But it there's no differences why should I bother identifying with with one and not the other?
Why should I have a party of different races if the differences are just cosmetic?

a. Did you follow the link I supplied? It seems not. And I was only supplying some info why in my OPINION it was done.
b. As dtgreene pointed out, SSI was following a rule-set.
c. agreed, unfortunate also what I mentioned not implemented.

Thank you.

I will replay them (sooner or later) and pay attention to it ;)

I understand the issues with sexism in the SSI games, but I wouldn't let that stop me from enjoying them. Of course, as a male, that's easy for me to say, but I don't think the mechanic was put in there to actively promote sexism. And it was a long time ago - it's a shame to refuse to enjoy a whole series of games because of some outdated attitudes. Yes, you may want to play male characters due to their advantages, but you can even that out by playing female characters for classes that don't need strength. Or you can just play male characters in that particular game - I wouldn't avoid playing Tomb Raider just because I have to play a female character.

Theme Hospital is a good example - fun game, but undeniable sexism (all the doctors and handymen are male and all the nurses and receptionists are female). And since it was made in 1997 (much later than the D&D games), it's surprising just how sexist that is for the time. But I still like the game.

Any modern game should incorporate women and minorities as equal options, but if you hold older games to modern standards, you're going to miss out on some good games. Same thing for movies, TV shows, books, etc.

Regarding the original issue of the thread, it can be hard to reconcile certain things. The Naked Gun is one of my favorite comedies. I still enjoy it, but it's hard not to notice OJ's presence in the movie. Fortunately, he's a rather minor character, but you can't help but think about what he did while he's on screen. Having said that, at the time he made the movie, he was not yet a murderer.

In a similar vein, I can watch Chinatown because it was also made before Roman Polanski became a child rapist but I wouldn't watch anything he was involved with after that. And for the time being, I won't watch anything he made at all until he dies because he may derive some income or benefit from me seeing it.

From previous posts of yours (not in this topic), you refuse to play games with anime graphics, even if they happen to be of a type you would otherwise like. Why should that matter if the difference is just cosmetic?

If you are looking at it from RPG perspective, then gender/sex is unbalanced - men are stronger and women have no bonuses that could balance it out (and for most of history everyone belived that men are also smarter, so even more imbalance!), but if you look at it from strategy game perspective, then there is no imbalance. This is why our world is a bad setting for RPG while being good for strategy game.

So, you wouldn't watch one of the greatest movies ever made about Poland (and the Warsaw ghetto) under the Nazi occupation, The Pianist?

No I wouldn't. I specifically avoided seeing it when it was out.

*Moded, hate speech is not allowed on the forum.

Understood.

May I ask...

Is there anything Polanski could do that would allow you to watch his films?

He already answered that question, quite clearly. Why do you persist?

Tonnemaker said he or she wouldn't watch anything from Polanski.

I asked whether there is anything Polanski could do to change Tonnemaker's mind.

My question is directly related to the very crux of this thread / conversation -- if "bad" artists can find redemption or not?

Tonnemaker's original explanation was quite general and wasn't in a conversational context, so I would hardly say "He already answered that question..."

I'm sorry if this too much for you... but asking a simple question about Tonnemaker's views on an artist's redemption (or the inability to find said redemption) is far from deserving of your admonishment.

"Once Polanski dies, I'll give it a watch."

How could he be any clearer?

Again, that's a statement maybe outside of any conversational context (no specific question was asked to illicit that "response"). I added to the conversation... Tonnemaker responded... etc. With his stance -- which I understand and respect -- I am asking if there is redemption available for Polanski.

Where was that answered?

You seem to want to create an argument out of an earnest conversation.

If you don't have anything constructive to say, infer a "higher power." *sheesh*

Redemption can't come from people? Seriously? Wow, you should tell the prison systems there's no reason for them to exist.

Please don't start quoting scripture.

Redemption happens everyday for people in big and little ways... and has even happened for you. You might not want to accept that, but it's true.

Please refrain from what seems like passive-aggressive argument baiting. This was a conversation a civil conversation with Tonnemaker where I am legitimately interested in his repsonse. You're just looking to create distention.

If you aren't aware that the term you chose to use has religious connotations, who are you to ask anyone else if they are for real?

Are you lazy, insecure, and of middling intellect?

So why does it bother you that there are people who don't share the feelings you have for a man too cowardly to face the consequences of his actions?