http://archive.is/Lwu6p#selection-1837.0-1849.123

Beamdog is pushing the SJW agenda with this expansion and spitting on the original games (ironic, since without those games, they'd be unemployed). If you don't support this crap, do not buy this game and make sure everyone knows what Beamdog is doing.

I support Beamdog, but I respect your opinion!

So they took a poorly developed character from the base game and decided to flesh them out... how is that a bad thing?

I really love BG, but I really hate it when political agendas and morality are shoved down my throat. That combined with the really poor state of the game (bug wise), really makes me wonder if I should buy this one. So how bad is it really? If it isn't too prevalent, I'd probably still give this game a go.

Anyone that is playing/has played it, that can tell me how bad it really is? Preferably someone who doesn't think anything and everything is sexist...

I completely support the OPs right to be a rightwing bigoted asshole

I also support Beamdog in their vision and work
I will buy Dragonspear in due course

If "pushing the SJW agenda" means trying not be sexist in writing new material (while not changing plot, dialogue or characters in the original game) and acknowledging that some people aren't heterosexual (ditto), which is all the article you linked to indicates that they've done, then I fail to see the distinction between the "SJW" agenda and the "not being a dick" agenda. It would be equally, if not more, true to say that not doing the things described in the article would be shoving political agendas and morality down your throat. The complete omission of same-gender romances in the original games, for example, is at odds with reality, because gay and bi people exist. Does that make BG2 a bad game? No, of course not. But it does mean that if you're putting romance or relationships into a new game (or expansion) then there is nothing the slightest bit unreasonable about including same-gender possibilities, and that you should consider the possibility that complaining about it says more about you than about Beamdog.

You do understand that you can "flesh out" a character without pushing a political agenda that says the majority of people who play video games are scum, right? Or have you been completely unaware of what's been going on in the gaming industry for the last two years? Yes, not supporting a company that vilifies most gamers for their race / gender / sexual orientation is "bigoted". Is this an Anita Sarkeesian troll account?

Trying not to write in a sexist way and including a gay character and a bi character amounts to saying that the majority of people who play video games are scum? I think that takes reading between the lines to a quite unsupportable extreme.

So being consistent with in-game (and D&D) lore is "shoving a political agenda and morality" on people? If they want to have an RPG about multi-directional bi-sectional trans-unicorn octopus worshipers, that's fine - but do it in a NEW game instead of forcing it into an existing and beloved franchise. But like they said in the linked interview - creating original content would be "too much effort". So you ARE unaware of what's been happening in the gaming industry for the last two years. Short version, a bunch of people who are offended by EVERYTHING decided that since video games are primarily enjoyed by straight white males (seeing how they do make up a significant portion of the developed world, that's common sense), they are inherently evil and must be "fixed". Hence adding transexual characters into existing games even though it completely does not fit the game or the established lore. It's also why they think that having ONE CHARACTER that is kinda snotty to their spouse is "sexist", despite the fact that they'd have zero complaints if it showed Kahlid being snotty to Jaheira.

Please quote me the "in-game and D&D lore" that endorses sexism (even though the very first character creation sub-screen does the exact opposite) and states that gay and bi people do not exist. If you're talking about the 'Gamergate' idiocy then yes, I am very well aware of what's been happening: a bunch of woman-haters seized on a pack of lies from a female game developer's abusive ex-boyfriend as an excuse to start a loosely-formed hate movement and engage in activities ranging from insults and harassment to literal terrorism to try to belittle, silence and drive out women, and anyone who doesn't hate women (and also LGBT people when they feel like it), in the games industry.

How? If this wasn't a real political theme in the past games(and the D&D universe in general), why should it be now? That's just weird. It will just come across as injecting modern political issues into a completely unrelated universe. You know as well as I do that these things are socially stigmatized in most modern, and especially in old, cultures. So if nothing was done with it in the past games, why should something be done with it now? Also the absente or presence of something doesn't constitute the pushing of political and moral agenda's. The problem occurs when it's done in places where it doesn't belong.

I personally don't care if they put same-sex romance options in, as long as it's done properly - and in context of the other two games I'd expect it to be a more hush-hush thing. And yes, if you want to do this properly, you need to include both pro and anti same-sex/trans (and so on) agendas, and sexism and racism should also be included. If you just put forward one of the two, that would constitute the pushing of a specific political agenda to me - especially in a game that's all about choices.

I always find this argument odd. Why do same sex relations in media always need conflict but heterosexual ones don't?
Having homophobia in a game could help create some interesting stories and spread awareness of the dangers of bigotry, but to say it must be included if you want to have gay people is really illogical.

Because reality has shown this to be a thing.

Unless of course it has been established to be a normal/acceptable thing in said universe - which is not the case here.

Having LGBT people exist in the game's world is not "injecting modern political issues" (unless the game is going to portray gay pride marches or something, which I very much doubt). It simply reflects human reality; nothing more, nothing less. Having them not exist, on the other hand, erases an aspect of that reality. I'm quite sure the writers of Baldur's Gate (and all sorts of other games, books, films etc.) didn't actively intend to do anything of the sort. It simply didn't occur to them - but that is itself another kind of problem, and one that the writers of the new stuff rightly don't want to repeat.

Yes. And that was and is a bad thing, so let's not go along with it, eh?

Because the past games were made in the past, but new games and expansions aren't being made in the past, they're being made now.

Sexism is included in Baldur's Gate - look at Eldoth's treatment of Skie and of women in general. And if you believe 'reverse sexism' is a thing, that's there as well - see Shar-Teel.

While homophobia is a real and very horrible thing, not all gay people have the same experiences. Some people are killed for their sexuality, some go their whole lives without anyone even insulting them for it.

Is it ever established that homophobia is common in the games universe? And even if they're not accepted then why should that mean they shouldn't exist?