.

You do realize that the word "tranny" is a slur and should not be used, right?

not in BG (based on 2nd edition) - it does happen in NWN (based on 3rd edition). (I'm assuming this is a factor of 2nd v. 3rd edition - if 2nd edition allowed for alignment moving in the p&p game, please correct me).

There's one point in SOA that your character can turn evil (though not good for some reason) - but that's a special case.

It also, to my understanding, does not make you fall from being a Paladin or Ranger. (If you are a Paladin, note that this will cause your turn undead ability to function like that of an evil cleric, allowing you to command enemy undead.)

Way more than one. You can even walk around wearing human flesh if you want.

Tracking alignment shifts due to character actions has been a part of the P&P game since D&D came out. Yes, it is a part of 2e AD&D.

It is true that BG does not faithfully represent that, but that's probably because it would have been a hassle. Easier to just use a reputation mechanic that is not in 2e than to try to assign an alignment value to every dialog option and every action.

"Ruin" is subjective. Obviously, it's a bigger deal to some than to you.

I thought the OP made a good suggestion -- if you don't want more of this in the next release, complain, even to the point of not buying the product. Surely you can't object to that? If you want prime rib and order prime rib and pay for prime rib, then they bring you tofu and tell you to shut up and enjoy it, tofu is good for you, I'd say the problem is the restaurant, and I'm fine with them going bankrupt.

It's this over-the-top reaction to the reaction that is telling. If people can mostly make the case against SJW invasion of yet another thing without insults, why can't the other side? Why must everyone who thinks that social commentary about sexual orientation of any type doesn't need to be in a game that didn't have it before is necessarily driven by hate? Or is an ignorant fuckhead?

And then to springboard from there to the completely unrelated idea that anyone who thinks that way might become violently oppressive of others? Is there even a scintilla of evidence that is true?

Consider it from any perspective other than your narrow-minded one. Imagine someone were to actually call transexuals "ignorant fuckheads". Or call you SJWs "ignorant fuckheads". This, I would remind, has not happened in this thread. But if it had, I would agree there are grounds to think that people who had such poor control of their emotions might well present a threat of violence.