Hi there,
the title explains itself ... well I have some perplexities to explain which I'm obliged to insert in the spoilers, because to explain my impressions I necessarily have to recount some dialogues and respective reactions of the NPCs that I observed in act 3 upon the arrival of the city of
The reactions of the NPCs I'm talking about gave me the impression of being really out of place and it seems precisely by analyzing the dialogues that I will quote shortly, that there is a strong influence of real life politics within a game where I believe, in my humble opinion, stretches that make no sense.
first when you arrive down the hill, there is a child with red hair asking to help to find her parents, and being a drow i answered her obviusly to get lost and what happened? I've got negative reaction from Shadowheart and from Astarion.. WHAT? how is it possible? both Astarion and shadowheart we know very well that they are not saints, carrying out their quests remember Shadowheart has no problem killing an aasimar to become Shar's favorite and even Astarion is no good at all most of the times so why? suddenly since we are in a refugee camp and evidently the programmers here I don't know... maybe they are influenced by external politics, they decided that the player has to respond to the dialogue by helping the little girl... but I'm a lolth aligned drow and I'm evil what do I care about a little insignificant girl? Nothing.
Still i've got negative reaction after telling the child to piss off ... i don't find this an appropriate gameplay reaction , i expected Astarion and Shadowheart to be not interested to the resulting situation as well.
second after you roams around the refugees camp, we meet some citizens of Baldurs Gate who complains to a guard because there are too many refugees and it is feared that among them there are servants of the absolute or that even by continuing to let them in, there's the risk that there will no longer be space for the native citizens of baldur.
Once again the intrusion of real-life politics into the game seems evident.. baldurians are the "sovereignists" :lol: who are bad while the others , the refugees are all poor and innocent people. Here fortunately being disinterested in the dialogue between the NPCs does not lead to negative consequences, or at least it would seem so, however this leads inevitably to a mental logical deduction :
Are refugees actually migrants in real life? and the baldurians are bad repubblican sovereignists? lol whats the point of this? is it really necessary in a d&d fantasy game? ... so lets follow the lead.. the evil people are the native civlians of baldurs gate which are not accepting refugees inside their city and the refugees, the migrants lol, are all innocent and poor people?
And what about cutthroats, thieves or criminals who could be among them as well?
Dunno but please but what's the point of all this? don't tell me that this is the fruit of my fervent imagination, because it makes me laugh, it's obvious here and I wonder what the hell is the point of inserting politics into a fantasy game set in D&D?
i'm still perplexed and i find it really really bizarre.
