Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General The fantasy/fantasy ambiguity fallacy

There are a number of ongoing threads related to BG3 (the fat bodies thread and the no horny thread) that tie in to the notion of fantasy as a justification for representation. This has always stuck me as an example of the ambiguity fallacy where the term fantasy (imagining impossible things often with connotations of things that one desires) is conflated with the fantasy genre (the genre largely created by Tolkien and based on the Icelandic sagas in turn grounded in Northwest European cultures/religions). Many people are reprimanded for wanting things like essential characteristics for fantasy races with the justification that fantasy isn't real ergo any parameters are inappropriate. This is an inherently fallacious idea. It is entirely reasonable for someone to want elves to be inherently more dexterous than humans and for halflings to be inherently physically weaker than half-orcs. Simply saying that, "It's fantasy so any race can be anything," isn't actually very compelling upon reflection. Fantasy worlds must comply with some very strict internal logic in order to function effectively or the spell is broken very quickly. We are seeing some IPs tanking, partly because they are throwing out large parts of established lore which in turn breaks their internal logic.

One might even say that for the PC to be an outlier is fine and that player choice is the priority. I would largely agree with this proposition as it doesn't impact my game if your halfling has 20 strength. However, this conflation of the two definitions of fantasy bleeds in to the NPCs as well in relation to representation. There are some videos doing the rounds and some posts on these forums that discuss over representation of LGBTQI+/queer identities and this seems to be true in my experience, although this perception may be reduced if the probable bugs around romance are patched. Once again the argument in opposition to identifying this is something along the lines of, "you can believe in dragons but not in slight over representation of LGBTQI+ people?" This is also fallacious. In a game grounded in endeavouring to combine high fantasy with believable relationships the over representation of these identities is immersion breaking because the fantasy is in the genre part not the representation of relationships part.

This can also be applied to the apparent ethnic diversity of all of the fantasy races despite there being no in world reason why so may different phenotypes exist side by side. It is okay to find this immersion breaking without being told that it is fantasy so your objections are irrelevant. It can also be extended to gender roles (the two most notable martial companions are women). Sure, Red Sonja is one of the founding texts of modern fantasy but it is okay if you find it a bit silly that there are so many women swinging swords on the Sword Coast without someone telling you that you are wrong because BG3 is a fantasy game.

This is metacommentary that belongs in general, not suggestions and feedback.

The idea of the fantasy as "anything goes, fully suspended disbelief" versus fantasy as a genre incorporating what Tolkien initially posited as a sort of post-ancient mythologized world is an interesting topic to discuss, and one which merits discussion. However, your primary concern with this ambiguity is to cite matters which are alienating to certain members of this community. Would you be interested in having a different topic that discusses the ambiguity between fantasy as totally suspended disbelief and fantasy as neo-mythological storytelling without citing examples that specifically distress certain people who may like to take part in this discussion?

For the swords coast there should be more diversity not less, the whole place is exiles, colonists and expelled populations from other areas settling. As for some of your points, why would imposing YOUR cultural beliefs and gender roles on a fantasy setting be more rational, immersive or less silly than, someone from a different culture/context doing it? You can't say internal logic should overrule not real world, then go but not this internal logic because my real world bias think it's silly for X to do Y.
The internal logic of Faerun is that sexism has never been a thing in the moonsea and swords coast outside of specific non mainstream societies and there are versions for both. And that ALL ancestry Y are better than all ancestry Z at B has always broken the internal logic of the setting, it was just there for gameplay, that D&D is getting rid of it isn't breaking the internal logic because the stories always included more expections than rules and that was always there as a 'prevent min/maxing meta play' not as part of the world and setting. It's certainly not what's tanking D&D.
Also specific diversity I don't like =/= now anything goes these people dont understand fantasy
Given D&D has more mainstream and financial success right now than it has ever hard, it's really hard to see what is tanking it. But I'm going to guess nothing is because you know, it's very successful right now..

Why I rarely play "modern" game nowdays anymore.
So much social baggage.

I go to either retro type indie titles or all the classic old school stuff from the 80s/90s.
You know, a time when characters were just a few well animated sprites, fun gameplay and the rest up to your imagination.

Now in order to be allowed to make a game and be recognized you have to write a dissertation on your social tendencies and opinions and include a certain percentage of that into game development. Same is true for recent D&D world building and design.
Soon we will have hard guidlines for DMs that will get them banned from communities if they dare voice their opinions on certain rules matter, their books and dices removed by court order, and all materials burned.

Going with the premise that the roots of fantasy are attempts at Neo-mythological storytelling, I'd like to point out that all mythologies were, in at least some capacity, reflective of the times in which they first emerged. Greek mythology largely reflects Ancient Greece's societies and values, as embodied in the various literature of its playwrights, epic poets, and religious storytellers. Roman mythology that occurred later reflected more the values of Roman society. If you read The Epic of Gilgamesh, or even various religious and mythological texts from the ancient Fertile Crescent, you'll notice that those stories also reflect their own society. Further, many of these stories were revised as their societies evolved. The heroic aspects of Enkidu are different from the heroic aspects of Heracles or Jason, which are different from the heroic aspects of biblical heroes like David or Samson.

Even Tolkien's work largely reflected the values of his own religion, society, and culture. English culture and Catholic faith permeate the themes of his works. The Forgotten Realms were first realized between the years of 1967-1987, and have continued to this day. Insofar as they are works of neo-mythological storytelling with collaborative components, they may have initially represented a world of the mid-20th century and its values. But the world has changed. And, like all mythology, so too has the characteristics and ways in which it reflects our society. If you want to go back to mid-20th century mythology, you can, but the storytelling of today is inspired by the world in which we live, its values, its social structure, and its dreams of escape into another world.

Further, before someone goes all, "No, it's based on medieval values..."

No, it's not. Tolkien used a quasi-medieval setting, but its values and social structure are distinctly early modern. There is no concept of serfdom. There is no relegation of marriage to pure faith-based politics. The Shire is basically a 19th century English village without industry. Fantasy is not medieval; it simply borrows its aesthetic from pre-industrial time periods. Similarly, a medieval or pre-industrial aesthetic to a fantasy setting does nothing to firmly fix its values as those of a pre-industrial Indo-European Christian society, as that is not how storytelling or worldbuilding works.

Ultimately, the structure, characteristics, and values of a society in a fantasy setting is up to the discretion of the author, and the extent to which it demands either external suspension of disbelief or internal logic is all up to the parameters of the worldbuilding and the storytelling styles being employed... by the author.

Weird because almost every fantastic RPG usually always has Social commentary. It might just have went through your head.

Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Arcanum, most obsidian DnD and RPG in general.

Oh yes, tomorrow DM will be arrested if they try to make Orc has 20 Str instead of base 17 like everyone else, criminalized, tortured, waterboarded.

LOL.

This kind of thinking must have part of the new wave of Satanic Panic.

It's that old, 'star trek was always political you were just 10' thing but, about BG
BG1/2 were very political. Have you guys heard of Morrowind? Almost every line in Arcanum was social commentary!

I agree completely. And to add to that and what Zerubbabel said, every mythological text was written with an agenda.

I think OP just put every cliche post of Steam into one big post, but we could just ignore that and have a nice discussion.

It makes sense that nowadays fantasy is more diverse. Great fantasy authors from all over the world have written books based on their mythologies that are considered classics now, so fantasy changed and that is good. It gives us more great stories to explore.
And as was mentioned, the Sword Coast was always very liberal.

Tolkien is pretty much low fantasy except for the Silmarillion

It seems that many people have misinterpreted what I've said. I identified a very specific failure of logic used to criticize people who have a perspective of what fantasy should be/represent. If you think fantasy should represent the beliefs of wealthy liberal westerners that is entirely your prerogative. If you think that fantasy the genre has no essential characteristics and everything is in flux then that is okay (this is an epistemological nightmare of course because sophists will question your definition of a chair). My issue is that instead of seeing that some people want fantasy to stay true to it's well established genre conventions (I played AD&D and Dark Sun is my favourite setting so I've some credibility when I say that it is a bit of stretch to conflate the liberalism of BG3/Wizards of the Coast with fantasy as it has existed) whilst maintaining a level of authenticity in terms of gender identities/sexuality/ethnicity people who do not subscribe to this belief simply throw out, "It's fantasy so your perspective is invalid." Oppose people honestly when they say that it is silly that there a so many different phenotypes of Duergar that directly correlate with real world ethnicities. Say that it is because you think representation trumps world building; say that it is because it fits your ideological perspective; say that it is commercially a good move but don't say that it is fantasy so anything is permissible.

Your opinion is wrong, and bad.

Thanks for re-stating your argument, I think that helps me figure out the core of what you're saying (though I agree this is more a thread for the general section). I think you have a good point about saying "it's fantasy so anything goes" isn't a great argument, but I also think that your base claim about what stretches the bounds of believability in the first place. I also think that a lot of those genre conventions are just conventions and not essential characteristics. I think your argument is better aimed at specific settings as opposed to fantasy as a whole. I think that on a broad level, because it's fantasy anything can be permissible, but to use your Duergar example, I'd also say that sure, anything CAN be possible but based on the established lore for this setting, that's not how it works. I think that's fair especially when physically duergar have one real visual defining trait.

I also think that the "It's fantasy" argument also gets used as much as it does out of frustration that somehow acknowledging identities and diversity that did not originally exist in the genre because it was established at a time when such things were not acknowledged in the society at large is somehow harder to accept than fantastical magic and inhuman entities. I'm sure plenty of people make the argument sincerely, but in my experience it's not the norm.

On LGBTQ+:

So what you are saying is that if I want my Tav to be a gay Wizard, I should be locked out of experiencing romances with my Party NPCs, because based on IN OUR own world with OUR OWN Western conservative views on sex, statistically the percentage of characters who would engage in a homosexual relationship is too low?

That would be extreme silly in multiple ways, because:

1. On Earth there have been and still are many cultures who don't have the same restrictive views on sex and relationships as conservative Westerners do. The Ancient Greeks would find some modern views on homosexuality weird. So why impose some arbitrary conservative Western values on the game?

2. Faer�n is clearly different from our own (Western) world, and while I'm not familiar in detail with its history, I have no trouble believing that sex and relationships are more open. Is there a history / rule book that states that the Sword Coast has so-and-so high of a percentage of LGBTQ+ people living in it?

3. It would discriminate against certain playstyles. Everyone paid the same price for the game and it would find it strange if in a game where I create my own character and roleplay, I would be punished for roleplaying a certain way. Kind of like when in BG2, straight male characters could romance 3 ladies, but straight ladies could only romance Anomen, and homosexual characters could romance nobody.


On gender:

1. Does D&D really link classes with gender roles? So are there more male barbarians, because men are generally "dumb brutes" and more female wizards, because they are generally "smart weaklings"? I find that hard to believe.

2. Also the attribues in D&D don't distinguish between gender. AFAIK, a value of 10/11 strength is what an average Human (not an average MAN!) has. So you can have weaker men and women with a strenth value of 8 or stronger men and women with a strength value of 15. And then I'm sure that lore-wise two people with the same strenth attribue are not exactly the same in terms of strength. So if you have two male fighters with 15 strength, one can still be stronger than the other. So no reason for saying women should have on average a lower strength attribiute than men.

3. And the in BG3, you said the two martial classes in the party are represented by women. But those women aren't even human, and I'm not an expert of Githyanki or Tiefling physiology to say if the gender differences in Humans are the same for those two races. But I do know that the Githyanki are a militaristic culture and clearly train both men and women in combat. Lae'Zel is an absolutely believable fighter.


On ethnic diversity: I don't know why it's silly to have different phenotypes of Humans in the game. "Humans" in D&D represent all of us and not what anyone thinks is the default. I don't know, if there is such a thing (strictly) speaking as a black Elf in D&D, but even if there weren't, the fact that Larian included them should NOT be a reason for anyone to not enjoy the game.


I find it funny that some people argue that if a game has representation of women, LGBTQ+ and a variety of skin colors, it has something to do with a "liberal" ideology. That's a very narrow-minded view. In fact, I would argue the contrary: many games in the past have (not consciously, but still) pushed a certain ideology, where the people mentioned above, were not represented. And if a game nowadays goes out of its way to NOT represent them, I would feel that THAT'S trying to push an ideology.

The gender stuff is especially wild as BG1/2 and really ALL the old CRPGs had a pop up warning you hey no sexism in this setting, feel free to pick genders it doesnt effect stats
but yeah, 'modern games'. If BG1/2 or Torment or FO1 came out today it'd get called woke.

Also for ethnicity, Thethys and Amn are middleeastern/medeterriany if you're going to pretend it's "rational and logical" to be upset about human phenotype in a video game, it's Wyll's not the example. For Elves, theyve always come in all colours, but I'm just sad we don't got Moon Elves and Sun Elves and all the old Elves, also Sea Elves, imagine it. Sea Elves in BG3.. the dream. I guess they're too busy swimming to save the world..

Oh no, we did get, what you said, I just ignored you, because it is mysogenic, sexist and racist. And I'd rather engaged with the nicer discussions about the topic.

[/quote]
Oh no, we did get, what you said, I just ignored you, because it is mysogenic, sexist and racist. And I'd rather engaged with the nicer discussions about the topic.[/quote]

It is his opinion and he did not attack an individual like you did.

Yeah, that gender popup and the rule change was the big analogue back with BG 1/BG 2, since it used 2nd Edition. Previous AD&D games (goldbox) used 1st edition rules that had a lower maximum strength for female characters than for male ones. There are certain sites on the internet were they probably still complain about that change.

I don't find the criticism valid, since not everything goes in the world - they just have very different prejudices and social standards. There are definitely in play with Tieflings and Goblins.

If anything, I think BG 3 has too little social commentary except being quietly accepting of diversity. Taking people just existing as some sort of political grandstanding, is just strange to me. Arcanum and the union/worker rights stuff was pretty fantastic.

Thank you for engaging in good faith. I understand that the argument is born of frustration in many instances and I get that there is a difference of opinion in terms of what exactly hurts suspension of disbelief. The difference between characteristics and essential characteristics is also very difficult as in the boat formerly owned by Theseus but the pragmatic view of knowing wins here which is why I mentioned sophists and chairs earlier. Using a kind of appeal to extremes argument by saying that a genre has changed slightly over time and it's generally not always easy to identify essential characteristics ergo fantasy is just whatever and now every fantasy realm is California with a medieval paint job is not a good argument (I'm strawmanning but allow me the rhetorical flourish).

Well its their opinion, that his opinion is mysoginistic, sexist, and racist...

And saying anyone doesnt belong for any reason, is always a personal attack, these arent some amorphous group... these are real people. Real flesh and blood people, being told by some nerd that they dont belong in a world with elves.

The original poster of this thread is disgusting. And if they have a right to spout their opinion, then we have every damn bit of the same right to spout an opinion about their shitty opinion.

Opinions arent sheltered magically from other opinionss.