Posted May 23, 2017
low rated
Basically, the level limits have the effect of making such characters not viable at all. Get into a combat encounter, and that character's player basically has to sit out the entire encounter, as actually trying to participate would result in the character dying without accomplishing anything. This is not fun gameplay, and the developers should be ashamed of themselves for including such a rule in the first place.
Remember, the developers of the Baldur's Gate series chose to intentionally not implement the rule; there is a good *reason* for this.
No that argument works on anyone. If you are a male in a female body, you have an operation to get a cock, and then someone removes it against your will afterwards you would be upset. The whole point is having your sexual organ removed against your will. That would be upsetting to anyone no matter what gender they are\feel like they are.
Transphobia is indeed a word. All be it a very new one. BG2, however, is not transphobic.
You might want to check Siege of Dragonspear out. That one is downright hostile towards trans people. Under the guise of "progressive" of course. The cleric character in it is named Mizhena...the writer changed one letter from the Czhec word for "shemale" and used it as a character name. That is right. the writer added a trans character to score social points, and named her "Shemale".
Sure, having females operating at lower stats ultimately does deincentivize people toward playing them. But only the shrillest of social crusaders would honestly believe those two toy-loving old coots were trying to exclude attack women in a misogynistic red haze 40 years ago. They were in uncharted waters. There was nothing like D&D before it came along. You find it easy to judge their balancing missteps with the 20/20 hindsight of someone that has seen the thousands of games all built off this prototype that they created. You have that advantage, they did not.
Honestly, shame on you. Shame on you for besmirching those dead men's names and legacies.
First, there is a quote attributed to Gary Gygax in which he claims to be a "biological determinist", a belief that has been the source of such horrific misapplications of science such as Social Darwinism and Scientific Racism. So, it is quite possible (and very likely IMO) that he actually was being deliberately sexist in making that rule. (I consider biological determinism to be inherently sexist and transphobic, especially since it actually goes against what science actually says.)
Second, the fact that Gary Gygax was a trailblazer does not exempt him from criticism. There is no reason to exclude him from criticism on issues like racial and gender limits, which many DMs houseruled away, and which disappeared as the game went into later editions. (On the other hand, it is still possible to enjoy a work and be critical of it at the same time.)
By the way, for those who defend the female strength rule, what should the strength cap for non-binary PCs (those who aren't male or female) be? (I note that 5th edition D&D explicitly allows non-binary characters.)
Side note: The bigoted belief that girls don't play these sort of games is also why Bard's Tale 1 and 2 have no female characters (except for a princess you can optionally rescue in 2 who doesn't look anything like a princess).
It wasn't a bigoted belief at all. Back then mostly guys did play d&d. It was just how it was. Now adays more and more girls are playing it too, and that has nothing to do with the rules.
Fun fact. A female friend of mine is a massive fan of the Bard's Tale games. She even has them boxed. I doubt she would love them that much if she thought they were bigoted.
And how do you know how a princess looks in the Bard's Tale universe? It doesn't take place in our world.
Post edited May 23, 2017 by Stig79
