It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
oldnose: every kind of diversity except diversity of thought
There is one problem with the notion of "diversity of thought" argument. If somebody has beliefs that are particularly toxic (for example, if one believes that LGBT people shouldn't be given rights, for example), then, IMO, that shouldn't be tolerated, because it crowds out other types of diversity.

In a sense, particularly toxic thoughts are like invasive species; they crowd out other diverse thoughts and other diverse people. For example, having Nazis around is going to make Jewish people uncomfortable.

(Also, as a note, I have a policy of downvoting any post that uses (not just mention) the term "SJW", as that term is generally used by people who consider social justice to be an abomination.)
avatar
oldnose: many of us don't want 2017 Democratic Party immorality injected into our 1998 game
Many of us don't want 2017 Republican Party immorality injected into our 1998 game. Anyway, the way it stands now, the Democratic party (at least some members of it) have some semblance of morality; the Republican party does not at this point (especially when considering the recent anti-healthcare bill that just passed the House).
Post edited May 06, 2017 by dtgreene
low rated
avatar
oldnose: every kind of diversity except diversity of thought
avatar
dtgreene: There is one problem with the notion of "diversity of thought" argument. If somebody has beliefs that are particularly toxic (for example, if one believes that LGBT people shouldn't be given rights, for example), then, IMO, that shouldn't be tolerated, because it crowds out other types of diversity.

In a sense, particularly toxic thoughts are like invasive species; they crowd out other diverse thoughts and other diverse people. For example, having Nazis around is going to make Jewish people uncomfortable.

(Also, as a note, I have a policy of downvoting any post that uses (not just mention) the term "SJW", as that term is generally used by people who consider social justice to be an abomination.)
avatar
oldnose: many of us don't want 2017 Democratic Party immorality injected into our 1998 game
avatar
dtgreene: Many of us don't want 2017 Republican Party immorality injected into our 1998 game. Anyway, the way it stands now, the Democratic party (at least some members of it) have some semblance of morality; the Republican party does not at this point (especially when considering the recent anti-healthcare bill that just passed the House).
The BG games are an established franchise, and have been for 20 years. It has a world wide audience. Stuffing 4Chan and Tumblr politics and whatever Californian social-political hysteria anno 2016 into a middle chapter of the franchise is a rather huge miss.
avatar
oldnose: every kind of diversity except diversity of thought
avatar
dtgreene: There is one problem with the notion of "diversity of thought" argument. If somebody has beliefs that are particularly toxic (for example, if one believes that LGBT people shouldn't be given rights, for example), then, IMO, that shouldn't be tolerated, because it crowds out other types of diversity.

In a sense, particularly toxic thoughts are like invasive species; they crowd out other diverse thoughts and other diverse people. For example, having Nazis around is going to make Jewish people uncomfortable.

(Also, as a note, I have a policy of downvoting any post that uses (not just mention) the term "SJW", as that term is generally used by people who consider social justice to be an abomination.)
avatar
oldnose: many of us don't want 2017 Democratic Party immorality injected into our 1998 game
avatar
dtgreene: Many of us don't want 2017 Republican Party immorality injected into our 1998 game. Anyway, the way it stands now, the Democratic party (at least some members of it) have some semblance of morality; the Republican party does not at this point (especially when considering the recent anti-healthcare bill that just passed the House).
Most of us simply don't want any US politics to pollute the games we play. I don't care whether you have right-wing or left-wing views. If you try to blatantly inject your ideology into the game I will refuse to play it and simply ignore it. If you blatantly inject it into an old classic to make it more "modern" I will oppose it.
low rated
avatar
Lebesgue: Most of us simply don't want any US politics to pollute the games we play. I don't care whether you have right-wing or left-wing views. If you try to blatantly inject your ideology into the game I will refuse to play it and simply ignore it. If you blatantly inject it into an old classic to make it more "modern" I will oppose it.
The problem is that the original games have at least one thing that I would consider right-wing ideology, and that would be racism presented as a good thing.

Specifically, we have characters who:
* are "good", according to their character sheets, and
* who are racist against the dark elf Viconia.

Specifically, I note that, in BG2, Aerie begs you not to let Viconia join, even though Viconia, as far as I can tell, has done nothing wrong. I also have read that, Keldorn, who is a *paladin* of all things (albeit one who doesn't get the abilities that normally distinguish a paladin from a fighter), also is prejudiced against the dark elf Viconia.

I could also point out the choice to make the one matriarchal society be evil, to the point of having slaves, to be right-wing ideology.

avatar
Stig79: The BG games are an established franchise, and have been for 20 years. It has a world wide audience. Stuffing 4Chan and Tumblr politics and whatever Californian social-political hysteria anno 2016 into a middle chapter of the franchise is a rather huge miss.
As I said, the BG games already have right-wing politics in them.

Also, I could point out that SaGa Frontier, another games released around the same time, has an obvious lesbian couple, and it is not presented in a negative light. Then again, the SaGa series has always been atypical compared to other RPGs (I can cite the lack of levels and XP, for example).
Post edited May 06, 2017 by dtgreene
avatar
Lebesgue: Most of us simply don't want any US politics to pollute the games we play. I don't care whether you have right-wing or left-wing views. If you try to blatantly inject your ideology into the game I will refuse to play it and simply ignore it. If you blatantly inject it into an old classic to make it more "modern" I will oppose it.
avatar
dtgreene: The problem is that the original games have at least one thing that I would consider right-wing ideology, and that would be racism presented as a good thing.

Specifically, we have characters who:
* are "good", according to their character sheets, and
* who are racist against the dark elf Viconia.

Specifically, I note that, in BG2, Aerie begs you not to let Viconia join, even though Viconia, as far as I can tell, has done nothing wrong. I also have read that, Keldorn, who is a *paladin* of all things (albeit one who doesn't get the abilities that normally distinguish a paladin from a fighter), also is prejudiced against the dark elf Viconia.

I could also point out the choice to make the one matriarchal society be evil, to the point of having slaves, to be right-wing ideology.

avatar
Stig79: The BG games are an established franchise, and have been for 20 years. It has a world wide audience. Stuffing 4Chan and Tumblr politics and whatever Californian social-political hysteria anno 2016 into a middle chapter of the franchise is a rather huge miss.
avatar
dtgreene: As I said, the BG games already have right-wing politics in them.

Also, I could point out that SaGa Frontier, another games released around the same time, has an obvious lesbian couple, and it is not presented in a negative light. Then again, the SaGa series has always been atypical compared to other RPGs (I can cite the lack of levels and XP, for example).
No, the original games are apolitical. The problem with your argument is that you don't take into account a simple fact: the people were told their whole lives that drow are evil, and they never encountered anything that suggests otherwise.

Real world politics don't apply to Baldur's Gate. That's the problem many people had with the trans character in SoD.
Post edited May 06, 2017 by jsidhu762
avatar
Lebesgue: Most of us simply don't want any US politics to pollute the games we play. I don't care whether you have right-wing or left-wing views. If you try to blatantly inject your ideology into the game I will refuse to play it and simply ignore it. If you blatantly inject it into an old classic to make it more "modern" I will oppose it.
avatar
dtgreene: The problem is that the original games have at least one thing that I would consider right-wing ideology, and that would be racism presented as a good thing.

Specifically, we have characters who:
* are "good", according to their character sheets, and
* who are racist against the dark elf Viconia.

Specifically, I note that, in BG2, Aerie begs you not to let Viconia join, even though Viconia, as far as I can tell, has done nothing wrong. I also have read that, Keldorn, who is a *paladin* of all things (albeit one who doesn't get the abilities that normally distinguish a paladin from a fighter), also is prejudiced against the dark elf Viconia.

I could also point out the choice to make the one matriarchal society be evil, to the point of having slaves, to be right-wing ideology.

avatar
Stig79: The BG games are an established franchise, and have been for 20 years. It has a world wide audience. Stuffing 4Chan and Tumblr politics and whatever Californian social-political hysteria anno 2016 into a middle chapter of the franchise is a rather huge miss.
avatar
dtgreene: As I said, the BG games already have right-wing politics in them.

Also, I could point out that SaGa Frontier, another games released around the same time, has an obvious lesbian couple, and it is not presented in a negative light. Then again, the SaGa series has always been atypical compared to other RPGs (I can cite the lack of levels and XP, for example).
There is nothing right-wing about your example...

It's like saying that during a war between country A and country B, citizens of county A should be unconditionally friendly to a person wearing uniform of a soldiers of country B, eve though the two countries are at war and there is plenty of stories of country B soldiers executing whole villages. I don't call this racism or right wing ideology.
avatar
dtgreene: The problem is that the original games have at least one thing that I would consider right-wing ideology, and that would be racism presented as a good thing.

Specifically, we have characters who:
* are "good", according to their character sheets, and
* who are racist against the dark elf Viconia.

Specifically, I note that, in BG2, Aerie begs you not to let Viconia join, even though Viconia, as far as I can tell, has done nothing wrong. I also have read that, Keldorn, who is a *paladin* of all things (albeit one who doesn't get the abilities that normally distinguish a paladin from a fighter), also is prejudiced against the dark elf Viconia.

I could also point out the choice to make the one matriarchal society be evil, to the point of having slaves, to be right-wing ideology.

As I said, the BG games already have right-wing politics in them.

Also, I could point out that SaGa Frontier, another games released around the same time, has an obvious lesbian couple, and it is not presented in a negative light. Then again, the SaGa series has always been atypical compared to other RPGs (I can cite the lack of levels and XP, for example).
avatar
Lebesgue: There is nothing right-wing about your example...

It's like saying that during a war between country A and country B, citizens of county A should be unconditionally friendly to a person wearing uniform of a soldiers of country B, eve though the two countries are at war and there is plenty of stories of country B soldiers executing whole villages. I don't call this racism or right wing ideology.
I know. Because there isn't any right wing politics shoved into BG to begin with. The games are completely neutral in that regard. I just listed up the SJW politics that got added to the middle chapter via the expansion pack.

The drow society could be considered right-wing politics, I guess. But it wasn't put there by Bioware. That bit is straight from the Forgotten Realms lore, and it ties into the elven gods. Nobody added it to the games to front some political ideal. The drow society isn't portrayed as something "good" either.

As for the Aerie comment. Viconia has certainly done much wrong. She is Neutral Evil. The drow race are widely known for atrocities as well. they make sport of hunting elves and humans on the surface. Murdering children and babies for the hell of it. This is why you get a -2 to your reputation as soon as she joins your party. She starts fighting with Kivan (an elf) in BG1 because of the drow vs elf war too.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Drow "They earned their reputation as evil people, with all justification"
avatar
dtgreene: Specifically, we have characters who:
* are "good", according to their character sheets, and
* who are racist against the dark elf Viconia.

Specifically, I note that, in BG2, Aerie begs you not to let Viconia join, even though Viconia, as far as I can tell, has done nothing wrong. I also have read that, Keldorn, who is a *paladin* of all things (albeit one who doesn't get the abilities that normally distinguish a paladin from a fighter), also is prejudiced against the dark elf Viconia.
Viconia. Done nothing wrong. Right.
P.S. and you don't even need to do anything to be evil. You just are, or are not.
Post edited May 06, 2017 by burn
low rated
Dtgreene, I can agree that "particularly toxic thoughts...crowd out other diverse thoughts and other diverse people." Those thoughts are your own. You have admitted you are intolerant of anyone who has traditional Christian values. That's a lot of people, especially here in the South. You are welcome to "downvote" me as much as you like, which is the highest level of aggression you are capable of on the internet, and which you probably believe is justified since only your SJW views are acceptable. A woman in a wheelchair here got maced in the face a few days ago by a SJW believing these same communist ideas, because the wheelchair lady believed that the SJWs SHOULDN'T tear down historical statues.

As for Baldur's Gate, it is apolitical. No one has injected any 2017 (I should have said 2016) Republican ideas into this 1998 game, and why would they? The entire Infinity Engine series is apolitical, as is 1980s and 1990s AD&D, and even when real world politics are somewhat alluded to as with the Planescape faction system, it is done in a balanced way. Even if Republican ideas were somehow added, 2016 Republican ideas are essentially the same as they were in 1998. Liberal Democrats are the ones who seek to politicize every mundane aspect of life, whether it is 20 year old games, bathrooms, etc. Bill Nye has to go back and retroactively censor his own former show where he said chromosomes determine gender since now the communists believe you are whatever race/sex/species you say you are. Retroactively adding gays and feminism to the game is as out of place as adding sword restrictions, laws forcing people to buy healing potions, or Flaming Fist diversity training and community outreach programs.
low rated
avatar
oldnose: You have admitted you are intolerant of anyone who has traditional Christian values.
What you are calling "traditional Christian values" is really just an excuse for bigotry nowadays. Thing is, some of the so-called "values" (which, I should point out, not all Christians share) are things like "gay men are an abomination", which is basically saying that certain people are an abomination just for existing. I can also point out that the bible has been used to justify slavery and war in the past. Also, the Bible is around 2,000 years old, with some parts being more than double that age (to my understanding); don't you think that is rather outdated?

Also, I have a bible quote for you; does this reflect your values? (Psalm 137:9; chosen KJB version because it's public domain)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
(That's not the only awful part of the so-called holy book, but it certainly is nasty.)

avatar
oldnose: As for Baldur's Gate, it is apolitical. No one has injected any 2017 (I should have said 2016) Republican ideas into this 1998 game, and why would they? The entire Infinity Engine series is apolitical, as is 1980s and 1990s AD&D, and even when real world politics are somewhat alluded to as with the Planescape faction system, it is done in a balanced way.
Actually, pretty much every form of art, including Baldur's Gate, and what I'll call "traditional" AD&D (2e and earlier), is political in some way. The whole racism I mentioned being considered "good", and the choice to make the society led by women of color evil, are examples of the game being political.

Traditional AD&D is also political, with the decisions to favor human males over all other race/gender combinations. You have female characters arbitrarily given low strength caps (something that was thankfully removed in 2e), and you have racial level limits (which the IE games deliberately don't implement, and with good reason); that feels like politics to me.

I think it would be very difficult (maybe even impossible) to find any piece of story-telling media to be completely apolitical.
Post edited May 06, 2017 by dtgreene
low rated
avatar
oldnose: Liberal Democrats are the ones who seek to politicize every mundane aspect of life, whether it is 20 year old games, bathrooms, etc. Bill Nye has to go back and retroactively censor his own former show where he said chromosomes determine gender since now the communists believe you are whatever race/sex/species you say you are.
I'll tackle the bathroom issue here. The thing is, transgender men and women have been using the bathroom appropriate for their gender well before the Republicans made it an issue. Yes, it's the Republicans, not the Democrats, that turned what is just a simple issue of identity into something political.

I am not aware of any confirmed reports of Bill Nye censoring himself, but it is natural that his views on the issue would change over time. Thing is, science (which Bill Nye claims to support; after all, he describes himself as "the science guy") is constantly finding new discoveries, and some of them will, naturally, contradict previous knowledge on the topic. Consider, for example, Darwin's theory of evolution, which contradicts the folk tales that had been passed down through the generation. Also, Einstein's theory of relativity, which contradicted Newton's laws and common sense, or even quantum mechanics, which (while internally consistent) go against our experience in the non-quantum world (object can be in two places at once, at least until you actually check to see where the object is).

avatar
oldnose: You are welcome to "downvote" me as much as you like, which is the highest level of aggression you are capable of on the internet, [...]
Actually, if a post is particularly nasty, I can report it to the community manager, who (assuming the post actually *is* as bad as I claim) will take action.

Edit: Oops! Forgot to make one important point! Science has shown that transgender people exist and that there is a real biological basis for it (whereas that hasn't been shown for transracial or transspecies people). Also, I note that Native American societies have traditionally (and still do) accepted people who would be classified as transgender by modern western society (that is, the society that traces its roots to Europe).
Post edited May 06, 2017 by dtgreene
Dtgreene, you are welcome to all of those false beliefs and more, but they have no place in Baldur's Gate. The impulse to attack/revise/censor/destroy history to make it "correct" and fit your radical ideology is where the line gets crossed. We are fine with you holding your own ideas, no matter how despicable or treacherous, but don't try to force them on the rest of us. What was done to Baldur's Gate is akin to releasing collector's editions of old movies and secretly adding all kinds of modern, politically charged propaganda scenes to advance the different sections of the Democratic Party platform. We don't believe in that nonsense, so save it for your protests and pity parties.
Dtegreene

Read up on the lore, please. You are utterly missing the point and you are making a fool of yourself.

Drow elves aren't AFRICAN. They are completely black, not brown. The drow elves are elves and they got turned black when the elven gods cursed them for started follwing Lolth - a very evil demon goddess. The two joinable black NPCs (african black) in the series are both good. Dynaheir and Valygar..

Viconia comes from a very evil society and her alignment reflects that. The same thing goes for Edwin. Thay is an evil country in the FR as well. Hence why Edwin is evil. Thay is ruled by a chaotic evil Lich.

The drow elves, or dark elves as they are also called, didn't originate from any political view. It is just a D&D version of the dark elves in norse mythology. The Forgotten Realms are full of "rp-offs" of various mythologies. The Godess Mielliki is the finnish version of Freya. Silvanus is from Irish mythology. Tyr is right out of norse mythology - missing arm and all. AO - The Allfather = Odin


"Traditional AD&D is also political, with the decisions to favor human males over all other race/gender combinations. You have female characters arbitrarily given low strength caps (something that was thankfully removed in 2e), and you have racial level limits (which the IE games deliberately don't implement, and with good reason); that feels like politics to me."

Uhm...yeah. The most popular Ad&D character was actually Drizzt. A male drow...

Females did get a penalty to strength back in the old rules. Which makes sense. Women are generally smaller and weaker than the males. BUT they did get a bonus to Dex, didn't they?
low rated
avatar
Stig79: Females did get a penalty to strength back in the old rules. Which makes sense. Women are generally smaller and weaker than the males. BUT they did get a bonus to Dex, didn't they?
No, they did not get a bonus to Dex, or any bonus at all to compensate; that's partly why that rule is sexist.

Edit: Added word before "why".
avatar
Stig79: Viconia comes from a very evil society and her alignment reflects that. The same thing goes for Edwin. Thay is an evil country in the FR as well. Hence why Edwin is evil. Thay is ruled by a chaotic evil Lich.
Except that society does not dictate how any member of said society behaves.

avatar
Stig79: Drow elves aren't AFRICAN. They are completely black, not brown. The drow elves are elves and they got turned black when the elven gods cursed them for started follwing Lolth - a very evil demon goddess. The two joinable black NPCs (african black) in the series are both good. Dynaheir and Valygar..
Except that, why should Viconia be punished for following Lolth whan that she is a priestess of a different deity (Shar)?

Is there any mention of this story in the game itself?

Also, I could point out that the Elder Scrolls series has Dark Elves that are not inherently evil.

(Incidentally, the story you mentioned reminds me of the story from Judeo-Christian mythology where Yahweh punishes the entire human race because somebody ate an apple.)

avatar
Stig79: "Traditional AD&D is also political, with the decisions to favor human males over all other race/gender combinations. You have female characters arbitrarily given low strength caps (something that was thankfully removed in 2e), and you have racial level limits (which the IE games deliberately don't implement, and with good reason); that feels like politics to me."

Uhm...yeah. The most popular Ad&D character was actually Drizzt. A male drow...
Except that the drow race was created, and the society established, some years before Drizzt came into being. (I am referring to the real-world date they were added to the AD&D world, not the in-universe date within the world itself.)
Post edited May 06, 2017 by dtgreene
low rated
Back to "SJW" and politics again. That's not why most people disliked the games.

I understand why people focus on it, in the context of the toxic political climate in the US, particularly with its current Chaotic Evil president, but it gives the wrong impression as to why people criticised the games these dimwitted dogs released.