Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by ned7000
Originally Posted by GloriousZote
I do find it.. awkward when Lae'zel says she would do me but we're too different, while I DIDNT ASK


To be fair, the whole party seems to be this level of oblivious. Despite your showing exactly zero interest, they will still try to get in your pants, or comment on how they won't when no one asked. At least with Astareon it makes sense, because he doesn't direct his lust specifically your way, he's just a little too eager in general and flirts with all the male party members. But I think just about everyone has at least one NPC they just can't stand and would rather leave in the camp no matter how useful they might be (for me that's Shadowheart and Gale). Having that person you can't stand, don't want to talk to, and won't talk to unless it's absolutely necessary flirt with you is just EXTRA creepy.

It does seem like each of the NPC's has their own sexuality. I haven't played a female character, so I don't know how they respond that way, but Lae'zel and Shadowheart are probably straight or bi, Wyll seems to be straight. Gale might be bi, as he does flirt with the male character at the party with the tieflings, but I shut that down right quick, so no idea there. Astareon is definitely gay (and a bit of a cartoonish stereotype at that) as he flirts with every male member of the party and never either of the women.

What bothers me is that their sexuality is always respected, but the protagonist's sexuality is not only left ambiguous (no choice either at character creation or established through dialogue) and is not respected even if you try to make it obvious that you are not interested. It's hardly unrealistic that there might be one person like this in the party (*Astareon*), but for all of them? Over the years there have been a few memorable times where I was sexually harassed (typically at work), a few times where someone would not understand my politely declining their advances (one woman I politely declined, then she flirted even more and I just flatly told her I was gay, then she introduced me to her daughter).

Personally, I'd just turn the "romance" option OFF since it seems to mean MAYBE having a romance subplot, but DEFINITELY having a sexual harassment subplot.


It seems that they're actually all bi at this point, or at least "playersexual" (idk if the term is still used but whatever). They all respond the same way whether you're a guy or a gal, at least as far as I know (I'm not sure about Wyll). We can also say that Astarion is, if the characters even have a sexuality, bi since there's an event that can be triggered if you don't sleep with Lae'zel where she'll tell you that she's already got someone for tonight. And that someone is always either Wyll or Astarion.

Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
Originally Posted by Goldberry
[quote=BrianDavion]As for diversity goes, considering there's 5-6 heads per race with only 1 or 2 caucasic looking heads, 1 mixed and the rest looking african or asian (even elves) they're doing a good job at that. Only we have too few faces to choose from atm.

Granted I only got into EA this year (2021) but from what I've seen, it's the opposite. There's only 1-2 faces that could pass for black or asian for each of the following: humans, tieflings, and elves. Half-elves, dwarves, and halflings only have Caucasian faces. I don't count Githyanki since in general they're alien looking enough but it's still easy to see the caucasian base for the faces.

It makes no sense for a fantasy game to restrict visual representations of the various character races to predominantly Caucasian base features. There are PoC who play RPGs and some of us would like to at least be able to play characters that look somewhat like ourselves. A luxury PoC haven't had since the inception of CRPGs without significant work to either find and import fixed portraits or spend significant time with character creators that allow for minute customizations.

Last edited by WakandaNative; 25/10/21 08:44 PM. Reason: grammar for clarity
Joined: Oct 2020
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WakandaNative
Originally Posted by Goldberry
[quote=BrianDavion]As for diversity goes, considering there's 5-6 heads per race with only 1 or 2 caucasic looking heads, 1 mixed and the rest looking african or asian (even elves) they're doing a good job at that. Only we have too few faces to choose from atm.

Granted I only got into EA this year (2021) but from what I've seen, it's the opposite. There's only 1-2 faces that could pass for black or asian for humans, tieflings, and elves. Half-elves, dwarves, and halflings only have Caucasian faces. I don't count Githyanki since in general they're alien looking enough but it's still easy to see the caucasian base for the faces.

It makes no sense for a fantasy game to restrict visual representations of the various character races to predominantly Caucasian base features. There are PoC who play RPGs and some of us would like to at least be able to play characters that look somewhat like ourselves. A luxury PoC haven't had since the inception of CRPGs without significant work to either find and import fixed portraits or spend significant time with character creators that allow for minute customizations.

As Asian myself, I'm sorry to tell you that in fact it makes sense.

The place the BG3 takes place is mainly populated by ppl who look like Europeans, who live like medieval Europeans. Asian looking humans do exist, and most of them are in Kara Tur, very far to east.

The whole setting is supposed to be a reimagined fantasy Europe, I myself would prefer they keep it that way.

Last edited by Lumign; 25/10/21 08:47 PM.
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
Originally Posted by Lumign
As Asian myself, I'm sorry to tell you that in fact it makes sense.

It still doesn't make sense to me. The argument that D&D is based on fantasy Europe is laziness. D&D draws inspiration from many mythologies across many cultures yet it still clings to a Eurocentric model. Dragonborn, Gith, and various other player character races have no foundation in any Euro-specific mythology yet when questioning why there aren't more human people of color (much less why it's decided that dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and elves generally are European only) outside of specific geographic areas, the argument that it's based on medieval Europe keeps getting thrown out there.

D&D is a fantasy setting beyond any real world historical restrictions and continuing to enforce those restrictions lessens the appeal of the game...especially with regards to official material.

Last edited by WakandaNative; 27/10/21 04:46 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WakandaNative
Originally Posted by Lumign
As Asian myself, I'm sorry to tell you that in fact it makes sense.

It still doesn't make sense to me. The argument that D&D is based on fantasy Europe is laziness. D&D draws inspiration from many mythologies across many cultures yet it still clings to a Eurocentric model. Dragonborn, Gith, and various other player character races have no foundation in any Euro-specific mythology yet when questioning why there aren't more human people of color (much less why it's decided that dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and elves generally are European only) outside of specific geographic areas, the argument that it's based on medieval Europe keeps getting thrown out there.

D&D is a fantasy setting beyond any real world historical restrictions and continuing to enforce those restrictions lessens the appeal of the game...especially with regards to official material.

Like almost every fantasy genre, Forgotten Realm is heavily inspired by Tolkien's Lord of Rings.

Lord of Rings is a fantasy setting almost exclusively inspired from and based on western culture, British more specifically.

All these fancy concepts of Elves, Dwarves, Halflings(Hobbits), Orcs, that we see in fantasy genre, are direct inspiration from Lord of Rings.

Let's do a simple chart:

Western Culture -> Lord of the Rings -> Dungeons & Drangons -> Forgotten Realms -> Baldur's Gate. Simple.

Denying such simple fact would be mere dishonesty.

Last edited by Lumign; 28/10/21 07:54 AM.
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
I don't deny the influence of Tolkien on modern fantasy and D&D in particular. What can't continue to be justified is using that to say it's a reason not to increase diversity and representation. As I stated before, it's also fact that D&D draws elements from non-European mythology as well. Incorporating only some elements of non-European mythology while denying a broader representation of those cultures is hypocritical at best.

I'll say it again...D&D and modern fantasy has no excuse to continue with a Eurocentric environment without being open to increased representation of other cultures. These are settings based on worlds that have little in common with real world historical events and locations.

To continue saying that because Tolkien crafted his fantasy setting in a Eurocentric environment, therefore all fantasy that uses it as inspiration should continue to be Eurocentric only is what's dishonest.

At the end of the day, this is Dungeons and Dragons. Not Middle Earth Roleplaying, not Knights of the Round table role-playing, nor Viking role-playing. If Dungeons and Dragons can't handle increased representation of non-European humans and cultures, then it should also remove any and all references to non-European mythology.

Joined: Oct 2020
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by WakandaNative
I don't deny the influence of Tolkien on modern fantasy and D&D in particular. What can't continue to be justified is using that to say it's a reason not to increase diversity and representation. As I stated before, it's also fact that D&D draws elements from non-European mythology as well. Incorporating only some elements of non-European mythology while denying a broader representation of those cultures is hypocritical at best.

I'll say it again...D&D and modern fantasy has no excuse to continue with a Eurocentric environment without being open to increased representation of other cultures. These are settings based on worlds that have little in common with real world historical events and locations.

To continue saying that because Tolkien crafted his fantasy setting in a Eurocentric environment, therefore all fantasy that uses it as inspiration should continue to be Eurocentric only is what's dishonest.

At the end of the day, this is Dungeons and Dragons. Not Middle Earth Roleplaying, not Knights of the Round table role-playing, nor Viking role-playing. If Dungeons and Dragons can't handle increased representation of non-European humans and cultures, then it should also remove any and all references to non-European mythology.


Yes this is Forgotten Realms, which is, according to wikipedia, created in 1967 and commercialized in 1987.

It was and still is mainly about Western Fantasy.

However yes, it has been alive and many new contents were being added to the setting, especially the Oriental world of Kara Tur was introduced as early as 1988, the Arabian Al-Qadim was added in 1992.

Aside that, let's talk about what you really want. It seems to me that you want a fantasy world which reflects today's US demography? Like 50% Whites, 35% Hispanics, 10% Blacks, 5% Asian or something like that? Along with LGBTQ characters here and there? With stories of mistreated minorities by villain racist white males (we got that already with Tieflings in Druid cave)?

I myself am not interested. Keep fantasy world a fantasy world.

Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
What I would like is to see a game where the player can recreate a reasonable approximation of their own face in game. To achieve this the game should provide 250 base head models for the humans.

That is the number they need to provide sufficient diversity and appeal so that all bases and both sexes are covered. Once achieved, the different fantasy races should key off those human face models with the various fantasy racial abstractions morphs for whatever features tend to get played up for that fantasy race. So basically you select a human head, and then when you change to dwarf or elf it doesn't present you with a totally new head, but instead the Dwarf or Elf version of the face you have currently selected.

I don't think any game exists right now, certainly not in D&D crpgs, that has achieved this. It's pretty straightforward though. Basically they just need to cast a wide net and scan until you hit the 250 in variety. Its a small enough set that the player can still navigate (especially if organized in columns and rows, rather than cycling 1 at a time.) Essentially they need Mombi's cabinet of many heads. They could totally do it, and that's the sort of content they should push out as soon as it's available.

Unlike environments, custom character content is a bit different. The more variety we have during EA the more likely it is that each playthrough feels unique, even if the actual gameplay content is still fairly limited. It feels new, when the PC feels new. I'd put new faces and voices and choice of clothing color at the top of the list for any new content drops. I think its more important honestly than new areas to explore. If EA is mainly about systems testing and gameplay content is necessarily limited by their repeated statement that we'll only get act 1, then having lot of char customization on offer would at least incentivize people to keep playing with new characters.

250 is a lowball number too, but it covers most of what we'd need as proof of concept, the stronger number pushes about twice that at 500, but 250 is a solid spread. Basically the core morphology of the skull divided into rows and columns, not surface cosmetic stuff like skin tone or freckles, but the major markers. General shape of the face round, square, oblong, kite etc which is basically jawline relative to cheekbones and forehead plane, shape of the eye orbits (square to round), height of the nose bridge, width of the nasal cavity etc. There are quick references one can scan of famous film actors that show the kind of diversity that exists, but with that number you can cover most of everything that we'd tend to describe as general diversity of morphology, beyond just shorthands for racial diversity. The helpful thing is that most of the major markers are related to each other and have to do with skull shape. Simple example would be stuff like eye and browshape relating to the height of the nose bridge and shape of the orbits, stuff like that. Just hire like an anthropologist or a bone doc, or someone with a background in casting that likes to deep dive on it, but I think 250 is the magic number. Less than that and there's just not enough, and huge swaths will get overlooked. Once you hit 250 and up things drift into the "you look just like 'so and so'" territory and its serviceable that way. I think they got the right idea by scanning, but they're doing it live and random whereas I think they should try to approach it a bit more focused in trying to cover the broader spread. I don't have the time tonight, but I'd like see every current head in Bg3 displayed in a single image at once. Then it would be easier to point at where there are gaps that need filling. But the total number right now is pretty low, even the larger mods I've seen top out at like 80. We really need 250

Last edited by Black_Elk; 29/10/21 05:59 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
E
addict
Offline
addict
E
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by WakandaNative
Granted I only got into EA this year (2021) but from what I've seen, it's the opposite. There's only 1-2 faces that could pass for black or asian for each of the following: humans, tieflings, and elves. Half-elves, dwarves, and halflings only have Caucasian faces. I don't count Githyanki since in general they're alien looking enough but it's still easy to see the caucasian base for the faces.

Why do you expect fantasy races to have human diversity represented in them? They are not human therefore do not necessarily reflect the same level of diversity present in humanity. In D&D lore there are elves with dark skin, copper skin, etc. likewise with pretty much every there fantasy race so why the desire for them to somehow reflect human diversity? They are already diverse in their own way.

I'm all for more representation while making a human character but please keep the game world consistent. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes are the product of Northern European folklore/mythology and literature...why do you expect they should suddenly reflect human diversity when they are supposed to appear distinct from humans? They might share similarities but they are fundamentally different. I thought the whole appeal of playing a non-human race was that you get to roleplay someone who looks nothing like you?

That tired trope of saying Elves look European is based on what....skin tone? Because if you're going on facial characteristics I would argue that the fine features of Elves have more in common with some people from parts of Asia and Eastern Africa. But I don't go there because I prefer my fantasy games to be free of current real world issues. Fantasy roleplay is an escape.

Also, Githyanki have a Caucasian base...really? They literally look like The Grinch and you say that's a Caucasian base? I'm lost for words.

As I said already, a big yes to more human representation in the character creator and in the game world but leave fantasy races alone, they are fine the way they are.

Joined: Dec 2017
F
addict
Offline
addict
F
Joined: Dec 2017
We're not there... yet.

But at some point AI can be used in games to create REALLY nice characters, where you can use the image of a celebrity you like (for example) and then have a toon that resembles this person.

2D image to 3D object conversion is already well developed, it's just the realism in expression and skin features which is not fully there, yet.

Give it a few years, then we'll have the technology available to gaming companies, I guess BG4 or D:OS4 could come with something like that already, at least from the time frame.


#JusticeForKarlach

Petition to save Karlach: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-karlach
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Sep 2021
Location: California, USA
Originally Posted by Lumign
Aside that, let's talk about what you really want. It seems to me that you want a fantasy world which reflects today's US demography? Like 50% Whites, 35% Hispanics, 10% Blacks, 5% Asian or something like that? Along with LGBTQ characters here and there? With stories of mistreated minorities by villain racist white males (we got that already with Tieflings in Druid cave)?

If you think arbitrary quotas are what I want, you've missed the whole point of my argument. It's not about replicating real world demographics (which makes no sense in a fantasy setting). It's about providing options to allow the creation of characters that look like the broad spectrum of players. If you want to create and play characters who appear European, that's your right. Just as I should have the option to create and play characters that look more african, asian, or whatever ethnicity I desire.

Originally Posted by Etruscan
Why do you expect fantasy races to have human diversity represented in them? They are not human therefore do not necessarily reflect the same level of diversity present in humanity. In D&D lore there are elves with dark skin, copper skin, etc. likewise with pretty much every there fantasy race so why the desire for them to somehow reflect human diversity? They are already diverse in their own way.

I'm all for more representation while making a human character but please keep the game world consistent. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes are the product of Northern European folklore/mythology and literature...why do you expect they should suddenly reflect human diversity when they are supposed to appear distinct from humans? They might share similarities but they are fundamentally different. I thought the whole appeal of playing a non-human race was that you get to roleplay someone who looks nothing like you?

That tired trope of saying Elves look European is based on what....skin tone? Because if you're going on facial characteristics I would argue that the fine features of Elves have more in common with some people from parts of Asia and Eastern Africa. But I don't go there because I prefer my fantasy games to be free of current real world issues. Fantasy roleplay is an escape.

That's an easy question to ask when fantasy races have always been portrayed as European in appearance. I agree, they're not human and perhaps if the facial features reflected that non-human appearance, then it wouldn't be an issue. Skin tone alone does not equal diversity or representation. Why do I expect non-human races to offer a degree of customization to reflect non-European features? Because at the end of the day, this is a fantasy setting, not a historical setting. If the appeal of playing a non-human race is to play someone that doesn't look like you, then why the resistance to allowing a more diverse set of facial features?

Obviously I'm not going to change any of your minds and you're not going to change mine so let's just agree to disagree. You run your campaigns the way you want and I'll run mine the way I want. By extension, play BG3 the way you want but don't deny me the opportunity to play BG3 the way I would like.

Last edited by WakandaNative; 29/10/21 02:12 PM.
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5