Though this journey began now years ago when we visited Wizards of the Coast for the first time in 2017, these past few weeks have been momentous and emotional, since this was the first time we were able to share Baldur’s Gate 3 with all of you, the people for whom the game is being made.



We will soon embark on an epic adventure as Baldur’s Gate 3 enters Early Access, and we couldn’t possibly venture forth without first gathering you, our party. One thousand of you gathered with us as we streamed the game live for the first time at PAX East in an auditorium filled to the brim, and an extra thousand of you were sadly turned away because there was no more space. Hundreds of thousands of you gathered online which - we’re told in confidence - broke some records. Thousands of you each waited three hours to gather with us at our PAX East booth, to see what would have happened if the dice rolls weren’t against us. It has been humbling and exciting to gather together as we start this new journey, venturing forth, going the way of the dice.



What you will eventually play has been in the planning at Larian and closely with Wizards of the Coast for over 4 years now, with their key creative people colliding with our key creative people in ways that we will eventually talk about in greater length. Our task is to create the ultimate Dungeons & Dragons game; a loving and modern sequel to Baldur’s Gate 2. Oozing with 5e D&D greatness, set in the world that you know and love. You will explore Baldur’s Gate 100 years after Baldur’s Gate 2. The Bhaalspawn saga has ended, and a new threat is converging on the city of Baldur's Gate. But the gods do not forget, and the shadows and scars of the past will not stay silent. You will meet and get to know many new characters, and encounter some of the legendary characters you know and love.

Most importantly, you’ll learn how their stories have evolved. And as you play, you will heavily influence their fate. Over the course of the past 3 weeks, the final missing ingredient has been added into our new development pipeline: you.


Let’s look at how we’ve evolved since the release of Divinity: Original Sin 2 in 2017. Firstly, we finished Divinity: Original Sin 2 with 120 people. DOS2 was shipped on the second version of the Divinity engine (we still haven’t found a cool name for it yet), and our Producer David Walgrave said recently in an interview with TechRaptor that in BG3 "there’s about 20-30% of the Original Sin engine left and we rewrote so many systems and so many things." We’ve been colloquially calling this 4.0 engine the “Baldur’s Gate Engine”, and it’s designed from the ground up for Baldur’s Gate.

But how does this happen? Between 2017 and the announcement of BG3 we’ve grown to 250 people + we have over 100 outsourcers working on this. Still independent. Funded entirely by yourselves who dived so eagerly into Divinity: Original Sin 2. We were quiet since the announcement just before E3 of the previous year. But internally, kinetic energy has propelled us forward with new systems, pipelines, and people who when not playing D&D were all helping us to put together what you saw at PAX East, 2020. There’s quite the adventure ahead.

We’ve built an engine that allows all 250 people at Larian collaborate to become the ultimate DM. Allowing for near-limitless reactivity, responsiveness, and a memory that never forgets who you are, or what you’ve done. No matter who you roll, dice-rolls, modifyers, and physical simulation have all been designed to simulate a D&D experience that feels as though it’s straight from the imagination, where no matter the dice roll the story will continue. It’s also a game that is intended to span the entire range of human emotion. It is in equal parts a dark and a light game. “We always want to make failure as interesting as it possibly can,” said Senior Writer Adam Smith. “We don’t put everything that’s cool and interesting behind success.”



“Light and dark are really good sources of advantage,” noted Swen in a recent GameSpot interview. The philosophies that define the rules in D&D 5e also define the narrative, where you’ll often make difficult decisions through initiative or through the roll of the dice. The Baldur’s Gate games were dark - sometimes darker than many people remember. Baldur’s Gate 3 is no exception, though in 2020 we’re able to take the gamut of emotion and experience and stretch it further due to systems, simulation, and of course also our cinematics team. Unfortunately we did not make it to the end of our PAX East 2020 live demo due to a feature (see: bug), but those in the hall witnessed a scene where Astarion’s hunger got the better of him, and through a series of dice rolls (and often audience choice), Astarion sank his teeth into Shadowheart to varying degrees of mortality. Astarion was happy (systemically), but Shadowheart often ended up dead (also without irony, systemically).

Baldur’s Gate 3 is on course to be a ‘Mature’ game, which is publishing language for “if you go any further the ratings board is going to be extremely annoying”. We want to push the limits of every theme within the game, which should allow you to play exactly how you’d like to play. Astarion may be a Vampire Spawn, but that doesn’t mean he has to be evil - if hungry. Though you saw one path at PAX East, there were many possibilities for good, and evil -- note also, everything in between. It has always been Larian’s plan to create games that allow you to play however you wish. This larger team, and this new engine, allow us to push this further than ever before. Much further than Divinity: Original Sin 2.


As you delve into an epic adventure that subverts the binary morality found in many RPGs, and explore Baldur’s Gate with new and existing characters, 100 years after the story of the first two games, dice roll by dice roll, we hope that together we can reignite that great sense of discovery you felt as you dived for the first time into Baldur’s Gate 1 & 2, bringing the experience of an open-ended D&D game to photo-realistic realisation, albeit with 5e rules in place of 2nd edition rules. Things have come a long way in 20 years, but what’s important to us is that you’re along for the ride.

You have many questions, and we have answers. We’ll be hosting a Reddit AMA where you can ask Swen (Creative Director), David (Producer), Adam (Senior Writer), Nick (Lead Systems Designer), and Jiji (Writing Director) your questions. 11:00 PT on March 12, over on Reddit!

See you all in Early Access.

Thank you Larian for keeping us informed! I'm glad to see any form ot cooperation between the developer and fans.

Hopefully this will satisfy those complaining why it is being called BG3. But I am sure the "photo-realistic realisation" is still going to chaff.

Aside from that, well done so far and thank you for the update.

Like Btn! Keep up good job !!

So the AMA will be held seven days from now. Interesting.

Awseome!

Looking forward to the Q&A

Which reddit/subreddit (not sure the correct terminology) for the AMA is it?

Cool what I would like to now about Baldur’s Gate 3 is will we be able to pick a deity without being a divine class in Baldur’s Gate 1 and Baldur’s Gate 2 you had to be a cleric to be able to pick a deity also will we have the aberrant mind sorcerer in Baldur’s Gate 3

I think the 2 biggest concerns are that:

1. The overall aesthetic did not look/feel like Baldur's Gate, and I'm not even talking about the fact that it's in 3D now. The atmosphere, the sound, the tone, even the UI, none of it really looked like BG.

2. The lack of rtwp combat. Yes, it really is that big of a deal, as it is a fundamental feature of all of the old Infinity Engine games, and even the NWN games. You could even look at it as the feature that separates those that are looking to play a BG game and those that are looking to play a 5e DND game set in the BG world. I say just add the option to play either turn-based or rtwp.

Bombastic words about the engine. Which of course makes me crave the mod tools and GM mode even more.

Dude, Aberrant mind is UA content. It's not even in publication yet. Why would it be in the actual game?



1. You saw next to none of the game. Nobody so far has been able to actually quantify this to me in a way that didn't sound like "Why doesn't this look and sound like a 20 year old game that had half of it's design choices made out of necessity rather than preference?"

2. It's a big deal to you, and a very vocal minority. It's a big deal TO YOU. And guess what? Most people care way more about a 5e DND game "Set in the BG world" (Which isn't actually a thing. Baldur's Gate is a city. In Faerun. It's been revisited in all sorts of other media, and those 2 games don't have a monopoly on it).

And the very idea that they should go through the trouble of letting you play Turn-Based or RWTP is just...unreasonable to the point of almost being arrogant. It's not flipping a switch, dude.

I'm genuinely sorry that you can't look past nostalgia and unfounded expectations to see the quality of what's already there, or it's potential. I'm sorry that your dogma has rendered you unable to look forward to what, to pretty much EVERYONE ELSE'S view was a fantastic and promising taste of a pre-alpha game.

You're going to be disappointed, and it's not really anyone else's fault.

It's Larian and Wizards fault for dismissing the 20 year history and legacy of BG and BG-styled games that followed to "cash in" on the "streamlined" success of DOS formula games.

It's their fault for deciding that the fanbase of BG games wasn't big enough for their shareholders.

This.
Like, my thoughts exactly.
It's sad how some people just complain that this game is not what they were expecting, just because it isn't a mod for a 20-year old game they remember playing young.

I am a huge NWN fan, and the only, ONLY thing I was somewhat missing there, is DnD turn-based combat. TB is how DnD meant to be played, RTWP is just a gimmick for action-oriented players in the early 2000's (and with NWN, it was needed for servers with many people playing there at the same time), there was no kickstarter then, the devs needed to give the young one some "action" in a game that doesn't need any. Funny how nowadays turn-based combat in old DnD games is considered canon. Ridiculous even.

I really hope some questions are raised about the glaring, overt similarities to DOS and if any effort shall be made to make BG3 have it's own identify, also if efforts shall be made to make it less cartoony "realistic"

Also if 4 man is set in stone or if they're looking at increasing it

And ofc, RTwP I'd love that to come up, not that I'm massively bothered by it, I'd just like to see them address it.

I'm afraid I laid the seed for a thread derail. Hopefully a mod moves the last five or so posts to another thread.

Have played the originals, Icewind Dale and others.

Personally I’m happy with the switch to TB. I preferred playing PoE 2 TB as well.

Larian have shown themselves to be worthy of trust, I’ll hold my opinion for the game to be released.

Thanks Larian for the News.
I'm not a "BG" or even an hardcore "DnD" Fan ( playing L5R mainly in PnP ) , but if this game is as good as DOS2, or let be dreamy, better... this can be a Masterpiece ( independently of it's ties with the firsts two games... since it's the principal thing that worries the most skeptical on internet it seems ).

Quick, let us know there 's anything for game master in this game, and you have me 100% !

I can answer part of this actually.

The reason that deity selection is only for some classes is that these devote everything to one god.
Their devotion grants them certain "gifts" (or advantages) that the god bestow on them in return.

In a world with a pantheon of gods THAT ARE REAL, most people would spread their faith among all or most of the gods. No reason to piss of the god of death just because you thought the god of wine was cooler.

If your character choose to champion one god over all the others, then your character would be one of the classes that would get an advantage from that (even if it was just one level).

Oh okay but what about the deities?

In the demo many, oh so many, D&D rule where cast aside for a game that repeat to want to be more rule adherent than the predecessors, for example:
-Drinking a potion require 1 Action (not bonus)
-Casting Mage Hand require 1 Action (not free/bonus)
-Imparting the command to Mage Hand require 1 Action
-Mage Hand can't attack (Pushing is an attack), and could interact only with object, not creature
Have a nice video with the rule of the spell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPzso8TvvSU
-Putting a Bow in the fire doesn't give you a magical fire bow, but only some coal, a burned string and a burned hand...
-You need arrow to use the bow
-You need time to remove your boots, isn't a free action
-If you want to use the light for stealth remember that if you are in the dark but in front of a light source, the enemy could see your silhuette
-Alignment is essential for D&D, unless now my Cleric of Ilmater will be able to maintaining all the power after drinking the blood of cute baby halfling
- There will be fix to all this rule or i have to play a game losely based on D&D5ED?
There are other rule ignored or rewrited, but those are the most important.
I want to ask why the pregenerated character have an origin story more important than the character i will generate (i'm the spectator of the story)? Also, since i already hate the elf and the vampire (since he can suck my blood while i'm sleeping, can i stake him while he's sleeping?), and the mage doesn't start much better, how many other character there are that i can add to my party? Can I create other character for the party or i have to play "solo run" forever? Can i make decision on the level up of the other character?

-I can see drinking a potion being a bonus action. I've often house ruled my games to do this. However, if you want to give a potion to another character, it should be an action.

-I agree with all of the Mage Hand stuff. Mage Hand is really just a tool to help navigate traps and puzzles. It's combat utility should be limited unless playing an Arcane Trickster Rogue.

-I don't see the big deal about being able to dip an arrow in fire to get a bit of fire damage added to the attack. Also, I find managing ammunition for weapons tedious. Unless they are super special arrows/bolts, I really don't want to mess with it. I never track ammunition in table top D&D.

-Agree with the time taken to remove boots. Now, if the boots were just in your bags, withdrawing them could be a free action. But if you're wearing them? Yeah, they need time to be removed.

-I'm not sure how much more sophisticated they can make the light/shadow system. To take silhouettes into account seems to be a lot of unnecessary work imo. It would also make things tough on the player.

-Alignment is absolutely NOT essential for D&D. 5th Edition has moved away from it so drastically that it's barely referenced anymore. The focus is on character choices and character agency. Instead of saying, "What would a Lawful Good Cleric do in this situation?" it becomes "What would MY CHARACTER do in this situation?" Alignment puts a character into an unnecessary box. Just think about what kind of character you want and stay true to it with their actions. No doubt BG3 will be tracking your morality in one way or another.

Another thing that worries me is Shove, Jump, and Disengage being bonus actions. Disengage being a bonus action takes that unique utility away from rogues specifically. Shove/Jump being bonus actions skew the power curve towards classes like Fighter and Barbarian as they get bonuses to Shove.

- One thing is to tie a piece of cloth imbued with oil to make a burning arrow and it require time to craft (not much but is anyway time), another is to throw your bow in the fire and hope to obtain a magical weapon and not some piece of coal... so, maybe rethink the visual effect of the action and making it cost 1 action: less "the bow is on fire" and more "flaming arrow"

- Ok, maybe, is to much for the system to take silhuette in account

-Pathfinder Kingsmaker did a good job into taking in acfcount the alignment variation.

-I agree with you on these thing

Are you able to quantify the "very vocal minority"?

Are you able to quantify the "Most people" who care more about a 5e D&D game?

I agree with you that Baldur´s Gate is a city at the Sword Coast in Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms. I also agree that it´s been revisited in other medias. It´s also right, that BG1 and BG2 don´t have a monopoly on it´s name. But the question is - at least for me - why is it called Baldur´s Gate III?

Maybe because it has certain explicit connections with the original story (which it seems to, based on what was written by the dev in the opening post)? Or even because it takes place in the same setting as the original (which would give it an indirect connection with the original story).

I don't think he can. In every social media and forums there are huge uproar and it's not vocal minority at all. People have legitimate concerns. He's just trying to intimidate or silence people so that it may appear as small problems.

I dont know if your are blind, deaf or whatever. Even I would like what Larian showed to us is easy to see that in Twitter, Facebook official and fans pages, this forum, reddit forum, steam forum and youtube comments... there are A LOT of people dissapointed with what they saw. I dont want to go throught if they are right or they are wrong, dont care about it. The truth is it is no a minority, and of course Larian, from the commercial point of view, have to handle it.

It is definitely more than a vocal minority, but the reasons for the dissaproval are very varied. It's why waiting to see more is the sensible argument, though there is nothing wrong in expressing constructive criticism.

I just want to mention, go and take a look at DOS2 pre alpha.It looked SO much like DOS.Because in the beginning they use SO much placeholders. In the interviews it is said that the engine now is 30% what was left from DOS2 engine and 70% new. Also, look at DOS pre-alpha. The colouring was way too over the top.The final product didn't look anything like this.

What we've seen is pre-alpha. There will be such a big difference between what weve seen vs what we're going to get.Ofc the engine will be the same, ofc it will still lookk like a game made with the same engine.But imagine what you've already seen with a slightly adjusted colour palette and less recycled surfaces. That will already look like a different game.And rulewise, they are not really alike, although in a sense, since Larian always pulled inspiration from games like ultima and BG and icewind and... they were always already partially like those games.So the shift might not seem that big.

I wish this forum had an upvote button, the voice of reason!

I hope there will be other ways for us to give Larian our feedback. I have many questions for Larian, but I don't have a Reddit account and will not create one just for this AMA. But hopefully others who share my concerns will ask the questions I would've asked.

Feedback is being observed, FWIW. Obviously this doesn't imply any particular outcome but people are aware.

Very nice to see that. Much like kanisatha, I don't have a reddit account and don't want to make one just for 1 AMA, so seeing that feedback is already being observed feels really nice

Cool my question is will we be able to pick deities for our custom none divine characters this is the one thing I hated about Pathfinder Kingmaker it made zero sense to have other characters who had a deity even the ones that had no divine powers and yet our none divine character could not pick one

It is why I left steam and came here. At the very least, the community is not toxic like steam, and I know that Larian is watching, even if they don't agree with me, I can be more confident they hear me.

Same here

This ^.
I post here mainly in the hope that there are at least some people in Larian who do want to hear from critics and not just their fans.

...and we don't really need to see much of the game, because first impressions mean a lot. And one doesn't need to go into in-depth analysis as to how the reveal differs greatly from past Baldur's Gate games, as they are immediately seen from the surface, with no digging required... As stated, even the UI is completely different. The only thing that was reminiscent from the older games was the fact that it was using the dnd ruleset, and that it takes place in Baldur's Gate. Other than that, it shared aspects that rpg's generally share. This reveal was like when they revealed Dungeon Siege 3, and how it looked and played nothing like the older games.

It isn't about people wanting it to look and play like a 20 year old gfame. It's about people wanting the devs to take the aspects they loved from the old games, and translate it to play like an updated Baldur's Gate game, which it objectively did not.



So you're really resorting to the mob rule mentality? Oh, and the word "most" implies a majority, meaning over 50%, so unless you have any sort of stats or graphs to confirm this claim, don't use the word - it just makes you look like you're overcompensating toi "prove" your point. Besides, your tone suggests you are only using it as a disingenuous attempt to try and make your viewpoint seem more valid than others. Who gives a shit what "most" people think. "Most" people thinking something, does not equate to it being the better idea. YOu know what even more poeple would like? If you could choose between both modes?...



I take it you are not familiar with Pillars of Eternity 2? It's a rtwp crpg, inspired by the old Infinity Engine games, where the developers added the OPTION to play the game in turn-based mode, AFTER THE GAME WAS COMPLETED...Larian is only in pre-alpha.


you are conflating 2 separate ideas: Wanting a game to look/play a certain way, and seeing/not seeing quality/potential in what was revealed. These are not mutually exclusive. One can be critical at the fact that the game doesn't appear to be what they wanted, and also see quality and potential in what is there. I do see quality and potential, I just don't see a Baldur's Gate game.


When did I ever say I thought this was or wasn't a "fantastic and promising taste of a pre-alpha game?" My initial reply was in response to another poster, and was what I thought (based on observation of others) were the criticisms people had with the game. It had nothing to do with my impressions of the game in it's current state or even what I thought about it as a game in general. If you are under impression that I think this game looks like shit because it appears to be not what I wanted, then you are sorely mistaken.

I and others have been waiting nearly 20 years for a BG sequel, that up until when Larian announced it, was just a fun thought to have because we were convinced it was never, ever, ever, going to happen, and then when it was announced and recently revealed, and I and others saw that it wasn't really what we were hoping it would/could be, I don't think it's too unreasonable for some of us to be upset, seeing as how one could complete grade school, high school, college and have a child, in the time that we've been hoping for a sequel, so you can drop the condescending tone that's been oozing out of you throughout your entire response. Remember, my reply was just offering feedback and a general opinion - you attacked me.

And also, why would I or anyone else care what everyone else thinks? Like how does that add merit to anything? Again, it is an attempt to try and bolster your viewpoint and dismiss others. In terms of what somebody likes or sees value in, their own opinion is literally the only one that matters. Do you tend to buy games based on what most others think of them, because I don't...


So now you are not only speaking for other people, but also in absolutes...

True.

And i would say most people dont care about an exact adaptation of D&D. For the people who want it: BG3 isnt obviously when you know D&D

Even Larian don't cares about an exact adaptation... They said it, video games is a thing, tabletop game is another.
They took what they can (or find cool to keep) and delete/modify what they have to (or find better to delete/adapt).

For exemple (I swear it is, not another message about RT/TB)
=> they find better to """keep""" turn base (""" because when you read the rules, it's not obvious that the feelings is turned base)
=> they find better to modify armors and weapons.

Annnnd... it's another conflict about the name of the game yea
I think i'll write it everywhere it is. Couldn't you just change this f**** name for us all just to discuss about your new cool game ?

I vote for Baldur's Gate: Absolution after the Cult of the Absolute that is showing up in Baldur's Gate recently that coincides with many of the bad omens.

I vote for Baldur's Gate: Three or Baldur's Gate 3 after the Dead three that are somehow involved in the outcome of the game.

I vote for Baldur's Gate Five!

+1

this should be upvoted

That sounds fine to me simply because of attrition. If you need to drink a potion, it's because you're damaged, and if that's all you can do, you're likely to immediately get damaged back up again anyway. So yeah, Bonus to use on yourself, full action to use on someone else.




That's a fair point, but I see a way that could work: You can use a shove or use a jump to disengage once per combat... but Rogues can use that once a combat round. So that way, non-Rogues get one escape, while actual Rogues can do that on every turn if they want.

Shoves should be done against an opposed Strength check, but you get Advantage on the check if the enemy is flanked or is unaware of your presence.

Because Baldur's Gate 3 was clearly the inspiration for Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, in fact it could have been designed for BG3 specifically, but Larian wanted the basic mechanics tested out, without showing their hand early, so maybe they asked wizards to slip it into a UA so they could get early feedback on it. Heck perhaps they are planning Player Options/and or Forgotten Realms Campaign Book for later this year with BG3 tie ins, including the class variant features in it too (which could find itself into BG3).

dip arrow into fire was already a thing in dos2. don't like that idea because fire needs to be conveniently available in the environment or you actually need to spend skill to create fire in the ground 1st. luckily they have fire arrows purchasable or craftable. i hope it stays the same if they are implementing it in.

I'm not sure about everyone.. i see in social media everyone is talking about D&D and that's why it's called BG3. the earlier games was awesome never did in actually have the thoughts that it's ALL about D&D. the game was so unique more than a decade ago. the music.. heck i even have the OST in my phone and i listen to them when i sleep. i still remember about .. "heya! it's me imoen".. minsc & boo, jaheira.. and in bg2 i like aerie? her romance music kicks in was so magical. and i really love the jokes jan & jansen makes about turnips.

although the graphics and visuals were old.. the feel, the art, the environments, the ambience gave all the feel that you are actually in athkatla!. all i'm hearing now BG was about turn-based and D&D and that's what makes them memorable. this wasn't even the case for me at all.

the demo i saw in BG3 has nothing of that. i'm not even sure these people even played the old games or they are actually just "influencers"? you know nowadays publishers, developers really love them? because they can "influence" alot of people.. basically just marketers. some even argued bg3 was a blessings because old bg was "crappy". seriously? so the idea was to appeal to people who hated the old bg game?

I agree with the first bit, but who said crappy?

I’ve read and heard only that some within Larian disliked the combat system.
Several others love the games and the lore and the setting, do we ignore them and only focus on certain individuals to make a point?

Did (or does) everyone who worked at BioWare 100% like everything about their own games whilst making them?

Your reasoning for not having daynight cycle "because multiplayer" is one of the most idiotic I've ever seen.

I do wish the interviewer would have pushed a bit for him to elaborate on that. He did give other, better reasons for leaving it out but that one was really stupid, yeah.

Still wondering what subreddit the AMA takes place in.

That will hopefully anounnced soon. I also hope that no questions will be asked that have already been answered in interviews

oh u and ur grey morality which has been present in so many games. u r so boring and full of cliches

I vote for Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor 2.

I vote for Neverwinter Nights 3

Why does everyone say alignment means nothing when every creature is giving an alignment and theres a page dedicated to it in the rules.

I agree with you if the alignments did not matter you would have devils and demons teaming up the only reason why there are at war is that devils are lawful and demons are chaotic

Speaking of demon, the design of demon in character design don't like it so much. Maybe it's the design.. I don't know how to describe it though. Doesn't look traditional demon. More like a modern demon.

i'm not sure what's wrong with larian's version of demon. was it too modern? too smooth? engine limitation? art direction? his clothes?

https://pasteboard.co/IY7Intq.jpg

here are references of some of the very detail design of fantasy demon:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/488710997039609087/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/833517843517418138/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/732327589390903921/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/300544975135857518/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/726064771161350337/

What about creating good teams, bad teams or what is between ?
I think it's really important for role play, with consequences for the way players choose.

You aren't familiar with D&D, I think.
The character in the clip of BG3 is almost certainly a Cambion, an half humanoid/ half fiend (fiend is a word used to indicate both demon and devil), and if you look closely it's similar to the third image you posted that is called Cambion, only with more big horn, and dressed as a noble instead that as a fighter. The bigger horn could depend on the humanoid parent.. She/He could be a Tiefling, a race of umanoid touched in ancient time by demon/devil characterized by great horn in modern art... Also the tiefling themselves could be the descendant of cambion with other humanoid...
If you want to see some of the Demons Prince of D&D, take a look to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k26idR0QYAY&feature=emb_title
(In order: the minotaur with flame in the head is Baphomet Lord of the Beast, the eye in the green/black mass is Juiblex Lord of the Oozes, the femalelike thing that seems to hug an human is Zuggtmoi Queen of the Fungi, the big one with a skull as the head and another skull on a wand is Orcus Lord of the Undead, the one with two head and four tentacle is Demogorgon). Under all this demon prince there are both demon with iconical look (like the Balor) and more strange one
Balor (one type of the great demons with the iconical look)
https://www.pinterest.it/pin/613193305488163814/
Marilith (one type of the great demons with a not iconical look)
https://www.pinterest.it/pin/534661787015895149/
here all the tanar'ri (the most common uber-type of demon)
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Tanar%27ri

you are correct i'm not really that familiar with D&D. however before posting this i was actually searching for reference materials for how demons look in D&D. i couldn't find much reference. what i'm trying to highlight here is the design of larian's version of cambion or demon-touched does not have that fantasy feel to it. perhaps the clothings are off or it's simply too difficult to transition a high fantasy demon to a 3D game? i don't know.

As I said before, i think is only the dress, if you look the character has humanoid apparence with demon-like wing and horn, similar to the third image you used.
Cambion are powerfull, charismatic and intelligent compared to humanoid, but only considered something more than a dretch (one of the lowlest demon) by true demons (maybe exept by Graz'zt, one of the Lord of the Demons who look almost like an obsidian human with six finger and like to sire new cambions). Cambion are used to some extent by demons and devils to contact humans, so not always they need to dress as a warrior. It could even be one of the few cambion who has rejected his evil origins... a rare thing but possible
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Cambion

Think of it has something more similar to a Succubus/Incubus (demons who like to seduce humans)

i have read what cambion is about. again i'm highlighting the character design. cambion or half-fiends can look very stylish and cool with it's design. larian's version of cambion could benefit from a more polish design and looks better. it's true the clothing.. perhaps also the wings and texture can be more refined and makes them look more align to D&D design.

Well Baldur's Gate 3 is only in it's pre-alpha stage so I am pretty sure that there will do a lot more polishing before there release Baldur's Gate 3

Just want to comment here with my full support of the turn-based combat and literally all of the gameplay I saw from the live preview. I don't want the feedback to be skewed by ridiculous, nostalgic BS. I don't have the data to prove it's a "vocal minority" that's upset about no rtwp, but we can all at least be realistic and admit turn-based games sell more than rtwp games these days. There is a reason why PoE 2 went back and added a turn-based mode. There's also no proof that it's NOT a vocal minority -- looking at social media is not proof. People that are upset about what they saw are much more likely to go complain on social media.

I'd hate to see what was shown in the preview ruined by all of this garbage feedback. That said, I think Larian is smart enough to know what they are dealing with.

Extremely excited for early access.

Yep, my game is going to sell billions of copies - I just have to make it turn-based.

That's not the correct logic at all, and in no way relates to a comparison of turn-based and rtwp combat systems. If all other aspects about the game are exactly equivalent, a turn-based game is going to sell more copies than the rtwp version. Excellent try though.

Yeah, I think so too, they'll deal with it.

I hope so in my day when we did not like something we just moved on to something else

Turn based is pretty much final. It's the core mechanic for their level design. If they had to change it now, they would need to go back to preproduction. Which is a no go at this point.

when should be provide feedback since it's "pre-alpha"? until the game is released?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
Actually your logic in no way relates to a comparison of turn-based and RTwP combat systems and your claim is literally impossible to verify. It's basically a prediction based on hot air.

TB fans are the vocal minority. They try to appear more than they are by being loud-mouthed and in-your-face in their approach to making comments. TB RPG sales are a joke compared with the sales of games like Skyrim, Witcher 3, and all the DA games. TB RPGs are the niche. RT/RTwP RPGs are the mainstream. Any RPG made by CDPR, Bethesda or even Bioware will sell way more than this game. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I’m not sure you should lump open world rpg in with RTwP rpg’s, but other than that I’m not sure where sales fall for either side and find the argument tiresome anyway.

This is going to be TB, so rather than us whinging about it again, let’s discuss the pros and cons ad nauseam in the appropriate thread, which isn’t this one.

Guys, you know where the TB/RTwP topic is, don't start it here too.

At some point I'm going to start just moving stuff, which given the vintage forum software may be as good as deleting it, so you have been warned.

Interesting list:
There is no turn based RPG among the best selling games, but there is no rtwp RPG too.
I see Diablo3, Skyrim and TW3.
If anything, the list tells us that complex party based RPGs ( tons of races, classes, abilities and game mechanics) are a rather small market in general, no matter TB or not.

you can't blame larian now worshipping just turn-based and won't work on anything else as DOS & DOS2 are the games that bring them up to what they are today.

You so realize that RT and RTwP are two completely different systems and naming them as one
is totally made up.
That People love Witcher 3, Skyrim Dark Souls does not make then open for RTwP, which is in fact as
Niche as you can go.

No. RT and RTwP are much closer to each other than either is to TB. And in parallel, RT fans and RTwP fans overlap each other significantly more than either overlaps with TB fans.

Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Who's the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him."

Someone made what is at the least an unsubstantiated and I suspect, false, claim that TB games outsell RTwP games. Arguing against nonsense is itself a form of nonsense. Baseball sells more tickets than football, but only because there are so many more games. The sales show nothing of which is better or worse. Similarly, there seem to be way more RTwP RPGs the past twenty years than TB RPGs, so comparing sales doesn't reflect anything. It might be said that there is a reason why there have been so many more RTwP RPGs - namely, people have liked them better. That may or may not have been the case (we can only play what we're given), bur Larian's success with DOS2 shows that things just might be changing (and that PC Gamer poll is telling too)

This is a generalization and one that shouldn't be made as they play entirely different. That's like saying someone who plays Rainbow Six Siege will prefer something like StarCraft over DOS or Fallout since one is real time (despite playing completely different) and one is turn-based.

I'm primarily a FPP/TPP gamer and I'd be more in the mainstream crowd for games like Fallout New Vegas or Witcher 3. I also like RTS games like StarCraft and Halo Wars. Yet I very much dislike RTwP games to the point where it hinders my enjoyment of a game (even when I play it for other reasons like the story or lore).

So I'm one of your RT gamers, but I would take a turn-based game over a RTwP any day of the week since it's something I can still enjoy despite not being my main preference.

I don't think this is the thread for this discussion though as vometia said.

Can we PLEASE have one thread that isn't about TB vs RTwP. Its not going to change at this point so what is the point of them?

Time to move on and talk about other stuff.

Quite; and the same people and the same arguments right after I'd asked the same thing. Next ones get deleted.

Mature rating and dark theme in a game derived from another game known for being whimsical and "un-medieval/gothic" but rather renaissance looking. Skeptical. We will see.

Agreed why keep asking for it when it is not going to happen move on to something else problem solved

Please give us free camera movement where we can zoom in close and look around (tilt)!

Since Intellect Devourer are GS 2 and in the fight there are 3 or 4 of them while 2 PC, someone know if they are nerfed? They should be Resistent to non magical damage, but the boot seems to damege them normally.
Also they have two attack per round: Claw and Intellect Devour, the second never used in the presentation

This and the Mage hand: there are actual D&D Rule in this D&D game?

i don't see why not as DOS2 is possible

They're nerfed,I thought the same when I first saw it. I guess a lot of monster will be tweaked to fit the narrative (?) but they coul call them,weakened or something.

Mage hand is also tweaked to use the new mechanics such as shove.

''there are actual D&D Rule in this D&D game?'' it is based on 5e but there's a few changes for some mechanics such as having advantage just for elevation. They have said all of this is a ''test'' and can change based on feedback.

DOS:2 you need a MOD improved camera, which I never got to work. Without the mod all you can do is zoom in right at your character, but then you dont see anything else and cant play in that view.

The Camera so far has been shown to be either zoomed in in 3rd person over the shoulder or zoomed out in a more isometric mode.

5ed D&D isn't rule heavy as 3.5 (with rule for almost everything and many, many number) or as AD&D2ed (with different THAC0, different progression for the Saves, different progression for the class, etc) but has some accepted rule and the game is already ignoring the most basic, like rule for spell (mage hand not only broked for shove but for the casting time and not a concentration spell... it's almost another spell, can we call it Bigby's Little Hand?), monster and potion, using optional rule for initiative...
It seems strange that 20 years ago, a game that ignored the turn based sistem of D&D could implement almost every other rule in the correct way, and now, with more powerfull PC they could implement the Turn but need to tweak or ignore all the other rule

Well my question is will we be able to pick a deity for our none divine characters that really is my only question for BG3

What's wrong with using an official initiative variant? And bonus action for potions is a very popular homebrew rule in the pnp, I think it's even suggested in the rule books as I remember reading about it.

And the BG games didn't follow AD&D 2e rules very closely, it used a bastard version of 2e and 3e with tweaked rules everywhere. That's why BG2 has 3e classes in it. I find it funny you call out Larian for monsters, when BioWare was just as inventive with them...

As for mage hand, it's pre-alpha, it was bugged. Swen mentioned it. It wasn't supposed to behave like a character and it wasn't supposed to have shove but throw (which it can do for things weighting less than 10lb by the rules) but the throw didn't work in the build he had.

In five year and many group, here in italy, never seen the homerule about potion used in game. The initiative variant, nothing wrong per se, only that with all the other change is a little annoying. BG2 come after 3.0, so the mix, BG1 (not EE) doesn't have classes or kit aother than the standard, also doesn't remember monster in BG1 with stat changed, exept maybe werewolf due to lack of silver weapon (and only in the expansion)

Sarevok stats and resistances makes no sense for a level 15 living human.
The revenants in the games have 3 attacks per round, instead of 1 (going by the AD&D 2e FR monster manual I'm looking at) with a bunch of other little changes, like more HP despite being level 2, better THACO, etc.

Which Reddit.

https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/with_replies

@Xary : I don't know 5e well, but yes, it did seem that characters were able to do too much for what is a short turn; if it was strictly realistic according to 5e, it would be an even slower experience than that demonstrated, which was slow enough.

Given how long it took to demo not very much progress, I would assume that the 100 hour game is not supposed to level you very far. Perhaps as with BG1 the end-game will be level 5-7 or something. That would certainly be more in line with D&D TT, but might seem to be a bit underwhelming to modern video game players.

To me, the fight seemed long for three main reasons:
1) so many useless "charging" animation (when he jump, dash, disengage, cast a spell, etc) that only took 1 or 2 seconds, but added together they pile up
2) He seemed more interested in showing the potential of the game than to fight efficiently
3) Sometime it seemed that he didn't know what he was doing, or what he could do or how to do what he wanted

I do hope there will be a toggle option for turning off all animations (combat and other) during the TB encounters. Animations don't do anything for me if not in real time, and being able to turn them off will make TB combat so much better for me.

You're probably right there.The trouble with that is that I am not likely to be any quicker or more efficient than Sven, so progress will likely remain slow for me!

I guess the "control" animations are there to add some degree of excitement to otherwise static periods of play, but I agree they could do with being less "superhero", more subtle, and more immediate.

So far, there have been a few things revealed:

1. All Classes (and Subclasses) from the 5e Players Handbook will be available at launch.

2. Custom Characters will have voice acting (you pick the voice at character creation).

3. Spells will have a vocal component when casting.

4. You can recruit custom mercenaries if you don't want to use the party members Larian has made.

5. Feats from 5e will be in the final game.

6. You will be able to select a face type, hairdo, facial hair, skin color during character creation.

Regarding Reactions:

Swen: "While it’s not going to be in EA immediately, the features and mechanics that allow a character to perform an action as a reaction will trigger automatically. The players will be able to control which reactions they want to enable in anticipation of enemy actions. E.g. a wizard would disable their Attack of Opportunity but enable their Shield spell, which will be cast automatically whenever the wizard is targeted by an attack or Magic Missile spell."

Well I hope my question does get answered I only have one question for Larian and that is will we get to pick deities for our none divine cac? that's pretty much my only question

Also revealed: Full release expects to only allow leveling up to level 10. In other words, anyone hoping to have level 20 characters may be disappointed.

Saw that. I fully expect expansion packs. Also, BG1 didn't go past level 9, and that's including Siege of Dragonspear.

Speaks to greater substance as far I see it. Getting away from the instant gratification of high levels and loads of loot. Old school

I read good things here but I'm really dissapointed with the maps : semi open world, such in DoS.
You explore a big zone, then you travel to another one. We'll probably won't be able to go back, and there will probably have no link between quests in a zone and in another.
Why the hell all modern game are going this way ?

BOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

how is that bad?
Going from level 1 to 10 but still having as much lenght as Divinity Original Sin 2 sounds basically perfect.
High level DnD is basically rocket tag anyway.

i prefer a comfy low level campaign with tangible threats.
having that then also be long speaks for a game with more depth than pomp

Classic BG was around lvl 5 iirc,the only thing I dislike about low lvl campaigns is the low lvl spells (and probably some monster too). It would be weird not to get an expansion or a big dlc at least to lvl 15 if the game does well.

Also confirmed, Warlocks regain all spell slots in between combats:

Maybe they are saving higher level in the hope of a sequel

Well, most published adventures are 1-10. BG3 falls right in line.

I wouldn't be surprised if they made a port of sorts to PnP considering the ties between Descent into avernus and BG3 (I haven't even played Descent into avernus so it's just wild guessing)

Well Pathfinder Kingmaker and Neverwinter Nights 2 have cap of level 20 so I really do not see why there have made the cap level 10 it seems to be a bit pointless

He didn't answer another questions relating that point but, why will we take sorcerer or other spellcaster then ?
Can someone explain (not in detail of course) the differences between warlock and other spellcaster ?

A level 10 Warlock has 2 spell slots. Total. The level 10 warlock can use its spell slots to cast spells it knows of 1st - 5th level.

A level 10 Sorcerer has 15 spell slots total divided among the various spell levels. Specifically, a level 10 sorcerer has 4 1st-level slots, 3 2nd-level slots, 3 3rd-level slots, 3 4th-level slots, and 2 5th-level slots.

In other words, the Warlock has very few spell slots, but makes it up for regaining ALL spell slots after a short rest (1 hour rest). The sorcerer on the other hand has alot of spell slots, but requires a long rest (8 hours of rest) to regain them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...q1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Thanks for the answer!

I haven't seen any answer regarding that in the AmA,are you sure?

EDIT: Nevermind,I found it.

''Most likely cause we’ve been recording a lot of Latin lately ...but we weren't finished in time for the public presentation.''



Thanks,you answered while I was editing xD

From the AMA:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...mz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

%$#$ I went into epic levels in my neverwinter games, curious lv 10? " shakes head and walks away"

From the AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fhk1u3/im_swen_vincke_creative_director_at_larian/fkbwcis/




Sad news, but it´s good to know we would have multiclassing and feats as in PNP.

With regard to Warlock spell slots, it really depends on how many encounters there are between long rests. At lower character levels, they can quickly eclipse the number of spell slots of even primary casters, given 3+ encounters per rest. Also keep in mind that a Warlock's spell slots are of the highest spell level they can cast. So, primary casters may have more slots at some levels, but they certainly don't have as many high level slots, unless there is only 1 encounter per long rest.

So only level 10. Quite disappointing as it means the amazing high level spells won't make it.

"We have plans"
Ugh.

Well that just means that ritual casting is not going to be in EA but we might get it in the full game I hope so anyway

This game is going to be 100+ hours as is so it seems obvious to me that they are splitting it into BG3 and BG4 with maybe BG5 for epic levels.

That is what it sounds like to me as well.

Then why not just confirm it?

''Feats and multiclassing: yes. Ritual casting not for EA, but we have plans.''
My take on it: The system for rituals is not ready yet and we have more pressing priorities,we do have though some ideas on how to implement it for the full release.
I may be completly wrong of course.

Just a guess, but its still in the planning phase, under discussion on how to impliment it, so its not partially done like say feats or straight forward as multiclassing, but its just a guess. I mean we know they have some kind of plan for rituals, I just don't think work has began on putting them into the game yet. Just a guess

They seem to be trying to not over commit while not downplaying interest in implementing things they WANT to put in the game.

whats with people and wanting epic levels,s eirously the game completley falls apart at that level and has very little to do with a DnD adventure.
i personally prefer having a broader set of things to do in lower levels.
Reminder that most dnd campaigns dont make it past level 6 or so.

Although you clearly seem to want a P&P experience, not everyone interested in the BG3 game even plays D&D; those that are primarily video games may well have different expectations.

SoA/ToB obviously managed high levels, and MotB was one the most enjoyable D&D video games I can remember, so it is possible to do higher-level games.

Having said that, I'm quite happy with lower levels given the TB-mechanics of 5e might slow down too much at high levels to make a decent video game.

Agreed NWN2 MotB did a great job on the higher levels so it's not impossible to go past level 20 in a DND video game

MOTB is actually the only example of a stand alone high level campaign that actually worked.
but MOTB is very different from BG3 in terms of tone.

And theres a reason its an expansion for an already existing game: it takes a lot of risks for a standalone game
also id say waht makes MOTB good is not the fact that ts high level but that it has a lot of very interresting ideas and a c ool ass world

I really hope that Larian Studios is going that way like the old D&D Gold Box series and of course Baldur´s Gate 1+2 and his AddOns. That the story always continued of the events from the respective predecessor and you could always import your characters from the predecessor.

So just BG2 expansion. Tales of the Sword Coast was an addition to the base campaign.

Would be really really nice If they implement the old BG magic chanting sounds ^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcu4KFZOKtM

HotU is also considered one of the best expansions and is from nwn1.

That said, some people enjoy low level, which is fine. But descent to Arvenus is a lv 1 to 13 module. And even on 3.5e, some class fantasies only start to be fun to play around lv 8. Example? Necromancers. Not having phantasmal killer and animate dead hurts a lot the fantasy of being a necromancer. And necros only start to truly shine when they get Finger of Death which is a tier 7 spell.

And note that 5e already reduced the power of spells by a lot

• Finger of Death no longer OHKill. Only deals 7d8 + 30 necrotic damage
• Create undead create far weaker mobs
• Feeblemind was a 5th tier spell. Now is a 8th tier
• Warlocks no longer has at will invocations
• Eldritch Spear no longer exist with the 250 feet range.
• Eldritch Blast no longer can deal up to 9d6 damage, only (d10+CHA mod) *4
• Metamagic is sorcerer only
• High tier magic usage is extremely limited, like 1/2 casts of any spell above tier 6
• Stoneskin which negated the damage on 2e, gave DR 10/+5 on 3.5e, now only gives nonmagical weapon resistance.
• Many buffs require concentration.

Don't get me wrong, a lv 17 warlock is still amazing. Is like having a squad of 4 crossbowman equipped with "force heavy crossbows" with unlimited ammo. But i really miss the trilling of facing a lich knowing that a finger of death can mean death and the PC being able to do the same...

D&D is a group game, played in group, so people who enjoy low level gameplay tends to form groups who also enjoy low level gameplay. 3.5e mid to high level is fun to play but is a chore to DM.

Correction some invocations are still at will, there is one that allows you to cast mage armor at will, one that allows you to cast dusguise at will, a higher level req one that allows you to cast alter self at will, one that let's you see in darkness including magical darkness at will, one that allows you to use any ritual spell which are all at will, ect..., I'll look the names up later.

they use actual (but poorly translated) latin for those it was such a nice touch.

Ohhh really? I missed that that case. I also liked the little time consume during they cast the spell. In the demo for me it looked too instant.

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/20502/spellcasting-words-translation-and-discussion

Icewind Dale & Baldur's Gate Spells

1) Illusion: "Veritas, Credo, Oculos" = "The truth, I believe, with my eyes"

2) Alteration: "Praeses, Alia, Fero" = "Protecting, another, I bring this forth"

3) Necromancy: "Vita, Mortis, Careo" = "Life, and death, I am without"

4) Divination: "Scio, Didici, Pecto" = "I know, for I have studied, with my mind"

5) Abjuration: "Manus, Potentis, Paro" = "A hand, powerful, I prepare"

6) Evocation: "Incertus, Pulcher, Imperio" = "Uncertain, beautiful things, I command"

7) Conjuration: "Facio, Voco, Ferre" = "This I do, I call, to bring you forth"

8) Enchantment: "Cupio, Virtus, Licet" = "I want, excellence, allowed to me"

edit: regarding spell speed in the video: in 5e, spells are "prepared" during rest so they can be cast on the same turn (effective 1 second cast time), as opposed to spell cast times from 2e.

we already know they have this feature in.
Even tho i still dont get it since latin doesnt exist in FR, buteh.

lol if FR doesn't then ENG doesn't either. technically it's 'common'.

max party members 6

Pacing will get a negative hit, imo.

There was some new stuff posted on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/

Under the "Actions Category" :

HOLY $^!+ I guess that takes care of one of my big concerns.

I agree that vocalizing chants gives a sense of power and immersion in gameplay.

Very cool detail, I never realized this.

Well i dont know where else to put it.
maybe it warrants its own thread.

There is one concern i have with BG3 that goes beyond any others.
And tis the writing.

not about how "dark" it is. But there were a few red flags to me already, and now someone on an anonymous image board dug up the Twitter handles of a few of the writers for BG3 and quite frankly, im starting to get concerned.

From Pronouns in the Twitter Bio to the Cuckold story with the Gith, im starting to feel the California vibes from BG3.
Dont go there.

This is what killed Siege of Dragonspear. This is why your competitor, Beamdog, crashed and burned. This is why Mass Effect Andromeda crashed and burned. This is why Pillars of Eternity crashed and burned.

I know that with WOTC , especialy with Crawford, youll have those elements.
But note. California is not your audience. California is not representative of any majority opinion outside of upper class california.


I might make a thread about this if i see this trend continue.
I like Larian specifically because it has its own kind of Humor. Its decisiveley European. It reminds me of tin tin comics the Heavy Metal Magazine.
When Dragon Commander came out, i remember the shitshow that was the commentary on it.
I distinctiveley remember Sven laughing and saying yeah its a game for boys.
That honesty was amazing to me. you just make what you want without a care. I understand that more money is on the line now.
But toeing the line isnt how you make money in this industry, and you saw it with your competitors that failed because they tried to do that.

Remind yourself of what Larian has dealt with in the past. Remember when Original Sin 1s Cover art was censored.
Remember when one of the Artists working on Original Sin mad e a Blog post on Deviantart i think defending Human Sexuality in Video games.


Remind yourself of those things. Do not cave to California. Do not cave to people who do not buy video games.
I see that youve listened to the feedback of oldschool CRPG fans when it comes to past tense Dialogue.

I think if theres one thing that oldschool CRPG Fans and Tactical SRPG can agree on, then it is that Games are better when they are a labour of love. Not one of Ideology.

Good writing is possible without overblown inclusivity, and without pandering to the adolescent fantasies of immature boys. However, it is not usual to see it in video games.

The best way to deal with human sexuality in games is probably to write romanceable characters without any reference to the sex, or other characteristics of the player. That allows everyone to have whatever relationship in their head that suits them. It puts some restrictions on the way character dialog is written, but as the majority of dialog in games is not exactly Booker Prize material, I'm sure it doesn't impact quality much.

DA:2 does exactly that, and is probably the only facet of that game I particularly like. DA:I is much more restrictive in relationships, both by sex and race, presumably because they have companion back-stories that involve discrimination and bigotry. Personally, I think this quite regressive compared to DA:2, since it means you have go with the writers' actually implementing racial and sexual bigotry into their characters, which is weird.

I think I read somewhere that this is the exact direction they are going with BG3 (just like they did in Divinity 2). That everybody will be essentially pansexual and can fall for anybody. Which is cool, I think, every player will have their own story.

If I recall correctly, they also said companions will romance each other eventually or they might be not loyal to the main pc. Like the gith lass, who has no conception of monogamy cause of her culture.

I am super fine with the decision, now you can romance any companion you find compatible with your main character (if you are into that sort of stuff).

On the things Sordak wrote about catering to an overly liberal audience, well, I disagree. It is 2020, painting a fantasy world as diverse as our real world really is should not be an issue.

The titles he mentioned (siege and pillars) I only know one, Siege and that was a hot mess, but not because that blow out of proportions controversy with the transgender npc.

I reckon Siege is a really good example how a group of passionate fanboys/girls can make a really shitty imitation while trying to honor the original work. The rail-roading, the bleedingly bad general story structure, the horrible character writing these were all faults of Siege that probably killed off Beamdog's chance to make this game (meaning BG3).

I am also not fun using a 20 years old engine (even though I don't care about graphics at all, Siege was buggy as frick).

PS: here is the article I read about the romance stuff:

https://www.vg247.com/2020/02/27/baldurs-gate-3-romance-all-companions/

I disagree with you breakign down my entire point to Romance options.

This is not what my post is about. its about deliberate california pandering. This doesnt just include romance options, they are only part of it, and in that t is how they are handled. Its about the values that the story is constructed upon and it is about ideological descisions made where Artistic descision should be made.

When Character design isnt decided by an artist, but by an activist, problems arise. And exactl ythis has been shown in many areas in western games design. Female character become increasingly more puddy faced, pixie haired and obese (look at some recent Magic the Gathering art for reference)

As for the romacne thing since you insist on it: what larian is doing is the lazy and quite frankly a bit cowardly way of doing it. Instead of adressign anyhting, they just weasel around it. Its less detailed writing, takes the characters personality less into account.
However, i admit that it is accurate to Forgotten Realms. So ill give it a pass.

Forgotten realms is, afterall, about Bisexuals having sex constantly. But my point wasnt about the way romance pairings are done in the game.


As for the specific example given: Its , yet again, a matter of tone and a matter of context. Baldurs gate was quite famous for a well loved female character throwing her sluttyness into the PCs face.
Lets say i quite frankly dont have the trust, given other circumstances in the industry, that this example is done for Interpersonal drama reasons (or to convey personal insecurities and trust issues)

I am sorry if I have misunderstood your point. I am European, I admit I might not know what you mean by "Californian vibes"? I thought it was euphemism for liberal.

I give you that this is really a safe choice for them, but I am okay with that, this means everybody can get what they want (I am more interested in the non-romance relationships with the party members, cause friendships really need some loving in video games, I reckon. In BG1-2, my favourite relationship was the sibling-bond with Imoen).

And I don't think this will take away anything from their character writing (as you said, Faerun is super cool with queerness, so there is no potential conflict, like the gay companion story line in DA Inquisition).

I didn't insisted upon anything, just shared some info in case someone didn't know it already. Also, I don't really understand the activism part of your argument. Who is the activist here? The writers?

About Safana, yeah DnD changed a lot in 20 years. Nerd culture changed a lot. Thank god, in my opinion. I mean I didn't hate Safana, I just found her dull as frick. Also Coran, the randy elf fighter / thief. Well, he was frankly just tiresome (I admit I always played with NPC mods, like NPC Project, so my impression of those NPCs is greatly altered by that, I guess).

Im talking about woke culture.
which youre probably aware of given your use of language

I actually preferred Inquisition in that regard. It felt like the characters actually had established personalities and preferences rather than just being whatever you tried to mould them into. wrt the sexuality, although more restrictive can be frustrating it can also be more meaningful than the "everyone is kinda bi really but without acknowledging it's a thing". My impression (though I have no definitive proof) is that's what they did with Leliana in Oranges which set the scene for "everyone can romance anyone" in DA2, so I'm glad they didn't do likewise with e.g. Sera. Who I'm aware that some people really didn't like, because of both the romance option and the "what you see is what you get" personality where she couldn't be coerced or forced into being something other than what she was. Not just her, and some of the characters did irritate me, but made it more interesting and immersive IMHO.


I'm kind of torn on this issue. I like some diversity and wouldn't like e.g. female players and characters consigned to being mothers and skivvies, of course; and more generally I'll enjoy diversity because it's interesting, but as soon as there's a feeling that someone is Making A Point then it stops being enjoyable.

But one thing that often goes wrong is that the earnestness of making diversity a thing can often end up being the total opposite where it can simply make something in the image of the values and familiarity of one person's self-professed diversity and inclusion while inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) not representing anyone else's values or qualities. It's quite a fine line and one that a lot of creators (or rather directors) frequently get badly wrong.

This is kind of what i was getting at.
When you limit some characters to certain options then you are giving them personality and you give their tastes and choices some thought.

the one size fits alla pproach mostly means that you make all the romances kind of samey.

But yeah im very weary of the Githyanki romance. This feels like the PoE situatoin where theres some "take that" towards the players in a lot of paths.
It could turn into a Viconia situation, but im having my doubts. Considering the background and the current lcimate of the industry, im just afraid that this is the first hint of the kind of woke bullshit infesting the game

Quite. I think that sums up the problem from both "sides", by which I mean the noisy extremes: some want the first group and none of the "political", the others want it the other way round. And the majority would kinda like stuff to just be interesting and less shouty.

what a very mature response to my post.
but a good illustration of what i was talking about.

Gamers are the problems here afterall, right?

Hardly. I think of gamers like a group of people in a large dining table. Most are just at their own tables (consoles/PCs) minding their own business and doing their own thing. A few are gossips, some going from table to table to spread the latest "news" they feel is important, some are offended that the "news" is being pushed on them when they didn't ask for it, some are annoyed at the content of the "news" and others are so tuned out to what's going on around them they simply ignore it all.

The issue, I think, lies between those who politicize too many things, those who are offended by too many things or those who dislike people disagreeing with their own opinions on too many things.

This is true of all groups, not just gamers.

I think thats an awfully reductionist stance (in the: everything can be explained by going into more general terms way of reductionism)
Denying the way the industry is going is and trying to explain it away as "both extremes mumble jumble politics have always been there mumble" is disingenuous at best.

Is it reductionst? I suppose it would be if one contended there were two "sides", so to speak; even were I to contend that there is, those who like balance and those who don't, I can't really say that's really the case because I might like a balance on some regards, find it bland in others and annoying or even offensive in others still. In which case it's really down to the games industry to be diverse enough to cater to various tastes, personalities and backgrounds. And as a general rule I'd say there is a bit of a lack of that at the moment: whether or not politically, there is a trend for a "one size fits all" force-feeding of particular games styles at present, or at least styles that I personally find disagreeable. But even that is not unique to today, the industry has always tended to swarm from one fad to another.

I would probably be considered the epitome of the 'gamer' this tweet, or whatever it is, is talking about; a white, Christian, conservative male. While I consider myself 'devout' as a Christian and anti-socialist as a conservative...i can say with 100% honesty that it would be a boring and dry game indeed if there was only white, male humans in the game. Faerun is not the real world and does not follow the racial proportions of real nations (like the US being over 70% white). I hope to see lots of racial diversity that breathe life and culture into the game. Creating just as many strong, lead women is not 'politics' unless it was made specifically to be that...even then, with good story telling they could hide that, easily. Hairstyles? that's about the stupidest comment i've ever read, the author is a neanderthal. For sexuality, again, it all comes down to the writing. This is not the real world and I don't expect it to follow any norms or standards..but I do expect good writing and not obvious pandering. "Look LGBTQ+ community, look! We added people like you! Look! Look!" That is pandering. I have seen plenty of non-straight characters in video games that had great story-telling and it just fit. It's obvious when a company is just trying to be politically correct versus when they care about good writing and good stories; it's rare that you get both pandering and good writing and character development. I hope to see great story-telling here, even if I don't personally play through any non-straight story lines. Body types? Again, really? Wtf is normative? and what is a political body type?

If you write good stories with believable characters that fit the world you are building a game in (in this instance its Faerun), no one, besides a select few, are going to care about any of the things in that ridiculous post. It's a video game.

Vometia: What i meant by reducitonist is Reductionism in the sense that one seeks answers by trying to apply "simpler" explanations. Which is what i think gets done in this debate a lot.
It gets generalized away as saying "people are upset and its always going to be this way and it always has been this way".

I dislike this because it implies that there has been no change. And i do not think that this is accurate.

As you pointed out, theres a bit of a one size fits all appraoch.
I point towards "california" specifically because this is where alot of gaming companies recruit their employees and especialy writers. So there is a saturation of that mindset in the industry.
Hence why a lot of peopel seem to be getting upset with CDPR over their image change from "the Poland company" to what they are now.

If i had to make a comparison between genres (which i dont like doing), id like to explain it that way: Remember when all American action movies in the early 2000s were about American Soldier Men blowing up Evil Sand people terrorists?

basically were at that stage in Video games now. Only instead of the Republicans we got Captain Planet.

deathride:

The commen tabout Hairstyles was obviously about that Obsidian Space game. Where every single female character had that "I want to talk tot he manager" pixie haricut.
Lots of people made fun of that

I think we're more in agreement than not. The "California" thing is what made me think of the "but your diversity is not my diversity" thing that so often goes along with it. That sort of thinking can end up becoming a parody of itself. See also grimdark and any other number of overreaching philosophies.

I would write more (or at least more intelligently... hopefully) but I'm knackered and my brain doesn't work. I need sleep (even though I won't find any).

i think the whole "gamers react badly to diversity" thing is nonsense.
to evoke yet another comparison with another genre, take MTG for example.

Currently people are realy upset about MTG just.. having alot of very WEIRD art. Conventionally attractive people seem to be verboten, besides the poster boy planeswalkers.And the ethnic makeup of various of the factions just seeming outright bizarre.
i think the picture from Innistrad of the three werewolves that were literaly the "Three ethnicites of the world according to americans".

This can be cited as people beeing upset by diversity.
but then people forget that MTG had Jamuraa, an entire continent (and a full blown expansion at that) based on Africa, and people loved it.
because it didnt feel out of palce. Noteably it also wasnt very diverse, sicne everyone in it was african, obviously.
But in the grand total of MTG, it was more "diverse".
likewise people realy liked Kamigawa.

My point here beeing: Actual Diversity was never the problem.
but people feel like they are beeing treated like children that need to be educated when it comes to blatant tokenism (which i thought we got over in the 90s)

Ive made this point in another thread regarding Dragon Age Inquisition.


Actually from descent into avernus, im a bit hopefull that Larian might bring some sense into the Diversity bit. Little Calimshan is something i like: something that grounds middle easterners suddenly apeparing in a European inspired fantasy world.
Opposed to Dragon Age Inquistion where it just felt like it was done with a Spreadsheet "we need this percent of that ethnicity".


Now, with regards to what ive said about PoE: there seems to be a trend of , for the lack of a better term, wanting to punish the audience for making certain choices. I dont know if it was here or in another forum where someone pointed out that none of the straight romances in PoE had a happy end while all of the non straight ones did. As i certainly havent tried that out myself, people can correct me if im wrong in quoting that.
Which circles around what is aid about Female characters vs male characters in Western RPGs. Theres a double standard here: male characters are almost always attractive with chiseled jawlines and male model physique, meanwhile female characters become dumpier, crooked nosed and Karen haired.

So when someone claims they want to make "More (X) (enter: nuanced, mature, realistic etc.) character interactions" then i just wonder if that just means "punish what i dont like and pander to what i like"

Oh, yeah, it was a tired, clichéd stereotype when I was growing up in the '80s but it still persists. Usually courtesy of people who make it their business to condemn tired, clichéd stereotypes, interestingly.

Anyway, I am going to bed, even though it's only 7pm here. I've been awake since 11:30pm last night. Again. Games don't feature enough insomniacs, obviously.

I agree; diversity hasn't really ever been the problem...at least not in recent years. Pandering diversity for a statistic, however, just makes for bad, forced, story-lines and character arcs. A D&D example; it was applauded when the 5E first released to have a black female as the human race picture and a black male as the fighter picture in the PHB. Personally, it doesn't feel forced as they both, IMO, fit the setting artistically and are just well done. I'm sure if you search the bowels of reddit you'll find someone that had a problem with them...but I've never seen anyone give any grief over it which says a lot, actually, since WoTC is an openly left-wing company with a very large right-wing fan base because, for the most part, they do a good job at continuing the legacy of D&D and not forcing anything in-game just to win over a minority while still allowing the freedom for any minority to also play how they wish.

to add to all that: im not sutpid.
i see when something is done in good faith and when something is not done in good faith. and WOTC in recent years definitly has done the latter.
to the point where they pissed off their own creators (like the creator of eberron beeign seriously pissed at crawford messing with his settings elves for brownie points)

Come on, books, movies, games, or comics are full of underwritten, undeveloped, superfluous characters. But I´ve never seen that people ask for a compelling backstory and character development about the male guy in a suit in a bar, the muscled man working out in the gym, the bored cashier in the hotel lobby, or the bikini girl skating in the beach.

But if in the scene there´s a gay, black-asian-spanish, Muslim, etc... character and suddenly you have to justify your presence there, you need to have a compelling backstory, character development and a plot justification to be there, just because.

There were, are, and will always be scenery, background characters, and nobody complains about not knowing the motivations of the bikini girl or workout boy character but, if it´s from a minority, you suddenly need to justify your presence in there. Because if not, you´re just a gay/black/asian/spanish character that it´s only there to fulfill some imaginary minority integration quote and it´s all about politics.

So, All background characters could only be hetero, white, Christian, and male and if not, you have to explain why? For what reason?

It´s really tiresome reading the same "When a character is only there because it´s gay and no other reason" line over and over. Its an f... background character. It needs no other reason to be there more than add color to the world around, it´s part of the scenery. Like workout man and bikini girl. they are only there because it´s a beach (and they possibly have an amazing six-pack on camera) the cashier is gay or have eight fingers or have a large moustache. No political reason. It´s simply a cashier that likes to sleep with men. That´s it. No more plot reasons needed because it´s an unimportant background character.

Let´s use a scene as an example.
A meteor comes crashing into the city. Two unnamed characters appear on the screen and one embraces and kisses the other and says "It´s gonna be ok, babe"
the screenwriter and director want to show the dramatic scene, the desperation of the people and that the human spirit always tries to find hope in the most desperate circumstances.
So, we use two caucasian actors, one male, one female. No problem
Now we use two women, one caucasian the other Afro-American -> Same scene, we convey the same message to the viewer.

If there´s a huge meteor crashing into the city and there are two desperate people trying to find shelter in her lover´s embrace in the scene and you are fixated in only seeing two interracial women kissing each other on-screen maybe its because it annoys you that there are two women kissing on the scene, not because any "political statement"

Sounds like those are things that YOU notice.

Nope, didn´t notice Marvel´s Valkyria or the captain of Flash TV series are gay or if Stephen king´s Geralt of the Dark Tower is afroeuropean in the movie and not in the books; if Assassin´s Creed: Origins Egyptian people are black etc or if I noticed I didn´t care (because those facts do not change anything about the character's role in the plot) until my FB and twitter account was flooded with twitters about "blackwashing" "LGTBI lobbies" "political agendas" and a lot of nonsensical BS.

I love that you can list off everything you "didn't" notice lol

Yeah, because a lot of twitters pointed out what I didn't notice...¿Didn´t you read my previous post? I mean.. you just quoted it o.O

Ah, it's cuz of the twitters XD

Look, I´m not afraid of a friendly discussion, but you are not making any sense and I think you do not want to discuss in good faith because I sense some underlining patronizing and mockery in what you´re saying that I do not get, so I think we should move on.

You should stick to your usual "I´ll post to call idiots to the ones that do not think the same as me" At least that is easily understandable.

Ah ok, you didnt notice it.

i did.
does that cancel out the opinion of everyone else?
And does it not change the role of the story?

Well only if you do not care about internal consistency.
Not all stories are abstract theatre plays, some of us understadn this. Some of us are interrested in history, anthropology or just culture in general. And those of us that are, are taken out of the expirience by that.
Some of us also note the intention of those that made those pieces of media.

"But why", you ask.

That is, _Vic_, what your argument boils down to. "Why bother".

Please note this, this is an important point here. "It doesnt matter to the story", by which you want to say "Why get upset if it doesnt change the product".

To that i reply to you.
"Then why make the change in the first place"
Why not make the protagonist of the Dark Tower look like the Stereotypical western Hero he was discribed as in the Books. Why not NOT do those changes.
Afterall, it doesnt CHANGE the product according to you?

Why bow to one TASTE and not the other?

And thats just coming from your end. Not for me, since i care about the background of stories. I ofthen find them more compelling than the sotry themselves.
So no.
The background is only important if you do not care about it.
But thats not an argument. Thats like saying i dont care about a Video games soundtrack because im Deaf. Sorry to hear that, but i can hear and id rather not have the soundtrack of my Fantasy RPG be directed by Sido the German cringe rapper.

Ok, I get that the context could be of importance to enjoy a movie, a comic, a book, a videogame... It gives you some sense of familiarity or immersion. I get it.

What I cannot fathom is why is such a big deal when you change the colour of the skin of the character, the sexual option or the gender and not when you change eye colour, hairstyle or the accent.

I mean, Constantine is supposed to have a heavy ET British accent, and there wasn't a campaign against Keanu Reeves when he played this character in the movies or when DR who was portrayed by a man with a heavy Scottish accent; no one that made them close the Instagram and Twitter accounts the same way it happened with other recent cases because of the massive trolling.

ED: Not ET British, more of a cockney accent, they told me =P Still not how Keanu did it. And I do not say he acted poorly. I´ve seen worse. Gabriel knight games, anyone? Fantastic games, but you want to kill the MC after the first 10 minutes putting up with his fake southern-USA accent.

you cannot fathom. But youre not everyone.

ive given the example of DAI so im gonna bring it again: why does it bother me that theres "Black people" in DAI and it doesnt bother me that theres Redguards ins skyrim? Because one of those has context and the other one doesnt.
In Dragon age. roughly 50% of all random NPCs are black. By which i mean "African american" (rather than african)
This is not explained in any way.
There is no migration wave from anohter country, theres no ethnic group that has a distinct name, or another way of speaking. They are just simply the same people who live in a place that looks like its a Pastiche of Iceland and Englnad (Ferelden specifically) who are, for no reason, Black.

Meanwhile Redguards in Skyrim make sense. They share a border, they had the war of bendr'mahk going on, one of their cities was split Berlin style for a while. Theres context there, there arises Worldbuilding in story from that.

Meanwhile in Dragon Age it just takes you out of the expirience, it makes no sense and its obviously done to appeal to the progressive american audience who just want, for no in univese reason at all, the racial makeup of American big cities to be represented in a medieval fantasy setting.

Same thing with Wticher. Remembr when games journalists sperged out because there was no ethnic minorities in witcher? Which in itself is an americanism, theres also no italians in Witcher (besides that one nilfgaardian guy i guess), most of the people looked distinctiveley slavic, a nuance that passes by the average american obviously.
Then they actually had a darker skinned guy in the DLC because, big surpruse, he was supposed to be from a foreign country. Which is how you do those things. And no other way is valid as far as im concerned.

>Accent
That too matters.
it pisses me of when something is set in a particular place but the accents are all over the place. It takes me out of the expirience.
If id have gotten a euro for every time i heard someone complian that the Spanish characters in a movie speak with a mexican accent id be a rich man.

These things matter. You just have to pay attention, its obvious that you dont pay attention to every one of those details, but that doesnt mean that there isn someone out there that does.

Although black is obvious enough, how would you know a background character is or isn't gay, Spanish, Muslim etc? You don't unless they're making a point of it, in which case the point needs to have some sort of relevance otherwise it sounds gratuitous or incongruous. I actually just added the latter as I was thinking of a less controversial example, such as Mass Effect's Anderson announcing he was born in London, but it was pertinent; the reason I went "well okay then" is because he announced it in his very strong American accent. But I now digress.

But back to the point, ish, for example how many forum members would you know are any of the above? Some may or may not have mentioned any of that stuff but maybe not enough to make a lasting impression, which is the sort of thing I was getting at. Whereas people might be more likely to remember if someone announced it when there was no relevance to the subject matter, however controversial it is or isn't.

I an not Spanish native speaker. Argentine Spanish i can understand easily, had ski lessons on my last vacation on Bariloche with a Spanish speaking instructor, Spain Spanish too, is easy for me to understand. Watched ElitE series in original Spanish audio. But Mexican Spanish by some unknown reason, i can't understand.



Race is not just skin color. Africans with albinism doesn't look white. People try to impose that every game should have the same demographics of New York, even when the game is historical. Eg : Kingdom Come Deliverance got criticized by the lack of diversity. And with Cyberpunk 2077, they included Haitians and other Black groups and ... Got criticized. Note that the creator of cyberpunk TTRPG is Mike Pondsmith. A black dude.

Racial tensions between whites and blacks are a thing which happens mostly on Americas, on other parts of the world, the culture, in group conflicts and history are completely different. When i mean Americas, i don't mean only US which had even a civil war due slavery. Haiti had the biggest slave revolution of the history, Brazil got like 20x more slaves than US and when the Princess Isabel ended slavery, the royal family suffered a coup and lost the power. On Argentina, they got send in front lines without firearms and so on. I don't mind "inclusivity" when it adds more stuff, not take out stuff and they don't wanna export conflicts to all over the world...

i mean by taking out options is Dragon Age Inquisition. No more brothels, the straight male romance option is just a ultra masculine woman and that is it. And taking out options is not a bad thing just on "diversity/wokeness"... Baldur's Gate 2 had around 300 spells. Dragon Age Origins, around 100. Dragon Age Inquisition, around 20. And only wish on BG2 could do more stuff than all DA:I spells. Elder Scrolls Morrowind had a lot of spell effects and weapons which got removed from further games. Skyrim lacks polearms, levitation, mark/recall, interventions, spell making, etc.

PS : Monotheism on Forgotten realms makes no sense.

PS 2 : Trans guys in a world where people can assume dragon forms and even cast reincarnation makes no sense either.

I agree with you on the skin colour thing. It has indeed a deep effect on your experience as a human being, it is not just a physical marker, it is a cultural one too, and when fiction ignores this, it can get strange (though if you think about this, maybe a fantasy universe where there are actual non-human races, like elves and dwarfes, maybe humans will only see each other as human regardless of the tone of their skin).

On the transgender and monotheist stuff, I disagree.

I assume you mean the Absolute story line when you mentioned monotheism (something I am very curious about by the way, give me some new non-human / morally ambiguous deity). Yes, monotheism as Christians think about it makes no sense within the Forgotten Realms cosmos, but monotheism as a sense of patron deities, like elves venerate Corellon, orcs Gruumsh et cetera, that is very much present. They don't deny the existence of other gods, only they prefer the worship their own creator deity for obvious reasons. This is the reason I am excited to find out why the goblinoids decided to worship the Absolute (I mean they have their own creator deity). I am also curious about the Absolute's identity, maybe an older deity or group of deities is trying to rebrand themselves to gain more power (there were examples for this in Faerun canon).

About transgender people in Faerun. Magic is not a mundane tool for everybody. Just because a 20th level wizard can cast wish that doesn't mean nobody is starving in the Forgotten Realms. A transmuter mage can craft a philosopher stone and produce gold from tin, yet poverty is still a thing in Faerun. The same way, just because transgender people have a much more ideal way to assume their real gender identity (via magic) that doesn't mean that a true polymorph spell is available for everybody (or that cursed belt of gender shifting from the previous titles).

Man, I hope you can get the girdle of gender, the helmet of opposite alignment and the jester's armour in BG3. It would be a nice touch.

Faerun is not a homogeneous thing. But in certain places of Faerun magic seems mundane like electricity in real life. Netheril is the most iconic example. Thay too. Making a analogy is like the "gender" controversy on cyberpunk 2077. Technology is so high on cyberpunk that except by extremely poor people, gender is irrelevant. On "high technological" or "high magical" settings, everything that we understand about gender would change completely.

I get that some people prefer low magic settings, but D&D is not a low magic game... Of course, you can try adapt it to a low magic setting by banning certain classes, a lot of spells and houseruling a lot of things to make magic more rare, risky and expensive, but you got the idea.

Yeah, Forgotten Realms is not a low-magic setting, but it is not that high magic either. Magic is rare. It is special. Wizards are rare. Sorcerers even rarer.

In both your examples (Thay and Netheril), magic is only "mundane" for a privileged few. Let's look at Netheril. There were the floating cities with the mages and apprentices and also there were the land towns with the masses of the common people living in the shadow of those floating cities. Not like every peasant had some cantrip at the ready.

Though, it could be different with races who have innate magic, like the drow for instance. They have probably a more intimate relationship with magic, than humans.

You're missing the point of the image @_vic_ posted. This only seems jarring because it conflicts with your politics. If it didn't you wouldn't notice. It only seems political when it clashes with your politics. If you counted 50% black, how many redheads did you count? How many people with green eyes? The creators of the game had vision of a world where the color of one's skin is no different from the color of one's hair or eyes.

And for some reason that seems jarring. It seems very salient to you whereas it doesn't to me. And the reason it doesn't seem salient to me is explained by one of your other comments, that the people in the Witcher look Slavic. But Americans like me don't see that: slavs, aryans, nordics, italians, celts and alpines all look 'white' . We've lost our ability to make the distinctions that seem so important to parts of the European right. (although I've spent enough time reading right wing accounts of race to know those names and can, unfortunately, see what they see) So the idea of a world where these sort of distinctions don't matter and don't need to be explained doesn't seem so fantastic and/or jarring.

Similarly, I think you might not realize when right wing assumptions make into games and other forms of fantasy. When I read Heinlein I'm listening to a lecture on the virtues of free market capitalism. When I read Larry Niven I'm getting schooled in utility maximization. The point of Alan More's The Watchmen was to let left wingers like me realize that their form of escapism is proto fascist. What kind of person decides to put on a hood and hang criminals? What are we saying when we create a fantasy world where the uber wealthy, the Tony Starks and Bruce Waynes, decide to use their money to save the world? And eugenics? Wow. Video games are the place where eugenics and related theories of genetic determinism thrive. I'm stronger, smarter and wiser than anyone else because of gifts my father passed along to me? I was just born better than others? If I had a child with another Bhallspawn would those powers be magnified. And Nethril? The creator of that setting has said in no uncertain terms that the setting is a reflection of his fundamentalist christian worldview. Same with Dragonlance -- one of the co creators wanted to convey an evangelical message, spread the good word: the gods are coming back.

TL;DR -- politics are everywhere in video games, your politics determine whether you see that and what you see.

Bingo. Every single person has their own inherent beliefs, biases, and blind spots. The things people create tend to have those beliefs and biases implemented, even if only on a subconscious level. It's only really something the player notices when it conflicts with their own beliefs, biases and blind spots. Just about any game with a plot contains a "political" message, it's just harder to notice if it's one aligned with your own beliefs and biases, because that seems "normal" to you, and is thus invisible.

It's not just that. It's very noticeable when it's being forced in but doesn't actually add anything to the game, and then its highlighted in the marketing.

Completely true. Just as in real life.

I doubt that many development teams sit down to decide what political message they will be conveying; whatever it is likely emerges naturally from the composition of the team.

Beyond that, I'm sure that specific decisions about how to portray characters are just as likely to be influenced by marketing considerations. The more you spend on a title, the broader the market you need to appeal to; not political, commercial.

As a rule, I would say that ( to my eyes ) most characters in all the RPGs I can remember have been pretty average looking, which is a reasonable reflection of what you see around you. Most of the time I have not been able to make a better looking player character, and the devs usually use the same tools.

Hair has always been a particularly problematic area, both in modelling and rendering anything convincing within the processor budget, and in dealing with the interactions with character and clothing. Short hair is obviously more easily handled, so it often dominates as a matter of practicality.

I actually trigger more on the random use of accents than looks, since in the real world accents are a better origin identifier than skin/eye/hair color or any intrinsic racial characteristic. It doesn't really matter which accent you apply to which fantasy group, so long as its invariant. Not necessarily easy to manage, as voice actors are not always able to do a wide variety of accents well, and those commissioning them may not really be familiar enough with the accents to select for them. I know I would have difficulty identifying the regional origin of most non-British speakers of English simply by accent.

I'm seeing two women in the banner above me. What gives? This is medieval fantasy -- why the women in armor and not raising children and/or doing needlepoint? Why are they even wearing pants and not skirts? What does this add to game? Why are these images being forced upon me?

Did you notice? If this were, say, 1960 you would have.

That's easy: "foreign". :p Which also includes anyone born south of Durham!

The gameplay looked cool from the short video we got of it, all the dungeons and dragons things you get to use. I am still looking for the definitive difference between divinity and dnd, it doesn't look like anything other than a reskinned divinity game. I was really worried about, after playing divinity 2, the uhm. Horrible inventory system, the source mechanics. pretty much everything that is not combat, although even that is often misinterpretive. just some feedback, not trying to be negative here, Hey you guys are working with a new engine and you have lots of extra hands. ok I'll check it out.

They are COMPLETELY different games. Baldur's Gate has a complete different itemization, no cooldowns, spell slots, reagents, the numbers are much smaller and so on. When i mean low numbers, i mean that the strongest wizard on SoA has 18 INT and the toughest dragon on SoA had 200 hp. Armor works in a completely different way, on D&D, armor deflects blows. On divinity is just a secondary health bar. And on BG2, full plate armor is far more likely to deflect a sword hit than a warhammer hit. BG2 and DOS2 are completely different games.

They are actually using the same DOS2 engine..well, they started with it and have been upgrading it big time. I think Swen said it was only like 30% the same now...so basically a new engine. Inventory management is actually one of my very few concerns as well...i don't want it to feel like DOS where you just pick up and sell everything. yes, i get that in P&P you could do that if you wanted but most DMs would get tired of that and just stop having vendors that would buy garbage. i also really hope they have a really good money system...it's so satisfying only getting copper and silver for a level or two and then start to find gold with more challenging adventures. maybe that's just me but in most campaigns even a single gold piece is worth a decent amount.

Except no one is talking about 1960.

Let me use Star Wars as an example. The original trilogy was amazing, it took inspiration for real historical dictatorships for the Empire and what they did but did not mirror it or shove it in the audience members faces. When George Lucas and others working on it did interviews it was about the story, the characters and the universe of Star Wars itself. Then we go to the sequel trilogy. The movies themselves didn't push an agenda but they were written far more poorly than the original trilogy or even the prequel trilogy. During interviews Kathleen Kennedy and directors like Rian Johnson would talk about how they feel so great about making things better for women because they now had a strong woman that girls could look up to as a hero, they put together a story group that made it clear that they were more interested in incorporating today's social and political issues as part of the Star Wars legacy rather than build on what came before, wearing "The Force is Female" shirts and saying or saying that there are too many white men on camera, and off camera running the film crew and special effects.

For those paying attention it becomes very clear that those in charge are more interested in putting forward a message that ties into whatever social issues of the day are rather than write a story that fits those characters and the universe.

Let's look at The Last of Us 2 as another example. The first game focused on Ellie and Joel and how it built up their relationship, and it had to follow Ellie and Joel because she resparked his humanity and capacity to care about others and she was the only person who could potentially save humanity. Neil Druckman, head of Naughty Dog, has said he was greatly influenced by Anita Sarkeesian in the past and now wanted to tell a story about hate and make the players look at Joel and Ellie as the villains that you played as and felt justified doing until you went to another character. Neil made it clear that he's interested in preaching about morals in his game to the players in a story that didn't have to follow Joel or Ellie and could feasibly be done with any other character to match the themes they were going for.

Naughty Dog also copyright struck any and all videos they could discussing the leaks, whether or not they used footage from those leaks, even claiming ownership of memes on Twitter to get those taken down for a few weeks as well, pretty much breaking copyright and fair use law. This was the biggest issues people had with them far more than the so-called pandering that the leaks apparently tried to showcase.

All I'm saying is that it does happen. If game developers want their games to sell well they need to know their target audience and market appropriately to that audience. If they build up a fan-base who have come to have certain expectations of that company then it is on the company, whether through advertisements, gameplay reveals or interviews, to temper those expectations and let the audiences know what to expect moving forward.

Which is why I'm really happy with the gameplay reveal Larian did, playing live for everyone so everyone knows exactly what we're getting, compared to the cinematic movie that Bioware did with Anthem's gameplay reveal...which didn't show much gameplay.

I´m a little puzzled. There´s no source mechanics in BG3 that we know of, and the gameplay showed the usual D&D5e skills, dialogue skillchecks, alignment choices, spells and the usual stuff you see outside combat in a D&D campaign and that does not appear in any Divinity game.

I'm not sure you got my point about 1960? If it were 1960 and we talking about university brochures someone with an eye for such things might say: "hey why all the coeds on the brochures? Is this just virtue signaling?" But if some were to say that in 2020 we would ask "wft is a coed? What's you deal and what graveyard did you dig up that term from?" Now, in 2020, don't even notice when there is a gender balance in university photos. The point is that your politics trains your eye to see some things and keeps it blind to others.

Can't comment on the Last of US 2, never played it. But on Star Wars we have different views. Lucas did an amazing job with the first two (now episodes IV and V) and a decent job with Return of the Jedi. And then he just embarrassed himself with the prequels. Sure the special effects were great but writing was worse than many of the novels and he phoned in the direction. And there were agendas in all of Lucas' movies. Princess Leia kicked ass and saved the boys in the middle of her rescue. She was a 1970s feminist. This princess doesn't sit around looking pretty, she shows the boys how to shoot . . . But in the prequels, Lucas went backwards with the gender politics. Padme was a forgettable nothing who receded into the background to allow Anakin to take center stage. The third prequel was okay I guess, better than Rogue One.

The three recent Star Wars helped undo some of the damage that Lucas did. I thought Rei kicked ass in the Force Awakens -- I put that movie on par with the Return of the Jedi. Sure, the last one (IX) had a bit too much fan service in it but so did Solo. And the Rise of Skywalker (IX) was much better than Solo. Solo didn't have any of the elements you point to -- it had a male protagonist, it stayed true to Solo's pirate tropes and couldn't be said to stand for anything but making cash. No feminist narrative there but it was only marginally better than Rogue One.

That's why I'm not accepting that any problems with Star Wars can be attributed to a "the force is female" / "pushing an agenda" problem. The problems with Solo stem from the fact that it was directed by someone who doesn't really like sci fi and who tried transform a sci fi movie into the sort of movies he would have liked to have directed -- which is why we got car races and train robberies. Compare Solo to Fury Road. Fury road was the best Mad Max yet and its feminist 'agenda' wasn't at all subtle. I think the feminism made the movie . . .

Sure, admitting you have progressive politics sets up conservatives to dislike something but I'll take an honest expression of belief over PR department claptrap any day. When you try to stand for nothing you fail at everything but being boring. Like you I "pay attention" but I attend to different things -- I wish people would see how many movies are really just military recruitment vehicles and ads for gun manufacturers .

Star Wars is the perfect analogue for BG3 -- BG2 was the best video game ever produced. Can Larian live up the expectations? If they want to learn something from Solo's failures it would be: make sure to hire BG2 fans. There is no substitute for sincerity -- you can throw all the money you want at a production but you put people who don't like the genre and are only motivated by a paycheck take the reigns the product.

Anyway, good exchange of views.

KillerRabbit:
>This only seems jarring because it conflicts with your politics.
How so? It clashes with any in universe continuity.
>How many redheads did you count
1 dwarf i think.
But thats besides the point. You want to construct a trap for me here and go "A HA! See? you only see X". Bullshit.
Theres redheads among pretty much any european ethnicity.
Redheads living among non redhead european looking people doensnt need to be explained. Meanwhile half the population of a northern european country with no big migration movements do need to be explained.
Maybe you live somewhere else but i can for a fact tell you that i do not know a single african looking person born from a european family.
meanwhile i got redheads in my personal (usualy pretty dark haired) family. Youre making a false equivalence.

> We've lost our ability to make the distinctions that seem so important to parts of the European right.
ah of course.
And now youre conflating shit.

No, despite what you americans get taught, not all "white" people look the same.
theres no such thing as "white" people. Theres caucasians, which is a pretty damn broad definition including anyhting from Finns to Arabians, even tuareg are caucasians IIRC.
Are you gonna say those groups tend to look alike? So is it then unfeasable for you to make other distinctiosn between groups?


>Politics are everywhere
and so is internal consistency. When Frank Herbert wrote about the Fremen of dune, he didnt just put Arabian tribes in space for no reason, simply because he liked Lawrence of Arabia.
He invented the population first, he came up with their variation of a faith and how it spread throughout the pre machine wars galaxy.
Because any good science fiction and fantasy writer knows that his setting has to be internally consistent.

But yes, you are right in identifying that Dragon Age is a political setting and it includes nonsensical elements for the sake of making a political point.
So essentielly you agree with me, but you dont want to because you dont like the politics you assume i hold.
Congratulations.

We're almost at the point of understanding one another even if we are unlikely to agree with one another. I'm saying that DA is a political setting, that DOS2 is a political setting, that BG2 is a political setting and that politics are inevitable. Humans are political animals. What I don't agree with is the notion that there are political settings and non political settings.

Also I'm not trying to set you for a trap. Truly. I'm aiming for understanding. I'm blind to some things and I see some things more clearly. Just as you do. And there are advantages to seeing and to blindness.

On Caucasian / white. We just aren't going to agree. Race is a social construct, there is a no Caucasian race outside of census forms. Caucasian / Caucasoid has been used by many different racial taxonomies but started with the (neo platonic) notion that 'whites' had their origins in the Caucasus mountain chain because the people who still live in the Caucasus are the most beautiful people in the world. It's silly theory that been thoroughly debunked. (and I have read the original accounts btw)



You are making my point for me. Yes, Americans have been "taught" not to see these differences.

You can divide up the world anyway you like -- redheads / blondes / big ears / windows peaks / tongue rollers etc. It just don't think those categories are any more real than white. And because these aren't real -- because people can be 'taught' not to see them -- I just don't object to someone creating a world were half of the people look black. Or a world where half the people have widow peaks for that matter. Incidentally, no one has explained why Faerun and Rivelon have achieved gender equality. Women can be warriors or enchanters / necromancers or paladins. Was there a women's movement at some point? Why are these worlds more equitable than our own? And if the gender equality of these two settings didn't spoil your enjoyment of BG and DOS (and I hope they didn't) you might want to think about *why* race is so important to you and gender equality less so.

Oh on Dune, part of why I was never a big fan was that the politics were too similar to the geopolitics of the time. And, yeah, the whole Lawrence of Arabia / white savior narrative annoys me. And I could go on . . . Good example of a book with right wing politics.

>politics are inevitable
To a point.
unconscious biases are inevitable. Political messages are. Setting descisions based on political messages doubly so.
That comes from someone who has deliberatley put political questions into his campaigns on one hand, but also made sure that it doesnt permeate the entire thing on purpose. Its escapism afterall.

>race is a social construct.
definitly gonna disagree there as you predicted. If you dig up bones of a person, you can determine their ethnicity up to a point. some ehtnicities are of course more simmilar to one another genetically than tohers and thus their phenotypes are harder to distinguish.
Id say Ethnicity is a social construct, Nationality is a social construct. Race,or more accuratley Phenotype is not a social construct but a biological reality.
I dont personally care about the Etymology of the word "caucasian". its a term thats used to refer to a certain Phenotype. Americans call it "white", which is a pretty dumb word to use if you ask me.
My point was that it is a very broad definition and in a continent like europe one thats not even as usefull as "brown haired".

>Making your point for you
so youre arguing thats a good thing? Id say it makes you not see nuance.
Its like how Russians see more shades of blue than non russian speakers. Id personally love to see more shades of blue.
Id Also wouldnt turn that into a moral judgement because Americans certainly are more Race obsessed than Europeans are, and if youre gonna disagree with me then id like you to turn on your TV right now.

Ive heard from multiple people of eastern european descent that Witcher is the only video game theyve ever played that had people that looked like them.
Somehow id figure representation mattered to some degree to you, or why else would you argue in favor of a game where half the people are african american fo rno reason?

btu that goes beyond my point anyway. Thats another discussion:
my point is, internal consistency is important.

Your arugment is that you are IN FAVOR of NOT doign Internal cosnsitency.
Your mistake is that you think ia m IN FAVOR of it because o my Politics.
I am not.
When the next Elderscrolls game takes palce in Hammerfell, like it probably will, i damn well hope that the majority of people we see there are Redguards and look like Redguards, aka something between Central AFricans and Northern Africans.
Not because "my politics", but because thats immersive to me. It acts on the same logic as the real world does.



>Women equality in Faerun
Its a fantasy world and Biology works differently. Contraception exists wideley, Women are not physically weaker than men in Faerun, Bisexuality is the norm (now you can argue nature vs nuture with me, but i dont think youll wanna go there)
So no, the argument is biological not cultural.
And yes, it dos go against my immersion. I perosnally think that a world built on the ideas of a sex obsessed hippie does not make for an easy palce to immerse myself in.

But that entire paragraph couldnt have been loaded any more. What are you getting at here?
I know exatly why i care about some things and not about other.
I care about Aesthetics first and foremost. And in aestheitcs i like things that make sense within that aesthetic.

>Good example of right wing politics
And its also pretty good.
just like Tolkien :^)

No, phenotype of a population being different is not social construction Ethnicity is a social construct, Nationality is a social construct. Race or Phenotype is not a social construct but a reality. When i mean by "ethinicity" being a social construct, the most iconic example is the US definition of ""hispanic/latino"". which makes no sense and no other country used that definition. Even literal nazis. Egon Albrecht was a Brazilian born luftwaffe iron cross ace. Richard Darre, a Argentine born minister. Both guys would be considered "oppressed minorities" on US. Not because they have anything genetically similar to "mestizos" and different than Germans but due a arbitrary ethnic definition.

Phenotype characteristics and certain regions of the world favoring different characteristics is not "social construction". Pale skin in middle of central Africa is not a characteristic that will be "promoted" by the environment. The fact that a lot of populations had neanderthal DNA is not social construction either.



On first editions of D&D, woman was weaker than man. They changed because accessibility and avoiding controversies got more important than internal consistency. IMO in some societies makes sense to woman be equal to man and some even superior, see the Drow societies. But most human societies should be patriarchal.

But i really don't wanna see dark sun for 5e because dark sun will be far different to be adequate to modern politics. We can't have a game like Gothic in modern times or the butthurt will be extreme.

It's a word. One that has different meanings to different people; sometimes it's toxic (and again, that tends to be more from the extremes) and oftentimes it's a colloquial term whose meaning depends on context. IME it's usually imbued with significant overtones relating to culture, ethnicity and so on rather than any (pseudo-)scientific meaning and the difficulties often come not from the application of the word itself but the insistence, overt or otherwise, that one person's definition is the One True Meaning. Which ultimately results in people talking cross purposes. During my time online I've seen endless arguments about this and similar issues where a disproportionate amount of time is devoted to semantics and asserting what someone else is trying to say rather than the actual communication of ideas. Which I think tends to be the problem.

Why is it that when people talk about writing, narrative consistency and cultural setting that somehow it MUST mean that the speaker is right wing in their politics? Why can't it be just as simple as someone who doesn't care about politics wanting the fictional worlds to make sense?

Take Baldur's Gate 1. There is the Cursed Girdle of Masuclinity/Femininity. Magically changing a person's gender when they put it on. In such a magic rich environment it makes sense that there would be something like this there. Or Cyberpunk 2077 coming out soon, where gender and your body type is all but meaningless because technology has advanced so much. But bring up examples where the writing doesn't make much sense for the characters, setting or story, or the developers make it clear that they are putting something in to appeal to represent an audience base without figuring out how it makes sense for that particular setting and suddenly you're right wing?

I don't get it that mind set.

reminding me of ghost in the shell where batou asks the major why she even still bothers with a female body

No. The most iconic example is BioShock. BioShock is a criticism against Ayn Rand ideas and BioShock infinity a criticism about conservatism.

Drow society on CRPG's are interesting exactly because they are matriarcal.

Now we're agreeing on something. Yes, Tolkein was a Tory, a monarchist and a British Catholic. He was a conservative in the Burkean sense of wanting to preserve the best of the past while moving into the future. It's one of history's riddles that his books were embraced by hippies. Those books expressed a coherent political worldview.



I'm making the same few points again and again using different examples.

A) What we see, what care about it is determined by a number of factors including our politics. For you it seems very important for games to include NPCs that have phenotypical features that could have plausibly emerged from different geographic environments and that these phenotypically derived features mirror the divisions in our own world. This is important enough to you that if a sizeable portion of them don't fit that environment it breaks immersion. For me it doesn't break immersion. Sure there may be a backstory here but I'm much less interested in that story than, say, how the hills became populated with dragons. Really and truly.

B) Politics are inevitable. A decision to make one country populated only by people with a certain skin color is also a political decision. This is the point of the graphic posted earlier.

Sure, we can talk about degrees. But less =/ better. Tolkein was loaded with politics and was all the better for it.

On caucasian / white we'll also lump that under disagreement. Johann Blumenbach went a mountain town, decided that the women were hot and declared that the world's best race came from the world's hottest women. If Blumenbach were alive today he'd be curating lists of the 100 hottest babes. I see the word "caucasian" and I laugh a little.

Sure. We're pretty much in agreement. I use the word / metaphor construction because it also refers to an architecture of social practices. Where you get to live, how you are treated by police etc.

That's rabbit hole. But, hey, I'm a rabbit.

Of course phenotypes are a sort of reality and, yes, different phenotypes emerged from different geographical conditions. But the decision to lump those together and attribute characteristics to them is a social construction. Just like "blondes are air heads" -- blonde hair is a reality, the decision to lump such people together and say people with this sort hair are 'air heads' is a human creation. Take the epicanthic eye fold -- the almond shaped eye. It's probably a cold weather adaptation. Which explains why you find it in Finland, Upper Canada and Siberia. But you also find it in the American southwest, scattered throughout Africa and the Philippines. Now if I start lumping everyone with epicanthic fold together in a group 'Asian', start attributing characteristics to them and begin treating them in different ways I'm using a social construction. Or, long story short, there is no essential difference between race / ethnicity / nationality. Some national borders are natural -- coast lines and such -- but we would agree that the nation state is a construction. Same is true of 'race' -- just because something has some natural features doesn't make it a natural category.

>A
What we are about is dictated in part by our politics.
but not in full.

Else you can riddle me please how i like Turn Based combat and Monster Races translates in any way to my worldview.
People are more complicated than that.
Im interrested in History and the development of Human nations.

but on your actual point. Yes, it is important for me. it breaks immersion.
But i have an actual argument here. it doesnt break immersion bcause it goes agaisnt my interrest. The argument that it makes no sense that a Human population that appears to be very seditary and not very well mixed in universe appears heavily racially mixed.

It doesnt break your immersion, but it only does so because you dont care about it. Which is fine, you dont have to care about it but its still a valid argument.

>B
Wrong.
We had this debate in Kingdom Come deliverence and Witcher.
Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar. And sometimes medieval Bohemia was ethnically homogenous (by american standards of race anyway, not by actual variance in "socially constructed" ethnicity)

>Rabbit Holes
Im not a Rabbit, but i can deal.
It is not social construction to attribute Characteristics to phenotype. It would be ridiculous to act as if there arent characteristics associated with developing phenotypical characteristics based on enviroment, sexual selection and ressources.
Sickle Cell Anemia is probably one of the best ways to illustrate this , but somehow id be very surprised if you didnt know this already.

But before i go on here, i like to point out that you brought up "Characteristics" beyond looks. Nobody else did. The argument was that Enviroment tends to dictate phenotype, not any particular characteristics.

Lumping everyone with the epicanthic eye fold seems to be stupid because, form what i understand, it could be paralell evolution of a trait.
Meanwhile lumping groups together that share history, ancstry and other traits... yeah i personally dont see why you would not do that.
We do it for any other group of animal.
We also do it for culture, not just culture, we do it for political movements, we do it for philosophical schools and for Art movements.

Why is Human Phenotype the only "thing", as in "thing we are putting a name on" that we wouldnt apply that logic to?

Randomly, I only noticed very recently this is a thing with me. I dunno, talk about unobservant; I'd seen it in relatives and for years I'd cursed my eye-liner not working the way it "should" until it finally dawned on me. And sure enough, looking at photos of myself when I was very young, there it is. AFAIK I have no east Asian heritage though; but it's its own thing in some north European types.

Er anyway. I agree with the social thing and I think a person's appearance is simply a very visible manifestation of cultures and entire histories etc. Which is okay as a starting point as long as you get it right, and part of that is first and foremost accepting people as the individuals they are: if they don't want to be encumbered by any particular baggage then it shouldn't be forced on them. And again, that's something I've observed "both sides" of the usual political divide tending to do. I won't say "for better or worse" because it's always for worse, whatever the intent.

If we´re still talking about D&D I have to point out that unlike the Tel-quessir could claim the primal war between Corellon and Gruumsh for their heritage and the dwarves claimed to have been forged from the rocks of Abeir-Toril itself, humans had no unifying creation myth. In fact is one of the few races that exist having originated since before written records existed and were frequently considered one of the creator races, and humans are found in almost every world in Abeir-Toril, and many other planes of existence like the Demiplanes of Dread in Ravenloft.
It is canon that the humans in Thay or Mulhorand were first brought to Toril through portals to another world created by wizard rulers of the Imaskar Empire so they also exist in other worlds outside Toril. So the "it makes no sense that a Human population that appears to be very sedentary and not very well mixed in universe appears heavily racially mixed" could be applied to other worlds but not in D&D. Humans, unlike most other races, did not emerge as a whole but rather in several places at once, coming from elsewhere, thereby resulting in its diversity.





Changing the topic the main problem I got is that Politics are anywhere when more than 2 humans gather, but it´s frowned upon when it comes to videogames or other media. And when I say politics I mean "politics that people think are relatable to the real world and are against my beliefs"
I mean, there are lots of stories driven by politics as a plot device: The Imperials vs the republic, families killing each other over the power of the throne, a warlord trying to preserve the survival of the species by reducing the excess of population vs the avenging heroes that want everybody to survive, etc atc

But when it comes to themes like fascism, homophobia, transgender, racism or something that strike too close to "modern, real-world problems" that creates a backslash and it´s frown upon like it´s "second class plots" and "political" and "take this away from my preferred series/movie/etc" when sometimes is related to what the story wants to tell us.
Maybe sometimes could be classified as forced or preachy, indeed, but the pertinence of those values to the plot is for the creator of the story to decide, the writer is the one that decides what he wants to tell us with his story and what is important, not the reader.

Okay.....what does that have to do with anything I said about whether or not things in the game make sense for that game's world? If it's in there to act as criticism of any modern social or political issues but does or does not make sense in the setting of the game itself makes it forced into the game for a social or political narrative and not to enhance the game.

It doesn't matter to me if things are in the game, only if they make sense that they are there in the game's setting.

As a side note, yes, the Drow are very interesting, most of this post was not in response to that and I honestly don't mind if the power dynamic of men and women....who can live for near 1000 years, with a society built on political deeds and backstabbing as they worship the Spider Queen, governed by women, looks overall. That'll be a fascinating thing to explore.

EDIT: And yes, that was an egregious example in Bioshock, as you pointed out. Sorry, misread your post then read it properly when I posted. Oops on my part.

You might want to dig into archaeology and look at the many women warriors buried in regalia or dug out ice with an arrow through the heart and a sack of herbs on her hip. Women and men fought to survive for tens of thousands of years before we got medieval. I love that DOS2 never followed conventional gender roles and never felt overtly political. I did not notice the Magister was pleading for her wife's life in Arx when you get past the gate. Maybe you were sarcastic but a game where female characters were only in skirts and raising kids it sounds terribly boring. Girls kick ass.

That is kind of a mischaracterization of what roles women have had historically as well.

Women helped run the shops, they sewed the clothes, which could take just as long as the men in the fields, and even cooking was dangerous because it was so easy for their dresses to catch fire near an oven.

Women weren't confined to the kitchen and the house simply because they were perceived as weaker, nor were they even confined to the kitchen or house. They were provided for and protected and women were able to step up and help their husbands in their husband's profession by taking on responsibilities their husbands and sons couldn't.

Forging a sword was a lot of work and if a blacksmith had to get it done for a Lord while also shoeing horses, making nails and tools for other members of the community then they simply didn't have the time to do other things like take some of their wares to market when possible, purchase charcoal or even go buy or make clothes.

Everyone had responsibilities because everyone was needed. Men and women simply had different responsibilities.

Of course I was being sarcastic In some of my other posts I gave examples of (imaginary) women who did kick ass and I even used the phrase "kick ass". Yes, a game with traditional gender norms sounds like a snore.

Sure. Viking shield maidens (although they weren't entirely equal) are good example that lasted well into the medieval period. But the Romans crushed the matriarchies and gender equal societies in Europe and much of the medieval period is really the fall out from Roman rule. Take Boudica's rebellion. A the time of Boudica the Romans were saying whatever -- you guys rule as you like, you don't have to follow Roman law. Tell us who your leaders are and we'll treat them as allies. But the one thing the Romans couldn't deal with was woman leader. Her husband, sure. But there was no way the Romans were going to accept a woman inheriting her husband's property and position. That's why she and her daughters had to be publicly shamed.

Boudica kicked ass. But the patriarchy won. And the empire became the church and Roman law became papal law and we have patriarchal, medieval Europe. Hell take a look at what happened to Joan of Arc after she won the war for the church. The church wasn't going to accept a woman as a spiritual and military leader.

My point is that we are all used to gender equality in games so it's invisible to us. No one seriously asks why a woman is a warrior or priest even though that would have been impossible in a truly medieval setting. So why does it makes sense to say that medieval Monrovia was entirely white but not to ask why the game has strong women characters? And @sordak has helpfully and honestly said that gender equality interferes with his immersion. As does bisexuality. So we are seeing what a truly "non political" game would look like. Traditional gender norms and normative heterosexuality. Which makes my point that "non political" is really a political stance in disguise.

And again, were this 1960 DOS2 would not have felt non political (and it still doesn't to some). Take a look at how women were portrayed in early fantasy works:

http://www.superdickery.com/tag/lois/page/6/

@volmetia -- great story about finding you have an epicanthic fold!

@_vic_ good point about the assumption that evolution even works in Faerun. WotC has repeatedly said the laws of physics don't apply to Faerun so why evolution? For all we know humans are an experiment of the creator races. I probably should have gone there myself but I was overly influenced by the memory that evolution did operate in 1st edition

Not only evolution as IRL, in the world of Abeir-toril not only gods and the Creator races, but there are Scholars and beings that literally created new intelligent races: Githyanki, warforged, duergar, gnolls, etc.
Add to that the fact that some elves with the blessing of Corellon could change his biological gender when they´re bored and that´s canon in D&D.
And of course...


As stated before, in a world that a spell could turn you into a woman or where you have Dragonborn, half-orcs, elves or Goliaths a human with more slainted eyes and dark hair or different pigmentation in his skin is not that big of a deal when you are talking with catmen and avian people daily.


D&D may look like a medieval setting, but it´s not a medieval Europe or medieval Asia, It´s a very different fantasy world with different rules, so I do not think the rules of society, ethics and beliefs of the Earth´s dark ages could apply and if you´re expecting to find yourself in an environment akin to the British-dark-ages War of the roses or colonial south-America in D&D in a world so alien to our earth would not make much sense.


In fact, reaching a city full of caucasian humans with weapons and tools made only of steel and bronze, no magic, without women in the army, a church praying to a one and only god, a ghetto full of jew or dark-skinned humans; the only animals on sight are in sight dogs, horses and cats,... That would break my immersion because that does not sound like any city of any setting of D&D that I know of.

Maybe you can find more points in common in worlds like the one of the Witcher, Song of ice and fire, World of Darkness, etc but right now D&D is a high fantasy setting with little in common with our reality.

I strongly agree BUT D&D is high fantasy setting. And you have matriarchal societies like Drow, have lawful evil societies like Thay have chaotic neutral societies like on Icewind Dale and so on. Having a heterogeneous population in a empire which trades a lot of salves all around the world like Thay makes perfectly sense. But the humans red wizards of Thay will be on top of that society. If i an for eg in a Drow city, i wanna see over 98% of free people being Drow and if you are not one, people asking "where is your master" or something similar.

And note that if you look to lower fantasy settings like for eg, Conan(low magic) and Gothic 1/2/3(mid magic), things tends to be more close to real world, but still different IE - magic is more than just a unproved myth that some people believe. You don't start Gothic with magic, magic is strongly linked with religious orders and you can only learn magic by finding someone able and willing to teach you. On G2, most novices spend years and never become a Fire magician. Water mages seems magic more like part of nature but they don't teach their secrets to anyone and most Dark Magicians are mind controlled by evil entities. You don't see woman priestesses of religion or woman paladins on G1/G2/G3. In fact, woman is send to the penal colony on G1 as a just a product to be traded with the ore barons taht took the control over the colony.

On Conan, magic is non mundane. Thot Amon for eg, looks very like a Warlock IMO which learns his magic with dangerous pacts with a otherworldly being. Berserk Manga for eg, was very "historical inspired" during the golden arc, where the manga is less magical and after the eclipse, become a mid to high magical setting, with elementals, dragons, fantasy races, including elves and so on and thus, nobility, religion and other things are explored in a completely different way, a Berserk guy with a personification of his rage, cyborg hand with a cannon implanted, magic sword, automatic crossbow, bombs and a magical armor which can heals and remove all human limitations . On The Call of Cthulhu, magic is not just a otherworldly thing. Is a complete ALIEN thing which no human mind can comprehend. If you use too much magic, you will probably become a crazy cultist or end up in a "bughouse".

--------------------------

So in general, more high fantasy, the setting is, more dissociated from the real world, the setting will gonna be. Some people here seems to enjoy more low fantasy and i honestly don't know why play a D&D game if they only enjoy low fantasy settings.

D&D is a game where you can have a magical space ship with a drow, a tiefling, a half dragon and a succubus delivering goods from one planet to another while fight mindflayers to protect the cargo(spelljammer). Where you have Archwizards ruling over floating cities(Netheril) and so on.

>women warriors
you mean the one that turned out to be a man?
im not even disputing that there were any at all.
but there damn well werent alot of them. The most credible source beeing scythians.

point is, for a medieval european setting theyd be an outlier
>boudica kicked ass
maybe.
She was a leader, we know as much.

>non political is political in disguise
only if you ascribe politics to other people.
Turns out not everyone is a raging ideologue.

Especialy when it comes to Kingdom Come which was supposed to be historically accurate.

>Evolution in Faerun
Humans come from earth. Literaly. Forgotten Realms lore is stupid.

What it comes down to Killer Rabbit is that you accuse everyone else of beeing as political as you are.
Even if that were the case, you basically run out of arguments in favor of your position.

If everything is political. Then why would i accept yours? Why would i not favor mine?
You basically just admitted my entire concern with this topic. You just bring up the excuse of "Everything is political", which ok, just strengthens my point that Californian Politics should probably stay out of this bloody game.
Especialy consdiering the ongoing Trainwreck that is the Last of us 2, just proving yet again that these politics make for bad storytelling.

>FR is a high fantasy setting
yes.
And some things suspend the disbelief more than others.
A Dragon is less realistic than an Apache attack helicopter.
Yet one of them is at home in a quasi medieval fantasy setting , one isnt.

Well... Gate disagrees with you



Just kidding. I got the message. The elements needs to have internal consistency, independent of being realistic or not.

Even though I really don't like politics in my games, This threads has become a political discussion.

One thing that should be kept in mind is, this IP is owned by People with Californian Politics. So if the Ower's wishes to change things about how this game reflects the changes they are making to the IP, then it is probably going to be in the game.

/End of my participation in this discussion.

yeah like they recently decided that they need to make a post about "tackling the racism in the depiction of orcs and drow"

bruh.

if you look at a society of warlike chaotic evil apes and a society of backstabbing murderers that only gets held together by a megalomaniac god playing dark elf fortress and think "Yeah, that reminds me of Black people", then maybe the problem lis with you, not your players.

Word. Especially when you consider that, in D&D, those are 2 of the most racist races in all Faerun.

You've got to be kidding me. They're going to tackle the racism of creatures that don't even exist? The timing and response of this coinciding with what's going on right now is even worse. They're literally comparing, on some level, Black people with Orcs. What's worse is DnD allows for Black humans, so this comparison shouldn't even exist.
I feel like they should, I dunno, adhere to the lore and politics of the FANTASY world instead of injecting real world politics into it. This doesn't even reflect well on them either. This is more akin to fake outrage and pandering as though, "We're allies too, buy our product" than actually doing something to combat real world injustices.

I'll wait to see the route Larian takes, but I sincerely hope they don't intend on equivocating what's going on right now with the portrayal of fantasy races that exist in a war-based society and grow up as a product of that society.