<a whole lot of potentially wrongthink-filled (I am too socially stunted to tell where the line is, I am afraid) rant-like essay-adjacent text ahead>
I realize that the topic I am about to bring up is very incendiary and I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion is quickly nipped in the bud, but I am passionate enough about how the game will turn out in the end to feel like it is something to take into consideration, and don't think that it should be a taboo to have a civil discussion about it. At least I hope it stays civil, because the Steam forums sure are in an uproar now...
The idea/issue itself:
The idea I'd like to touch upon here is that the NPCs should address/interact with the player character based on their appearance - and, therefore, their perceivable sex - rather than their identity. Yes, I do realize that the entire point of the addition is to allow the opposite, but that brings us to the subject of immersiveness, suspension of disbelief, and consistent character behaviour.
We have people like Aradin who would throw racial slurs at tieflings all day long but make sure to get the PC's pronoun right even though at no point did said PC introduce themselves. We have Dror Ragzlin, a hobgoblin, who hardly hails from a standardly "civilized" society and is openly hostile towards the character, and yet he will also address them based not on what they look like but on their identity instead. Even taking into account that he is a telepath thanks to the tadpole, why would he care not to offend somebody he is considering to kill? Them suddenly displaying "politeness" of that kind runs contradictory to how they are portrayed as characters, and makes scenes that are supposed to display danger, anxiety, and hostility come across as artificial and awkward - resulting in a "he is a villain, but at least he gets your pronouns right" moment that is beyond embarrassing from a writing standpoint. Even the friendlier conversations turn into mostly rather harried and currently (or until recently) endangered people interacting with a clearly male- or female-looking PC but somehow magically knowing which form of address to use, with the non-binary ones feeling especially forced and shoe-horned into what was otherwise a natural-sounding line, creating all the effect of how awkward it is to regularly use pronouns other than he/she and their forms in a supposedly informal and clear conversation - and it'd become even more jumbled in translation.
Granted, I am not a native speaker, which is partially why I am having very hard time processing the concept of addressing somebody whom you know or can see and hear right before you with "they" in their presence, making it seem like "they" are not there or their identity is a mystery. Unless pulled off well, it turns conversations set in a fantasy setting into a particularly strictly moderated and rule-bound Discord chat. I can think of Pyre as an example of how to do it right (where you pick whether your companions either can tell that you are male, or female, or they can't and just don't assume your gender at all - with you being described from the appearance perspective as a vague robed figure), but how BG3 uses the concept does make conversations feel very artificial and sanitized. Might as well remove all the racial remarks while we are at it, so that nobody offends anybody, and have the duergar at Grymforge stop abusing their slaves - otherwise why are some forms of oppression portrayed in the game - race-based, enforced - displayed openly and addressed, but misgendering somebody because they don't resemble the commonly percieved appearance of a gender they identify as is a sin that even roughhide mercenaries, slavers and brutish hobgoblin warlords won't commit? Honestly, with how its done, were I to be invested in the subject in question (however, without an incomprehensible (to me) wish to be "represented" in a fictional setting over there being any work done about solving the real-world issues of how certain groups of people are treated...), I would have probably found it as a token gesture at most - then again, some people out there appear to be somehow happy with what is at most a poorly constructed charade of acceptance that does not recognize the issues that a person with an unorthodox identity would face.
On judging by appearance:
This is a setting where people would judge the book by its cover, there is no Internet, no pronoun pins, no globalized cultural values - if anything, were there appearance options to actually make an androgynous-looking character, then it'd make a lot more sense and will work a lot better as a concept (say, a masculine-enough looking male-identifying female character who is genuinely man-like in appearance, or a more feminine-looking male body - yes, the anime tropes, I know) - while what we do have is distinctly male and female models that leave no guesses as to what sex they are, and calling that "gender-independent appearance options" is ve-e-e-e-e-ry generous - at most you could - from the beginning, no less! - apply makeup to a man (the "femininity" of which as a concept differs from culture to culture) or slap a beard on a woman (which could either be read as a developmental anomaly or it's just a dwarf lady) - not on an elf, though. Clothing/underwear doesn't change at all either, so you cannot have, say, male versions of armors on a female model or vice versa - for obvious technical reasons, but the point stands.
I highly doubt that those knockers and those shoulders will leave any bystander actually uncertain as to whether or not they see a male or a female - they clearly don't when you have your character, your companions, and the narrator gendering everything and everyone else based on looks alone - how do they know how the three Chosen, or the mind-controlled cultists, identify without asking them first or probing their minds for it (which does kinda sound like a very sketchy concept when it comes to dealing with the appearance-identity dissonance)? But the player character is somehow always referred to with the chosen pronouns, no matter the context. Why would, for example, Shadowheart, in a moment, say "they" instead of "he" or "she" referring to the PC without ever being prompted to do so, but never once address anyone else as "they"? Lae'zel, effectively an alien, somehow recognizes the male and female characteristics of the Toril humanoids. Why is Gale being all gentlemanly with Shadowheart from the get-go, despite never learning how she identifies - and you could argue that her armor gives her vague enough of a silhouette?
How would anyone just know in a world that, while it has polymorph magic (the whole point of which with the subject at hand in mind is specifically becoming differently perceived, going back to the "judging by the cover" argument, and it opens a whole other drawer of problematic concepts with the ability to assume an appearance of a different race and use that with ulterior motives in mind...) and deities who can manifest however they feel like (they are, well, gods, and it's not exactly a novel idea given how some of the real pantheons look in that regard), is a relatively grounded high-fantasy setting where a good percentage of people, realistically, wouldn't even be literate, let alone not regularly struggling with everyday matters (wars, famine, climate, class-based and sex-based oppression), where nobility is overly obsessed with preserving their bloodlines, where certain cultures have certain expectations and traditions, where there are races which either come in one or neither sex (the hags/nymphs/dryads are all female, and somehow I doubt they'd be questioning their identity despite the chaotic nature of the fey because they specifically utilize their feminine appearance and the recognition of themselves as such both by them and by others as means to an end. Illithids are effectively hermaphrodites, referred to as "it" or sometimes addressed as male because of - again! - their masculine appearance, and so are the beholders, who only call their colony mothers that to honour the mage lady that tore them out of Mechanus), and where religion is heavily intertwined with quite a few societies - like the duergar and their heavily meritocratic cult of Laduguer, or the Menzoberranzan drow. Even the less faith-bound communities would be mostly down-to-earth and with an expectation of "normalcy" exisitng with them.
Adventurers being the odd men (women) out who contradict the norms and the setting being restructured to accomodate that because, rather than make relatively grounded characters that fit into the world (even if non-conforming in some way as part of their character, but with there being reasoning and understanding of where things stand with said non-conforming), players would instead create whatever they pull out of their backside or whatever they want to self-insert as is not a role-playing practice I ever understood, honestly. And what about when the origin characters become available? Will their identity be subject to switching also, if somebody headcanons, say, Karlach, as identifying as male? Will every line where she was ever addressed as female changed too, adding even more rewriting work and extra voiceover to do for this one gimmick that has no impact outside of others addressing the character? I would argue that having an allegedly dooming medical condition that you desperately need to find a cure for is hardly the time to be concerned about what you are perceived as by others and your survival instinct ought to override most other things, but it's probably considered "hate speech"...
On culture and specifics and romances:
Since I've touched on culture, there's another issue that comes with options that certain combinations of races and sexes come with - a female drow is the most prominent example. There are a few instances in the EA where a female drow specifically can use her status in her society as a means to resolve situations in unique ways. Say what you will about the "Lolth-sworn" drow and how messed up their society is, but it is still a matriarchy, the female-born members of which enjoy certain priviliges. The concept of being able to create a male-sex drow that identifies as a female one and characters reacting as they would to a female-female drow basically throws the cultural aspects out the window, again, on the basis of immaterial identity which does raise certain parallels to how one can just abuse said identity as a means to access things that are restricted on the basis of sex - both from a positive light (women disguising themselves as men to attend universities back when they were not allowed to, for example) and a negative one (examples abound, and I'd rather not go into that with how dangerous an edge I am walking already with this topic).
With the drow example I am not convinced that Lolth would let what she will likely see as the worst possible transgression to go unpunished. Will a Rashemi boy with a talent for magic be taken in to be trained as a witch were he to simply assume a female identity, then? Will a character like Shar-Teel from BG1 think that a female-identifying man is anything but a fraud in her eyes? What would the girdle of masculinity/femininity even do to a non-binary character? Rather than tackle what would arise as subjects if identity comes into play, it is simply ignored with such an implementation, so, again, it rings hollow. And there's romances. There was plentiful arguing already as to how making everybody "player-sexual" basically denies the portrayal of any sexuality in the companions, be it straight, homosexual, or bisexual, but with gender identity being thrown into the mix the whole picture becomes even more convoluted when considered, especially since it's apparently the identity RATHER than sex that comes into play during, well, sex (yes, I did create a male-identifying female character to check which version of the Minthara scene will be used for research purposes), resulting in a rather, um, anatomically incorrect scene which is even more awkward and rather absurd-looking from the animation point of view (somewhat muddying the implications of the fact that Larian did bother to make 4 scenes to account for both sexes and both options there!). It... wouldn't exactly work with a male/male scene for example, I am afraid, once these are in. Which version would then be used for a non-binary character, and how is the concept of "affirmation" even regarded there? And why would male drow grovel before a clearly other male-looking one? And so on, and so forth.
On exploring the idea of presentation:
Heck, if it's all about presentation and perception, then the game already used to have the "male" and "female" tags displayed in the character sheet (then hidden a patch or two later, which was as much a cause for an exhausted sigh on my part as was seeing that instead of improved customization options and fixed hair colours we got two heads total and an identity selector...) that specifically said that you "are perceived as others as a male/female of one of the races" or something to that extent, and we already have the Disguise Self spell which allows us to present in a different way. Polymorph Self could serve as an actual opportunity to do a complete makeover of the character. There being more situations where chosen race and sex matter would make for a far deeper roleplaying experience compared to simply chalking it all up to "identity". Let Mayrina be more at ease and open with a female character. Have Oskar, obnoxious as he is, confide in a male one. Have misogynous and misandric characters and allow the player to respond to them appropriately. Have people who are actually attracted to specifically male or female or either characters. Divinity II: Flames of Vengeance had a gender-bender theater quest that required you to use the polymorph services, so this could be the way to expand on that idea. The idenitity could still be there, but be the character's (and, perhaps, their companions', who'd address them as they wish) business - and if being misgendered prompts them to press that attack button, let it be part of the character being played. Or add a line correcting whoever misgenders you into every dialogue that can happen in. Probably not happening. Again, highlighting how such an implementation lacks actual impact in terms of role-playing and making it both offensive to people who don't want it in their games and such and potentially disappointing to those that do - though, again, someplace like Tumblr is positively climaxing (sorry) over it.
Conclusion:
There sure were a few tangents that may have made this pseudo-rant of mine incoherent, and while I am quite certain that is, at most, screaming into the void, given how this is a WotC licensed product and their industry-standard hypocritically "supportive" opinion on the subject in question - but it's something I really felt like throwing out there as pondering material and a form of feedback after playing around with Patch 9 (which is a really good patch - reactions and level 5 are here at last! - although I did hope there will be at least one more large update before the release date, and was confused not to see the shadow-cursed lands added despite them being teased in the Game Awards trailer. And paladins being deity-less is odd, to say the least...), in an environment that wouldn't devolve into the most unpleasant and hateful individuals from both sides of the argument throwing excrement at each other and exchanging titles like <insert slur> and "snowflake" (Steam forums) or the topic just getting immediately nuked and removed from existence because contradicting the narrative even in a rationalized form is not allowed (Reddit).
Even if the aforementioned idea is out of the question because of how it may be perceived as "hateful", or "offensive", or "discriminatory", suspension of disbelief and every other form of discrimination the game already has be damned, it'd at least be a considerate move, in my opinion, to allow people who are bothered by the very presence of a gender identity option either out of plain old bigotry or because they are genuinely offended by the concept on account of the negative connotations associated with it (which I'd rather not delve too deeply into so that this post does not invariably cross the line that it already may have anyway), to not have it in the game at all or at least have it be hidden behind a checkbox or something ("Custom identity", for example), whereas those who are for some reason, that, I am afraid, I am too narrow-minded or not socially aware enough to comprehend, feel euphoria from having their character in a game be referred to by their preferred pronouns or don't mind the fact that the interactions and dialogues suddenly become, um, modernized or downright absurd at times would just install a free DLC or tick said checkbox. The DLC approach will also serve as a good customer data point, as to see just how many people are actually interested in or cannot play without having the option, while those who are upset at the very sight of it for whichever reason - perhaps even because they don't consider it an appropriate way of representation! - can have a game that just does not contain said option. It, at least to me, seems like a solution that would in some capacity appease both sides in the argument.
Or you could just rewrite and revoice the whole game so that the PC and everyone else are treated equally rather than the player character being the only one (I guess there's also Yrre the Sparkstruck, who is very bad with names for inventions, I must say, and whom many seem to just agree on being a lady, last I checked) with identity mattering over their perceiveable sex. I doubt that's happening. All in all, I would argue that having no option at all, which didn't exactly preclude anybody from playing the game and not going on rants while still head-canoning their characters as whatever identity they desired while they were seen as the sex they were (going back to the few paragraphs earlier as to how it makes sense considering every other instance of gendering others), would be better than having it in the form introduced, which contradicts the rest of the writing and world-building and results in culture warfare over a part of the franchise that many people are nostalgic about (I guess it's not new for it, though, going back to the Siege of Dragonspear days)...
...also, I couldn't help but notice how in the same patch notes mentioning the addition of identity there were plenty of specifically males and females having their animations fixed and the like. Mixed signals much? Anyway, this post has already dragged on long enough, and I can only hope it just doesn't get locked after having put 4 hours into comprising it....
Last edited by Brainer; 18/12/2211:04 AM. Reason: Comprehensiveness? Comprehedability? It being readable
I can agree with your points, but it seems to me like people who want to use they them or he/she on the opposite gender are gonna have a worse game, if it means so much to them, let them?
Yeah they will get a weird experience, but likely they care more about having the character they make be like them, then the story feeling natural.
Just use the pronouns that dont feel jarring to you.
Hopefully larrian dont waste loads of resources polishing the non binary world so if actually makes sence, maybe our custom character need badges saying they/them so dror knows what pronouns to use when addressing the MC
I haven't read the whole thing. Your logic is undeniable, it is seen from the start. But, and it is a very big but.... Why would you rob those people who want this nonsense in their game of this feature? It is not forced upon you in any way and is there just to please the loud minority, that is all. How does it break immersion if you choose the conventional genders for yourself?
I personally have no issue with what they're adding into the game regarding minorities. It's there for those who care about such things in order to feel better because to them it is an important aspect of life. Naturally it won't make sense injecting modern politics into a medieval fantasy, it will break immersion and such... but immersion and such are not the point of the feature. The point is to make the person feel included, acknowledged and be able to roleplay how they want to, even if it does not make 100% sense. That is the whole point of art, to escape from the injustice of the real world. So since it is optional, I just see it as an accessiblity option so I don't really care what they do with it as it's clearly not a feature meant for me.
As for character customization and how they could have improved that instead of added more features... I am quite pissy about what they did to hair colors and I'm quite annoyed that I went from being able to choose the entire color spectrum of realistically natural colors and being able to create such beautiful unique characters, even from different IPs... to being forced to just a single color (Black Raven) and no longer able to create characters that I want because all the colors look like they belong to damn circus clowns. However they're not really improving drastically any other aspects of the game either. So I do not think that the inclusion of pronouns would have affected the lack of improvements to the character customization.
Each patch is breaking more and more things, so whether they included certain features or not, the character customization would still be in the same state as it is now. Just like keybindings for spells are still missing and other issues. I doubt the inclusion of pronouns is the cause why we have no keybindings
So overall I don't think anyone should see it as an issue. It's optional, it doesn't affect those who don't want to be affected. Those who do end up using the feature, I hope they provide feedback so it could be improved further.
I can agree with your points, but it seems to me like people who want to use they them or he/she on the opposite gender are gonna have a worse game, if it means so much to them, let them?
I more or less agree with the meat and majority of what you had to say here, and the only place I'd diverge would be to say that as long as it's something that only comes into play if the player chooses to select it, then more options is good.
I also share your hope that responses can remain polite and civil and people can behave themselves around this topic.
What I will say is that reading your post, as it is now, was taxing; people who come into the thread predisposed to disagree with you will most certainly not get through reading it properly in its present state. If you can, maybe try to find some places to break up the paragraphs a bit more to create an easier reading experience for everyone who stops by?
I didn't read the whole thing, but I think I get the gyst. I suspect that people interested in the feature is less about being "realistic" but being included. One can create a character a character one identifies with. I feel that the pool of players who would genuilly want to pick gender neutral pronaun but then be upset that NPCs don't discriminate based on it, would be very, very small.
I more or less agree with the meat and majority of what you had to say here, and the only place I'd diverge would be to say that as long as it's something that only comes into play if the player chooses to select it, then more options is good.
I also share your hope that responses can remain polite and civil and people can behave themselves around this topic.
What I will say is that reading your post, as it is now, was taxing; people who come into the thread predisposed to disagree with you will most certainly not get through reading it properly in its present state. If you can, maybe try to find some places to break up the paragraphs a bit more to create an easier reading experience for everyone who stops by?
Did just that. Happy to hear that people here are open to discussing this.
Quote
Why would you rob those people who want this nonsense in their game of this feature? It is not forced upon you in any way and is there just to please the loud minority, that is all. How does it break immersion if you choose the conventional genders for yourself?
I specifically mention in the final part (now it should be less of a poorly constructed blanket) that there could be a way to both have it in for people who desperately want it and for there to be an option to exclude it if it's something that doesn't float with people well. I see it as a more or less just and balanced way, but people tend to find a way to be offended at just about anything, so... who knows?
Between Solasta which allows to "pick a pronoun" that does not. Get. Used. A. Single. Time - and here, where everybody suddenly is a politely affirming telepath, I don't see either approach as particularly... genuine? At least it's not "body type A and B". Small victories...
This is of course a particularly exciting, complex and sensitive topic, where many shy away from putting their thoughts etc. into words beforehand. For that reason alone, great respect to you for even thinking about it and sharing it. After all, it is communication that connects us and brings us closer together when we want to better understand the motives, feelings, needs, etc. pp. of the other person.
Such a sensitive topic can really make waves very quickly, and in both directions, as was the case with Beamdog's Mizhena at the time. The indignation about this NPC quickly turned into hatred. I thought the character was successful, as it also addressed another social issue here, besides transgender, but was unfortunately overshadowed by that. If I recall correctly, Mizhena wanted to do or be something different professionally than her father wanted her to be. That means even without the transgender issue, this would be about a classic generational conflict issue where the child didn't want to follow in the desired footsteps of the parent e.g. continuing the family business because they would rather be an itinerant artist.
This reminded me of the movie Trainspotting when Begbie hooks up with a girl in his car and finds out the girl is transgender. Begbie, of course, is a crazy, evil a****** in this movie and, of course, completely freaks out. (He doesn't attack the person, but demolishes the car). From there your remarks about evil BG 3 characters, who are aboslut evil but suddenly use gender language, already have their justification, because it would simply be ambivalent behavior that negatively affects the immersion.
I suppose in an ideal game, there would be two further options: - a.) NPCs respect your chosen pronouns - b.) NPCs use pronouns matching your presenting sex, along with all the stuff that comes with that. The latter would address the things you take issue with @OP and provide a more "realistic, immersive" experience (if possibly a more hostile, un-fun experience).
People (can) play games as an escape, so allowing the option for NPCs in this fantasy world to always recognize you by your preferred pronoun can vastly improve some people's experience with the game.
But, Larian has limited resource and time, so if the choice is between "you can't choose your pronouns" and "you can choose your pronouns and all NPCs automatically respect that choice"...the latter seems strictly superior as it adds an option without affecting gameplay of the first choice.
Last edited by mrfuji3; 18/12/2204:33 PM. Reason: p.s. I only skimmed your post OP. It's long.
But, Larian has limited resource and time, so if the choice is between "you can't choose your pronouns" and "you can choose your pronouns and all NPCs automatically respect that choice"...the latter seems strictly superior as it adds an option without affecting gameplay of the first choice.
100% agree.
I’d be interested in any constructive criticisms of the way that identity has been implemented from gamers who genuinely want to roleplay a transgender character and feel that the game isn’t letting them do that convincingly enough, as these are the people the option is there for. Anyone else not happy with the way it works can currently easily avoid this aspect.
That said, I personally wouldn’t see it as positive if gamers could easily experience the game setting as one in which transgender and non-binary folk don’t exist, and would be very happy to see convincingly realised transgender/non-binary NPCs, but that’s a whole different topic from how identity is handled for the main character.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I specifically mention in the final part (now it should be less of a poorly constructed blanket) that there could be a way to both have it in for people who desperately want it and for there to be an option to exclude it if it's something that doesn't float with people well.
but.... why? How do people get offended by the sheer existance of non-binary folk? Or sorry, 'it doesn't float with people well'.... I dont get it. More options is good, you dont have to use it, and when the sheer existance of something so harmless gives you that much trouble.... maybe cool down a little bit (not adressing you specifically, just the people who 'it doesnt float with')
I specifically mention in the final part (now it should be less of a poorly constructed blanket) that there could be a way to both have it in for people who desperately want it and for there to be an option to exclude it if it's something that doesn't float with people well.
but.... why? How do people get offended by the sheer existance of non-binary folk? Or sorry, 'it doesn't float with people well'.... I dont get it. More options is good, you dont have to use it, and when the sheer existance of something so harmless gives you that much trouble.... maybe cool down a little bit (not adressing you specifically, just the people who 'it doesnt float with')
There are places in the world where identity agenda is defining society right now. It is a topic of hot debate, a lot of people are supporting this as the right step towards the better future and some people dread the idea of living and having families in that kind of future. I am personally not affected by those ideological tensions at all, thats why it is so easy for me to "float with it". But for someone it might be a very alarming thing. Lets at least consider their POV as well.
I specifically mention in the final part (now it should be less of a poorly constructed blanket) that there could be a way to both have it in for people who desperately want it and for there to be an option to exclude it if it's something that doesn't float with people well.
but.... why? How do people get offended by the sheer existance of non-binary folk? Or sorry, 'it doesn't float with people well'.... I dont get it. More options is good, you dont have to use it, and when the sheer existance of something so harmless gives you that much trouble.... maybe cool down a little bit (not adressing you specifically, just the people who 'it doesnt float with')
There are places in the world where identity agenda is defining society right now. It is a topic of hot debate, a lot of people are supporting this as the right step towards the better future and some people dread the idea of living and having families in that kind of future. I am personally not affected by those ideological tensions at all, thats why it is so easy for me to "float with it". But for someone it might be a very alarming thing. Lets at least consider their POV as well.
I am trying really hard to consider it, but I just cant see how it could be an alarming thing, when non-binary people are not harming anyone or anything. They just wanna be seen.
This is a setting where people would judge the book by its cover, there is no Internet, no pronoun pins, no globalized cultural values - if anything, were there appearance options to actually make an androgynous-looking character, then it'd make a lot more sense and will work a lot better as a concept (say, a masculine-enough looking male-identifying female character who is genuinely man-like in appearance, or a more feminine-looking male body - yes, the anime tropes, I know) - while what we do have is distinctly male and female models that leave no guesses as to what sex they are, and calling that "gender-independent appearance options" is ve-e-e-e-e-ry generous - at most you could - from the beginning, no less! - apply makeup to a man (the "femininity" of which as a concept differs from culture to culture) or slap a beard on a woman (which could either be read as a developmental anomaly or it's just a dwarf lady) - not on an elf, though. Clothing/underwear doesn't change at all either, so you cannot have, say, male versions of armors on a female model or vice versa - for obvious technical reasons, but the point stands.
I highly doubt that those knockers and those shoulders will leave any bystander actually uncertain as to whether or not they see a male or a female - they clearly don't when you have your character, your companions, and the narrator gendering everything and everyone else based on looks alone - how do they know how the three Chosen, or the mind-controlled cultists, identify without asking them first or probing their minds for it (which does kinda sound like a very sketchy concept when it comes to dealing with the appearance-identity dissonance)? But the player character is somehow always referred to with the chosen pronouns, no matter the context. Why would, for example, Shadowheart, in a moment, say "they" instead of "he" or "she" referring to the PC without ever being prompted to do so, but never once address anyone else as "they"? Lae'zel, effectively an alien, somehow recognizes the male and female characteristics of the Toril humanoids. Why is Gale being all gentlemanly with Shadowheart from the get-go, despite never learning how she identifies - and you could argue that her armor gives her vague enough of a silhouette?
How would anyone just know in a world that, while it has polymorph magic (the whole point of which with the subject at hand in mind is specifically becoming differently perceived, going back to the "judging by the cover" argument, and it opens a whole other drawer of problematic concepts with the ability to assume an appearance of a different race and use that with ulterior motives in mind...) and deities who can manifest however they feel like (they are, well, gods, and it's not exactly a novel idea given how some of the real pantheons look in that regard), is a relatively grounded high-fantasy setting where a good percentage of people, realistically, wouldn't even be literate, let alone not regularly struggling with everyday matters (wars, famine, climate, class-based and sex-based oppression), where nobility is overly obsessed with preserving their bloodlines, where certain cultures have certain expectations and traditions, where there are races which either come in one or neither sex (the hags/nymphs/dryads are all female, and somehow I doubt they'd be questioning their identity despite the chaotic nature of the fey because they specifically utilize their feminine appearance and the recognition of themselves as such both by them and by others as means to an end. Illithids are effectively hermaphrodites, referred to as "it" or sometimes addressed as male because of - again! - their masculine appearance, and so are the beholders, who only call their colony mothers that to honour the mage lady that tore them out of Mechanus), and where religion is heavily intertwined with quite a few societies - like the duergar and their heavily meritocratic cult of Laduguer, or the Menzoberranzan drow. Even the less faith-bound communities would be mostly down-to-earth and with an expectation of "normalcy" exisitng with them.
Adventurers being the odd men (women) out who contradict the norms and the setting being restructured to accomodate that because, rather than make relatively grounded characters that fit into the world (even if non-conforming in some way as part of their character, but with there being reasoning and understanding of where things stand with said non-conforming), players would instead create whatever they pull out of their backside or whatever they want to self-insert as is not a role-playing practice I ever understood, honestly. And what about when the origin characters become available? Will their identity be subject to switching also, if somebody headcanons, say, Karlach, as identifying as male? Will every line where she was ever addressed as female changed too, adding even more rewriting work and extra voiceover to do for this one gimmick that has no impact outside of others addressing the character? I would argue that having an allegedly dooming medical condition that you desperately need to find a cure for is hardly the time to be concerned about what you are perceived as by others and your survival instinct ought to override most other things, but it's probably considered "hate speech"...
On exploring the idea of presentation:
Heck, if it's all about presentation and perception, then the game already used to have the "male" and "female" tags displayed in the character sheet (then hidden a patch or two later, which was as much a cause for an exhausted sigh on my part as was seeing that instead of improved customization options and fixed hair colours we got two heads total and an identity selector...) that specifically said that you "are perceived as others as a male/female of one of the races" or something to that extent, and we already have the Disguise Self spell which allows us to present in a different way. Polymorph Self could serve as an actual opportunity to do a complete makeover of the character. There being more situations where chosen race and sex matter would make for a far deeper roleplaying experience compared to simply chalking it all up to "identity". Let Mayrina be more at ease and open with a female character. Have Oskar, obnoxious as he is, confide in a male one. Have misogynous and misandric characters and allow the player to respond to them appropriately. Have people who are actually attracted to specifically male or female or either characters. Divinity II: Flames of Vengeance had a gender-bender theater quest that required you to use the polymorph services, so this could be the way to expand on that idea. The idenitity could still be there, but be the character's (and, perhaps, their companions', who'd address them as they wish) business - and if being misgendered prompts them to press that attack button, let it be part of the character being played. Or add a line correcting whoever misgenders you into every dialogue that can happen in. Probably not happening. Again, highlighting how such an implementation lacks actual impact in terms of role-playing and making it both offensive to people who don't want it in their games and such and potentially disappointing to those that do - though, again, someplace like Tumblr is positively climaxing (sorry) over it.
By this standard then, Dragonborn should be generally referred to as they/them by NPCs, since their gender is significantly harder to just figure out by appearance and presentation than, say, a human's. Sure, it can probabaly be done if you know what you're looking for, but most regular people won't be able to discern it. Or... we let this game be a game, where everybody can play their imaginary character in a fantasy world like they want to, without the judgement of others...
But for someone it might be a very alarming thing. Lets at least consider their POV as well.
It does undeniably seem to be the case that there are people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting, and I don’t actively want to make anyone uncomfortable. But this doesn’t seem to be a situation in which fence-sitting is possible. Either transgender identities are excluded from the game to avoid challenging prejudices at the cost of inclusion or representation for an (admittedly very roughly) estimated 1% of people and those who support them. Or such content is included at the cost of discomfort for those who would prefer to ignore the fact that not everyone feels they fit into a neat gender binary. However much I understand that there are those who would prefer option one, I’m always going to pick the latter option and am happy to see Larian and other companies doing the same.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Isn't this a question of verisimilitude? It's one thing to consider your character non-binary, but it's a flip being switched for the whole world, not only that, your character might be the only non-binary person in the whole game, yet for everyone it will go by without comment. At times is might strain credulity.
I know so little about Dragonborn that for all I know, they could reproduce asexually. Do they lay eggs? Does each sex have secondary sexual characteristics, it wouldn't be a matter of people calling them 'they' it would be a matter of a race of people who might not even have gendered pronouns. All Dragonborn might be 'He', because that's what they're consider the best translation from whatever language they speak....Draconic? This is reminding me of a subplot in Discworld.
But for someone it might be a very alarming thing. Lets at least consider their POV as well.
It does undeniably seem to be the case that there are people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting, and I don’t actively want to make anyone uncomfortable. But this doesn’t seem to be a situation in which fence-sitting is possible. Either transgender identities are excluded from the game to avoid challenging prejudices at the cost of inclusion or representation for an (admittedly very roughly) estimated 1% of people and those who support them. Or such content is included at the cost of discomfort for those who would prefer to ignore the fact that not everyone feels they fit into a neat gender binary. However much I understand that there are those who would prefer option one, I’m always going to pick the latter option and am happy to see Larian and other companies doing the same.
So, are there people that have a reason to be against the inclusion policies? What do you think? Because from your message I get the vibe that you are clearly putting "people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting" to the foreground. I've read news about people whose life's were ruined because they didn't want to address seemingly men/women by certain pronounces. I think those people have the right to feel prejudice and concern and we should do our best to include them, and calm them, as well. Or else this is hypocrisy, imo.
P.S. If I didn't understand your post proper, please correct me and accept my apologies.
Last edited by neprostoman; 18/12/2206:37 PM. Reason: Typo
You cannot equalize being marginalized, and being made aware of other people being marginalized, as being somehow equally uncomforable and harmful. It is the entitlement of thinking that how other people live their lifes not only affects your life, but because you are affected by it you somehow get a say in what is allowed.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Isn't this a question of verisimilitude? It's one thing to consider your character non-binary, but it's a flip being switched for the whole world, not only that, your character might be the only non-binary person in the whole game, yet for everyone it will go by without comment. At times is might strain credulity.
If you dont play a non-binary character, then you wont be experiencing any 'credulity straining' things - you wont even come into contact with they/them pronouns in the game. But for a person who are themselves non-binary and want to play a non-binary character, it might just be nice for once to immerse themselves in a world in which they are not constantly confronted with bigotry, but simply respected for who they are. How anyone can argue against this basic thing is beyond me.
I get that, I'm not saying the option shouldn't be available to you, just that without it being meaningfully integrated into the world, what are you really being given? A lot of people create elaborate head canons about their characters, and this seems like little more than that.
You can already add beards to female characters, add make-up to male ones, all companions are "player-sexual" instead of simply straight, there isn't a single thing tied to genre or sex, they even recently decoupled sex for genre in the latest update. I am perfectly ok with more inclusivity, and I judge the game has reached a point where it has done everything possible to account for the maximum of people. How do you even judge "perceived" sex? How far would Larian have to go to please you?
You cannot equalize being marginalized, and being made aware of other people being marginalized, as being somehow equally uncomforable and harmful. It is the entitlement of thinking that how other people live their lifes not only affects your life, but because you are affected by it you somehow get a say in what is allowed.
But in the case I've mentioned it is clear as day that the group that gets cancelled for their views is marginalized. What you say is the entitlement of thinking that a marginalized group is not the same as a marginalized group. Double standards, imo. Or am I wrong?
I get that, I'm not saying the option shouldn't be available to you, just that without it being meaningfully integrated into the world, what are you really being given? A lot of people create elaborate head canons about their characters, and this seems like little more than that.
You're being given a world in which nobody gives you stupid glances, behind-your-back whispers or direct in-your-face judgement for something that is none of their business. You're being given the opportunity to for once just be, instead of having to constantly explain yourself in the face of bigotry. And lasty, you are simply being acknowledged for the person you are. Of course its not realistic with the real world we live in. But who cares? Its a fantasy world, nothing is realistic. Nobody can tell me that they like to not be acknowledged as a person, no matter their gender, ethnicity or political views.
Of course its not realistic with the real world we live in. But who cares? Its a fantasy world, nothing is realistic. Nobody can tell me that they like to not be acknowledged as a person, no matter their gender, ethnicity or political views.
This is where the argument always falls apart for me, saying that it's not realistic isn't a good defense. I care. If you want the world to engage with the issue, that's good, if you just want it be blind to you, so you can play pretend, that's another. I think in a world of magic, what is and isn't possible should become part of the lore, the narrative, the themes at play. I don't think they should just tack on things because of something going on in our mundane world.
But for someone it might be a very alarming thing. Lets at least consider their POV as well.
It does undeniably seem to be the case that there are people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting, and I don’t actively want to make anyone uncomfortable. But this doesn’t seem to be a situation in which fence-sitting is possible. Either transgender identities are excluded from the game to avoid challenging prejudices at the cost of inclusion or representation for an (admittedly very roughly) estimated 1% of people and those who support them. Or such content is included at the cost of discomfort for those who would prefer to ignore the fact that not everyone feels they fit into a neat gender binary. However much I understand that there are those who would prefer option one, I’m always going to pick the latter option and am happy to see Larian and other companies doing the same.
So, are there people that have a reason to be against the inclusion policies? What do you think? Because from your message I get the vibe that you are clearly putting "people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting" to the foreground. I've read news about people whose life's were ruined because they didn't want to address seemingly men/women by certain pronounces. I think those people have the right to feel prejudice and concern and we should do our best to include them, and calm them, as well. Or else this is hypocrisy, imo.
P.S. If I didn't understand your post proper, please correct me and accept my apologies.
I personally hate real life politics pushed in to the games I play, so i do find the slip in of extra pronouns "worrying" In the case of, I hope they leave it at player pronouns, especially in farun where there are spells to change gender, no one is going to be trapped in the wrong body.
I find it jarring and it would drag me out the game world and in to reality finding transgender people in game.
However, if its just pronouns for MC, and does not effect my individual game, im happy for the people who want it.
Of course its not realistic with the real world we live in. But who cares? Its a fantasy world, nothing is realistic. Nobody can tell me that they like to not be acknowledged as a person, no matter their gender, ethnicity or political views.
This is where the argument always falls apart for me, saying that it's not realistic isn't a good defense. I care. If you want the world to engage with the issue, that's good, if you just want it be blind to you, so you can play pretend, that's another. I think in a world of magic, what is and isn't possible should become part of the lore, the narrative, the themes at play. I don't think they should just tack on things because of something going on in our mundane world.
then ignore that part of my argument if you please. the other part still stands.
......... I don't even know what I'm doing here. This kind of internet argument never leads anywhere. I'll leave you to it
You're being given a world in which nobody gives you stupid glances, behind-your-back whispers or direct in-your-face judgement for something that is none of their business. You're being given the opportunity to for once just be, instead of having to constantly explain yourself in the face of bigotry. And lasty, you are simply being acknowledged for the person you are. Of course its not realistic with the real world we live in. But who cares? Its a fantasy world, nothing is realistic.
This part? I'm not sure what I can say here; don't look to corporations for validation. The game doesn't know you, you're not playing yourself in the game, you're playing a character in the game that you want to project onto, fine, except for the important part of your comment which I responded to.
You cannot equalize being marginalized, and being made aware of other people being marginalized, as being somehow equally uncomforable and harmful. It is the entitlement of thinking that how other people live their lifes not only affects your life, but because you are affected by it you somehow get a say in what is allowed.
But in the case I've mentioned it is clear as day that the group that gets cancelled for their views is marginalized. What you say is the entitlement of thinking that a marginalized group is not the same as a marginalized group. Double standards, imo. Or am I wrong?
The thing is if you break it down, you have one group that wants their existence to be acknowledged and to live without having their very existence challenged, and you have another group that wants to deny the existence of those people. If the latter get their way, then they lose far more. Because its not just a matter of individual people. It extends to people who make policies and decisions about the lives of those marginalised people. Its like the climate change issue. The people who don't believe aren't equal to the ones who do.
To be frank, I think there are enough BIG problems they still need to work on, that it would not be wise to include new dialogue choices of your character being misgendered. I kind of dislike the idea of including trans options in a medieval setting already, but for the people that do want to play as a trans PC themselves, I kind of doubt that the majority come to a fantasy escapism game to be confronted more about their identity issues.
This would also have the problem, that many players, including me, might not even intend to be "trans" as a character when they pick female hairstyles etc on my male character. I just like longer hair, and while that is obviously culturally coded, long hair alone will not make people think you are female. I would be kind of annoyed if my Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan lookalike barbarian with long flowing locks and the bodytype of Halsin was first called "ma'am" in every conversation, simply I chose to use a female hair style.
This might be a fun idea if the game was a lot further along than it is, but at this point, I would prefer they write a great general story, fix all the issues still in the game (sneak attack issues, devils sight not working, ...) and just create a great game, instead of wasting a lot of time with little details. I mean, again, while this is an interesting idea, how many people who create a trans character in the game truly even WANT to be misgendered? And would you need to create a toggle for that to not ruin the game for those who don't?
Gray Ghost, if you put it that way, it sounds pretty one-sided, true. So in the end one is asked to sacrifice something for the other. It works both ways still. I actually blame the media which always shows us the extremes, because for them it is all just views and subscriptions. I bet an average non-binary person would be easily accepted by an average male or female.
You cannot equalize being marginalized, and being made aware of other people being marginalized, as being somehow equally uncomforable and harmful. It is the entitlement of thinking that how other people live their lifes not only affects your life, but because you are affected by it you somehow get a say in what is allowed.
But in the case I've mentioned it is clear as day that the group that gets cancelled for their views is marginalized. What you say is the entitlement of thinking that a marginalized group is not the same as a marginalized group. Double standards, imo. Or am I wrong?
The thing is if you break it down, you have one group that wants their existence to be acknowledged and to live without having their very existence challenged, and you have another group that wants to deny the existence of those people. If the latter get their way, then they lose far more. Because its not just a matter of individual people. It extends to people who make policies and decisions about the lives of those marginalised people. Its like the climate change issue. The people who don't believe aren't equal to the ones who do.
The problem with that analogy is, that it is only valid if you are already of the opinion that their identity is valid. Right wing people see it more like you see schizophrenic people, where one may indeed be conviced of their delusions, but where it is not necessarily beneficial to the individual to affirm that identity. I am not necessarily trying to provoke you here, but I think the asymmetry argument fails for that reason.
I don't care about adding more little options, like choosing pronouns etc, that is just a few lines of code, and obviously I appreciate more hairstyles, but rewriting conversations so that you can properly distinguish between s*x and gender of a character seems like a lot of work, that not that many players will benefit from. Sure, representation is nice, when it does not come at a cost. When you do not have a lot of development time and a lot still to do however...
For the same reason, I don't think it is problematic that you can not play a disabled character in the game etc Even though a mounted fighter with a wheelchair instead of a warhorse sounds fun
Regarding your second point, I actually agree with you. Particularly at this stage of development, trying to account for more permutations seems like a recipe for disaster. Though I think that a lot more players than people may assume would enjoy the experience of an in depth, reactive playthrough in a game that actually acknowledges a player character as trans, both trans players and cis players. I disagree with the notion that representtion shouldn't come at a cost, but at this stage, I genuinely think the cost would be too high. And there's also the added issue that I really don't trust Larian to be able to tackle the topic with the thought and nuance it deserves, so I think they're better off not going further than this.
Also if you think about it, you actually CAN play a disabled person, since there are at least two ways your character can lose their eye and suffer debuffs for it.
You have hit upon the point of older crpg and rpg games laying dramatic, and sometimes excessive titles upon your character.
It's so the game can refer to you by a neutral title that contains no pronouns, and voice actors only had to record one set of lines. Avoid the issue by eliminating it as an issue. It's a shame larian missed this trick, then maybe they wouldn't be re-recording lines right now.
Well, there's already a post on the Steam forums relaying that one player has been misgendered twice so far in the game. So, I don't think this 'non-binary selection' is implemented yet in game. I wonder whether they'll simply remove gendered pronouns from conversations or they'll need to re-record dialogue they've already recorded so far, at least for this new option anyway. It'll be quite the undertaking, I imagine.
My English is bad, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding, but are you seriously saying they should rewrite the entire game to remove all pronouns?
How many players even are nonbinary, and how many of those would not buy the game if they are misgendered? That requires serious resources for NOTHING. And this is a world that is basically the european middle ages + monsters. Do you really want them to speak like modern Californians?
I am sorry, but if they do anything close to this, I am not playing the game and asking for a refund. I am fine with additional options that are not intrusive, but if you are rewriting the game for a tiny minority you are making the game worse in general, both directly and indirectly with wasted resources.
Misgendering is not the end of the world, especially if it is not even you, but a fictional character. At this point, people should just accept that the game is not perfect and accept it. There are far more important problems.
My English is bad, so I apologize if I am misunderstanding, but are you seriously saying they should rewrite the entire game to remove all pronouns?
How many players even are nonbinary, and how many of those would not buy the game if they are misgendered? That requires serious resources for NOTHING. And this is a world that is basically the european middle ages + monsters. Do you really want them to speak like modern Californians?
I am sorry, but if they do anything close to this, I am not playing the game and asking for a refund. I am fine with additional options that are not intrusive, but if you are rewriting the game for a tiny minority you are making the game worse in general, both directly and indirectly with wasted resources.
Misgendering is not the end of the world, especially if it is not even you, but a fictional character. At this point, people should just accept that the game is not perfect and accept it. There are far more important problems.
To be honest, and I hate to say it, I think re-recording all that dialogue is a somewhat frivolous waste of resources. However, if they are going to do this, that's what they'd need to do. I suppose that in some lines of dialogue they could simply omit the gendered pronoun and and it would still sound fine. But some dialogue would need to be re-recorded. At least the dialogue would need to be re-recorded for those that toggle this option in character creation. As far as I imagine, no one that didn't toggle this option would even be exposed to these changes.
And to be fair to those that this feature is aimed at, I realize this is not a frivolous waste of resources to them, I'm only speaking from my perspective.
It must be noted that there are, in reality, relatively few voice lines that use indirect reference of the player character - the vast, vast majority of all interactions are NPCs talking to you, where pronouns simply do not come into play. They only pop up when one NPC talks to another about you, and those instances are exceptionally rare, as things stand right now - so it's possible that Larian decided that the re-recoding work to add in a third line for each alternate pair that it applied to wasn't a huge ask. We don't know how big a task it was, but it may not be as big a task as folks think, possibly.
Someone asked earlier about people who may wish to play characters with a gender preference that doesn't match their sex, or a non-binary one, and what percentage of those people would actually care about the integrity and immersiveness of the world around them related to that - I feel as though it's not an insignificant group. Immersion in space, and a believable world are important to a lot of people when they sit down to play an RPG - a very large percentage, and that's going to hold true regardless of an individuals preferred gender identity.
The main gap is that for NB folks who have struggled with recognition, acknowledgement or poor treatment as a result, the positive feeling of having their game 'just know', universally, and be respectful, universally, may outweigh the negative they still genuinely do feel for the implausible breaks in immersion and world that such a unilateral change creates. This doesn't mean it's a good thing though; the ideal would be to have the game able to handle your identity, without breaking its own believability in the process, and that is an attainable goal... it just takes more work than a company may be willing to put in, if their only doing the base level implementation as a token PR-generation move. The unfortunate truth here is that people who have felt marginalised and denied in this way are often desperate enough to take what they're given and celebrate about it regardless... and PR departments know that.
They have struggled with recognition for a reason, but that is as far as I will go here. I am fine with adding little features that do not really take time away, but rewriting the game actively makes the game worse for the 99% of other people. I don't think the number of lines that would need to be reworked matters here either (and btw, it is not just EA, you will have to multiply the number of lines by 6 or so). If you have to bring back people who are otherwise done with their job for a single line of dialogue, you are not paying for 5 min of work, but for travel etc and untimately have to keep paying them so they stay available in case you need to change lines again.
"Immersion in space, and a believable world are important to a lot of people when they sit down to play an RPG - a very large percentage, and that's going to hold true regardless of an individuals preferred gender identity."
Yes, but people in this medieval world not calling you "they" breaks immersion for less than 1% of players. I talked about wheelchairs earlier. About 4% of people have some sort of disability. So does the game have to add wheelchair options now, because it is completely unimmersive for some people otherwise? What about people who are fat or thin (we don't even have the Halsin body type yet, let alone weight and height sliders), or not exactly 25 like all the characters are for some reason. Given that it is a sequel, the game probably has a lot of older players, and about 30% of US adults are obese. If you want to add "immersion" it would be far easier to add it for more players, with less resources, and without taking away immersion from the rest, by implementing stuff like age, weight and height sliders in character creation.
If they put any more focus on non binary or anything like that, I am out. I don't want it in general, but when the game is still as broken, as it is, and releases so soon, I think focusing on something like that is frankly ridiculous. People don't play the game for the abstract "immersiveness", they play it for how immersive it is to them. And this change would not add to the immersiveness of 99% of players, and so yes, I agree it is just a PR move. In the end only Larian truly knows what costs this would create and how much it would improve sales, so maybe it is worth doing. But so far, I am not convinced
The idea I'd like to touch upon here is that the NPCs should address/interact with the player character based on their appearance - and, therefore, their perceivable sex - rather than their identity
Originally Posted by Brainer
We have Dror Ragzlin, a hobgoblin, who hardly hails from a standardly "civilized" society and is openly hostile towards the character, and yet he will also address them based not on what they look like but on their identity instead.
Originally Posted by Brainer
Otherwise why are some forms of oppression portrayed in the game - race-based, enforced - displayed openly and addressed, but misgendering somebody because they don't resemble the commonly percieved appearance of a gender they identify as is a sin that even roughhide mercenaries, slavers and brutish hobgoblin warlords won't commit?
I don't know how it happened, but we are now arguing about the exact opposite of what OP proposed, that being MORE misgendering and characters characterising you based on s*x, not gender. Now we are talking about removing all gendered language referring to the player character.
Originally Posted by Brainer
Why would, for example, Shadowheart, in a moment, say "they" instead of "he" or "she" referring to the PC without ever being prompted to do so, but never once address anyone else as "they"?
And all of a sudden it is not just a couple lines talking about the PC anymore, but all conversation, or immersion is broken because there is no consistency in the world.
So, are there people that have a reason to be against the inclusion policies? What do you think? Because from your message I get the vibe that you are clearly putting "people for whom the mere inclusion of transgender content is upsetting" to the foreground. I've read news about people whose life's were ruined because they didn't want to address seemingly men/women by certain pronounces. I think those people have the right to feel prejudice and concern and we should do our best to include them, and calm them, as well. Or else this is hypocrisy, imo.
I do have views on this, but that’s straying into real world issues rather than talking about the game. So apologies for not engaging with this question. It’s not that I don’t think it’s valid or important, just that this forum isn’t the place. I will just say that it is not hypocrisy to view trans inclusion in the game as being more important than the upset felt by people who don’t want to see such representation. It’s a substantive moral position with which people can and do disagree, but would only be hypocritical, or at least inconsistent, if the reason I was advocating for such representation was that I believed everyone should feel equally validated and unchallenged by the game, and that’s not where I’m coming from.
Originally Posted by Sozz
I get that, I'm not saying the option shouldn't be available to you, just that without it being meaningfully integrated into the world, what are you really being given? A lot of people create elaborate head canons about their characters, and this seems like little more than that.
I agree it’s not much, but it’s a lot more than nothing if only because it’s generating this debate. And personally, I find it important and rewarding when the game gives me concrete hooks on which to hang my head canon, however minor. Is it enough? Not in my opinion, though obviously some people already think it’s too much.
One last thing before I shut myself up on this topic, as I’ve seen at least one post making the unfortunately too common suggestion that excluding trans representation would be excluding “politicsâ€. Even if the latter were desirable - and I think it would make for a very dull game - it’s not possible, and thinking that a game or other product that doesn’t challenge your politics somehow isn’t political seems to me to be like someone thinking that only they and people who talk like them don’t speak with an accent. Given that trans folk exist, choosing in 2023 to show the setting as one in which they don’t or where they are hidden or without stories worth telling is just as politically loaded as including them, and there are plenty of people who will find their lack just as jarring as others find their presence.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I hope you are not referring to me because I never said that THIS is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is to include non-binary ideas by restricting the perceptional freedom of others. Even more so physical freedom. Inclusion at the cost of exclusion - that is what I was talking about. But you are right that there is nothing in the game right now to fit into that category. I have no problem with them adding an optional choice. But again, I was just saying that we need to consider that there might be people who are justly alarmed by this direction in development, because there are IRL and media examples where things got pretty absurd.
I hope you are not referring to me because I never said that THIS is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is to include non-binary ideas by restricting the perceptional freedom of others. Even more so physical freedom. Inclusion at the cost of exclusion - that is what I was talking about. But you are right that there is nothing in the game right now to fit into that category. I have no problem with them adding an optional choice. But again, I was just saying that we need to consider that there might be people who are justly alarmed by this direction in development, because there are IRL and media examples where things got pretty absurd.
Okay, I know that I said I’d shut up but I clearly didn’t explain myself well so I will try one more time. I was indeed responding to you and I think we do disagree (though respectfully I hope!) as what I was trying to say is that “inclusion at the cost of exclusion†is not necessarily hypocrisy. It might be if one thought that inclusion was a good in and of itself and should be extended equally to all viewpoints, values, identities and so on, but I don’t and personally am happy to prioritise inclusion of trans representation over the alarm of those who are disturbed by it and don’t see any inconsistency there. Of course, I wish that people weren’t upset and disturbed by such representation and would prefer everyone to be happy, but unfortunately that’s not going to be the case and I’m not in favour of compromising on trans representation to calm the distress of those who don’t want to see it, however good or poor their reason (that is, I don’t think there is any reason for not wanting to see trans representation in game that I would accept as good enough to justify excluding it).
Larian as the content creators of course need to decide how they’re going to balance the views of people like myself with those who disagree, but I’m just a member of the gaming public so am in the fortunate position of not having to accomplish this admittedly tricky and sensitive task. I’m just expressing my view so that Larian can take it into consideration along with everyone else’s.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I suppose I might as well chime back in and mention that, since the concept of identity is regarded as "fluid" (further frustrating those who are already up in arms against it), then if the game were to provide options (via a classic Magic Mirror, for example), to alter it, then it all becomes even less coherent since the world restructures itself around the PC yet again and you can potentially have a male-coded romance scene first and then a female-coded one (I still have no clue what it takes into account for a non-binary character. Sex? Defaulting to a female one because it's first on the list?).
As for the Dragonborn, their appearance is still rather sexually dimorphic, with the males being wider and bulkier in frame with masculine proportions in shoulders and hips, and females being more slender and subdued. Plus the voices, which would realistically be, on average, lower than for most other humanoids, but still affected by different vocal cord development. While the voice options we are given are not gender-locked, it was already a gimmick back in the original BG games' days. I never really thought much of it apart from being there mostly for humorous purposes.
Earlier someone also mentioned Mizhena from Siege of Dragonspear. Honestly? My by then even less world-conscious arse simply read that character as the stereotypical "woman who was brought up as a boy" trope, which isn't unheard of and is something that would make perfect sense in the setting, and was confused as to why people were, well, confused and angry. With how that interaction was written, it was just vague enough to not be something out of Dragon Age: Inquisition where there's little guessing as to what the writers are saying there. I guess it remains a headcanon of mine to this day.
As for the question of why can the concept of gender identity and its inclusion bother some (potentially offensive?):
The idea of ephemeral identity being used to override safeguards and to force genuinely non-conforming people into what's essentially just different, carefully designed, and just-as-trapping boxes instead of accepting that unique personalities need not all be ascribed to gender while reducing the entire spectrum of psychological states to a few marketable, sellable labels which reduces exploration of "self" to instantly affirming any kind of non-conformity as a sign of being disconnected from the natal sex rather than just finding things which one enjoys and which one doesn't is hardly progress to a better future. It's as regressive and insidious as it gets, and results in cultural erasure just seemingly out of the desire to remove any conservative and traditional ideas which are considered wrong by default without any nuance.
And if we are to be technical, then every person is conceptually "non-binary", as nobody displays 100% masculine or feminine traits, and some traits might as well not be classified as such at all. It's yet another noose, not a ticket out, and seeing it being shoehorned into fictional settings mostly on account of them being originally written in English and as such supporting the pronoun game is saddening, honestly - UNLESS it's done in a way that actually makes sense from the world-building perspective (e.g., Pyre, as I've mentioned in the first post). Common is English only in the English version of FR. Switch to a language that does not support it quite as easily, and linguistically justifying it suddenly becomes more complicated. Anyway, that's probably enough out of me, I'd rather not have the topic locked now that it's gained traction.
Also (NSFW):
Apparently, the nude models are going to become more anatomically accurate, according to some mined visuals (and modders who have already implemented them). Cannot believe I am asking this, but if the, erm, assets are to be defined by the identity to match the animations in scenes... while I am hardly an expert, but to my knowledge, most futanari characters are regarded as female? I am gonna retreat back into the shadows now. And ponder the potential extent of degeneracy on display. Goodness.
So, continuing with my research into the matter, as misguided as it may seem to some (many?), I've messed around a bit more to check certain things:
- Non-Boolean:
Firstly, I've given a non-binary character a roll to see as to how it'll work in terms of addresses and which Minthara scene would be picked, and while I haven't confirmed the mentions of "misgendering" that appear here and there (Steam forums, for instance) when it refers to the character's perceivable sex/gender, the Minthara scene definitely defaults to whichever one corresponds with the character's sex, as opposed to when you pick an opposite gender identity and it picks one based on that instead.
Somewhat iffy and, again, inconsistent - and with the plans to expand it into other languages mentioned in the patch notes it just seems ever more so like wasted effort since it's implemented very sloppily and because it'd feel even more awkward outside of English - the concept of established neo-identities outisde of separate, unlinked cases or certain castes/classes in some cultures (which still recognized the gender/sex binary and didn't uplift the concept of identity to the peak it's at these days) is a modern one, no matter what people might say, otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to invent a very artificial and sentence-jumbling neo-pronoun in, for example, Russian - where the concept seems to have been brought as a novelty from the West, which certainly is a cultural/historical quirk it has... Anyhow, many languages with gendered verbs and adjectives have a really hard time adapting to the English-born cultural and social tendencies, and even native English speakers which find it awkward to use they or neo-pronouns seem to have a hard time with keeping it up. Plus, calling it "non-binary/other" implies that every other possible identity just also gets "they". I thought we were supposed to be all-encompassing here and stuff...
Going back to the points in the first paragraph, it does just all seem to be much too modern and requiring an established way to quickly spread information (the Internet) to believably be something other than so extraordinarily rare in a fantasy setting that a character like that might as well be a statistical improbability - especially outside of English language and the ability to just stuff "they" anywhere as prompted - no matter what the WotC say on the matter (with how loose they've been getting with the lore and the setting, I don't think there's that much credit to give them). Even if we are to come up with such a character - the male/female identity juggling can be applied here also - what exactly is there to identify out of? Ever since AD&D males and females were specifically described as "equally capable", and while there are specific gender roles here and there (serving wenches) and some cultures heavily influence what males/females can and can't do, what's the reason to specifically identify as something else rather than be someone who identifies with their sex but purposefully or otherwise contradicts their society? What would even drive one to take on a "standardized" non-binary identity in the first place when it's not a readily available, what is the reason? Even on Reddit people say that a non-binary/female-identifying male drow is quite likely to be dead more than anything, and even though the Eilistraee cult has examples of letting males partake in priesthood, it's not about shedding their male identity but rather taking on traditionaly female roles while still remaining themselves. It's also rather... irritating, I suppose? - to see characters rewritten to fit with the "correct" cultural values, like how the Sentinel from Elventree, who was a masked man with unknown appearance previously, was repurposed as a non-binary character with a feminine voice in the Tyrants of the Moonsea module for NWN. Who asked for that change, exactly, and why would you do that?...
...I could go on, but instead I just suddenly remembered how in Wildermyth you can pick your pronoun independetly of gender but when you select who your character is attracted to it's "men/women/anyone". Talk about double standards in plain sight, and it all circles back - once again - to the first paragraph here...
- Disguise Self and more on perception:
I also checked out what exactly happens if you cast Disguise Self and - lo and behold - now you are treated based on how you look rather than the identity. Taking on the appearance of a female/male specimen of some race makes people refer to the character as a female/male by pronoun and gendered terms, and the non-binary is just dropped completely. Even if said character looked exactly the same pre-disguise but had different identity that was somehow inherently understood and accepted. Again, adding to the whole immersiveness and coherent experience issue that identity introduces. If the purpose is to play a female/male character to correspond with the player's real life identity, why not simply... create a female/male character and roll with it? It provides the necessary appearance and the pronouns come pre-equipped, as it were. I suppose I just don't get it.
Honestly, I would just - repeating myself here, but still - prefer it a lot more if there were more gender-specific dialogue options/situations in the game. While it may hurt the experience for some, would one argue that there being unique opportunities for female/male Wardens in Dragon Age: Origins or how Caesar's Legion treated women in Fallout: New Vegas really added to the world building and the depth of the setting? While women and men in FR are, again, equally capable, one does not need to go far to find examples of the gender and perception mattering (female drow, once again). Heck, part of why I adore Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny and - to an extent, given how it's historical fiction, but one that oozes with care for the subject matter - Pentiment from Obsidian is the fact that they don't hesistate to present cultures and societies with different perception on the two sexes while still letting women and men deny their roles OR make good use of them without trying to awkwardly mix gender identity into the picture. Tyranny does play around with the vagueness of Kyros' gender, but it has different characters ascribe masculinity or femininity to Kyros based on what they think is the superior sex, or knowledge they have - while Voices of Nerath, whom people would likely describe as "non-binary" these days, is just set as male despite being a walking consciousness black hole.
It's specificaly the sex, the bodily mechanics exclusive to women and to men (or lack thereof) that are in play when it comes to some of the gender roles and functions delegated to women and men, and when a character from a setting without the more modern societal concepts (unless they are shoehorned in...) sees a clearly male or female figure (or at least describable as vaguely feminine/masculine), it'd probably be gendered based on appearance. It's what Disguise Self causes - and the fact that identity overrides that when you create a character is yet another weird incosistency. You have a quest about a mother who mourns the loss of her husband and makes a deal with a hag that involves her unborn child. Having the modern concept of gender identity next to that, or to not shying away of writing badass and masculine female characters (Karlach, Lae'zel to an extent) just does not feel genuine. Anyway, this has probably been long enough and only somewhat coherent.
Honestly, in this day and age, seeing a more or less well-known developer actually go against the new norm for once will be a refreshing sight. When something is added to just adhere to the "accepted" values and is added rather sloppily, should it even be there? If it simply has to, I think there should be an "appearance-based pronouns" checkbox or something. Wouldn't that actually encompass more, if it were added? I am ranting at this point, I suppose, and I may have crossed the line on an occassion or two as it is, so I am gonna stop here - just wanted to share what I've found out out of mostly morbid curiosity. Happy New Year to everyone.
Let me tell you a story, in the early days of D&D, we found a chain mail, it was good probably magical, but in any case, one of the male fighters tried it and it looked like a armour... so then i tried it, as a female elf, and it dident look at all like what the male fighter had, it was now a chainmail bikini...
We can smile at this, and we should, couse we are playing a fantasy game, where the heroes is chaddier and the heroins are whensier... and its not said in a mean politcal way, its just part of the nerdy fantasy setting, where boob armour is a thing... its a game where in spells as a desciptor is evil no matter what you do, and it has nothing about what right or wrong, its just part of the fantasy fact, it just is...
Im not going to tell you how you play your game or how you have fun... but please, leave fantasy to be fantasy, allow a chad to be a chad, or boob armour to exist... its escapism and just for funs and giggles
PS to play devils advocate, if you want to be a IT, and you put on a cursed item that switch your gender... what do you turn out as ?, or would you be immune as you are technicaly gender neutral ?
We can smile at this, and we should, couse we are playing a fantasy game, where the heroes is chaddier and the heroins are whensier... and its not said in a mean politcal way, its just part of the nerdy fantasy setting
Some folk in this thread seem to have the view that BG3 shouldn't address gender identity at all. I know responding to that view may not be exactly on topic, but I think it's important to discuss and if you'll bear with me I'll try to get back to the topic of the thread by the end. Though I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for skipping this extremely long post . Particularly as I'd said twice before I was going to shut up on this topic - oath broken!
In case you're still with me, though, here goes ...
One argument that has been made is that we shouldn't have trans characters explicitly in the game as debates about gender identity are a modern phenomenon and/or specific to certain locations. I don't think that's true, but even if it were it wouldn't be relevant. The Forgotten Realms is not a historical setting, and for all locations on the world of Toril are often inspired by real past societies it has no obligation to reflect them in any specific ways. The setting is a collaboratively created multiverse which has already changed significantly, and is continuing to be shaped and experienced in 2023 by people who quite naturally will want to explore themes and ideas of interest to them now within that setting.
Others have said they just want escapist fun. I personally don't see any reason why trans characters and escapist fun should be in any tension whatsoever, whereas some things others find escapist fun I find, for example, problematically sexist and therefore jarringly political. So, given that there will be a host of different ideas of what constitutes escapist fun, I consider it fortunate that BG3 isn't (just) trying to be that. While we all want some uncomplicated excitement and adventure in our fantasy, to my mind it would be shallow and uninteresting if it didn't also have deeper themes or encourage us to think about our own world differently by showing us aspects of it distorted through the prism of an alternative reality.
So I'm glad that the Forgotten Realms in general, and the Baldur's Gate series in particular, do aspire to be that more complex sort of fantasy, mixing fun with serious themes. They let us explore, as has been mentioned already in this thread, structural sexism in drow society and racism in how tieflings and representatives of races considered monstrous are treated. We can find stories of slavery, oppression, corruption, terrorism, misuse of power, murder, religion and nature versus artifice. And there's also your old good vs evil or chaos vs order and what those actually mean in practice. I can't see any obvious reason why, unlike these, themes of gender identity should automatically be considered off limits.
So, for me, the question then becomes what purpose exploring such themes in the setting would have. And there seem to be lots of possible things that a role-playing game like BG3 might want to do by including trans characters. For example:
Enable non-trans people to put themselves imaginatively in the position of a character who doesn't feel comfortable with the gender they have been assigned, or the body in which they were born.
Let trans people roleplay someone of the same gender identity as themselves and so fully express themselves through their character.
Imagine for both trans and non-trans players what a world in which trans people are free to be themselves without fear or stigma might look like.
Give trans players a safe space in which to be themselves (or someone else but with their gender identity!) without facing the stigma or abuse that many encounter in the real world.
Help those of us who aren't usually forced to confront it consider how deeply gender, or a gender binary, is ingrained in our language and our thinking.
Encourage players to recognise and question their preconceptions and prejudices around gender identity.
Demonstrate to trans players and to everyone else that the creators of the game recognise that there are trans people and that they deserve representation.
Imagine what life for a trans character might be like on Toril or the Realms more generally, and how it might resemble or differ from life in our own. For example, as people have mentioned, Toril has (rare?) magic that seems able to fundamentally change the sex of one's body, as well as spells like Disguise Self that let characters convincingly change their appearance to resemble that of different genders of various races. Would all trans characters actually want to use such items or spells? And if they wanted them, would they have access to them or would it be rare and restricted? And if the latter, how might that affect the choices that trans characters make? Might a wizard or warlock trans character have taken up magic or signed a pact to access such magic? Might a trans rogue have taken up crime to steal a magic item they thought might help them, or enough money to buy it or pay a wizard for a spell? How would a non-binary character feel about the fact that even that magic reflects a binary understanding of gender? How would the experience of a person previously comfortable with their gender identity but who was (unwillingly) subject to a curse like that on the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity differ from that of someone who was born trans, and how would their perspective be changed as a result of the curse?
In my view, any or all of the above are things a role playing game set in the Forgotten Realms could interestingly do.
Does BG3 in its EA form do all of these things? No. It does only a few of them, and then only very superficially.
Is it obliged to do all of them by full release? No, while I think all these would be valid for the game to take on if it wanted, it's also dealing with lots of other stuff and it would be unreasonable to ask all this of it too, quite apart from the fact that some of them are in tension with others.
Would it be okay to do none of them? I think the answer to that is also "no". In the context in which the game is being created, Larian cannot plead ignorance of questions around acceptance and representation of trans people, so ducking the issue entirely would seem either cowardly or pointedly dismissive. To lots of people, and especially I'd imagine to trans people, it would be a glaringly obvious omission in a game which lets us play as an elf, a halfling, a tiefling or a githyanki, to then have no variations on gender beyond allowing us to specify whether our character is male or female. Particularly, as I have argued above, given that there are interesting and valid purposes for including themes of gender identity in the game.
So, as per the question initially posed, is it worth having acknowledgement of gender identity in the game at all, if it's only what we have now in EA? I'd say yes, given I think having nothing at all would be unacceptable. It at least gives players wanting to play a trans/non-binary character (whether they're trans or not themselves) some in-game acknowledgement of who their character is, which always somehow feels more satisfying than having to entirely head canon something. And simply playing the game with those characters can help prompt some thinking about what being trans in the Realms (and in Faerun specifically) might be like. And it hopefully does something to help trans people feel seen and respected. And at the very least, it gets us thinking and talking about how a game like BG3 should actually deal with representation of gender identity, rather than ignoring the topic entirely.
As I've previously said in this thread, I really hope the full release will go further and do better in its representation of trans characters in the game world as, apart from anything else, I think there is a lot of interesting potential there. But in the meantime, I do think that the something we have in early access is better than nothing.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
PS to play devils advocate, if you want to be a IT, and you put on a cursed item that switch your gender... what do you turn out as ?, or would you be immune as you are technicaly gender neutral ?
As I alluded to in passing in my post above, I think the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity in BG1 raises all kinds of interesting and difficult questions about sex and gender, which goes to show that just because something is designed for fun and giggles (which it surely was) doesn't mean it can't also be thought-provoking and potentially political.
For example, does the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity basically change your body to have the "opposite" genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics and even chromosomes? If so, then we'd probably now characterise it as changing sex rather than gender. If I, as a cis woman, put on the girdle and suddenly had the body of a man, would I then *be* a man, or would I still be a woman in the body of a man, and in that case how would I be different from a trans woman? If a trans woman puts on the girdle, does she cease to be trans, and if not why not? *Would* everyone who put on the girdle (including non-binary folk) still feel as though they were the same gender as before, and if they previously didn't experience gender dysphoria would they then begin to do so, or for some people might the fact that their body changes drive a change in their experienced gender identity? Or does the magic of the girdle actually change your mind in some way so that you are comfortable in your new body? And if so does it do so by aligning your experienced gender identity with your new sex, or by swapping your gender identity as well meaning a trans person who previously experienced gender dysphoria might still experience it but in another direction? And, indeed, as you asked what effect if any would a gender identity (as opposed to biological sex) changing magic have on non-binary folk if it "swaps" your gender, rather than aligning gender with your new biological sex? Would it leave your gender identity untouched or might it impact it in complex and unpredictable ways depending on how exactly you experienced your gender? How would the public existence of such an object/curse/spell affect the philosophy and language around sex and gender in Faerun? Surely it would, as people would need to find ways to talk about those affected by it.
I'm not even going to try to talk about how such a curse might affect intersex individuals, and suspect that while considering the possibility of a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity might work as a simple framework for some interesting thought experiments about sex and gender identity, the girdle as a concept can't support a similar discussion of intersexuality and it would be trivialising the questions that individuals with one of the variety of intersex conditions face to even attempt one.
Of course, it's not really a sophisticated enough conceptual tool to fully address questions of sex and gender either, and it would be surprising if it were given it's basically a joke item But still, it shows that from the first Baldur's Gate game, the franchise has been raising questions about gender identity, even if it was doing so unintentionally (or was it ...?) and only in the minds of some of its players!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
That's assuming we even have chromosomes in the Forgotten Realms. As someone who never replays BG II without a girdle handy, I'd really be tickled if it made an appearance in BG3. But the question remains, how does magic, and established magic like the girdle, and Edwin's quest change the dynamic any story incorporating transgender characters. If I remember correctly there's even a subrace of elves who can change their sex every night. Of course because it's new to the setting, and the zeitgeist we currently live in, it's difficult not to see it overtaking any story it's added to.
A bit of an aside but for some of the same reasons I don't like the playersexual characters in BG3, the absence of a lot of these themes from Cyberpunk 2077 really irked me. Oh you don't like sexing men? I can pop down to the shop and we'll be good to go.
There are genres and settings that are actually designed to engage with certain stories, when you mix them together you're making a variation or subversion of the genre your working in to comment on another genre.
I agree with you, its all interesting, but the problem isnt that, the problem is for it to work in the game, it needs certain predefined statements, the code has to know... everything else dosent matter, couse if it the code dosent know, we have problems ;P
1) The OP's logic is undeniable. It is not a feature I like and for sure it is not a feature I would put in a game I would, hypothetically, develop.
buuuuuut
2) It is a feature that influences only and exclusively people who actively want to engage with it. Unlike other features that break immersion whether you want to engage with them or not,
Like the unlimited fast travel, which is basically having a scooter in the middle of a renaissance fair. Even if you choose not to use it, you cannot not-seeing it.
if you create a character that is going to have their sex and identity coinciding, then your game is never going to be influenced by the issue OP highlighted.
So yeah, I don't think is a good feature but since it is going to influence people only if they want it to influence them, I see no particular point on why should I want it to be removed.
I agree with you, its all interesting, but the problem isnt that, the problem is for it to work in the game, it needs certain predefined statements, the code has to know... everything else dosent matter, couse if it the code dosent know, we have problems ;P
That doesn’t sound to me like a problem as such, just that features relating to gender identity, like any other features, need to be coded once it has been decided that they should be included in the game. And that there might need to be compromises on how many such features are included or on how the ones that are included are implemented given constraints on time and resources, but again that’s hardly peculiar to this specific case .
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Wasn't Edwin turned into a woman as a curse? And then certain characters (Cernd, if I recall correctly?) would make fun of him? Revising that as an identity discovery journey seems to me like the attempts to rewrite Grencia from Cowboy Bebop who was a man that was cruelly experimented upon into a "trans" character in the recent reboot...
...Which is all fun and games (being sarcastic here) when you limit it to media franchises, but since we are touching real-world subjects at this point, it also evokes the recent trend of "transing" historical figures - for the most part powerful and influential women, apparently, because you cannot be powerful and influential and display stereotypically (by someone's standards) masculine traits and affinities and a, gasp, woman according to the oh-so-progressive views on gender these days. I suppose the fact that I am not exactly a fan of it all (hence my poorly veiled displeasure at the addition in BG3) is somewhat apparent by now.
Anyway, as for the girdle of masculinity/femininity question raised above, I guess one can assume that it would revert a hormonally imbalanced/DSD-afflicted male into a hormonally imbalanced/DSD-afflicted female. Basically, a femboy will turn into a bearded lady and vice versa, or something along those lines, or one mutation will be replaced with another. It's probably easier to just cast Polymorph Self or get willingly transformed into a hermaphrodite (with more of a masculine build, though) of an illithid at that point. We could also tackle the spontaneous polymorphs that wild magic introduces - BG1: EE had the wild mage mentor character in Neera's questline who mentions that without wild magic he "would have never experienced the joy of being a woman". Which sounds a little fetishistic (probably unintetionally, or meant to be humorous (remember when we had humour? Been a while, it feels like), as it was written prior to Beamdog going all out with Siege of Dragonspear and BG2:EE...) and hits somewhat close to home with the current views on the whole debacle.
I think a lot of people would bag on 'Edwina' but I think a lot of that is because he's a misogynist who was turned into a woman. I don't actually remember his quest very well, but I don't think it was a curse but a consequence of misreading a magic scroll. The girdle is cursed though, and I think it's flavor text sets its origin as a prank on some macho blowhard. Being cursed to become a woman is certainly a classical happening though, I'd be interested in Baldur's Gate's take on Tiresias, it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a certain type of fantasy.
<a whole lot of potentially wrongthink-filled (I am too socially stunted to tell where the line is, I am afraid) rant-like essay-adjacent text ahead>
I realize that the topic I am about to bring up is very incendiary and I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion is quickly nipped in the bud, but I am passionate enough about how the game will turn out in the end to feel like it is something to take into consideration, and don't think that it should be a taboo to have a civil discussion about it. At least I hope it stays civil, because the Steam forums sure are in an uproar now...
The idea/issue itself:
The idea I'd like to touch upon here is that the NPCs should address/interact with the player character based on their appearance - and, therefore, their perceivable sex - rather than their identity. Yes, I do realize that the entire point of the addition is to allow the opposite, but that brings us to the subject of immersiveness, suspension of disbelief, and consistent character behaviour.
We have people like Aradin who would throw racial slurs at tieflings all day long but make sure to get the PC's pronoun right even though at no point did said PC introduce themselves. We have Dror Ragzlin, a hobgoblin, who hardly hails from a standardly "civilized" society and is openly hostile towards the character, and yet he will also address them based not on what they look like but on their identity instead. Even taking into account that he is a telepath thanks to the tadpole, why would he care not to offend somebody he is considering to kill? Them suddenly displaying "politeness" of that kind runs contradictory to how they are portrayed as characters, and makes scenes that are supposed to display danger, anxiety, and hostility come across as artificial and awkward - resulting in a "he is a villain, but at least he gets your pronouns right" moment that is beyond embarrassing from a writing standpoint. Even the friendlier conversations turn into mostly rather harried and currently (or until recently) endangered people interacting with a clearly male- or female-looking PC but somehow magically knowing which form of address to use, with the non-binary ones feeling especially forced and shoe-horned into what was otherwise a natural-sounding line, creating all the effect of how awkward it is to regularly use pronouns other than he/she and their forms in a supposedly informal and clear conversation - and it'd become even more jumbled in translation.
Granted, I am not a native speaker, which is partially why I am having very hard time processing the concept of addressing somebody whom you know or can see and hear right before you with "they" in their presence, making it seem like "they" are not there or their identity is a mystery. Unless pulled off well, it turns conversations set in a fantasy setting into a particularly strictly moderated and rule-bound Discord chat. I can think of Pyre as an example of how to do it right (where you pick whether your companions either can tell that you are male, or female, or they can't and just don't assume your gender at all - with you being described from the appearance perspective as a vague robed figure), but how BG3 uses the concept does make conversations feel very artificial and sanitized. Might as well remove all the racial remarks while we are at it, so that nobody offends anybody, and have the duergar at Grymforge stop abusing their slaves - otherwise why are some forms of oppression portrayed in the game - race-based, enforced - displayed openly and addressed, but misgendering somebody because they don't resemble the commonly percieved appearance of a gender they identify as is a sin that even roughhide mercenaries, slavers and brutish hobgoblin warlords won't commit? Honestly, with how its done, were I to be invested in the subject in question (however, without an incomprehensible (to me) wish to be "represented" in a fictional setting over there being any work done about solving the real-world issues of how certain groups of people are treated...), I would have probably found it as a token gesture at most - then again, some people out there appear to be somehow happy with what is at most a poorly constructed charade of acceptance that does not recognize the issues that a person with an unorthodox identity would face.
On judging by appearance:
This is a setting where people would judge the book by its cover, there is no Internet, no pronoun pins, no globalized cultural values - if anything, were there appearance options to actually make an androgynous-looking character, then it'd make a lot more sense and will work a lot better as a concept (say, a masculine-enough looking male-identifying female character who is genuinely man-like in appearance, or a more feminine-looking male body - yes, the anime tropes, I know) - while what we do have is distinctly male and female models that leave no guesses as to what sex they are, and calling that "gender-independent appearance options" is ve-e-e-e-e-ry generous - at most you could - from the beginning, no less! - apply makeup to a man (the "femininity" of which as a concept differs from culture to culture) or slap a beard on a woman (which could either be read as a developmental anomaly or it's just a dwarf lady) - not on an elf, though. Clothing/underwear doesn't change at all either, so you cannot have, say, male versions of armors on a female model or vice versa - for obvious technical reasons, but the point stands.
I highly doubt that those knockers and those shoulders will leave any bystander actually uncertain as to whether or not they see a male or a female - they clearly don't when you have your character, your companions, and the narrator gendering everything and everyone else based on looks alone - how do they know how the three Chosen, or the mind-controlled cultists, identify without asking them first or probing their minds for it (which does kinda sound like a very sketchy concept when it comes to dealing with the appearance-identity dissonance)? But the player character is somehow always referred to with the chosen pronouns, no matter the context. Why would, for example, Shadowheart, in a moment, say "they" instead of "he" or "she" referring to the PC without ever being prompted to do so, but never once address anyone else as "they"? Lae'zel, effectively an alien, somehow recognizes the male and female characteristics of the Toril humanoids. Why is Gale being all gentlemanly with Shadowheart from the get-go, despite never learning how she identifies - and you could argue that her armor gives her vague enough of a silhouette?
How would anyone just know in a world that, while it has polymorph magic (the whole point of which with the subject at hand in mind is specifically becoming differently perceived, going back to the "judging by the cover" argument, and it opens a whole other drawer of problematic concepts with the ability to assume an appearance of a different race and use that with ulterior motives in mind...) and deities who can manifest however they feel like (they are, well, gods, and it's not exactly a novel idea given how some of the real pantheons look in that regard), is a relatively grounded high-fantasy setting where a good percentage of people, realistically, wouldn't even be literate, let alone not regularly struggling with everyday matters (wars, famine, climate, class-based and sex-based oppression), where nobility is overly obsessed with preserving their bloodlines, where certain cultures have certain expectations and traditions, where there are races which either come in one or neither sex (the hags/nymphs/dryads are all female, and somehow I doubt they'd be questioning their identity despite the chaotic nature of the fey because they specifically utilize their feminine appearance and the recognition of themselves as such both by them and by others as means to an end. Illithids are effectively hermaphrodites, referred to as "it" or sometimes addressed as male because of - again! - their masculine appearance, and so are the beholders, who only call their colony mothers that to honour the mage lady that tore them out of Mechanus), and where religion is heavily intertwined with quite a few societies - like the duergar and their heavily meritocratic cult of Laduguer, or the Menzoberranzan drow. Even the less faith-bound communities would be mostly down-to-earth and with an expectation of "normalcy" exisitng with them.
Adventurers being the odd men (women) out who contradict the norms and the setting being restructured to accomodate that because, rather than make relatively grounded characters that fit into the world (even if non-conforming in some way as part of their character, but with there being reasoning and understanding of where things stand with said non-conforming), players would instead create whatever they pull out of their backside or whatever they want to self-insert as is not a role-playing practice I ever understood, honestly. And what about when the origin characters become available? Will their identity be subject to switching also, if somebody headcanons, say, Karlach, as identifying as male? Will every line where she was ever addressed as female changed too, adding even more rewriting work and extra voiceover to do for this one gimmick that has no impact outside of others addressing the character? I would argue that having an allegedly dooming medical condition that you desperately need to find a cure for is hardly the time to be concerned about what you are perceived as by others and your survival instinct ought to override most other things, but it's probably considered "hate speech"...
On culture and specifics and romances:
Since I've touched on culture, there's another issue that comes with options that certain combinations of races and sexes come with - a female drow is the most prominent example. There are a few instances in the EA where a female drow specifically can use her status in her society as a means to resolve situations in unique ways. Say what you will about the "Lolth-sworn" drow and how messed up their society is, but it is still a matriarchy, the female-born members of which enjoy certain priviliges. The concept of being able to create a male-sex drow that identifies as a female one and characters reacting as they would to a female-female drow basically throws the cultural aspects out the window, again, on the basis of immaterial identity which does raise certain parallels to how one can just abuse said identity as a means to access things that are restricted on the basis of sex - both from a positive light (women disguising themselves as men to attend universities back when they were not allowed to, for example) and a negative one (examples abound, and I'd rather not go into that with how dangerous an edge I am walking already with this topic).
With the drow example I am not convinced that Lolth would let what she will likely see as the worst possible transgression to go unpunished. Will a Rashemi boy with a talent for magic be taken in to be trained as a witch were he to simply assume a female identity, then? Will a character like Shar-Teel from BG1 think that a female-identifying man is anything but a fraud in her eyes? What would the girdle of masculinity/femininity even do to a non-binary character? Rather than tackle what would arise as subjects if identity comes into play, it is simply ignored with such an implementation, so, again, it rings hollow. And there's romances. There was plentiful arguing already as to how making everybody "player-sexual" basically denies the portrayal of any sexuality in the companions, be it straight, homosexual, or bisexual, but with gender identity being thrown into the mix the whole picture becomes even more convoluted when considered, especially since it's apparently the identity RATHER than sex that comes into play during, well, sex (yes, I did create a male-identifying female character to check which version of the Minthara scene will be used for research purposes), resulting in a rather, um, anatomically incorrect scene which is even more awkward and rather absurd-looking from the animation point of view (somewhat muddying the implications of the fact that Larian did bother to make 4 scenes to account for both sexes and both options there!). It... wouldn't exactly work with a male/male scene for example, I am afraid, once these are in. Which version would then be used for a non-binary character, and how is the concept of "affirmation" even regarded there? And why would male drow grovel before a clearly other male-looking one? And so on, and so forth.
On exploring the idea of presentation:
Heck, if it's all about presentation and perception, then the game already used to have the "male" and "female" tags displayed in the character sheet (then hidden a patch or two later, which was as much a cause for an exhausted sigh on my part as was seeing that instead of improved customization options and fixed hair colours we got two heads total and an identity selector...) that specifically said that you "are perceived as others as a male/female of one of the races" or something to that extent, and we already have the Disguise Self spell which allows us to present in a different way. Polymorph Self could serve as an actual opportunity to do a complete makeover of the character. There being more situations where chosen race and sex matter would make for a far deeper roleplaying experience compared to simply chalking it all up to "identity". Let Mayrina be more at ease and open with a female character. Have Oskar, obnoxious as he is, confide in a male one. Have misogynous and misandric characters and allow the player to respond to them appropriately. Have people who are actually attracted to specifically male or female or either characters. Divinity II: Flames of Vengeance had a gender-bender theater quest that required you to use the polymorph services, so this could be the way to expand on that idea. The idenitity could still be there, but be the character's (and, perhaps, their companions', who'd address them as they wish) business - and if being misgendered prompts them to press that attack button, let it be part of the character being played. Or add a line correcting whoever misgenders you into every dialogue that can happen in. Probably not happening. Again, highlighting how such an implementation lacks actual impact in terms of role-playing and making it both offensive to people who don't want it in their games and such and potentially disappointing to those that do - though, again, someplace like Tumblr is positively climaxing (sorry) over it.
Conclusion:
There sure were a few tangents that may have made this pseudo-rant of mine incoherent, and while I am quite certain that is, at most, screaming into the void, given how this is a WotC licensed product and their industry-standard hypocritically "supportive" opinion on the subject in question - but it's something I really felt like throwing out there as pondering material and a form of feedback after playing around with Patch 9 (which is a really good patch - reactions and level 5 are here at last! - although I did hope there will be at least one more large update before the release date, and was confused not to see the shadow-cursed lands added despite them being teased in the Game Awards trailer. And paladins being deity-less is odd, to say the least...), in an environment that wouldn't devolve into the most unpleasant and hateful individuals from both sides of the argument throwing excrement at each other and exchanging titles like <insert slur> and "snowflake" (Steam forums) or the topic just getting immediately nuked and removed from existence because contradicting the narrative even in a rationalized form is not allowed (Reddit).
Even if the aforementioned idea is out of the question because of how it may be perceived as "hateful", or "offensive", or "discriminatory", suspension of disbelief and every other form of discrimination the game already has be damned, it'd at least be a considerate move, in my opinion, to allow people who are bothered by the very presence of a gender identity option either out of plain old bigotry or because they are genuinely offended by the concept on account of the negative connotations associated with it (which I'd rather not delve too deeply into so that this post does not invariably cross the line that it already may have anyway), to not have it in the game at all or at least have it be hidden behind a checkbox or something ("Custom identity", for example), whereas those who are for some reason, that, I am afraid, I am too narrow-minded or not socially aware enough to comprehend, feel euphoria from having their character in a game be referred to by their preferred pronouns or don't mind the fact that the interactions and dialogues suddenly become, um, modernized or downright absurd at times would just install a free DLC or tick said checkbox. The DLC approach will also serve as a good customer data point, as to see just how many people are actually interested in or cannot play without having the option, while those who are upset at the very sight of it for whichever reason - perhaps even because they don't consider it an appropriate way of representation! - can have a game that just does not contain said option. It, at least to me, seems like a solution that would in some capacity appease both sides in the argument.
Or you could just rewrite and revoice the whole game so that the PC and everyone else are treated equally rather than the player character being the only one (I guess there's also Yrre the Sparkstruck, who is very bad with names for inventions, I must say, and whom many seem to just agree on being a lady, last I checked) with identity mattering over their perceiveable sex. I doubt that's happening. All in all, I would argue that having no option at all, which didn't exactly preclude anybody from playing the game and not going on rants while still head-canoning their characters as whatever identity they desired while they were seen as the sex they were (going back to the few paragraphs earlier as to how it makes sense considering every other instance of gendering others), would be better than having it in the form introduced, which contradicts the rest of the writing and world-building and results in culture warfare over a part of the franchise that many people are nostalgic about (I guess it's not new for it, though, going back to the Siege of Dragonspear days)...
...also, I couldn't help but notice how in the same patch notes mentioning the addition of identity there were plenty of specifically males and females having their animations fixed and the like. Mixed signals much? Anyway, this post has already dragged on long enough, and I can only hope it just doesn't get locked after having put 4 hours into comprising it....
I am going to eat flak for this, but I agree. Not because of the reasons you list but because of another. A corporation that is catering to make money should not care about the opinions of those that comprise less then >1% and ultimately wont make a dent in their bottom line. They can be offended all they want, i could not care less, nor could i care more. People say it does not effect them- YOUR WRONG IT DOES. The more they spent money on catering to those who do not matter, means we get less content. I may be selfish, but i would rather get levels 14-16 then a system that cares about pronouns as 99% of the players would benefit from them. Everyone else can cry me a river.
A corporation that is catering to make money should not care about the opinions of those that comprise less then >1% and ultimately wont make a dent in their bottom line. They can be offended all they want, i could not care less, nor could i care more. People say it does not effect them- YOUR WRONG IT DOES. The more they spent money on catering to those who do not matter, means we get less content. I may be selfish, but i would rather get levels 14-16 then a system that cares about pronouns as 99% of the players would benefit from them. Everyone else can cry me a river.
Well, one in a hundred players is still a lot of people. And it's not only trans people who want to see their representation in the game. I mean, I'm here arguing for it and I'm not trans. You're right, it does seem a bit selfish to say that I and everyone else who wants to see Faerun include trans representation "do not matter". And I certainly don't think that all that should matter to a games company is what makes an impact on their bottom line! Plus the suggestion that the creative decisions of a company should be determined by what the majority of its players want and it should ignore others opens a can of worms. I mean, how many players do a murder hobo run? I never would, and personally wouldn't put a high priority on the game letting you kill pretty much anyone without completely breaking the plot, but I'm not going to resent the effort Larian put into this as some players do want it. More players, I think I've heard, follow a "good" path, but I think it would be a pity if, because of this, Larian decided not to bother with satisfying and complex "evil" options.
Of course it's understandable that you'd prefer Larian not to prioritise stuff you personally aren't interested in. In fact in another active thread there are forum members saying they aren't interested in explicit sex scenes and therefore are hoping Larian don't spend lots of time and resources on those for just the reasons you give: ie that means less resource for features they would want to see. Hell, for all I accept that Larian are right to spend time on content that I personally have zero interest in, I also would be delighted if they decided to prioritise the stuff I care about.
But to say I and anyone else who doesn't agree with you, who might be in a smaller minority of players who want specific content, can "cry you a river" if we don't get it does seem ... harsh.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I am going to eat flak for this, but I agree. Not because of the reasons you list but because of another. A corporation that is catering to make money should not care about the opinions of those that comprise less then >1% and ultimately wont make a dent in their bottom line. They can be offended all they want, i could not care less, nor could i care more. People say it does not effect them- YOUR WRONG IT DOES. The more they spent money on catering to those who do not matter, means we get less content. I may be selfish, but i would rather get levels 14-16 then a system that cares about pronouns as 99% of the players would benefit from them. Everyone else can cry me a river.
So gonna break this down a bit. Firstly, I believe that companies should be held to moral standards when it comes to the content they produce, and it's unwise and unhealthy to deem it acceptable for them to only consider money as a motivation/drive to include stuff.
Secondly and more substantively, it inevitably won't just be trans people who benefit from the inclusion of the system. I'll direct you to accessibility features like closed captioning/subtitles. The percentage of gamers who are hard of hearing is probably pretty low all told. I'm certainly not hard of hearing and I love having subtitles on. I never play a game without them. When they introduced the expanded gender choices, my second playthrough after a tiefling paladin was a non-binary drow sorcerer. I thought that from a roleplay perspective it would be interesting to play as a drow who was assigned female but identifies as non-binary. Even if the game doesn't let me engage with the question of gender any further, it allows me to think about and engage with the character concept in a way I wouldn't have been able to before. I never even considered the concept before but it was a satisfying playthrough and I really enjoyed the character.
Hey, OP. I think you raise very good, and respectful, questions. There is certainly nothing wrong with them. I also sympathize as a fellow overthinker.
However, be it stealth or identity sliders... I have one firm stance. That is, features should be targeted at the people enjoying them.
I don't think that's either you or me. Larian should poll the people interested for best results. Having a questline about gender identity, flat chests for body models (because binding) could be good. Lots of options theoretically available.
I also have another point: voice training. If in doubt, how would you conclude someone's gender?
I assume trans Tav has simply taken steps to either pass or be ambigeous enough that people clock them by voice. Of course, that is an in universe explanation, not what the player /has/ to do. However, that's good enough for me.
Sex scenes and genital preferences... In real life, these are relevant questions. In a game, where nothing is real, I'm quite satisfied with simply NPCs having none. The execution of sex scenes is another matter, but that brings me back to "just ask trans people".
Nonbinary people do not appear to have been included in this game. I wouldn't roleplay as myself anyway, but I'm also already quite glad they're trying/at all/ on this subject. I don't know If it's feasible to adjust for enbies this late into development. There's so many flavours. Nonbinary isn't just a third gender. No matter what Larian chooses, it will skip over people.
Unlike trans people, there's really no in universe explanation. I'd rather have no enby Tav over a poorly done last minute fix... but that's just me. I don't know If D&D has a race with no sexual dimorphism. But, If there was, that would be a good baby step in the right direction. Get the concept Into people's minds. Maybe it would be more enjoyable for people who aren't LGBT+, too.
In the current political climate of gaming, I think that's something we could both ask for and have a result that wouldn't look like "pandering". Unfortunately, to many, anything that appeals to a minority is "pandering". So, you have to be clever about it.
Edit: What I also found important on the topic, thinking about it, is to note that not every game needs to have every option.
In Bg3, there is good reason to have more options than usual. In other games or smaller projects, not so much. In the end, we should accept how much a developer thinks is relevant in the frame of their RPG. Consequently, I also think there's not so much a "trend" in gaming as developers being able to be more open on what they want to work on. They also have queer people on their teams. It's rarely straight people pandering to the LGBT as us making content for ourselves. Self expression in work, not just consumption.
I think that freedom is wonderful. We can also reframe the conversation.
The existence of trans people is well established. So, I believe even an extremist who believes it a mental illness would have to aknowledge that in D&D, you can well play mentally ill characters. Nobody has to change their view points, though they can experiment with a character's mind If they so wish. Scrubbing the existence of trans people out of a game with rape and slavery in it seems like going too far. Look, nobody is playing this with the expectation to never be made uncomfortable, ever.
If anything, If we want to help these people curate their game more, I would advocate for limiting who you're hit on by. Paradoxically, that would also be rather "woke". Sex repulsed people exist. Throw everyone a bone equally and all that.
Considering how clumsy the game is in separating platonic from romantic feelings, being able to turn each romance off box by box can really just improve gameplay.
Last edited by Silver/; 02/01/2311:47 PM. Reason: Addition
I personally don’t care one way or the other. My problem is when limited character interaction is inhibited by these mechanics.
If we had a much larger base I wouldn’t care; however, this issue begins to creep into NPC design.
For example, let’s say Shadowheart is actually born male, but present herself as female? Mind you it would be annoying but funny as all get out to me to romance her and find extra parts during the romance scenes (not having a clue beforehand); however, that might not go all too well for a majority of paying customers. Not saying this is going to happen, but it may with others.
It’s the lack of romance options that would aggravate me. I am about as strait/cis as they come and would want a attractive feminine female to “romance†in the game. My wife is about as girly as you get and we have been married 28 years. Unfortunately when you go down the path of one NPC to romance you can’t back up and start another (yet).
Another example of where it goes to far in another game is from the latest Sims 4 patch. Each NPC now has a chance of being the standard strait/bi and now gay/les and asexual. You can’t find this out until you have spent a good amount of time building up friendship/romance status. Funny part is that you can marry an asexual and they will not have woohoo with your toon at all 😂. No kids in that line - time to cheat or adopt. The developers have said that you can’t change this or opt out as that’s how real life is. Last time I looked I play games to get out of real life. Their randomly generated gender identity seems skewed to equally assign each type (not like “real†world). I understand the political and inclusive motivation but there has to be a better way.
That Sims thing is just foul. Not all asexuals, hell, not even most asexuals are completely sex repulsed.
I'm currently not convinced big titles would risk trans women companions, though. We're more likely to get trans men because they're not as "scary". The TERFS hate them less and so do people who would feel... violently angry encountering a "trap".
Last edited by Silver/; 03/01/2312:56 AM. Reason: Typo
I'm currently not convinced big titles would risk trans women companions, though. We're more likely to get trans men because they're not as "scary". The TERFS hate them less and so do people who would feel... violently angry encountering a "trap".
No, I can't see a game like BG3 doing a trans character full romance of any gender for a while yet, so I don't think that's a slippery slope that anyone needs to be concerned about.
I guess there might be a semi-equivalent to a playersexual approach where a companion could be either cis or trans in the same way as a playersexual character might be gay or straight. Though playersexual characters can be bi or pan, they are not necessarily so just because they'll fancy PCs of different genders in different playthroughs. I think of different playthroughs as different possible worlds or alternative universes, and on this proposal the romantic interest would not be "really" trans or indeed "really" cis, but could be either depending on the world the player created through their choices. But I'm not able to judge whether that would be an appropriate representation of a trans character in an romantic context, as you say that's something that trans people themselves would need to comment on.
And it would no doubt also put up the backs of other players who don't like to think of even alternative universes in which their romantic interest is trans. I think there's zero chance of BG3 going this route, and however much I'm in favour of trans representation in the game I'm not sure I would even advocate for it. The (real) world doesn't feel ready and it's probably more productive in the long run to take those baby steps you mention and, as you say, get the concepts into people's minds before doing anything that would be seen as so central to a game.
Possibly one way that RPGs could start to introduce romances with trans or other TQIA+ characters, though I don't for a moment think BG3 will do even this, is by having non-party NPCs that our characters could meet in the course of their adventure, chat with and possibly chat up and have at least some romantic dialogue with (or no strings attached sex if that's what all parties want!), without this being one of the "main" romantic arcs of the game. I do hope that BG3 will take this approach to add some additional romance options with, e.g. dwarf, halfling and gnome characters or just some different choices than the companions we adventure with if none of those seem right for the character we're RP-ing. They don't need to have a huge amount of content or any big romance scene animation, as imagination can go a long way. But as I've mentioned already in this thread, having at least some in game recognition to hang your head canon on can go a long way!
Originally Posted by Silver/
Nonbinary people do not appear to have been included in this game.
I'm not sure it's enough to constitute non-binary people being in the game, but you can select a gender identity for your main character of "Non-binary/other". It makes no significant difference to the game other than on the few occasions anyone refers to you by your pronouns they use "they/them". Well, there are currently some places where an NPC will still use a gendered term such as "lass" to refer to the character, but I assume these will be removed and are only there because Larian's search for "she/her/he/him" didn't throw up these cases on their first pass at adding an additional gender option!
I'm not sure whether this would be the sort of thing you'd consider a last minute fix that you'd rather do without. It has so little content that it feels as though players could project almost any (though not every) enbie identity onto it. As a cis person, even though it's not much, it's enough to get me thinking about enbie character concepts that probably wouldn't have occurred to me had that option not been there, and I do have an idea for a gender fluid warlock I'm excited to play. But you're of course right that I'm not the most important audience here.
Last edited by The_Red_Queen; 03/01/2303:24 AM. Reason: Clarification
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Really? That's interesting. I only ever heard about trans Tav being an option now. Gendered terms, or some gendered terms, are alright by some people. Them existing isn't necessarily a problem in theory, but... Yeah, unwise. Better not to have them.
DA:I already had a trans male (barely not companion) character. Pretty well received. I don't think it's going to become something you generally encounter in games for a long while yet. If a big title does make the step though, I'd expect that's how. Still, who knows. Sometimes an Indie game like Dream Daddy becomes a quietly a little mainstream
DA:I already had a trans male (barely not companion) character. Pretty well received.
Yes, good point. Krem certainly garnered a fanbase and is an example of successfully introducing a trans character into a fantasy RPG. Bioware also have at least a couple of less successful examples of fortunately smaller cameos for (possibly) trans characters in DA:2 and MEA that now spring to mind, but at least they are trying and are willing to learn from their mistakes!
And as you alluded to in your post above, it helps when the companies making games have a diverse and representative staff who can help make sure that LGBT+ characters in their games are portrayed realistically.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Speaking of Dragon Age: there is a rumour of Maervaris, a trans woman mage from Tevinter, being a companion in the upcomong game. She is introduced in the comics and very popular with the fans.
Last edited by fylimar; 03/01/2308:11 AM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Yes, good point. Krem certainly garnered a fanbase and is an example of successfully introducing a trans character into a fantasy RPG. Bioware also have at least a couple of less successful examples of fortunately smaller cameos for (possibly) trans characters in DA:2 and MEA that now spring to mind, but at least they are trying and are willing to learn from their mistakes!
And as you alluded to in your post above, it helps when the companies making games have a diverse and representative staff who can help make sure that LGBT+ characters in their games are portrayed realistically.
I don't recall anyone in DA2 though I'm not noted for my keen observational skills; and with that in mind, even I thought the cameo in Andromeda was extremely clumsily handled. Yikes. They did a much better job with Krem though parts of his dialogue still felt a bit artificial. Nice work by Shouty Shepard with the voice acting, tho'.
Yes, good point. Krem certainly garnered a fanbase and is an example of successfully introducing a trans character into a fantasy RPG. Bioware also have at least a couple of less successful examples of fortunately smaller cameos for (possibly) trans characters in DA:2 and MEA that now spring to mind, but at least they are trying and are willing to learn from their mistakes!
And as you alluded to in your post above, it helps when the companies making games have a diverse and representative staff who can help make sure that LGBT+ characters in their games are portrayed realistically.
I don't recall anyone in DA2 though I'm not noted for my keen observational skills; and with that in mind, even I thought the cameo in Andromeda was extremely clumsily handled. Yikes. They did a much better job with Krem though parts of his dialogue still felt a bit artificial. Nice work by Shouty Shepard with the voice acting, tho'.
In DA2- it's in the Mark of the Assassin dlc, during the party scene in that dukes estate.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Bioware also have at least a couple of less successful examples of fortunately smaller cameos for (possibly) trans characters in DA:2 and MEA that now spring to mind, but at least they are trying and are willing to learn from their mistakes!
I don't recall anyone in DA2 though I'm not noted for my keen observational skills; and with that in mind, even I thought the cameo in Andromeda was extremely clumsily handled. Yikes. They did a much better job with Krem though parts of his dialogue still felt a bit artificial. Nice work by Shouty Shepard with the voice acting, tho'.
In DA2- it's in the Mark of the Assassin dlc, during the party scene in that dukes estate.
Yes. It’s been a while since I played DA2 but IIRC you meet them as a brothel worker in Kirkwall and then as a date (paid escort?) to Bann Teagan at the party fylimar mentions. I don’t think we know they’re trans. They could be enbie, intersex, a cis man who is either camp and enjoys cross dressing or puts on either a manner or women’s clothes just to make a living. Or none of the above! I actually find it realistic that we meet individuals in games like this that we don’t know how to label and never know well enough to find out how they’d identify themselves. I felt the interactions with the MEA character and even, I agree, Krem at moments, seemed artificial at least partly because we ended up having conversations about their history and identity that didn’t feel earned.
But the DA2 character was outrageously camp with an acid tongue and though I actually thought they were witty and quite fabulous, there was no doubt they were a stereotype that arguably tipped into caricature. Plus I wasn’t entirely sure whether the writers were expecting me to find their very existence in the context a joke, or the fact Bann Teagan chose them as an escort to a party funny in a horrible, cliched “oh no, it turns out this lovely lady is actually a man!†way, which I found uncomfortable. Being charitable, that probably wasn’t their intention at all, but while I think a character like that should be able to appear in games, I don’t think it can work when they’re the only example of a non-gender conforming individual in a title.
But all this is only tangentially related to the thread topic, so apologies! I guess it’s sort of relevant to discuss what good and bad trans representation looks like, but perhaps only if we squint
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Oh yeah, now I remember... ish. It's not even that long since I played Mark of the Assassin, but I guess I'm not noted for my photographic memory either, which is why I'm probably now thinking of the tailor who was Dandelion's acquaintance who lives just outside Novigrad in Witcher 3.
Are we supposed to be staying on topic? Oh yeah. ahem.
Up until Krem (whom I... didn't like, mostly because of how artificial the inclusion felt like, and how very "look at this here character, we are inclusive, see? SEE?!" the dialogue with Iron Bull felt even back when I played Inquisition for the first - and only, if you don't count an abandoned run a few years later because I simply got bored with the game - time when still being mostly out of touch with the concept (2014)) I think most if not all of such Bioware characters were there mostly for humorous purposes (there was a female-looking elven courtesan both in DA:O and DA2 who had a surprisingly... masculine voice, if memory serves). Was that meant to be inclusive, or were they just genuinely doing it for the heck of it? Either way, it never came off as something other than a bit of - perhaps somewhat crude - but humour, and I never for a moment thought it to be anything more than that. Same with Mizhena - repeating myself here - whom I've read as a "lady raised as a man by coercive parents" and only learned about the intended idea behind the character a few years later.
They could have just as easily written Krem as a tough mercenary lady, though, and the character would have worked just as well if not better (if they meant to address how apparently sexist and restrictive the Tevinter Imperium is, even though just a game ago they've portrayed the magisters as hedonistic and hardly discriminating with the Fenris questline. DA:I was a trainwreck in world-building terms - and a trainwreck in general, honestly...). Jennifer Hale tried to do her best boyish voice, but you could still hear her usual tone through the effort. Wasn't she also voicing Mizhena, now that I am touching that? Beamdog did get Mark Meer on board for Baeloth (who was about as flat a character as a cardboard sheet, but had his moments), that much I do remember.
I do think it's somewhat unfair to compare character creation options with accessibility features - not having some of the former would reasonably alienate fewer people than how many having the latter will let actually play the game in the first place. It's fluff versus functionality and user experience. I may come off as cruel here, but I don't think that the inability to play an alternate identity character while being able to still play the game is equal to not being able to play the game at all. One enables somebody who would otherwise not be able to experience the game in the first place to experience it and is hardly something that will cause an opinion war (I highly doubt that the needs of disabled people are in any way controversial in nature, although seeing how many would rather - again - make them "seen" or "represented" rather than work on making better conditions for them both in real life and in interactive experiences - also raises questions as to the degree of absurdity the world's come to lately) and does not affect the immersion/world-building aspects (unless you argue that something like an alternate colour pallete or larger fonts defy canon in some way...), while the other is a vanity feature which does not ultimately accomplish the supposed idea behind it and causes a lot of inconsistencies with the writing and the interactions (overbearingly presented in the posts above).
Sure, people would go all "it's just a video game/a fantasy setting with magic, chill / how can you draw the line at one point but not that". I guess obnoxious nerds such as myself to whom games a less of a way of escapism and more of a chance to experience interactive fiction in a cohesive, believable setting while playing around with the rules and tools they present (something that RPGs are supposed to try to be, no?) and who have a hard time projecting the more modern (post-modern, even) concepts onto a fantasy setting are gonna be getting the short end of the stick for a while, until a cultural value crisis hits the West or something. Which kinda sucks, because I loathe JRPGs.
I don't know about other parts of the world, but social progress and visibility in all sorts of issues have been fairly matched in central europe, not counting the UK (where trans people wait for 20+ years to begin assessing state health care...).
Krem could have also been a cis gay man facing homophobia and some people would say "nothing has been lost". I personally don't think it works that way. Everyone has struggles other people don't. Cis, straight people never need an optimal narrative reason to exist in DA.
I'm not sure what you mean about accessability. Is It that you would rather see partially blind people supported and those missing limbs/fingers?
I do think it's somewhat unfair to compare character creation options with accessibility features - not having some of the former would reasonably alienate fewer people than how many having the latter will let actually play the game in the first place. It's fluff versus functionality and user experience. I may come off as cruel here, but I don't think that the inability to play an alternate identity character while being able to still play the game is equal to not being able to play the game at all. One enables somebody who would otherwise not be able to experience the game in the first place to experience it and is hardly something that will cause an opinion war (I highly doubt that the needs of disabled people are in any way controversial in nature, although seeing how many would rather - again - make them "seen" or "represented" rather than work on making better conditions for them both in real life and in interactive experiences - also raises questions as to the degree of absurdity the world's come to lately) and does not affect the immersion/world-building aspects (unless you argue that something like an alternate colour pallete or larger fonts defy canon in some way...), while the other is a vanity feature which does not ultimately accomplish the supposed idea behind it and causes a lot of inconsistencies with the writing and the interactions (overbearingly presented in the posts above).
You might be surprised; this sort of thing can be quite significant to people trying to figure themselves out and can have a big impact on them and get through where other things have failed. I know of several gamers who've "found themselves" thanks to the freedom of roleplaying and others who've found that the other perspectives it offers are quite enlightening. I suppose I view it the same way as I do with e.g. save-scumming or story-mode difficulty, which is as long as people are given the choice, I don't really see the problem. I mean as compared with games which have required a mandatory online component to progress, for example: if people want to do that then fine, but the obligation to do so is a different matter.
I know that some people often argue that it uses up development effort that would be better spent on something they would prefer it was spent on, which apart from being a rather divisive argument given that everyone could say the same thing about their own preferred area (in my case it's a landscape I can aimlessly explore as the mood takes me; but it's not entirely reasonable of me to expect a game like BG3 to prioritise that as a feature!) I think it's also specious; especially for a game whose development timeframe has always been "it'll be ready when it's ready".
I found a lot of the sexual politics in Inquisition really took me out of the world because of how anachronistic they were. People will say that it's just fantasy, as though that can be used to explain away any kind of inconsistency, but when you're dealing with a low-fantasy European medieval setting, and add trans characters, or gay characters, you have to make an effort to incorporate those concepts into the setting or else the verisimilitude is questioned. There are plenty of gay people throughout history but that didn't change the dynamics of politics, nor does it change the realities of property rights in a highly feudal world. Just saying that gay marriage is considered normal by the fantasy catholic church isn't enough for a society that spends most of it's time and energy determining who owns what and has the best claim to this or that parcel of land. I kept thinking that during Dorian's subplot with his father, Byzantium was more permissive than Western Europe, but people still were expected to marry, and if your first-born and only son refused to, that is an issue with ramifications beyond...whatever it was Dorian's father was upset about. Not to mention how disruptive to a peasant community it could be for land to be owned by people with no generation coming up to take care of them, or stop whatever squabble over the land will inevitably come.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. For some fantasy is just a way of making allegory for their world, but I like going to a place that operates with different assumptions than my own.
I think that might be how I see the Forgotten Realms too, but because it's such a hodge-podge of settings, and genres, to a much lesser degree. Now if we're going extraplanar, that's another matter.
I found a lot of the sexual politics in Inquisition really took me out of the world because of how anachronistic they were. People will say that it's just fantasy, as though that can be used to explain away any kind of inconsistency, but when you're dealing with a low-fantasy European medieval setting, and add trans characters, or gay characters, you have to make an effort to incorporate those concepts into the setting or else the verisimilitude is questioned. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. For some fantasy is just a way of making allegory for their world, but I like going to a place that operates with different assumptions than my own. I think that might be how I see the Forgotten Realms too, but because it's such a hodge-podge of settings, and genres, to a much lesser degree. Now if we're going extraplanar, that's another matter.
Hmm. I do agree that because many fantasy settings are inspired by real historical societies that when we see them we will naturally make a number of assumptions about their social norms and mores. But that doesn't mean to say we're right to do so, or the creators of those settings should feel constrained in all ways to reflect those historical societies. I'd suggest that, until the creators actually deal with a subject like how that society treats gender, homosexuality, etc, we don't actually know anything about it.
Sure, if we then find out and it doesn't align with our expectations that may be jarring, but that doesn't mean to say that it's bad. I think we could see these instances of culture shock as much as a reason for us to question our assumptions and prejudices as for writers to change their story. Of course, if it's jarring because it's done badly that's a different thing, but while I'd always prefer stories to be written well than badly, I don't think every badly written story shouldn't be told at all, and slightly dodgy plotting, conversation jumps and oversharing in cRPGs is hardly limited to gay or trans characters.
As to whether a pseudo-mediaeval European fantasy setting like Faerun should ideally stick closer to the social norms of the times and places it was based on, I'm afraid that gets a "hell no" from me! As a woman who enjoys playing female characters in RPGs, my enjoyment would be totally scuppered if my character had to deal with the sorts of limitations and sexist behaviour that would entail. I'm not saying every good RPG needs to enable me to play a woman, or even a man other than one specific character (eg The Witcher), but thank goodness they're not all like that, and specifically that the Forgotten Realms aren't. And given the sexual politics of Faerun are already so different from mediaeval Europe in that sense, I see no reason why they shouldn't either be, or evolve to be, different in their treatment of different gender identities and sexuality too.
I could also try to argue that, as a setting designed specifically in order to allow people to roleplay and tell their own stories, the Forgotten Realms has more obligation to its audience, and allowing them to participate and create the adventures they want, than it does to historical reality, but I think I've gone on long enough!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Oh, definitely. You can take a lot of abstract concepts, like modern BDSM, proceed to spoonfeed it to every known entity in the game and end up with a jarirng result. Why do they know that? Why do they phrase it like that?
If you're building a setting from the ground up (DA), they should be able to find an explanation or five. With Larian, the writing essentially decrees all trans Tavs pass and enby Tav is perfectably clockable. Well, okay. If that's the worst Bg3 is up to, I can live with it, though. Any Tav you're not playing doesn't exist in Bg3. All things considered, maybe any Tav won't come to "officially" exist, only origin characters 🥲
What is a thing, though, is that not every "medieval" type of society has historically been homophobic or believed in only two types of gender expressions. Their existence is not default to humanity. To christianity, perhaps, but pagan societies tended to be relatively open. DA's problems aren't Bg's problems when it comes values, inheritance, etc.
If DA was not so Christian, Dorian raising another child someone of his bloodline had wouldn't be so problematic... nor would having a child without direct sex (and marriage). Even a relationship next to that marriage.
Those are all great ways of explaining how it works. My point isn't that it couldn't work, it's that if you add them to the world, you need to address how it works or it becomes a big question for me how it does. I don't think people thought about or were conscious of the concepts of gender the same way we are today, I think history itself is fairly recent, at least to the common man. That's the one differences between science-fiction and fantasy to me, fantasy extrapolates how societies would deal with modern issues with old fashioned world views, while science-fiction tries to extrapolate what future issues will change a society's assumptions and world views. Case in point we meet the Empress of Orlais whose reign is under threat and whose legitimacy is in question, an heir, or a political marriage could really have helped with that situation, I don't remember if this is ever addressed in the game. I don't remember much about Inquisition anymore actually, though I remember the Orlais story being the weakest in a game that was really underwhelming me. That kind of strained logic abound. It's funny you mention that about Dorian, Silver/, because of how established adoption is in Roman society, I'm still not sure what was going on with that plot.
I don't consider the setting of Faerun to be tailored to fit every roleplayer, if it were it would have skills and take social interactions more seriously. It's a heroic adventure game, and heroes can be anyone, if it dealt more with the fantasy societies in a realistic way than I would expect these issues to have satisfying answers. But like I mentioned, because the Forgotten Realms is such a pastiche of tones, genres, cultures and time periods, I don't sweat it too much. But I do think there was a antique mindset in the setting that has become more and more modern with mixed results, for me at least.
It's funny you mention that about Dorian, Silver/, because of how established adoption is in Roman society, I'm still not sure what was going on with that plot.
Originally Posted by Silver/
If DA was not so Christian, Dorian raising another child someone of his bloodline had wouldn't be so problematic... nor would having a child without direct sex (and marriage). Even a relationship next to that marriage.
The crux of Dorian's plot isn't just about continuing the family lineage in the sense of inheritence and what have you, and it's not really a religious issue either. It's more about continuing to provide a linneage of powerful mages. Tevinter Magisters are expected to marry and have children in part to keep up a pedigree of powerful mages. Adopting the unwanted child of some cousin wouldn't really help with continuing the magical bloodline. It would effectively mean Dorian is putting an end to generations of breeding partially aimed at producing a superior magical bloodline.
I don't consider the setting of Faerun to be tailored to fit every roleplayer, if it were it would have skills and take social interactions more seriously. It's a heroic adventure game, and heroes can be anyone, if it dealt more with the fantasy societies in a realistic way than I would expect these issues to have satisfying answers. But like I mentioned, because the Forgotten Realms is such a pastiche of tones, genres, cultures and time periods, I don't sweat it too much. But I do think there was a antique mindset in the setting that has become more and more modern with mixed results, for me at least.
Agreed, unfortunately there's no way of pleasing everyone given that people's preferences in some cases just aren't compatible. And you're of course right Faerun has a mishmash of tones and cultures, and from practically the start the setting and the D&D game has been changing and evolving to meet the needs of its players, e.g. in its treatment of male and female characters. I wasn't a D&D fan in the 70s and 80s, but I'll bet there were many of the same debates then about allowing unrealistic portrayals of women in a mediaeval setting, just so that female characters could participate on an equal footing, as we're having about LGBT+ characters now. At least noone is suggesting that the latter should have different stats!
Of course not every roleplayer is going to be comfortable with the changes that are made and some are going to find it a little alienating and perhaps narratively suspect. But many others will also feel more comfortable, and I hope people will take your attitude and not sweat it too much, given how much it can mean to others to be able to play the characters they want in the way they want. As mentioned before, I'd hate it if I couldn't play a female character in BG3 who didn't have to deal with mediaeval attitudes to women and hopefully most if not all other players will now accept, as a matter of course, that I can. As well as that that there are female characters throughout Faerun doing stuff most women just wouldn't have been able to in mediaeval Europe, and this is no big deal. Perhaps in another few decades people will find it equally as unremarkable to find LGBT+ characters in the setting doing the same. (Well hopefully not as long as that ...)
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Yeah, that's why I mentioned the "procreation without sticking it in directly" option and marriage in name only. There's no reason why it should be such a big issue... unless virginity and fidelity to one partner are prized at once. It's all structured around marriage to one partner to the point you can't get away with anything else. Or, If you can, it'd bring up a lot of questions about involved parties' motives.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned the "procreation without sticking it in directly" option and marriage in name only. There's no reason why it should be such a big issue... unless virginity and fidelity to one partner are prized at once. It's all structured around marriage to one partner to the point you can't get away with anything else.
Sorry, with posts crossing over I'm losing track of what posts are responding to what points!
Gray Ghost made the point that the Dorian thing could be as much to to with eugenics as social prejudices, or that the (possible?) hereditary nature of magic in powerful magical families in Tevinter would tend to drive social prejudices against mages refusing to have children. I suspect you might have been responding to something before that?
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Well I'm not familiar with every little detail ofthe setting-though I do probably know more than the average player-but I don't think people in Thedas have the means to enact artificial insemination. Maybe that's a thing that's been available in crude manner for longer than I realized in our real world, so they could potentially have something like it in Thedas, but it's never come up as something which could be done.
As far as the marriage issue, my understanding is that marriage in name only could have worked if Dorian had been willing to just "lie back and think of Tevinter" until a baby was made, but Dorian specifically did not want to compromise his identity for the sake of his family lineage. An irrational choice? Definitely. But not an unbelievable one in my view at least.
Dorian specifically did not want to compromise his identity for the sake of his family lineage. An irrational choice? Definitely. But not an unbelievable one in my view at least.
Not unbelievable at all! As a woman who has chosen not to have children, if my family had tried to force me to have kids I would not have been even slightly tempted to comply. My choice, I'm sure, would have been a lot harder in different societies, and indeed in different families within my society, plus my family certainly has no dynastic power to preserve, but I feel a very visceral horror at the idea of being forced to have a child against my will. I guess it could be argued it's not as big a thing if you're not actually the one giving birth, but it's still plenty big if you take your responsibilities seriously and, even if you take the question of kids out of it, the idea of being pressured into having sex when you don't want to is pretty repellant too.
Perhaps, as you say, there is a Tevinter equivalent of a turkey baster (or the baster of a Tevinter equivalent of a turkey?!) that could be used, which would eliminate the unwilling sex element of it, if not the unwilling parent bit. But even then Dorian would only have reason to do it if he particularly wanted to prop up the existing power structures in Tevinter, including his family's role in them, and I don't think that's something he's up for anyway, even if it didn't involve making sacrifices on his part. If he'd valued Tevinter society in its current form and felt it right to support his family's position in it, then he may well have made some different choices. But then, if he hadn't felt some tension between the way that society worked and his identity then he may never have questioned it.
Anyway, I've got interested in a tangent again, so apologies for another off topic post!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Ah, sorry, no. My point was that I believe the background as to why these options don't exist is of religious nature. I can't really remember enough about most of DA:I to gauge Dorian's stance on having children. What's in my head is just this big conflict because he doesn't want to marry the person chosen for him. While I do find it believeable someone may just run away, his family never made a move to offer an alternative. It's all this or all that.
Blacks don't play games, Women don't play games. Queers don't play games, Gender-fluid don't play games.
Every time a game offers a "new" choice for protaganist it turns out that those people do play games and are very glad to be seen, and there are always others would like to explore those options.
This is a small step. I'm not cross about that, because thats how all journeys begin. There is much more to explore, much more to be addressed. Just admitting that enbys exist and are worthy of consideration is a fantastic start, one that wouldn't have happened as little as a decade ago.
It doesn't affect me directly, but the progression of freedom and equipability is something I have always felt strongly about. So, cheers Larian! I'm looking forward to the next steps.
Blacks don't play games, Women don't play games. Queers don't play games, Gender-fluid don't play games.
Every time a game offers a "new" choice for protaganist it turns out that those people do play games and are very glad to be seen, and there are always others would like to explore those options.
This is a small step. I'm not cross about that, because thats how all journeys begin. There is much more to explore, much more to be addressed. Just admitting that enbys exist and are worthy of consideration is a fantastic start, one that wouldn't have happened as little as a decade ago.
It doesn't affect me directly, but the progression of freedom and equipability is something I have always felt strongly about. So, cheers Larian! I'm looking forward to the next steps.
Is it really freedom when all the supposed "expression" amounts to is basically yet another set of stereotypes coded as "not conforming to stereotypes"? And as fringe an opinion as it may seem, lumping race, sex and sexual orientation together with gender identity is downright wrong. And black (which to most oh-so-progressive people just means specifically African American) people are not the only non-white ethnicity out there, but it sure seems to be the only one because apparently the whole world needs to feel as guilty as US for enslaving people based on ethnicity (in which case, I guess, Norse cultures should be constantly apologizing to just about everyone else...).
The first three (race, sex, sexual orientation) are innate and immutable, and arguing against representing them in media (unless, again, it's done in a very ham-fisted, pandering way rather than a natural, matter-of-factly one) is kind of pointless. GI, though, is not only a psychological/social phenomenon, in many ways conformative as it stems from gender stereotypes integrated into the society (hence the existence of the gender critical movement which rejects the concept, rather justly pointing out how regressive and self-destructive it is for people engaging in it), but is also NOT innate and immutable (otherwise the concept of "gender-fluid" would not exist, no?), and one can raise cases as to why its existence in the setting would either not make much sense at all or should probably take nuances of perception into account (which I painstakingly described in the opening post and in one later on).
And to address a, perhaps, misinterpreted point of mine from the previous post: what I meant is that specifically accessibility options should most certainly be there, because they allow for an ability to experience the game in the first place for people that would otherwise be unable to. My point was that it's unfair to compare that to something that, in itself, is not something that removes an actual barrier that would otherwise be there for a percentage of people. To put it more simply - I don't think accessiblity options is something that people would want to mod out of the game on purpose. And while one can make a point about how people would want to "whitewash" characters or something to that extent - I've already made a point on that in the previous paragraph.
While I may come across as spiteful, my opinion on the whole debacle is that it's really unfortunate that people would so easily let the society's values and antiquated views dictate how they should act, dress, and express themselves while thinking that it's their "authentic" identity all the while. It's dowright unjust that instead of letting somebody actually explore their personality and not ascribe traits and interests to either gender or lack thereof, there is instead a chimeric construct in place that forces one to conform in some way or another (when there's a tailored "non-binary look" when it's supposed to imply the lack of conformity, it says a lot...) and to police their own behaviour and that of others. It's a culture that's both insidiously cruel and stuffed full of safety coushions, which results in people fighting over who is the biggest victim and the most oppressed while spiraling downwards into turning the concept of "identity" into a lifestyle rather than simply a set of traits.
That is something that only a modern, Internet-equipped and consumerist-centric cultural landscape could have conceived, as far as my take goes. Where people are so obsessed with being different that they all end up circling back to looking and behaving the same, and seek to either undo anything "conservative" just for the sake of undoing it without really questioning why it's there in the first place, or hang onto whatever values they consider sacred to them like there's nothing else for them existing in life.
To the original post . My personal opinion i wouldlike to say no to this. Ofc if they will implement it idk i will just ignore it. But the real reason is why i dont want that. The game should be released w/o bugs and missing class features like example eldritch knight. I think if they released the game they can for sure patch some cosmetics changes. After that i am fine with it.
I'm fine with it. They can include whatever they want, so long as they don't try to force me to interact with it, if I don't want to. As it stands, it's optional, meaning I can completely ignore it, but if NPCs start trying to employ "misgendering" or similar, then I'm going to ask for a refund. I don't play video games to be reminded that some people think that their world view is the only one that matters. I play them to get away from that shit. I neither want, or need, a game to beat me over the head with it. Existing in character creation doesn't beat me over the head with it. I'm fine with it. I'm not required to use the features, so I don't care.
I absolutely loved Dorian. I've never done the romance, because it doesn't appeal to me, but his being gay didn't matter in the slightest. Krem didn't bother me at all, but I was impressed to find out that he was voiced by Jennifer Hale, because I never would have guessed. I'm not looking at their sexuality, or preferences, or identities. I'm looking at what kind of character they are. The character that I hated the most in the Dragon Age series was Alistair, a straight white male, because of how he reacts when you go to Redcliffe and are legit surprised at his reveal in the cutscene just before you get there.
So by all means, be as "inclusive" as they choose to be, so long as they include the option to ignore it.
OP, most of that argument is really a gender critical outright lie. I don't know how many trans people you've met, but generally, trans women who don't dress hyperfeminine, and trans men who do dress feminine, are not rare.
The problem is, GC people turn around and call these people fakers. So either you're not dressing fem/masc enough to please the GC crowd, or you're dressing too fem/masc and are a singular (=harmful) stereotype. There is no middle path.
This is intentional and not their only rethoric trap, but it really needs to be said. It is a strawman used for justifying harrassment of anyone they don't like. It's not a good faith argument and engaging with it leads nowhere. You also get "drag is womanface", "only switching is morally progressive (non-heteronormative) gay sex", and more from that base.
As is, the presence of trans people is incredibly optional and you more or less have a "no trans or enby people in this world at all, please" button. That is going very far in accomodating anyone. Both ways.
Last edited by Silver/; 05/01/2301:59 PM. Reason: Grammar
Hence the existence of the gender critical movement which rejects the concept, rather justly pointing out how regressive and self-destructive it is for people engaging in it
I am not sure where you are based, Brainer, but I am in the UK. Here, people with gender critical beliefs have, as I see it, been inflaming political debate about trans people, arguing for effective removal of their rights to access public services and fiercely resisting moves to make the public sphere more inclusive for them, opposing improvements in the health and social care available to trans people and even supporting further restriction of already appallingly poor provision, particularly for young trans people. They, intentionally or not, incite hatred against trans people, present an inaccurate caricature of what transness is in order to set up a false dichotomy between trans and women's rights and cause distress to a segment of society that already faces stigma and rejection. I do believe people with gender critical beliefs hold them sincerely and genuinely think they are acting for the best, but given the already high incidence of violence against trans people, and the rates of mental illness, self-harm and suicide amongst trans people who do not get appropriate healthcare, acceptance or support, I think it is no exaggeration to say that they are costing lives.
I say all this *not* in order to enter into debate, but to demonstrate it is impossible, in this forum at least.
I am sure you will disagree with my characterisation of the gender critical movement, just as I reject your characterisation of what transness and gender identity are about. I am sure I will not be able to change your mind and there is zero chance of you changing mine, so talking about our views just creates an unwelcoming environment for people on all sides of the question. Let alone for trans gamers themselves who just want to get on with their lives and have fun playing and talking about a game that lets them roleplay a character that shares their gender identity, and have this acknowledged, in a way that you and I now take for granted.
So given you, I, and many other gamers have irreconcilable preferences about whether or how the game deals with gender identity along with all kinds of other things (see, eg, a parallel debate on this forum about inclusion of explicit sex), where do we go from here? I would hope that we would be able to accept that we all have a right to our preferences, whatever the reasons for them, and that, in order to include content that allows players the maximum amount of flexibility in the characters they create and stories they tell, a cRPG like BG3 will likely include some content that we personally are uncomfortable with.
You started this thread by asking whether the gender identity feature that the game provides is worth including in its existing form.
The answer is that there are gamers who want to play a trans or enbie character and have that acknowledged by the game, and the feature gives them that ... so yes. It is not much, and there are still niggles with the way it functions, and some handwaving is required in order to accept the impact selecting the feature has on NPCs and the world, but for the gamers at whom the feature is aimed, ie those who want to roleplay a trans or enbie character, it is better than nothing. Anyone who does not want to play such a character just has to ignore a couple of options on the character creation screen.
Given that answer, I am not sure if you are willing to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay, I have views that make it uncomfortable for me to encounter representations of trans or non-binary genders in the game, but I understand that there are other gamers who actively want to be able to play a trans or non-binary character who will enjoy the feature, and I am willing to skip past a couple of options on character creation in order for them to be able to do that." If not, then I think this debate is at the end of the line, as what is being asked of you currently is pretty much the minimum possible. There is no reasonable compromise I can see that would ask anything less of you that would not just remove any trans representation from the game ... which is not compromise but just giving you what you want at the expense of other gamers.
I am now banning myself from posting any further in this thread, in order to remove any temptation to get further embroiled in debates about real world politics.
I hope, whether or not you agree with it, I have made my position clear and I suspect it's not going to help move the debate on any further if I say more about it.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
The point of this thread was to encourage discussion and to welcome every opinion out there, not necessarily agreeing but at the same time trying to avoid outright fighting. Wanting to present points and see what others think.
I do agree that devolving it into arguing over even more real-world stuff is hardly gonna be productive and will probably get it locked, so yeah, better to cool off while possible. Thank you for your input!
Having looked at what the updated licence entails, I am curious as to whether BG3 has to follow the tenets within, even though it's technically not an OGL product (wouldn't having a full-on licence for a setting make it even more strict, actually?) - because if it does, then it means that every point raised in my first post regarding perception will technically violate some point or other. I guess it remains to be seen whether the races are renamed as "species" and if we're getting anti-tiefling/goblin/drow/whichever hate speech cut from the final version. Lovely times, these.
The point of this thread was to encourage discussion and to welcome every opinion out there, not necessarily agreeing but at the same time trying to avoid outright fighting. Wanting to present points and see what others think.
I do agree that devolving it into arguing over even more real-world stuff is hardly gonna be productive and will probably get it locked, so yeah, better to cool off while possible. Thank you for your input!
I think you handled yourself well and raised many valid points in a respectable manner.
It doesn't matter how hard you try to appeal to common sense while bringing so many and detailed arguments, Larian is forced like any other game developer to comply with current trend. Acting independent will result in loss of money and reputation, so adding these pronounce is just a small price for them.
As a woman who enjoys playing female characters in RPGs, my enjoyment would be totally scuppered if my character had to deal with the sorts of limitations and sexist behaviour that would entail.
Obviously IRL you act instinctively as a woman and while playing as woman as well, you want to be unlimited in your actions and not to be harassed. It's not fair for me as a man IRL, to not have the option to play a woman where she's constantly being seduced, or any male Npc is not scripted to flirt with my character after I undress her or put some revealing clothes on her.
As a woman who enjoys playing female characters in RPGs, my enjoyment would be totally scuppered if my character had to deal with the sorts of limitations and sexist behaviour that would entail.
Obviously IRL you act instinctively as a woman and while playing as woman as well, you want to be unlimited in your actions and not to be harassed. It's not fair for me as a man IRL, to not have the option to play a woman where she's constantly being seduced, or any male Npc is not scripted to flirt with my character after I undress her or put some revealing clothes on her.
Can you stop your blatant sexism already? This is a thread about representation, not your personal fetish!
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
As a woman who enjoys playing female characters in RPGs, my enjoyment would be totally scuppered if my character had to deal with the sorts of limitations and sexist behaviour that would entail.
Obviously IRL you act instinctively as a woman and while playing as woman as well, you want to be unlimited in your actions and not to be harassed. It's not fair for me as a man IRL, to not have the option to play a woman where she's constantly being seduced, or any male Npc is not scripted to flirt with my character after I undress her or put some revealing clothes on her.
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
Spot on. I am not sure why it has recently been resurrected after coming to a natural close in early January, given the new posts don’t seem to be adding anything new to the debate, but if we are going to reopen the discussion let’s keep it on topic.
Originally Posted by Bardhuk
It's not fair for me as a man IRL, to not have the option to play a woman where she's constantly being seduced, or any male Npc is not scripted to flirt with my character after I undress her or put some revealing clothes on her.
@Bardhuk, you already started a thread a week or so ago to discuss your suggestions for inclusion of more sexualised content for women PCs. Please don’t try to reopen that debate elsewhere on the forums, especially by taking months old quotes out of context. Plus repeated posts on a single issue in different places just look like trolling, especially when noone else has shown a particular interest.
No more replies to this thread, please, unless anyone actually has anything new and constructive to contribute to the discussion of gender identity in the game.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
@Bardhuk, you already started a thread a week or so ago to discuss your suggestions for inclusion of more sexualised content for women PCs. Please don’t try to reopen that debate elsewhere on the forums, especially by taking months old quotes out of context. Plus repeated posts on a single issue in different places just look like trolling, especially when noone else has shown a particular interest.
If someone will answer me and will show further interest to discuss this topics, it will be a sign of disrespect from me to not to continue. I'm polite and I don't think i offend anyone by expressing some suggestions or preferences.
@Bardhuk, you already started a thread a week or so ago to discuss your suggestions for inclusion of more sexualised content for women PCs. Please don’t try to reopen that debate elsewhere on the forums, especially by taking months old quotes out of context. Plus repeated posts on a single issue in different places just look like trolling, especially when noone else has shown a particular interest.
If someone will answer me and will show further interest to discuss this topics, it will be a sign of disrespect from me to not to continue. I'm polite and I don't think i offend anyone by expressing some suggestions or preferences.
Sure. This thread is about a hyper specific topic, though. It usually received bad faith attacks from people sexualising the concept of being a woman. E.g. stating that even drag is inherently sexual and harmful for existing.
I don't think you meant to go in that direction. But, I hope you understand why it looks like trolling. There is another thread discussing if BG3 is too sexual/romances have the wrong focus. You can demand more sexualisation there. It is discussing whether the game should have such things in it or not.
Oh. Have been away from the forum for a while, and thought the thread'd just died down back in January indeed.
I am not sure as to how the whole fetish-ey sexist tangent or whatever it was ended up being raised, but I suppose the very fact that the discussion got suddenly reanimated is somewhat encouraging what with how tectis23's rant in the General forum from a month or so ago got quickly nipped in the bud, although some people there tried to be more or less reasonable and/or constructive with their comments. The tone of the OP was not exactly in any way contributing to a civil discussion, though.
I did see the release date reveal trailer, and had a mixture of hope and - pardon the term - cringing from seeing the "body type" option in the character creation menu. On one hand, it could just be every body build lumped together, same as the voices, so it's a selection of male and female bodies of different bulk (maybe even more than just standard/muscular - perhaps we'd have skinny characters too?), just on a single selector (although the fact that there's still these awful selectors instead of an easily readable grid of options sure makes me worried about the character creation UI in the full game)... or it could just be this post-modern euphemism for gender/sex yet again. Elden Ring having the players select their "body type" but immediately gendering them in the first cutscene in the game and locking voice options to it says a few things as to the degree of the frankly pointless charade that's being put on all for the sake of "inclusive" language...
...Some people would always find other things to be offended by - like how people would see the portrayal of elves from Larian's previous game (guess which one) as a Native American caricature, or how the gith are an Asian one. Sure doesn't stop them from slobbering over Astarion and his racist, sadistic arse, though - speaks volumes to the degree of hypocrisy on display (and shows how it's enough for a character to be a pretty twink boy to be forgiven for the modern cardinal sins. Were he not attractive, I imagine he wouldn't have gotten the pass).
If nothing else, brainer, "male" body types for "female" heads is a sure fire way to avoid boobplate.
If you imagine your character flat chested, tall and stocky, the "splint plate +2" male model is just better. I might do this myself without creating a trans character if a muscular build for women doesn't really exist. I will be skipping potential sex scenes, anyways. Whatever other impact it may have, is nonexistent for me.
Of course... it should also be possible to download a mod with a custom build. Enjoy the one singular armour that doesn't glitch out on it. Probably has colour variety. Also a good option, since +2 armour will never /need/ changing.
If nothing else, brainer, "male" body types for "female" heads is a sure fire way to avoid boobplate.
I don't mind it all that much if it's not a setting that had from the outset gone for the realistic look for the equipment (Eora (Pillars) is an example, the plate armours in 2 are a joy to look at). However, my first foray into FR was Neverwinter Nights, and that has Aribeth in her, erm, plate bodice? Armor dress? Whatever the term for it is. Point being, it's not something that I find that repulsive aesthetically. It did remind me of that one time Larian had self-censored the D:OS1 cover art after there were complaints about it, though - didn't really stop them from cramming D:OS2 full of fanservice-ey armors and outfits later on, but still.
Since you mentioned sex scenes, and given some of the datamined visuals and what my experimentation (described in the opening post) has revealed, I have a theory that, well...
...the identity selector may or may not dictate (urgh) which anatomy the character comes equipped with in the nether regions, since it's the identity that the scene version choice is based on.
I am not really sure as to what the connotations of that are supposed to be, or if it'd trigger the people it's targeted at. It'd run contrary to the tenets of the gender, no? Afraid I am hardly an expert on the subject, what with finding the concept flawed at the core and devoid of objectivity. Otherwise you're getting scenes which are even jankier than they are now (unless Larian are taking their sweet time re-shooting them, which makes all the comments on how BG3 is just fantasy porn at this point ever so slightly more valid).
It'd run contrary to the tenets of the gender, no? Afraid I am hardly an expert on the subject, what with finding the concept flawed at the core and devoid of objectivity.
Brainer, you acknowledge you are not an expert in this subject, yet this is not the first time in this thread you have spontaneously criticised the very concept of gender identity. Your idea of what that is seems to be a straw man that won’t be recognised by any trans person, but that doesn’t mean that your repeated digs at the validity of their lived experience won’t be felt. The fact that it’s been a couple of months doesn’t mean it’s okay to start up again, so please let that be the last time I see you make a sweeping and unprovoked statement about this issue that affects people’s real lives.
And, as a reminder, these public forums will be read by people with different political views, religions, races, sexes, genders, sexualities and life experiences. Language that might go unremarked within a bubble of politically like-minded folk can be unnecessarily confrontational here, and we all need to go that extra mile to keep discussions civil and constructive in this diverse community, united only by an interest in Larian’s games. It is possible for us to talk about even potentially controversial topics, but it takes care, mutual respect, and awareness of where to draw a line to avoid insult and unhelpful rows.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
To be fair to Brainer here; Larian's current decision to separate physical body and gender but then to turn around and have stated gender flat out determine what set of physical equipment you are treated as having, irrespective of the body you chose, is very not-great and I cannot imagine many people, regardless of where they fall on the gender and identity spectrum, would be satisfied with that.
Okay, in case it wasn’t clear, I am not trying to shut down discussion of the implementation of gender options in BG3 and that is fair game.
What is not reasonable to post here are criticisms of how folk use concepts of gender identity to describe themselves in real life, and it is doing that repeatedly in this thread that has led to my response to Brainer above.
Common courtesy and respect for others with different views and life experiences should be enough of a guide as to what it is acceptable to say in this open forum, but if anyone is in any doubt please feel free to PM me.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I'm not sure what brainer is exactly meaning to state. But, yes. Gender, and even almost everything associated with sex, is metaphysics and hence can only be logically coherent, but never proven.
So, it gets interesting when the human mind stumbles onto some forms of worms. Imagine, everyone had a dick and the loser of the wrestliching match becomes pregnant. Or, fish who change /sex/ when it's opportune.
Concepts like "man" and "woman" don't really exist in factual reality. You can try reducing people to reproductive parts. However, that again will say nothing outside the sphere of reproduction. The trouble with metaphysics, unfailingly, is not recognizing just how much we take for granted is make believe. It's both a worthwhile endeavor to study and the most frustrating thing you'll ever encounter.
For example, who can prove genitalia are more meaningful than brain scans? Or, why enforce a policy of "humans can't change sex, so gender is meaningless", when other species very much can? Are only transgender clownfish "valid"?
What happens when we remove pregnancy from the notion of a "female" body by introducing seahorses?
I like to keep my perspectives on pornography and humans separate. Considering trans porn trends most in red US states, that... appears to be the norm. I will not be watching Bg3 sex scenes. For the final result, I imagine this is low importance and may be a bug or unfinished content. Proof of causing problems first, outrage second, you know?
Okay, I’m obviously not making myself clear. This forum is not the right place to put forward unsolicited theories of sex and gender. Please stop.
Even if those theories are not in themselves dismissive or insulting to any one group of people, they are sure to be disagreed with so it is provoking others to argue, and I think we are all aware that debates on this topic rarely go well and will undoubtedly lead to positions being stated that will be distressing to those for whom this is not merely a theoretical debate but directly impacts their real lives. Neither they nor anyone else should be forced to endure that when we are here to discuss video games.
Please let’s make the next post in this thread, if there is one, purely about how BG3 or other games handle gender identity without the unnecessary philosophising, and please also without casting any direct or indirect aspersions on anyone’s points of view. If it’s not, I’m going to be strongly tempted to temporarily block it while everyone has time to reflect on what it is civil and constructive to debate on a public games forum.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
To reiterate, while I am critical of the concept, my initial suggestion was not to erase it from the game (which I realize is highly unlikely to happen), but to adjust reactivity making it based on appearance so it's not jarringly dissonant - which kind of removes the entire justification for it's addition in the first place, all things considered... Either that or provide more androgynous appearance options so that there's at least a degree of believability to it.
The last point still stands as a testament to the character customization remaining very bare-bones and not showing many signs of improving all that much upon release - we'll have scars and body types, almost certainly facial markings for the githyanki... and that's about it as far as stuff being confirmed goes? DA:I is almost a decade old at this point, and it had a reasonably powerful appearance editor which did have non-standard facial features for dwarves and qunari while having detailed facial animations in dialogues (granted, they were very uncanny-valleish, but it tried, at least). Just choosing a preset head and messing around a bit with hair and makeup is incredibly limiting by comparison - limiting enough that people resort to mods to actually make something different-looking.
Gaming in the 90s was like Rock in the 70s. Creative, exploratory, boundary pushing... Gaming in 2023 is like...this thread.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Okay, I’m obviously not making myself clear. This forum is not the right place to put forward unsolicited theories of sex and gender. Please stop.
Even if those theories are not in themselves dismissive or insulting to any one group of people, they are sure to be disagreed with so it is provoking others to argue, and I think we are all aware that debates on this topic rarely go well and will undoubtedly lead to positions being stated that will be distressing to those for whom this is not merely a theoretical debate but directly impacts their real lives. Neither they nor anyone else should be forced to endure that when we are here to discuss video games.
Please let’s make the next post in this thread, if there is one, purely about how BG3 or other games handle gender identity without the unnecessary philosophising, and please also without casting any direct or indirect aspersions on anyone’s points of view. If it’s not, I’m going to be strongly tempted to temporarily block it while everyone has time to reflect on what it is civil and constructive to debate on a public games forum.
The last point still stands as a testament to the character customization remaining very bare-bones and not showing many signs of improving all that much upon release - we'll have scars and body types, almost certainly facial markings for the githyanki... and that's about it as far as stuff being confirmed goes?
Character customization is really barebones in CRPGs, including BG3 - although it's come a long way.
One of the stronger innovations of 5E was the development of background to suggest key personality trait(s), core ideal, world setting bonds and defining flaw. Identity as gender is fine I suppose, it is an aspect of character, but I'd rather have 5E background choices.
Wouldn't it be nice to be older or younger, and some NPCs sometimes respond in kind? Or chaste, with decline dialogues. Or being unable to resist chicken chasing due to a flaw. Personality choices at character creation that open and close specific options sprinkled throughout the game. Way too much work to implement on the fly, it would have had to been a core design years back.
Gaming in the 90s was like Rock in the 70s. Creative, exploratory, boundary pushing... Gaming in 2023 is like...this thread.
Does a thread about representation - in this huge forum - upset you that much?
The problem with culture warriors is that it seems impossible to get them to understand that they are not harmed - in any way - by any of this stuff.
A mentor I once had when I was much younger taught me that "you must create an enemy in your mind first to have an enemy, so don't create enemies for yourself."
So ... I avoided this topic so far, since its not really my cup of beer ... but since there is not much to talk about lately, i got curious.
And i would like to express my agreement with OP.
Also i would like to ask a question: To whoever who find it important for him/her/them (presuming they are willing to answer ofc.) ... is this (set in menu and whole world automaticly follow) really satisfying execution for you? O_o
I mean ... I dont care about pronouns myself, so im not sure if i can imagine it properly ... but it just feels kinda unfinished, doesnt it? I mean, all it would need is to add single sentence for out Tav where he corects that pronoun and one reaction from NPC ... either nod, or "apologies", or "if you say so" ... that doesnt seem so hard. O_o
And yes, im aware that Larian needs to make some compromises, in order to keep development cost in black numbers ... so, if this is "not ideal but acceptable" im familiar with that concept.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
To whoever who find it important for him/her/them (presuming they are willing to answer ofc.) ... is this (set in menu and whole world automaticly follow) really satisfying execution for you? O_o
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, while I’m not trans myself, I do think it’s important for an RPG like BG3 in 2023 to engage with the topic of gender identity and the Forgotten Realms setting presents all kinds of interesting potential for doing so. Simply giving players the option to select an identity and any body type (which is what it looks like from the updated CC in the release date trailer) and then having NPCs using the identity selected for pronouns and other gendered language isn’t pointless, as it least prompts some thinking about the topic on the parts of developers and players and enables some limited but still interesting opportunities to roleplay characters whose gender identity isn’t straightforward. But if that turned out to be the sum total of what we get in the full game when it comes to engagement with themes of gender identity, I’d see that as disappointing and a huge missed opportunity.
I already indicated earlier in this thread some of the things I thought the game could do if it wanted, so I’ll not go into that any further unless anyone particularly wants to talk about it in more detail.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I get mad whenever a post like this gets locked before I can crack a joke.
Well, it’s been open for three months now and though it’s skirted closer than I’d like once or twice, I see no need for it to get locked as long as we engage in good faith and without casting shade on each other or anyone else, which it feels like most folk here are up for. And we very rarely ban topics here, which I think is great as I don’t believe discussion of any aspect of BG3 should be off limits. To be frank, we’re probably more likely to suspend or ban users who can’t manage to engage constructively on game-related topics with others who don’t share their views than we are to block the topics themselves.
You’d probably have been safe. (:Winces, and hopes she didn’t speak too soon:)
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I get mad whenever a post like this gets locked before I can crack a joke.
Well, it’s been open for three months now and though it’s skirted closer than I’d like once or twice, I see no need for it to get locked as long as we engage in good faith and without casting shade on each other or anyone else, which it feels like most folk here are up for. And we very rarely ban topics here, which I think is great as I don’t believe discussion of any aspect of BG3 should be off limits. To be frank, we’re probably more likely to suspend or ban users who can’t manage to engage constructively on game-related topics with others who don’t share their views than we are to block the topics themselves.
You’d probably have been safe. (:Winces, and hopes she didn’t speak too soon:)
I’m a big fan of the inclusivity being brought forth here by Larian but Perhaps they should first fix some of the many glaring and game breaking problems such as stealth or wizards being able to scribe cleric spells or sorcerers getting two non cantrip spell casts a turn before they delve into the finer details of sex and gender in the forgotten realms.
I get mad whenever a post like this gets locked before I can crack a joke.
Well, it’s been open for three months now and though it’s skirted closer than I’d like once or twice, I see no need for it to get locked as long as we engage in good faith and without casting shade on each other or anyone else, which it feels like most folk here are up for. And we very rarely ban topics here, which I think is great as I don’t believe discussion of any aspect of BG3 should be off limits. To be frank, we’re probably more likely to suspend or ban users who can’t manage to engage constructively on game-related topics with others who don’t share their views than we are to block the topics themselves.
You’d probably have been safe. (:Winces, and hopes she didn’t speak too soon:)
Oh, well now we HAVE to have a flame war. :P
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
I’m a big fan of the inclusivity being brought forth here by Larian but Perhaps they should first fix some of the many glaring and game breaking problems such as stealth or wizards being able to scribe cleric spells or sorcerers getting two non cantrip spell casts a turn before they delve into the finer details of sex and gender in the forgotten realms.
Baby steps before you walk
I’m greedy. I want it all!
That said, I think most of the things I’d want to see with respect to exploration of gender are more dialogue, story and plot related rather than requiring different game mechanics, so there shouldn’t be any competition for resources with the things you mention anyway. Though admittedly there are things Larian could potentially do with respect to this topic that are more complex, and they decide not to prioritise as a result of limited resources. That’s understandable, but a BG3 with perfect gameplay and implementation of D&D rules but whose stories didn’t engage me because all the effort had gone into the former would be more of a disappointment to me personally than a game with what I saw as interesting characters, stories and roleplay potential but some slightly wobbly mechanics. It’s a balancing act, isn’t it?
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I’m a big fan of the inclusivity being brought forth here by Larian but Perhaps they should first fix some of the many glaring and game breaking problems such as stealth or wizards being able to scribe cleric spells or sorcerers getting two non cantrip spell casts a turn before they delve into the finer details of sex and gender in the forgotten realms.
Baby steps before you walk
Wizards can only scribe wizard scrolls as of Patch 8 or 9. Keep in mind that there are probably a lot of things fixed in the full game that are not in the EA framework.
Third person gendered pronouns are never going to be used in BG3. For starters, you don’t use them in direct dialogue, you use I and you.
Secondly I can only remember one instance when you overhear NPCs talking about a PC and the goblins call him Blade of Frontiers. Kethric Thorm calls us True Soul; Larian is taking the efficient route of titles and honorifics.
Thirdly, when we talk about npcs, we use _their_ gender pronouns or names.
Should an NPC call us a gendered title of sir or ma’am, that’s about all we’ll hear from gender identity toggle.
Third person gendered pronouns are never going to be used in BG3. For starters, you don’t use them in direct dialogue, you use I and you.
Secondly I can only remember one instance when you overhear NPCs talking about a PC and the goblins call him Blade of Frontiers. Kethric Thorm calls us True Soul; Larian is taking the efficient route of titles and honorifics.
Thirdly, when we talk about npcs, we use _their_ gender pronouns or names.
Should an NPC call us a gendered title of sir or ma’am, that’s about all we’ll hear from gender identity toggle.
True, in English it’s rare to come across instances in BG3 where the identity selected makes a difference as currently implemented. I think I’ve seen folk mention that in some other languages the gender of the protagonist might make more of a difference to the dialogue, though I’m one of those stereotypical English-speakers who have never managed to become anything close to fluent in another language so I’m not going to embarrass myself by trying to work out what those differences might be.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
There is that scene after Astarion reveals his secret where everyone comments on him. That's about as much of a group conversation we've got. Even then, they each say closed dialogue lines and don't expand on each other, so no need to use 3rd person pronouns. I'll pay this scene attention next playthrough.
Is there anyone here who toggled different gender to sex in a play through? I wonder in which scenes BG3 implements this?
There are plentiful addresses by pronoun/gendered title, though:
- the looters at the ruined temple of Jergal when the conversation results in combat; - Aradin when responding to the PC mentioning how it'd be a good idea to leave the grove as soon as possible (mentioned in my essay thing on account of him throwing slurs at tieflings but making sure to they/them the player character...); - Edowin as he's dying; - Goblins in the Moonhaven ambush; - Rugan; - Dror (again, the whole "villains are doing villain things but make sure to get your pronouns right" moment, invoking the new Call of Duty: Black Ops flashbacks of all things); - Drow-specific dialogue with goblins and the petrified party in the Underdark; - the myconids (of all creatures out there, you'd think that they would care about gender the least and just address everyone as "it" or "they");
Those are the ones that immediately come to mind, anyway. So it's not exactly something that's being avoided entirely (the dialogue will feel at times very artificial if it were - like in the recent Game-That-Must-Not-Be-Named which had just went with perhaps the cheapest route and used "they" and "gentleperson" (which is a neologism, no?) no matter the player's choice - though only in English text/voiceover, which says a few things all by itself). At least that's what it seems like to a non-native speaker - and honestly, the discourse and the culture wars related to the game in question are a lot more entertaining and showcasing of just how little nuance there is to the more radical representatives of both sides than the game itself, which is as mediocre as it gets. It was a showcase in how easy it is to ride the controversy wave and sell even something as unassuming to people in this day and age, though...
BG3 has an advantage is that it's only voiced in English, which means that the voice-acting costs caused by having to adapt to languages that actually have gendered words are non-existent. But there's still need to translate the texts, and I've touched upon the shakiness of the concept of "non-binary" outside of English already in an earlier post. Should actually take a look at what the sentences that use "they" are like between different languages - the update did say that it's only for English for the time being (hm...), but there were the item descriptions for the lightning set which could be worth a gander to see how it holds up.
Nope, it’s a word I think of as very old fashioned. In fact, I’ve just checked and according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the first known use was in 1597 . Not that there’s anything wrong with neologisms or changes to language, either.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Even Shakespeare used 'they', though I suspect, while gentleperson isn't a neologism, its use is probably anachronistic. As most uses of the word 'gender' are in period pieces.
There's nothing new under the Sun. Take Thon for instance. Instead of trying to second guess these things, just understand everyone's vocabulary is peculiar and idiomatic to themselves. We're constantly trying new things out, they either thrive, die on the vine; or become fossilized as a kind of political statement.
I think more apropos, culture is usually pretty static in fantasy, the one in FR seemed pretty staid at least, it isn't a living entity because it's supposed to take on a life of its own after the fact. Which is why any kind of shift in the world undergoes this kind of scrutiny. It doesn't help that WotC has been pretty up front that these changes have little to do with any artistic impulse, it's to make D&D more marketable, or at the very least, stop it showing up as the butt of so many clickbait articles.
I think a VP recently said that Dark Sun has been shelved because slavery is too problematic a concept to deal.
the one in FR seemed pretty staid at least, it isn't a living entity because it's supposed to take on a life of its own after the fact. Which is why any kind of shift in the world undergoes this kind of scrutiny. It doesn't help that WotC has been pretty up front that these changes have little to do with any artistic impulse, it's to make D&D more marketable, or at the very least, stop it showing up as the butt of so many clickbait articles.
It’s interesting you say the FR isn’t a living entity, because I have the opposite impression. I freely admit I’m only an occasional visitor through cRPGs and the odd novel and comic book, but Faerun for one seems to have undergone massive changes as well as over a hundred years’ of in-game time. Of course, we know that the out-of-universe explanation for many of these shifts are updates to game versions including updated lore, rulesets and responding to the changing social context, but while some changes have been more successful than others, that the changes are in service to the D&D game rather than internal artistic logic doesn’t seem to me a necessarily bad thing given that’s mainly what the setting is for. The trick for the developers is to try to give in universe rationales for changes that (okay) have actually been made for other reasons, which personally I find kind of fun.
I know some folk will miss the old days of the FR, but whatever is behind it I actually enjoy the feeling of time having passed in the game world and, purely from a BG3 player perspective, my hope is we’ll get more of it as it makes the world feel more real. I think there’s lots of potential given we’re revisiting the locations of BG1 a century or so later for giving us that sense of some things having undergone the shifts and changes you’d expect in society and other things still being the same.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
To whoever who find it important for him/her/them (presuming they are willing to answer ofc.) ... is this (set in menu and whole world automaticly follow) really satisfying execution for you? O_o
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, while I’m not trans myself, I do think it’s important for an RPG like BG3 in 2023 to engage with the topic of gender identity and the Forgotten Realms setting presents all kinds of interesting potential for doing so. Simply giving players the option to select an identity and any body type (which is what it looks like from the updated CC in the release date trailer) and then having NPCs using the identity selected for pronouns and other gendered language isn’t pointless, as it least prompts some thinking about the topic on the parts of developers and players and enables some limited but still interesting opportunities to roleplay characters whose gender identity isn’t straightforward. But if that turned out to be the sum total of what we get in the full game when it comes to engagement with themes of gender identity, I’d see that as disappointing and a huge missed opportunity.
I already indicated earlier in this thread some of the things I thought the game could do if it wanted, so I’ll not go into that any further unless anyone particularly wants to talk about it in more detail.
Maybe im reading it wrong ... but i dont feel like you are answering my question. O_o
Im asking if curent execution is sufficient ... While you talking (or at least thats how im reading it) about it being important for some people to have option to use corect pronouns ... Thats different topic.
Im not against it at all ... I just wonder if this feels good to people who cares about it, bcs (just as with so called "evil races") i preffer to either do things properly, or not at all. And all i wonder is if im the only one with this mindset here.
Lets use an example: I create a Masculine Half-Orc with long, thick beard ... 2m high, 120kg weight, all muscle no fat ... by all standards pure Testosteron body ... ok? Now i decide that he ... well, actually she ... identify as a Female ... And from this point on, every NPC in the world will automaticly reffer to her with Female pronouns.
It just feels weird ... not bcs that Half-Orc indentify as a Female, since i dont give a damn about that ... But bcs whole world know and automaticly decides to respect it!
And so i would like to know if anyone who would concider creating such Female Half-Orc ... feels like such execution is acceptable.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Oh, well now we HAVE to have a flame war. :P
I would like to bet 5 Gold on blue one, please.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Well, my ill-conceived research efforts are back in action.
Here's a collection of four descriptions of one of the lightning items, in English, German, Polish and Russian (those being the languages that I have at least a degree of knowledge in):
In English we have a "they" - have had ever since these were added and the Lenore/Yrre backstory was expanded upon - in reference to said Yrre. However, the three translations all seem to agree upon Yrre being male:
-in German they use the masculine pronoun "er". -in Polish it's the masculine possesive pronoun "swój", meaning "his", rather than "swója", which would have stood for "her", for example. -in Russian it's also every masculine form for verbs and pronouns ("получил", "его" - "got his").
Interesting, given how people seemed to agree on Yrre being female on Steam forums at least, meaning that what could have canonically been a lesbian couple is being interpreted differently by translators all thanks to the lack of clarity introduced by "they". So much for representation.
Maybe im reading it wrong ... but i dont feel like you are answering my question. O_o
Im asking if curent execution is sufficient ...
Yes, I think that’s what the OP is asking too, and it’s a fair question. I’ve feel like I’ve given my own personal take in this thread already, so if you want a different kind of answer I think we’re going to be reliant on someone else with different preferences. But in case it’s just miscommunication, the short answer from my perspective is that what we have is better than nothing, but no I don’t think it’s sufficient.
I don’t, however, have any particularly strong views about the fact that the current implementation means it’s possible to create a character that would look quintessentially male but would automatically be referred to as “she†by all NPCs, which is why I didn’t comment on that. I feel like I might already have said this earlier in this thread, but personally I’m happy to handwave that particular incongruity and/or play trans characters that I feel can be handled by the game in ways I’m happy to accept. And has been mentioned, in English the gender of the PC is referred to so rarely that I personally don’t feel it’s particularly jarring. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t better or different ways of handling presentation that doesn’t “match†gender identity, and of course others may well be less happy to compromise on the limits the current implementation could be considered to place on the types of trans characters one can plausibly create.
I do like the suggestion of a more androgynous body shape that Brainer made, though that doesn’t go anywhere to solve the issue of trans characters who don’t have such a body like your trans half-orc. I’d be more than happy to discuss what improvements could be made that could make roleplaying such characters more realistic, but don’t personally have any suggestions that I feel are workable and would be a significant improvement.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
what we have is better than nothing, but no I don’t think it’s sufficient.
That was my thoughts aswell ... thank you.
Originally Posted by The Red Queen
I don’t, however, have any particularly strong views about the fact that the current implementation means it’s possible to create a character that would look quintessentially male but would automatically be referred to as “she†by all NPCs
Well, it was just an example ... I picked this combination of body and identity, bcs its easier to point out ... but if you pick neutral pronoun, its just as weird that everyone in the world automaticly know that you dont like to being called anything else.
Originally Posted by The Red Queen
in English the gender of the PC is referred to so rarely that I personally don’t feel it’s particularly jarring.
Ha, lucky English.
Im Czech, as stated in the past ... we have different mindset i would say ... bcs in my language, gender of both speaker and person who is talked about affects orthography(?) of the rest of the sentence. Even tho i must admit that for many younger people such nuances are lost and they stubbornly refuse to learn those rules. But on the other hand, sometimes its funny when they create sentence where person changed gender every two words.
Originally Posted by The Red Queen
I’d be more than happy to discuss what improvements could be made that could make roleplaying such characters more realistic, but don’t personally have any suggestions that I feel are workable and would be a significant improvement.
It heavily depends on what would people want ...
I mean, if *i* would want to create trans character, i would have simmilar aproach to it as with "evil race" ... Point of playing an evil race (for me) is to experience prejudices ... you dont really want them to expect you to be Good Drow ... you want them to expect you to be Evil Drow, and then persuate (or prooven) them to be wrong. Simmilar ... i wouldnt want them to expect me to be whatever i pick in character creation ... i would want them to presume that im what they see, and have option to corect them.
But since i can imagine some people can be quite frustrated from this ... i gues it wouldnt add much to the game experience. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 19/03/2311:35 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Interesting, given how people seemed to agree on Yrre being female on Steam forums at least, meaning that what could have canonically been a lesbian couple is being interpreted differently by translators all thanks to the lack of clarity introduced by "they". So much for representation.
Huh? I thought Yrre was male and believed I was paying attention to the Lenore plot. (I think it'll expand on in full release.)
That may be due to number of same-sex deep gnome relationships we encounter in BG3. Once is not noticed, 2 is, and 3 (or 4) establishes a pattern. Depending on when you learn about Yrre might explain player assumption.
Simmilar ... i wouldnt want them to expect me to be whatever i pick in character creation ... i would want them to presume that im what they see, and have option to corect them.
But since i can imagine some people can be quite frustrated from this ... i gues it wouldnt add much to the game experience. :-/
Yep, that’s kind of where I got to as well, and why I said I couldn’t think of a workable significant improvement on the current approach, particularly when you add in the complexity of having to then determine for each appearance what gender they “look like†which might be obvious in some cases but less so in others. Particularly some of the female faces read as relatively androgynous to me, and even with the current female body model, if the NPC is wearing armour that de-emphasises their curves and doesn’t have a “feminine†hairstyle then different characters might jump to different conclusions about their gender. And that’s using my real world assumptions, which for all we know might differ from Toril’s. Only difference is, I’m not sure that I’d say that I’d “want†NPCs to assume my character’s gender based on their appearance so much as thinking it would probably be more realistic in some circumstances so I can see the potential benefit, as well as the possible frustration you also mention.
Oh, and yes I can see that in a language like Czech, if it is more often going to be obvious what gender NPCs are assuming your PC is, this is going to take on greater importance. It is lucky for me that in English it’s easier to fudge, though I think in other languages it would be easier still. I think I’ve heard Finnish doesn’t even use gendered personal pronouns?
Btw, do we have any indication from canon sources whether and how Faerun’s various languages, and specifically Common (which I guess we’re meant to be speaking in BG3) approach gender when it comes to pronouns or grammar more generally? I guess one way of handwaving oddities with respect to gendered language might be to say they’re due to imperfections in translations into our Earth languages from Common, though even as I say that it’s not sounding particularly convincing!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Rag, I'm not trans so I can't give the best answer to your question but for my general thoughts on the matter... it's complicated. Personally when it comes to the various -isms, my opinion is that a property shouldn't include it 'just because' or for the sake of a nebulous idea of realism. I'm of the opinion that for games in partcular, the best bet is probably to ere on the side of inclusivity unless it breaks the setting or story in some significant way. I think that if you're going to have isms in a game, then the game should address them in some way, they should serve some narrative or setting purpose. Obviously there are degrees of this, but it's in my opinion, a rule of thumb that's probably a good approach.
As you say, for some people playing characters whose gender identity doesn't match their gender presentation, being repeatedly misgendered and having to correct others would be frustrating. Hell, I'd venture to guess that MOST players would find that frustrating purely because it's a tedious chore taking away from the point of the story. And while that could be an interesting way of putting cis players in the shoes of trans people with regard to that particular lived experience, I think it's not worth it for a game that's not really trying to be about weighty real world issues in that way. Obviously if the game wants to actually say something about heavy issues then it's free to do so, but if it's not trying to say anything, then I don't think those things actually improve the work. Game of Thrones works with all its violence and abuse, inequality, etc because fundamentally its a story about power, what it does to people who have it, how far people are willing to go to get it, etc. So things like rape, slavery, racism, etc belong there as it all contributes to those themes, the conflicts of power and powerlessness and the horrors absolute power brings. In dragon age: Origins, the city elf origin involves a bunch of lords kidnapping elven women to rape and probably kill. That story fits because it's part of the tapestry of elven subjugation and abuse, an aspect of the worldbuilding that the game actively engages with repeatedly and unapologetically. A plot point like that in BG3 would feel gratuitous and out of place because it's thus far, not a game that's trying to thoughtfully engage with such topics.
So I think that while there's stuff to clear up and improve with Larian's implementation, I don't think going too far in-depth with regard to 'realistic' reactions would ultimately be in the game's best interests. It might even come off as a bit arbitrary, since you can play any race (in the real world idea of the word) and you can play as a man or woman without dealing with realistic prejudices that occur in our world either.
Personally when it comes to the various -isms, my opinion is that a property shouldn't include it 'just because' or for the sake of a nebulous idea of realism … As you say, for some people playing characters whose gender identity doesn't match their gender presentation, being repeatedly misgendered and having to correct others would be frustrating.
I’d definitely agree that having our characters face random transphobia or intentional misgendering isn’t something that I’d want. And I have no idea whether that would be realistic or whether transphobia is a thing in Faerun. I wonder if this is addressed somewhere in official media? My guess would be that in a society where there are fewer gender norms and no historic power imbalance between men and women, there’d also be less stigma attached to gender non-conformity of different kinds and so people on the Sword Coast would be less likely to be transphobic or blink at contravening what few gender norms there seem to be (eg around dress). Whereas I could easily imagine that Lolth-sworn drow society would frown heavily on those it saw as transgressing gender norms, given its entrenched power differential between males and females. I’ve no idea if it’s actually true that there’s a connection between sexism and transphobia (feels like that is something that there’s probably some real world evidence for or against), but personally, I think both sides of that might be amongst the interesting things that the story could engage with and add a new dimension to, and possibly take some heat out of, due to the fantasy setting. But I don’t think that simply having some characters misgender our characters would be a good way of going about it.
But yes, even if people aren’t transphobic, they still might misgender us just from not knowing from looking us what our gender is, and we might want to correct at least some of those people (personally, I don’t think I’d bother if I was intending to kill them immediately afterwards, for example!). And I agree that the net benefit of including a mechanic for this in the game isn’t obvious and it could easily just be frustrating, and that any changes would need to have a tangible benefit that adds to the experience and story.
It sounds like we might disagree on how much potential BG3 and the Forgotten Realms have for thoughtfully engaging with themes of gender and other weighty matters (I think there’s a lot), though I think we’re very much in agreement that what Larian has so far implemented doesn’t constitute such thoughtful engagement, and that any such engagement should be purposeful and add to the story or world building.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Maybe im reading it wrong ... but i dont feel like you are answering my question. O_o
Im asking if curent execution is sufficient ...
Yes, I think that’s what the OP is asking too, and it’s a fair question. I’ve feel like I’ve given my own personal take in this thread already, so if you want a different kind of answer I think we’re going to be reliant on someone else with different preferences. But in case it’s just miscommunication, the short answer from my perspective is that what we have is better than nothing, but no I don’t think it’s sufficient.
I don’t, however, have any particularly strong views about the fact that the current implementation means it’s possible to create a character that would look quintessentially male but would automatically be referred to as “she†by all NPCs, which is why I didn’t comment on that. I feel like I might already have said this earlier in this thread, but personally I’m happy to handwave that particular incongruity and/or play trans characters that I feel can be handled by the game in ways I’m happy to accept. And has been mentioned, in English the gender of the PC is referred to so rarely that I personally don’t feel it’s particularly jarring. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t better or different ways of handling presentation that doesn’t “match†gender identity, and of course others may well be less happy to compromise on the limits the current implementation could be considered to place on the types of trans characters one can plausibly create.
I do like the suggestion of a more androgynous body shape that Brainer made, though that doesn’t go anywhere to solve the issue of trans characters who don’t have such a body like your trans half-orc. I’d be more than happy to discuss what improvements could be made that could make roleplaying such characters more realistic, but don’t personally have any suggestions that I feel are workable and would be a significant improvement.
I have some members of my Guild that are trans - if you like I can reach out to them and see if they are willing to discuss this.
My personal thought/experience is that it's a really thoughtful and inclusive step that Larian has taken. So bravo to them. You can, - of course- always do more. What I have heard is that it would be nice to have some better body types and I agree on that. Fat, thin, muscular, androgynous, old - the more the better.
However, I was also thinking about Ellie from the last of Us Show played by Bella Ramsey. Bella identifies as non-binary and she plays Ellie that way. If you notice her stance and posture is very masculine, she takes up space, she stands with her legs apart, she hunches her back and drops her shoulders forward. There is more, but that's the kind of stuff I caught - she just has a very masculine way of moving and positioning herself. It would be amazing if that could also be part of it.
I have some members of my Guild that are trans - if you like I can reach out to them and see if they are willing to discuss this.
I certainly think the debate here would benefit from hearing their perspective on what has been implemented and what more they’d like to see - and what they’d want the game to avoid. More importantly, I’m sure Larian would benefit from hearing their views. But then if they’re already members of your guild they might have already provided that feedback via other routes, and I’d not want to put anyone out for the sake of educating a few strangers on the internet. But if any of them could be bothered to share a few thoughts on what Larian have and haven’t done then I for one would appreciate it.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
However, I was also thinking about Ellie from the last of Us Show played by Bella Ramsey. Bella identifies as non-binary and she plays Ellie that way. If you notice her stance and posture is very masculine, she takes up space, she stands with her legs apart, she hunches her back and drops her shoulders forward. There is more, but that's the kind of stuff I caught - she just has a very masculine way of moving and positioning herself. It would be amazing if that could also be part of it.
I can see what you’re saying here but I also think it’s the kind of thing that Larian would have to be very careful about. For example, why might taking up space appear masculine to us? Might that be because of gender conditioning in our societies that consciously or unconsciously encourages women not to assert themselves physically? And if so, would that carry over into a world which doesn’t have the same gender norms? Done wrongly, having non female identifying characters in the game adopt a posture we’d view as masculine could possibly be perceived as perpetuating unhealthy gender stereotypes. But I also agree that more options for posture and gait could really help bring our characters to life, and as long as those options weren’t locked to gender identity then that would probably avoid potential issues. I know I would want the option to pick a more confident, swaggering pose for a cis female character if I wanted. And possibly a more contained one for a cis male, though admittedly my first thought was the former as I do more frequently play female characters.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
To whoever who find it important for him/her/them (presuming they are willing to answer ofc.) ... is this (set in menu and whole world automaticly follow) really satisfying execution for you? O_o
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, while I’m not trans myself, I do think it’s important for an RPG like BG3 in 2023 to engage with the topic of gender identity and the Forgotten Realms setting presents all kinds of interesting potential for doing so. Simply giving players the option to select an identity and any body type (which is what it looks like from the updated CC in the release date trailer) and then having NPCs using the identity selected for pronouns and other gendered language isn’t pointless, as it least prompts some thinking about the topic on the parts of developers and players and enables some limited but still interesting opportunities to roleplay characters whose gender identity isn’t straightforward. But if that turned out to be the sum total of what we get in the full game when it comes to engagement with themes of gender identity, I’d see that as disappointing and a huge missed opportunity.
I already indicated earlier in this thread some of the things I thought the game could do if it wanted, so I’ll not go into that any further unless anyone particularly wants to talk about it in more detail.
Maybe im reading it wrong ... but i dont feel like you are answering my question. O_o
Im asking if curent execution is sufficient ... While you talking (or at least thats how im reading it) about it being important for some people to have option to use corect pronouns ... Thats different topic.
Im not against it at all ... I just wonder if this feels good to people who cares about it, bcs (just as with so called "evil races") i preffer to either do things properly, or not at all. And all i wonder is if im the only one with this mindset here.
Lets use an example: I create a Masculine Half-Orc with long, thick beard ... 2m high, 120kg weight, all muscle no fat ... by all standards pure Testosteron body ... ok? Now i decide that he ... well, actually she ... identify as a Female ... And from this point on, every NPC in the world will automaticly reffer to her with Female pronouns.
It just feels weird ... not bcs that Half-Orc indentify as a Female, since i dont give a damn about that ... But bcs whole world know and automaticly decides to respect it!
And so i would like to know if anyone who would concider creating such Female Half-Orc ... feels like such execution is acceptable.
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Oh, well now we HAVE to have a flame war. :P
I would like to bet 5 Gold on blue one, please.
The dilemma with this for me is that you could also create an inhuman looking, green skinned alien... and the worst outcome is being mistaken for a githyanki... but, you're not.
For games judging appearance, I would like to mention: 1. The dating app for cis women. Only, it kept clocking cis women as male :P (bonus racism points for big nose = male!) 2. Restricting appearance choices by gender leads to "female hair" and other interesting inventions
Personally, the threat of someone, somewhere, making a non passing trans woman is not particularly threatening?
Who knows. Maybe she has a magic necklace. Or that shape shifting helmet every player of early access is rewarded with.
Well, my ill-conceived research efforts are back in action.
Here's a collection of four descriptions of one of the lightning items, in English, German, Polish and Russian (those being the languages that I have at least a degree of knowledge in):
In English we have a "they" - have had ever since these were added and the Lenore/Yrre backstory was expanded upon - in reference to said Yrre. However, the three translations all seem to agree upon Yrre being male:
-in German they use the masculine pronoun "er". -in Polish it's the masculine possesive pronoun "swój", meaning "his", rather than "swója", which would have stood for "her", for example. -in Russian it's also every masculine form for verbs and pronouns ("получил", "его" - "got his").
Interesting, given how people seemed to agree on Yrre being female on Steam forums at least, meaning that what could have canonically been a lesbian couple is being interpreted differently by translators all thanks to the lack of clarity introduced by "they". So much for representation.
That's interesting. Cultural nuance of the language will unfortunately change the game. German has no true they/them. Consequently, nonbinary German people usually expect people to choose er or sie.
Nonbinary people are far less accepted in German speaking countries. I suspect that is because there /is/ a third option. One that is seen as dehumanizing, animal. It/its (es) pronouns are the direct English equivalent.
I don't know about Russian, but a game involving LGBT people is liable to being banned. Larian may need to Sailor Moon through pronouns. No, sir, that is not a lesbian couple! It's a manly man and his wife...
Those two men over there? Cousins. You don't sleep in the same bed as your cousin? Sounds like a "you" problem to me, pal!
having to then determine for each appearance what gender they “look like†which might be obvious in some cases but less so in others.
Seems legit ... After all, Gimli himself (yes, i know Lots is different setting ... im also quite aware that Rings of Power redconed this) claimed that many people cant see any difference between male and female Dwarves ...
But in such cases, there are neutral pronouns right?
Question is, if Larian would be capable to tune it well enough to not "cross the line" ... then again, looking at oathbreaking conditions, maybe it will be better to leave this Padora's box closed. :-/
Originally Posted by The Red Queen
Btw, do we have any indication from canon sources whether and how Faerun’s various languages, and specifically Common (which I guess we’re meant to be speaking in BG3) approach gender when it comes to pronouns or grammar more generally?
I allways presumed common = english. Probably american english, since thats where WotC are from, right?
---
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Rag, I'm not trans so I can't give the best answer to your question
Quite honesstly i dont think person have to be trans themselves to have opinion about this ... Im not either ... and it catched my atention. (Even tho its true that most of my characters are Females ... but i usualy just like their models more. )
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Hell, I'd venture to guess that MOST players would find that frustrating
Well, that can easily be avoided by making it optional setting.
Sure, that would raise a question if such mechanic is even necesary, and how many people would actually apreciate it ... but i would dare to say: That is as usualy not in our power to figure out here.
Also ... let be brutally honest for a second, the same question could be raised to whole indentity picking. :-/
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
the one in FR seemed pretty staid at least, it isn't a living entity because it's supposed to take on a life of its own after the fact. Which is why any kind of shift in the world undergoes this kind of scrutiny. It doesn't help that WotC has been pretty up front that these changes have little to do with any artistic impulse, it's to make D&D more marketable, or at the very least, stop it showing up as the butt of so many clickbait articles.
It’s interesting you say the FR isn’t a living entity, because I have the opposite impression. I freely admit I’m only an occasional visitor through cRPGs and the odd novel and comic book, but Faerun for one seems to have undergone massive changes as well as over a hundred years’ of in-game time. Of course, we know that the out-of-universe explanation for many of these shifts are updates to game versions including updated lore, rulesets and responding to the changing social context, but while some changes have been more successful than others, that the changes are in service to the D&D game rather than internal artistic logic doesn’t seem to me a necessarily bad thing given that’s mainly what the setting is for. The trick for the developers is to try to give in universe rationales for changes that (okay) have actually been made for other reasons, which personally I find kind of fun.
I was referring mostly to the cultures of the Forgotten Realms, but if you're referring to the in-universe edition reboots, I don't see how they've really changed the world a great deal, maybe it was more pronounced in 4th edition, the edition I paid the least attention to. Looking at any corner of the world I don't think a great deal has changed in the cultures involved, all the cities and their people have the same characteristics. Apart from moving some deities around or hand waving some of the mechanical aspects of magic, the setting still exits with the same medieval-ish fantasy technology and culture, with certain regions taking on aspects of different time periods depending on which genre the game wants to veer into. Despite its catastrophic influence on the setting, I've learned more about the Spellplague and the Dark Weave from these forums than I ever did reading about the setting directly from the source.
Of course I could be wrong, but I still haven't seen a lot of evidence to the contrary.
I haven't read any of the books, so I have to assume their influence on the setting is minimal apart from the occasional cameo in adventure modules.
As for working backwards from a publishing initiative to its in-universe justification. I read comic books where this sort of thing happens regularly, if you have a good writer it can be satisfying, if not, well the term retro-active continuity was coined there for a reason. I'm afraid I don't think the stable of writers working for D&D right now are capable or care enough to work these changes into the narrative. As was mentioned in maybe another thread, its coming in flavor text, blurbs, and errata.
Btw, do we have any indication from canon sources whether and how Faerun’s various languages, and specifically Common (which I guess we’re meant to be speaking in BG3) approach gender when it comes to pronouns or grammar more generally?
I allways presumed common = english. Probably american english, since thats where WotC are from, right?
Well, according to the FR wiki “Common was little more than a trade language; that is, it was not useful for complicated topics. It was simple and not very expressive as a languageâ€. I’m not going to comment on whether that means it could or couldn’t be English, or a cut down version thereof.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Sure, that would raise a question if such mechanic is even necesary, and how many people would actually apreciate it ... but i would dare to say: That is as usualy not in our power to figure out here.
Also ... let be brutally honest for a second, the same question could be raised to whole indentity picking. :-/
The same question could be raised of many, many things in the game (and in fact I have seen it raised on these very forums about many things, from explicit sex scenes to murdering tiefling children to voiced protagonists). As you say, that’s not really in our power to answer here and all we can do is say what we would like to see, if we in fact have a preference.
Personally, I do have a preference for being able to represent PCs as trans or non-binary in the game, and am already planning to use that functionality for at least a couple of my expected BG3 playthroughs. I would very definitely be disappointed if we had less than what Larian has already shown us.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Btw, do we have any indication from canon sources whether and how Faerun’s various languages, and specifically Common (which I guess we’re meant to be speaking in BG3) approach gender when it comes to pronouns or grammar more generally?
I allways presumed common = english. Probably american english, since thats where WotC are from, right?
Well, according to the FR wiki “Common was little more than a trade language; that is, it was not useful for complicated topics. It was simple and not very expressive as a languageâ€. I’m not going to comment on whether that means it could or couldn’t be English, or a cut down version thereof.
It's definitely not English. There is no language like common in real life. Technically, everyone speaks their native language, even humans, who have regional languages like Alzhedo (which is spoken in Calimshan, Amn, Chult, and many other places) and Illuski (which is spoken in the Luskan region and the Moonshae Isles). Common's linguistical parent is Thorass, which is a Human language that was spoken in western Faerun in ancient times.
But this isn't good for streamlining gameplay, so mechanically, everyone speaks Commonspeech. It's like currency. Technically most city states and regions have their own currency, complete with different naming conventions, but this isn't good for streamlining gameplay, so mechanically everyone just has gold, silver, copper, etc.
It sounds like we might disagree on how much potential BG3 and the Forgotten Realms have for thoughtfully engaging with themes of gender and other weighty matters (I think there’s a lot), though I think we’re very much in agreement that what Larian has so far implemented doesn’t constitute such thoughtful engagement, and that any such engagement should be purposeful and add to the story or world building.
I think there's certainly potential to engage in weighty themes in terms of both the Forgotten Realms and BG3. The forgotten realms are a setting that I don't know much about (and neither Larian nor WotC seem interested in changing that) and as a setting given to players, I'm sure it's capable of engaging in all sorts of themes. As for BG3 in particular, I think it certainly has the potential, but I don't believe Larian theselves have interest in or are really capable of engaging in such weighty matters themselves. Certainly nothing I've seen in EA makes me think otherwise.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
[quote=The Red Queen]having to then determine for each appearance what gender they “look like†which might be obvious in some cases but less so in others.
Seems legit ... After all, Gimli himself (yes, i know Lots is different setting ... im also quite aware that Rings of Power redconed this) claimed that many people cant see any difference between male and female Dwarves ...
But in such cases, there are neutral pronouns right?
Question is, if Larian would be capable to tune it well enough to not "cross the line" ... then again, looking at oathbreaking conditions, maybe it will be better to leave this Padora's box closed. :-/
I'm curious if it's possible to tune this at all? By my very minor knowledge of programming, I would imagine that it would require assigning some kind of masculine-feminine value to every character creation trait that the game would have to add-up to determine when characters will or won't misgender you. That feels like it's opening a pretty massive can of worms on pretty much every level. Firstly, the subjectivity present in the real world regarding what is and isn't masculine alone makes that a fraught task. Then there's what is and isn't masculine within the setting, which in a setting full of varying races is even more complex. What's masculine for an elf and for a dwarf already are hugely divergent so you have to account for not only the appearance of the player themselves, but also the character in question from a racial and cultural perspective - a half-elf raised among elves will probably have a different perspective than a half-elf raised among humans. If you apply a universal standard to every NPC then that introduces a different sort of problem in that you're basically imposing a set gender binary that everybody recognises and accepts. It is a lot of work for a result that is more likely than not to just cause more problems. This is one of those things where I don't think it's worth doing if you're not basing the game around it. Plus as you alluded to, I really don't trust Larian's writers to do this well even if doing it was viable in the first place.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Rag, I'm not trans so I can't give the best answer to your question
Quite honesstly i dont think person have to be trans themselves to have opinion about this ... Im not either ... and it catched my atention. (Even tho its true that most of my characters are Females ... but i usualy just like their models more. )
Oh I definitely have an opinion, I'm just providing context since my opinion is fundamentally an outsider's view and should be understood as such. Context is King.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Hell, I'd venture to guess that MOST players would find that frustrating
Well, that can easily be avoided by making it optional setting.
Sure, that would raise a question if such mechanic is even necesary, and how many people would actually apreciate it ... but i would dare to say: That is as usualy not in our power to figure out here.
Also ... let be brutally honest for a second, the same question could be raised to whole indentity picking. :-/
Where you and I differ on this subject is that I think this kind of inclusion should be the baseline, and that leaving it out is the thing that needs to be justified, not the other way around. I think in any game that features character creation, you should be able to play as any (real world) race, any gender and have flexibility in a character's gender presentation. I believe games should be getting toa point where not being able to choose gender identity seperate from gender presentation would be as unusual as not being able to choose to be a woman. There are certainly games where choosing your gender is purely an aesthetic choice that barely gets brought up in the game, I see Larian's choice here as an unpolished version of that for including trans characters. A rough start, but still a step in the right direction. But that's a philosophical opinion.
As for making misgendering an optional setting, I've encountered games that provide the option to turn off references to certain triggering topics like sexual assault, but they're rare, and I've never encountered a game that provides the option to turn them ON. My feeling on the matter is that if the game's recognition of a character being specifically trans ends at misgendering, then it's better off not including the misgendering. If recognition of being trans went farther than that, with NPCs actually commiserating with you because of it, maybe getting to share feelings about your experience with it, etc, then go ahead. Being trans involves more than just the possibility of being misgendered, and from a writing standpoint having that be the only time a character's transness is recognized would just be disappointing. I would go so far as to call it a genuine failure on the part of the writers if the only way they could find to make a character's transgender identity matter or be acknowledged within the game world is through something so tedious and negative. To me it betrays a serious lack of imagination, going for the most obvious, low-effort thing and not digging any deeper or putting real effort in.
I would imagine that it would require assigning some kind of masculine-feminine value to every character creation trait
Masculine body > presuming male Feminime body > presuming female Beard - overwrites body > presuming male (maybe except Dwarves)
What other traits would you concider?
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Being trans involves more than just the possibility of being misgendered, and from a writing standpoint having that be the only time a character's transness is recognized would just be disappointing.
I cant honestly imagine anything else ...
But question: If you would find that disapointing, you surely find curent state, when your character gender identity is stated outside of the world ... and whole world knows, accepts, and calls you acordingly ... at best equaly disapointing, right?
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
I would imagine that it would require assigning some kind of masculine-feminine value to every character creation trait
Masculine body > presuming male Feminime body > presuming female Beard - overwrites body > presuming male (maybe except Dwarves)
What other traits would you concider?
Good point, I think I started fantasising about a more in-deoth character creator like DA:I or Skyrim, that we're certainly not going to get. I got a bit ahead of myself there.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Being trans involves more than just the possibility of being misgendered, and from a writing standpoint having that be the only time a character's transness is recognized would just be disappointing.
I cant honestly imagine anything else ...
But question: If you would find that disapointing, you surely find curent state, when your character gender identity is stated outside of the world ... and whole world knows, accepts, and calls you acordingly ... at best equaly disapointing, right?
I fo not, and here is why. There are plenty of games where your gender is pretty much purely cosmetic. Characters don't really acknowledge it beyond calling you he or she, sir or madame, etc. It's the bare minimum of female inclusion and I genuinely think that's fine. Being a woman shouldn't automatically require sweeping, intricate changes. People don't complain that your gender doesn't suitably impact reactions in pokemon, for instance. I don't recall Skyrim having especially complex reactions to female vs male players either. I see Larian's current implementation as an admittedly crude version of that. Like I said, I think this sort of inclusion should be the default and exclusion is what should need justification. So while I of course want the current implementation to be polished, I don't find the aesthetic transness anymore disappointing than the aesthetic gender in pokemon or animal crossing.
Now in contrast, imagine if BG3 let you play as a woman and everything else was the same, but the only difference was that every once in a while, some character would sexually harass you, or make a secret comment. Even if you could opt out via options, isn't that dumb? And it says that the only "interesting" difference the writers could come up with between the genders is harassment and demeaning interactions. Or imagine when we play as gnomes or halflings, if the only difference were occasionally being insulted for our heights and that's all. And I stress 'only' here. No extra NPC interactions beyond that, no story reactions beyond that. If npcs misgendering a trans character were a feature alongside other, deeper reactions and character beats, then I'm all for it. And we do get minor little differences for gender that are more in depth than that anyway, like female drow getting to basically pull rank with that petrified drow wizard to get him to give us his crystal thing. That's a thoughtful interaction that shows they considered the setting and the more complex ways our character might interact with it. But trying to represent the trans experience and just reducing it to being misgendered borders on being insulting in my opinion.
I think the best way I can define the difference is: with the current implementation, Larian isn't trying to tell a trans story, they're trying to tell a fantasy story and give trans people more explicit inclusion in that story. With your suggestion, Larian would be trying to tell a trans story and telling a boring, tedious, low-effort one that reduces being trans to one sort of interaction, as opposed to the myriad story possibilities that could emerge.
Well said, @Gray Ghost. As I’ve mentioned, I do think there are interesting stories about gender identity that can be told in the FR, but ones about having to correct or live with misperceptions of one’s gender don’t jump out to me as being amongst them. If there are folk who (a) really want to play trans characters who they’d consider non-passing and (b) for whom not having that sort of mechanic would be immersion breaking, then that’s something I, and hopefully Larian, would take seriously. But as far as I’m able to tell, the people here who have commented on it here aren’t in that category, though they should of course please correct me if I’m wrong.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I would imagine that it would require assigning some kind of masculine-feminine value to every character creation trait
Masculine body > presuming male Feminime body > presuming female Beard - overwrites body > presuming male (maybe except Dwarves)
What other traits would you concider?
I think we’d also have to consider hairstyles (for all that many hairstyles can be worn by all genders in FR there do seem to some that are more gender-specific), clothing (some clothing - eg barbarian starting gear - will reveal the body shape, whereas other - eg scale male - might disguise it) and face (some faces look to me more masculine and feminine and others more ambiguous).
And if the game is going to introduce the concept of misgendering or passing at all, then I think it’d have to let us create passing trans characters as well as ones that would be more likely be misgendered. The fact that that’s actually tricky to do, partly because of the way clothing is reskinned depending on the body type of the person who dons it, would be one thing that would need to be addressed. But if I think about how I’d try to create a passing elven trans man, for example, in the game now, I’d choose one of the more androgynous elven “female†faces (face 5 for example), select a hairstyle that wasn’t too obviously girly (probably a short one, though I think that’s more to to with my own gender coding than Faerun’s), and put him in one of the armours that hid curves as best as possible given the options we have (scale mail, say). Having done my best given the tools available to create a passing trans man, I’d be annoyed if he was consistently misgendered just because the base body type I’d picked for him happened to have boobs. But if the game somehow was sophisticated enough to recognise this character as passing and have NPCs see him as male or at least non-binary, we then have to consider that someone could create a character who looks exactly the same but as a cis woman. Would or should the game then have her being misgendered?
Plus there’s the complexity of how different NPCs might read gender differently when it’s more ambiguous. It would seem unrealistic to me if they all took the same view, particularly when they were of races that were physically quite different from the PC’s so would probably be less alive to gender cues. In fact, if we are really going to try to be realistic, I’m sure there are some characters and races that would get the genders of our non-trans characters wrong (or wouldn’t bother trying to get the gender right or think about it at all) even if our characters would be very obviously a specific gender to anyone of their own race and culture.
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Question is, if Larian would be capable to tune it well enough to not "cross the line" ... then again, looking at oathbreaking conditions, maybe it will be better to leave this Padora's box closed. :-/
That’s my feeling, yes. In fact, the only way I can see this working is not to have the game try to work out what gender our character looks like, but to let the player decide with yet another option what gender NPCs would consider the PC to be. Or perhaps just use the exact option it seems we will have, which is the “identity†selector.
True, the options we have now don’t let us create a non-passing trans character (or at least don’t show us the effects such a character would in actuality likely have on the way NPCs spoke and acted), and perhaps this is something that could be added. This would require the addition, as we’ve alluded to, of a fair amount of content to represent the gender coding of all NPCs for whom it was relevant (as mentioned, I don’t think it would be reasonable to have this as a blanket option for all), and dialogue options in a variety of places to allow the PC to correct NPCs who misgender them, plus those NPC’s responses. It feels like it would take a lot of thought and work to do really well. And the question we keep coming back to is, does anyone really want such functionality? It doesn’t sound to me necessarily bad (and actually, depending on how it were implemented, I might actually want the opportunity to have it affect my cis characters too) but it’s not something that would make it high up my personal priority list. Unlike the option to create a trans or non-binary character at all, which I agree with Gray Ghost should be the default in this day and age in a game that purports to give players flexibility in character creation.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Actually, now I’ve thought about it more, the place I’d actually start if I were going to try to create a more “realistic†experience for trans characters would first be creating a world in which NPCs more obviously judge gender by appearance, which is not something that I’ve really seen reflected in games I’ve played before, which have tended just to go by the sex/gender the player picks at character creation and not worry about it further. In this sort of setting, suddenly having NPCs become sensitive to gender cues just for trans characters would seem weird and wrong. I feel that a world in which it would make sense to have NPCs respond differently to trans characters would need to be built from the ground up and would need to be one that cis characters would also experience differently.
For example, I’d start by considering how different races, species and cultures would perceive gender of races, species and cultures other than their own. I might, for example, have certain NPCs that would reliably judge the gender of individuals of their own race by appearance but would be more likely to get it wrong for some or all other species. There might be NPCs who for one reason or another, assume any elven PC they meet is female, or male, or just call everyone “they†and don’t try to identify a gender at all or randomly pick or even swap around, and some NPCs might ask if they’re unsure. I might even chuck some more randomness into it, and give each NPC who might try to establish a gender for a PC a DC, which might differ depending on the PC’s race and other factors, and let them roll to see if they got it right. I might then ask the player to specify how typical an example of their gender their character was for their race (regardless of whether that character were trans), perhaps as some sort of slider, and use this information to affect the probability of at least some NPCs of calling it right (most likely those NPCs whose gender norms were most like those of the PC’s race). I’d then create appropriate interactions for when NPCs got the gender of the PC wrong. None of this of course requires an actual trans PC at all, but once this world was created then it would seem less difficult to add them and have NPCs react differently to them because of their appearance without this feeling forced and strange. The player would just do exactly the same as for any cis character, and specify their gender at CC, choose the body type and other aspects of their appearance however they wished, and as for any cis character specify how accurate assessments of their gender by their peers was likely to be (or how accurate they wanted them to be, if they preferred their character to be misgendered less often).
I imagine ideally that there would be further options that we’d want to choose, but again these don’t feel as though they should be specific to trans characters. For example, pose and gait, as suggested by Blackheifer above, and how different armours/clothing would look on our characters (for example whether we wanted it to emphasise or create curves, or disguise them).
I’m sure there are some problematic aspects of the above that I’m blind to (in which case my apologies) and I think it would be a lot of work. So again it comes down to prioritisation and how much benefit players would get from it. But I do think that unless more fundamental enhancements to the game setting along these lines are made, any quick fixes to have NPCs respond to trans characters differently are probably going to feel unsatisfactory and uncomfortable, and the current approach of just using the identity specified by the player might be best.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Is that directed at me? If so, please feel free to explain (either here or by PM if you’d prefer) where I’ve crossed the lines I’ve set for others. I know I’m not infallible and have my own blind spots due to my own views, as anyone else does.
But in case anyone has taken it that way, I am definitively not saying we can’t discuss this topic, but that in so doing we should do our best to be constructive, avoiding insulting those with views other than our own and keeping it relevant to the game rather than wandering off into more general theorising about gender or politics. I don’t think I’ve crossed those boundaries but if I have, then please do point out where and I’ll try to do better in future.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I like you described example ... But just as you, im probably also blind to some aspects that may be problematic. :-/
So far the only character i know in games, that was trans and it had significance for story, was Krem from Dragon Age: Inquisition: - Born as a female > wanted to be a Warrior, and was good at it > joined Qun (not sure if before or after) > in Qun only males can be warriors > so by their definition Krem was a male And was happy that way.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Actually, @Ragnarok, based on what you said earlier about Czech, is it the case that if there were the possibility of our PCs being misgendered by NPCs, that might mean different dialogue options for different localisations?
For example, in English most NPCs could make incorrect assumptions about our gender and we’d never know, so not have a reason to correct them. But if what I understand about Finnish, for example, is right, even in some cases where in English it would be clear from the pronouns used the NPC had your gender wrong so you might want to correct them, that option wouldn’t be required or appropriate as the pronouns would be the same. But from what you said about Czech, it might be obvious much more often or earlier that the NPC was in error, and therefore there would need to be more dialogue options for correcting them. Is that right? If so, I can see that would create more localisation challenges, and might be another driver for just having NPCs use the gender the player specifies rather than trying to do anything more complex.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Or there could be a dialog option when a PC is referred to by their apparent gender that the player can select such as
"I'm not a SHE" "I'm not a HE" etc.
and then the NPC could reply
"Oh yeah, really? Sorry about that. Well anyway, let's get back to our conversation about saving the colony of Tieflings from certain death by the goblin horde..." or "Oh...well that's not really my concern, but I DO think we should get these tadpoles out of our heads before they turn us into MindFlayers! Shall we carry on?"
Well ... yes and no. If you mean dialogue options from wich player pick ... then no. If you mean responces, hells yeah. :-/
In very short: When someone created Czech localisation for KotOR II. they had to coppy all texts 4 times ... One in case Revan was a male and now you play as a male ... One in case Revan was a female and now you play as a male ... One in case Revan was a male and now you play as a female ... One in case Revan was a female and now you play as a female ... And every time you started a game, you had to pick ... and all texts was replaced acordingly.
---
Player would easily go with same sentences as in english: You are wrong im a male. > MýlÃte se, já jsem muž. You are wrong im a female. > MýlÃte se, já jsem žena. Please, dont call me either. > ProsÃm, nenazývejte mÄ› ani jednÃm.
---
But npcs ... oh boy. :-/ We use rule that is called agreement of the predicate with the subject (according to google).
- If you have group of people where is at least one male, you use "i" ... if they are all females you use "y" ...
Fro example: When Damais tells you: We heared an explosion, so we went to explore. In czech it would be: Slyšeli jsme explozi, tak jsme to šli prozkoumat. Bcs Damais is a male. But if Damais would also be a Female, the sentence would be: Slyšely jsme explozi, tak jsme to šly prozkoumat.
> This can cause major problem, in case Larian wouldnt want to have their teoretical Czech localisation full of misstakes for wich even 10y old child would be ashamed. Bcs every time someone would talk about our group as a whole, they would need to take under concideration genders of all people there. :-/
"Ah, our heroes finaly arived!" Would be problem.
On the other hand tho ... "And here are our guests of honor." Would be perfectly fine no matter our group.
-
But even if you would go solo, every time the game would talk about you, it would need to adjust I/Y acordingly ... and there are even special cases, when group of females uses "A" or "É", instead of "Y" ...
And even more special cases, wich was most likely made just to mess up with our language rules ... As ... there is one musical group, made purely of Males ... its called "3 sisters" ... so even tho they are males, every time you talk about them you have to use female rules. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 20/03/2309:50 PM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Well ... yes and no. If you mean dialogue options from wich player pick ... then no. If you mean responces, hells yeah. :-/ …
Thanks for taking the time to explain!
So if I’m understanding you right, in Czech if an NPC talks or asks about something I am doing, I might be able to tell from their grammar what gender they think I am? Or at least whether they think there are any males in our party if they’re talking about us as a group, based on them not using the all-female rules? The examples you give use the first person singular and plural, but from what you say they also affect second person (which in English with you/you is ambiguous of course as to whether we’re talking about one or more people, let alone what their gender(s) might be).
(With apologies to everyone that this is only tangentially related to the subject at hand!)
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Well ... not allways, some sentence can be constructed so you dance around it ... but it often dont feel natural. So in general, most likely. Yes.
And yes, it also apply to second person ... But that it more matter of verbs.
"You" translates to "ty" when you talk to single person ... "vy" when you talk to group ... but we also have word "Vy" when you talk to single person, who you wish (or have to) to express your respect. The difference between "Vy" and "vy" is only written, phonetic its the same.
Problem is that predicate and subject ties together again ...
So even if you wish to use second person, you can run ito trap ... especialy in past time: What were you doing? > Co jsi dělal? (Male) > Co jsi dělala? (Female) > Co jsi dělalo? (Kid) > Co jste dělaly? (Group of Kids) > Co jste dělali? (Group, no matter the gender composition) > Co jste dělal? (Male + respect) > Co jste dělala? (Female + respect) Kids are not shown respect in Czech language. And for groups it sounds and its written the same no matter if you are respectfull or not.
And i imediately see i didnt pick good example, since in present time its "Co děláš?" for any ... Except group where its "Co děláte?", wich is same for respected person.
Future time is also fine, since that is "Co budeš dělat?" for person ... And "Co budete dělat?" for either group, or respected person.
But dont get an impression that present and future time are safe tho, i may just picked wrong example. I was never too good in czech ... my grades were usualy 4 / 5 only rarely 3, better almost never (except for writing ... dunno how to translate it, google say its either style, or language, or pen ... neiher of those seems corect it's when you get a topic and then they leave you for an hour or two to write anything related to the topic in the assigned form... that probably saved me from repeating the year ... my favourite form was a story, or deliberation). I would say my skills are ... well, not much better than in my english, so you can imagine. :-/
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 21/03/2308:27 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Problem is that predicate and subject ties together again ...
So even if you wish to use second person, you can run ito trap ... especialy in past time: What were you doing?
Interesting! Thanks. And that’s the sort of question NPCs could easily ask too. It does help illustrate for those of us who just play and read in English, where we are only very infrequently reminded what gender the game takes our character to be, that it could make a lot more difference in other languages.
But I guess it might come back to what language we assume our characters are “really†speaking in. If it’s Common or a Sword Coast language that is not particularly gendered like English, or even one that doesn’t have gendered pronouns at all so the only time gender is referred to is when it’s being talked about specifically, then the only reason the gender would be so evident to us as players is because we’re experiencing it due to translation into our own, possibly more gendered language. In that case it would make some kind of sense that the game simply translated the non-gendered assumed language of the NPC into our own gendered language in a way that fits with the identity we’ve chosen for the PC, given that they wouldn’t actually know what gender the NPC thought they were, so would have no reason to challenge it. But that’s all academic given I have no idea how gendered or not the languages of Faerun actually are, or even if that’s defined anywhere.
Last edited by The Red Queen; 21/03/2301:44 AM.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
The formal stance on Common - while it has some in-universe roots and references throughout the editions, is that it is the native language of the players/publication... so if you play in France and you buy the books from a French game store, and you play with other French-speaking players, then common is 'functionally' French, or a French-like common language... and in so being, in your game spaces, it comes with all the linguistic features that that language carries (French doesn't have a neuter form at all; all nouns and their surrounding forms are either masculine or feminine. In recent years, users of the language have begun to experiment with ways to express the neuter, but the language itself is not equipped to do so. I think, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, the most common form used right now is to express gender neutrality for a person by way of a contraction of both forms of the appropriate word (so, -il for masculine and -elle for feminine, becomes -iel for neutral), but it's still evolving and experimental without agreed upon hard language rules right now).
This means that for players whose language carries a natural engendering throughout their entire sentence formation, based on the subject of that sentence, if that language is not already pre-equiped with a neutral case, the very idea of an appropriate translation becomes a nightmare with, potentially, no right answer... because the necessity to make an assumption one way or the other in order to talk at all is built into the language. It also means that in realistic play scenarios, for speakers of such languages, the fact that people will make an assumption is a natural, normal and quite literally unavoidable part of daily interaction, and nothing to get upset over beyond a quick correction of preference.
The formal stance on Common - while it has some in-universe roots and references throughout the editions, is that it is the native language of the players/publication...
Thanks for that clarification, Niara. Useful to know.
That probably does mean my suggested fudge really won’t work. Ah well!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Realistically, Common would probably be, as stated by some people previously, closer to American English most of all (on account of WotC being based in US), so any localization attempts will be secondary in their interpretations based on that very aspect. Therefore, what it lingustically supports is implied to be, for the most part, whatever English allows. Meanwhile something like Das Schwarze Auge is German by default, with most explored/"default" cultures rooted in the medieval Central/Western Europe and the use of the language is meant to reflect that.
Whereas with the state of the FR I agree with Sozz in that it is meant to be marketable and "modern", what with WotC being a big name company and all, so alterations are made to "keep up with the times", as it were. The current idea of how the setting works and what it supports, despite the fact that culturally it essentially got a rewind after the Second Sundering (5e was specifically meant as practically a "never mind, let's go back to how things were" after 4e's fiasco). I touched on those (the cultural aspects) in the opening post, and yes - despite it being almost a good century and a half between the pre-Spellplague and the modern days, most communities still function and think with the same mindsets as back then, which could be seen as a way of coping with the world finally returning to its pre-cataclysmic state. If anything, there are even cases of reduced acceptance and tolerance, reflected in the game (the Elturel tieflings post-Descent). If anything, Larian are pushing the envelope as to what WotC would probably consider "safe" with their writing and content.
Basically, the modern presentation of the FR is as much a product of its time as the attempts to market it to teens and young adults operating upon the trends of the early 2000's and the turn of the decade - take the M:tG artwork from those eras to see what they were considering marketable (cleavages, anime-ish artstyles, attempts to appeal to the MMO crowd... seeking mostly the "standard" male audience). The mindset and the mission behind the marketing has changed, but it's still, at the end of the day, marketing - appealing to some and turning others off, just like before. For better or worse.
I just remembered that i completely forgot to mention that lately, many non-official localisation creators translate only "as if PC and his group were all males" ... to mitigate amount of work a little.
So maybe we would handle such siplified version aswell.
But there are different standards for fan-made translation and official one. :-/
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Is that directed at me? If so, please feel free to explain (either here or by PM if you’d prefer) where I’ve crossed the lines I’ve set for others. I know I’m not infallible and have my own blind spots due to my own views, as anyone else does.
But in case anyone has taken it that way, I am definitively not saying we can’t discuss this topic, but that in so doing we should do our best to be constructive, avoiding insulting those with views other than our own and keeping it relevant to the game rather than wandering off into more general theorising about gender or politics. I don’t think I’ve crossed those boundaries but if I have, then please do point out where and I’ll try to do better in future.
No. The topic reminds me of the queer stuff which is a bit alien to me since I'm lucky enough not live in a surrounding that full of that kind of vanguard culture overly manipulative on populist movement. A decoy, a distraction, focused, and incited by whoever they are in some societies to overshadow the actual crisis they have. What's ironic, all those gender identity chaos supported by their authority was for some petty votes in the end. And even more ironic, their people are actually buying it. Then comes the ultimate ironic, since the actual crisis was ignored by the most, from elites to commoners, the actual crisis is still quietly snowballing along with the far-right ideas sharing the same shadow, by the time the overshadowed crisis broke the veil, the hound of hatred will also break the chain. Who will suffer the most then? Those minority folks. All that, is the real hypocritical. And then I look at my good old Wyll, the Blade of Frontier, from as innocent as those tiefling kids to as wicked as Kagha, they all know his title rather positively, but at least Wyll did trying hard to protect the people and help the people. And what he is overshadowing using such title was merely his own misery which won't backfire those he once protected or helped at least.
So, no, it was not directed at any of you as long as you don't happen to be a manipulative politician who plays gender/sex orientation/gender identity/ethnicity/skin color/minority cards to win position.
As for the whole identity thing, I just don't get it. A trans is a trans, and this is a game! A trans who wants to be a women can simply pick an in-game gender called "female", as simple as that, no surgery, no pain, no bleeding, no life risking. A trans who wants to be a dude can simply pick an in-game gender called "male", as simple as that, also no surgery, no pain, no bleeding, no life risking. Magic, jobs done in one single mouse click! It's not like the game has full nude option that displays what's under the underwear. But no, the game has to use the term "identity". I understand it's business, no point to mess up with some pc crusaders who could throw a crusade on you making you lose sells, so I kept my mouth shut for as long as I could because I wish this game to success as long as it provides decent gameplay.
Speaking of which, it reminds of Gale, a sacrifice of such compromise-ish business decision. Why can't the developer leave him alone, letting him to have a more consistent character? Why can't he be Mystra's loyal simp puppy virgin? Why has he to seek nighttime companionship from Tav? In Cyberpunk 2077, that punk girl who only interested in girls, I tried romance her once and got rebuffed, which is great! You don't need to make every key NPC to be romance-able for just everyone. A good RPG storytelling need to have vivid NPCs. Making them mechanically accept having sex with every player character with no condition at all will only make these key companions become closer to some lifeless sex toys which is the quite opposite of "vivid". And then Wyll, the try hard playboy, why would he want to share that night with a dude Tav? If a dude Tav wish to even start a conversation which may directs towards intimacy beyond friendship with Wyll, this Tav should need to roll 3 d20 in a chain to win it! And if Wyll didn't share that night with Tav, then he should wake up with SH or LZ or that tiefling bard couple, or that parrot whispering druid girl. That's more like his character. That's something the player would say, hey, that's my Wyll, that's the Wyll I know, he is so good at it!
And there is the race/class problem, another example of how "compromise-ish business decision" ruins the gameplay. Letting every race to pick just every class is just bluntly ruining the roleplay experience. If you look back at the previous BG, playing a half-orc means I am unable to pick paladin, how wonderful is that! But now if I play a githyanki, in a blink I got qualified to be a paladin of Faerun!? If stereotype was so bad even in harmless fantasy such as DnD, then why don't just ditch tieflings, drows, elves, dwarfs, gith, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins as well? Let everyone play Human only, and fight only human?
… But in case anyone has taken it that way, I am definitively not saying we can’t discuss this topic, but that in so doing we should do our best to be constructive, avoiding insulting those with views other than our own and keeping it relevant to the game rather than wandering off into more general theorising about gender or politics …
No. The topic reminds me of the queer stuff which is a bit alien to me since I'm lucky enough not live in a surrounding that full of that kind of vanguard culture overly manipulative on populist movement ...
Okay. You know I said we should try to avoid insulting people with views other than our own, keep it relevant to the game and avoid wandering off into more general theorising in the very quote of mine you replied to? Your post failed on that so badly that I’m tempted to think it was deliberate trolling but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and one more chance.
If you actually don’t understand why what you have posted is not appropriate here, then please PM me and I can explain in more detail.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
And then Wyll, [...] why would he want to share that night with a dude Tav?
Out of curiosity... what leads you to suppose that Wyll is purely heterosexual? We know that he is open to having attraction to people with gyno-centric physiology, but what leads you to suppose that means he's not equally open to people with andro-centric physiology? Bisexual people exist, after all - please trust that I would know!
Quote
If you look back at the previous BG, playing a half-orc means I am unable to pick paladin, how wonderful is that! But now if I play a githyanki, in a blink I got qualified to be a paladin of Faerun!?
It's not about stereotypes, so much as it's about individuals' capacity to be exceptional and different. To answer your question - it's not wonderful, and it wasn't then, because it supposed that your exceptional hero could not possibly be anything other than the 'norm' for their species, when by definition our heroes and adventurers are supposed to be exceptional and unusual.
So your Githyanki character is a Paladin - not of Valaakith, as one might expect, but of Llira, and they do indeed dance joyously at any opportunity to so express themselves, and have a fondness for wearing yellow dresses when they are not making ready for combat and strife. How remarkable; how unusual; how positively Strange... what a Story must be behind this quite honestly incredible situation and the development of this person that led them to this place. And isn't the discovery of that remarkable story not a wonderful adventure, and a unique person to come out of it and adventure forward?
The removal of restrictions like that wasn't purely a removal or harmful stereotypes - it was the extension of an invitation of freedom, for players to make ever more creative, strange and wonderful stories to lead to unusual combinations and peculiar situations. Allowing halfings to be barbarians isn't necessarily saying anything at all about any large scale changes or ramifications to halfling cultures globally... it's just saying "well, it could happen; tell us how it came about!"
So your Githyanki character is a Paladin - not of Valaakith, as one might expect
'one might expect' is an interesting way of putting a tyrannical theocracy with elements of mind-control. The harmful stereotypes work both ways. I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory. Otherwise, why involve the canon at all, or other players for that matter.
I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory. Otherwise, why involve the canon at all, or other players for that matter.
For me, as an inexperienced D&D-er, I find the canon extremely important when trying to develop my character concepts, either to lean into or play against. My characters would probably seem bland and cliche to more experienced players who have been there, done that, and want to try something different. My own view is that, if roleplay and creating a realistic character is important to you, then you’re probably better off sticking off closer to the lore and race or class norms if you don’t know the world well, but that it doesn’t follow that the game rules should therefore outright forbid someone with more imagination and/or experience than me from developing a more unusual but still realistic character, or someone who doesn’t care about realism (and is in a like-minded group where they’re not playing a single player game) creating a wacky character for shits and giggles.
And when it comes to the lore, I do find the changes and events in the world help inspire some of my characters’ stories, even though I agree with your earlier point that much also stays the same. For example, a few of the characters I’ve either played EA with or am toying with for the full release are as follows:
A drow Oath of Ancients paladin of Eilistraee, who was inspired to swear their oath on seeing her dance after her return from death during the Second Sundering.
A Lolth-sworn drow ranger whose lover defected to Vhaerun after his Second Sundering return and was painfully executed as a result, whose experience has left him with an unconscious but burning contempt for women and especially Lolth’s priestesses, and a new relish for hunting down those his matriarch sets him after … which recently has included those who have left for a secretive new cult.
A shield dwarf barbarian who is resentful and resistant to what she sees as increasing acceptance and integration of at least some goblins, for whom she still harbours an abiding ancestral hatred.
A tiefling Oath of Devotion paladin who is increasingly concerned that what his order sees as duty is actually propping up an unjust status quo in which those like him are suffering greater and greater prejudice.
A deep gnome rogue whose curiosity, dreams of glory, and fascination with ruins and exploration was inspired by tales her grandmother told her of Blingdenstone, destroyed by drow a hundred years before.
An elven cleric of Bhaal who was young in the Time of Troubles and sees his recent return, even as a quasi-deity, as an opportunity for power and bloodshed.
I wouldn’t have been able to come up with these characters that I, at least, feel connect to the world without access to the lore. But I’m sure that those who know the lore better can and will come up with better stories that both use and subvert that lore in interesting ways. But even if those characters are way more unusual than anything I could reasonably come up with, they still need that lore to provide context and, I’d argue, actually a much deeper understanding of that lore to make work.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I like all your character ideas, I bet it also helped having played the game beforehand writing in some points of potential conflict, but, and not to make this about generic Tav again, I've complained enough about how the world can't recognize certain contradictions people can make in their characters. The further into the lore you get the worse it becomes, see the recent Githyanki thread, and a number of Drow threads before that. Allowing people to toy with these things doesn't strike me as great if the game can't account for them.
If the game does eventually, more power to it, otherwise, I'll remain skeptical.
I had never heard of the Forgotten Realms until BG3 but I have found the lore fascinating (and I've only been skimming stuff from the FR Wiki so just the tip I'd wager). It is the main reason I keep coming back to BG3 from Solasta.
Deciding to do with the world, what you will, on your own, is a type of attitude that could become irksome.
Yes, I’ll admit that I would be tempted to see it as a bit disrespectful to the lore creators, and anyone else one is playing with, to use the flexibility we’re given (at least in part so the rules can be used in various settings including ones created by individual DMs) to create characters that make no sense in the actual setting we’re playing in. But on the other hand, if some players don’t prioritise roleplay and want to focus on mechanics or just do things that they see as weird and fun, I guess it’s actually no skin off my nose. And given that the rules are there, I’d see it as officious of WotC or Larian to ban certain combinations from use in the specific Faerun or BG setting, when it is theoretically possible that someone could create a feasible if unlikely story to justify them. If the player is part of a group, though, I’d expect them to listen to their DM or fellow players and adjust their plans if the wackiness of their character concept would undermine immersion for everyone else.
Originally Posted by Sozz
I like all your character ideas, I bet it also helped having played the game beforehand writing in some points of potential conflict, but, and not to make this about generic Tav again, I've complained enough about how the world can't recognize certain contradictions people can make in their characters. The further into the lore you get the worse it becomes, see the recent Githyanki thread, and a number of Drow threads before that. Allowing people to toy with these things doesn't strike me as great if the game can't account for them.
Yes, you’re absolutely spot on that EA has been really useful in helping come up with characters I think have potential to drive some interesting roleplay opportunities and come to life in the game . I see that as part of the challenge and responsibility for me as a player, to use what the game gives me to come up with interesting stories. If there were a human DM they’d take more of that load, but due to the limitations of a computer game I feel that I need to be willing to share the work there given that the game DM, in my view, quite correctly errs on the side of too much flexibility. To me, not every character combo seems to have the same potential for interesting roleplay, and though I do think Larian should try to do what they can to support any character a player might create, which I guess is what they’re trying with the class, race and background dialogue options, I also recognise there’s going to be a limit to what they can do if the player isn’t willing to lean in to the story they are telling and connect their character to it imaginatively. I do think they could give some hints to first time players to help them create characters for which those connections are going to be possible, but perhaps that’s what they think they’re doing with the origin characters. And I do absolutely think they can do more to create possible connection points than we’ve seen in EA. But I wouldn’t be in favour of Larian deciding themselves which combos have potential and outright preventing any others, as that would seem an unwarranted limitation on player imagination and freedom, given that the rules are already implemented to support flexibility, and just because I or Larian can’t imagine that a particular combo makes sense, that doesn’t mean there’s not a creative player out there who can do something with it.
EDIT: And I now realise that while one of the character concepts I mentioned is one of the two non-binary characters I’ve been developing, this post is not otherwise relevant to the topic at hand and I’ve probably said it before elsewhere too. Sorry!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
'one might expect' is an interesting way of putting a tyrannical theocracy with elements of mind-control. The harmful stereotypes work both ways. I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory. Otherwise, why involve the canon at all, or other players for that matter.
I'm.... not quite sure what you're getting at here, to be honest. All respect, but something has been lost in communication here, to me. All other things being normal in a world of established lore, if you find yourself assaulted by a furious Githyanki brandishing a silver sword that bursts with necrotic energy every strike... the name you would most likely expect them to be calling out, if they are calling one out at all, would be Vlaakith. That is what one might expect in such a situation. It would be surprising and unusual if they were calling out dedication to a different higher power. Being a paladin at all is also unusual, since they have a fairly rigid rank system, but in the case of an outlier who is dedicated to the lich queen and gains the power to smite foes as boon from her, and must have class levels, what would you call them? It doesn't much matter in this case - the example was that they were a paladin of Llira, after all - the extremely unusual factor was that they as an individual were dedicated to someone other than Vlaakith... which is unusual and unexpected.
I'm really not understanding the latter sentence either... Anything at all that is a part of anything that has happened to or around your character before the point of adventure - anything at all that has set them up to be different, unusual or exceptional, is backstory. It quite literally cannot 'come from' anything else... because anything that creates that exceptional circumstance Is backstory, by definition. How those elements fall in with or stray apart from the relevant world lore are also a part of backstory, regardless of which they do; what is relevant is how those elements have affected the person your character has become up to the point of beginning your current adventure.
So, I do apologise, but I feel as though I must have misunderstood or failed to grasp what you were getting at or trying to say there, because the comment just doesn't make intelligible sense to me. I am sorry, that's not intended as an attack, just a note of confusion.
I'm guessing the confusion comes from the perspective of the statements. I'm talking about 'one' a person in universe, you're talking about 'one' a player. One might expect a tyrannical magic theocracy to be nearly monolithic in it's culture and worldview, in a fantasy setting it can actually be monolithic. The other 'one', might expect that because this is a story being written for players to interact with, that every rule and expectation has an exception, the one that lets them be the exception. So it wasn't being a paladin that was unexpected, it was the cavalier way you had some random Gith being devoted to an alien god. "My grandfather was a gith, one of the good ones". Using the Gith as examples for this is strange to begin with. All the rules in FR become a little less distinct extra-planar, different types of allegory, cultures made totally out of time, and without historical antecedent. It's the difference between Medieval Fantasy and Space Fantasy.
These perspectives apply elsewhere. "Paladin" is a player term, it might also exist in-universe, but classes and the concept of levels don't. Everything to do with the mechanics of the game is an abstraction of what is going on in-universe, made so that a person with a twenty sided die can interact with it. In universe, people don't choose a class, their lives are mapped to the class closest to that abstraction. As with 'Common', it's not any language of Earth, but is abstracted onto our languages so that we can interact with the world.
Sozz="I think if you want to be the exception to the rule, it has to come from somewhere more than your backstory." There are the exceptional circumstances you give yourself, and there are ones that come from choices you actually have to make. If you want to play a Githyanki paladin of Lliira, making it as easy as toggling the deity you worship over to Lliira, is a monumental character arc that occurs off-screen. It cheapens the choice, and by extension the strictures that make such a choice...'dramatic'. That's all, I suppose it's a little hyperbolic to say it 'has' to come from somewhere else, but maybe I've made myself more clear.
… But in case anyone has taken it that way, I am definitively not saying we can’t discuss this topic, but that in so doing we should do our best to be constructive, avoiding insulting those with views other than our own and keeping it relevant to the game rather than wandering off into more general theorising about gender or politics …
No. The topic reminds me of the queer stuff which is a bit alien to me since I'm lucky enough not live in a surrounding that full of that kind of vanguard culture overly manipulative on populist movement ...
Okay. You know I said we should try to avoid insulting people with views other than our own, keep it relevant to the game and avoid wandering off into more general theorising in the very quote of mine you replied to? Your post failed on that so badly that I’m tempted to think it was deliberate trolling but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and one more chance.
If you actually don’t understand why what you have posted is not appropriate here, then please PM me and I can explain in more detail.
Ah, I see, you are waving your moderator club. BTW, it's actually an axe, in case you haven't realizing it.
Eh... still not really sure where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not understanding the issue that you're feeling.
When I say "one" I mean any one, any individual randomly average person, if they have any reason to expect something at all, will expect a particular thing - so no, the average peasant farmer who has never been further than the township half a mile away would not 'expect' the angry githyanki to be screaming Vlaakith's name... they don't have a reason or grounds to expect anything... but a person, such as a planar scholar from waterdeep, who would reasonably be in a position to have an expectation - that expectation would be that if this githyanki worships anyone, that one will be Vlaakith. That is a reasonable expectation, and it will be an accurate expectation the extreme vast majority of the time. If their expectation is incorrect, that's a surprise.
If the expectation is wrong and the githyanki is extremely unusual, that will require some explaining, and probably a decent amount of initial mistrust from those who have enough knowledge to expect otherwise. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. I feel like you're jousting at a far distant hill by making that leap of connection. The difference here is that it is factually true that githyanki culture is intrinsically evil as defined by the world space, and that githyanki, in their majority are culturally evil when they exist as part of their native society - which does, factually, cover the extreme vast majority of all githyanki. Are githyanki themselves intrinsically evil? No, of course not... and the entire point of this section of discussion is making a point of that very fact.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. So the Githyanki that introduces themselves cautiously at the Laughing Beholder, on the Rock of Bral, as being a Paladin of Lliira, who considers their home to be Faerun, on Toril, and not the creche where they were first raised... would likely raise eyebrows for its unusualness, but not for saying that they were a paladin at all. What's the concern or problem that you have with this? I simply do not understand why you feel like that's something to object to.
For the rest...
I'm really not sure I understand why you're objecting to that either... backstory is backstory; it's the stuff that happened to you before the adventure that is now beginning. It's the stuff that was formative towards putting you in the position you are now in, as the person you now are. If you are a representative of something particularly unusual or strange, then there's probably a wonderful story to go along with how that came about - that's called backstory! The adventure is not the story of how those events came to be - they're backstory. They are the choices that the character made that set them on the path to end up here, instead of somewhere else - the adventure is not concerned with them, save as the repercussions of them may happen to come up if the actual adventure you're embarking upon touches them. That's why it's called Backstory, and not just Story. Whatever it comes from, wherever it comes from, however it comes about, the choices that your character made that ended up setting them on this path and putting them here are all backstory - they cannot 'come from' anywhere else, because they are backstory by definition.
The choices you make now, moving forward, as this person, and the way those choices further impact and change you - they are the focus of the adventure you're now embarking up; they are what matter most, and are what the grand adventure is build out of... how you, as a character approach those choices and make them is, in good character roleplay, at least somewhat influenced by the person you are as brought to this point - by your backstory.
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it? Are you saying that a githyanki who participated in a raid on a sword coast city, was injured, left behind, rescued, healed, and came to understand genuine kindness for the first time, and decided to dedicate themselves to a new cause, and a new home... is 'too dramatic' a backstory for you to permit at your table without it being played out in an adventure first? Because that sounds ridiculous, and I do not, for a moment, believe that that is what you are actually saying of yourself... so, because I can't really fathom that that is your actual angle, and I do not know what your actual angle is... No, you have not made yourself more clear, I'm sorry - I'm exactly as confused and oblivious to your complaint as I started.
Again, I know I sound exasperated here, and I am a little, but I don't wish to make this come off as a conflict or as being fighty... I'm just really not understanding your position, at all... I'm trying, I promise!
And then Wyll, [...] why would he want to share that night with a dude Tav?
Out of curiosity... what leads you to suppose that Wyll is purely heterosexual? We know that he is open to having attraction to people with gyno-centric physiology, but what leads you to suppose that means he's not equally open to people with andro-centric physiology? Bisexual people exist, after all - please trust that I would know!
I didn't brought Wyll, with Astarion or Gale in the same party much, did Wyll try to flirt Astarion or Gale? Astarion flirting others doesn't count though, since he is obviously a bisexual. Actually I don't think Wyll is necessary to be a purely heterosexual to refuse having sex with a dude Tav. Here is my observation, the homosexaul people and the open bisexual ones will flirt someone of same gender rather actively, but not the deep bisexual. This is why some appears to be badass straight dude will start fancy other dude in a disciplineless army or in a prison. The deep bisexual only will fancy those from the same gender 1.when there is no heterogender around and 2. they are in a dominating position or in dire need of protection among the rank/in-mates. The deep bi will most likely turn their mindset into open bi after they tried it and get used to it, but not before they tried it. Back to Wyll, if Wyll did flirt Astarion and Gale whenever he got chance during the adventure, call me a fool, but if he didn't, then I think he either is a hetero or deep bi. He might pick up the open bi mindset during his service among the flaming fist if he happen to be an open bi, but this theory requires the in-game auto-dialogue between Wyll and either Astarion or Gale to support it.
Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
If you look back at the previous BG, playing a half-orc means I am unable to pick paladin, how wonderful is that! But now if I play a githyanki, in a blink I got qualified to be a paladin of Faerun!?
it was the extension of an invitation of freedom, for players to make ever more creative
Indeed, but a terrible example of extension. Because the creativity, as a result, only reinforce the build while ruining the background. If there was dual-class, then a gith warrior + gith paladin of faerun is totally fine and actually great, but not starting as a gith paladin of faerun.
You know I said we should try to avoid insulting people with views other than our own, keep it relevant to the game and avoid wandering off into more general theorising in the very quote of mine you replied to? Your post failed on that so badly that I’m tempted to think it was deliberate trolling but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and one more chance. If you actually don’t understand why what you have posted is not appropriate here, then please PM me and I can explain in more detail.
Ah, I see, you are waving your moderator club. BTW, it's actually an axe, in case you haven't realizing it.
Ioci had already had a final caution, but as a fair warning to anyone else who needs it, after multiple moderator interventions I’m now going to operate azero tolerance policy on this thread and any failure to engage constructively with each other or moderators may result in immediate suspension. And general political commentary, particularly that criticising those with different views, or putting forward your own theories of gender, will be considered not to be constructive.
If you are not confident in your ability to discuss this topic in a manner appropriate to an open forum operated by Larian for anyone and everyone interested in their games, then you may be better off avoiding it. But it is not my desire to shut down good faith and relevant debate, so if there is something you want to say but you are not sure if it’s appropriate, please feel free to PM me and I will give you a steer. Though I will say that if you’re already wondering whether you should say something then that’s probably an indication in itself that the answer may well be “noâ€.
Questions or concerns about moderator policy on this topic are welcome, but vague insinuations are not. If you have queries or challenges, please state them clearly and courteously and I or one of the other moderators will do our best to respond. If you want to play it safe, or you don’t have particular reason to want to raise your points publicly, again do PM me and we can talk privately.
And to avoid any further muddying of the waters, I’m now going to restrict myself to only posting in this thread as a moderator, despite the fact that the topic interests me as a fan and forum member. That means that I hope this is my final post here, though I will continue to follow the discussion with interest.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Oh, and I’m going to add that any posts against the guidance I have given on forum policy are also subject to deletion. I’m not going to mess about editing them for acceptable and unacceptable content, so if you want your post to stay available here then please take care to be constructive, respectful of different viewpoints and avoid irrelevant and controversial political commentary.
The alternative would be to lock the thread entirely which I am loath to do given that it is a reasonable subject for debate if only we can manage to keep it civil and on topic.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
Red Queen, what counts as constructive criticism? Since it may vary for people, can you please give an outline?
E.g.
1. Specific problems the current system may cause in your own gameplay: (if you're not planning on using this feature, please skip the question)
2. What could improve the current system in your opinion? (Please mention purely mechanical changes)
3. Should unique dialogue between NPCs and a transgender character be included? -- > If so, would you like it to be present a few times purely for flavor, or something NPCs routinely comment on? (Please do not base your answer on unpassing characters. This has been discussed at lenght. Your response should describe NPC behavior when faced with an average character).
If you meant constructive to Larian specifically, a clear format may work?
I specifically talked about “constructive engagement†(ie discussion and interaction) rather than “constructive criticismâ€. I just mean “constructive†in its dictionary sense of positive, useful and helpful rather than negative and unhelpful, and tending to build to improvements or advances.
I’ve already offered some suggestions for identifying what is or isn’t going to be positive and helpful to discuss here. Including being mindful that people reading and posting on these forums will be diverse and united only in an interest in Larian’s games, doing our best to avoid insulting those who have different outlooks from our own and refraining from wandering off on political, philosophical or ideological analyses, especially ones that involve negative interpretations of others’ behaviour, and instead trying to keep our discourse clear, specific and relevant to the topic at hand (particularly when we know it’s related to a subject that can cause controversy).
Other than asking we all display basic netiquette, I am loath to be any more prescriptive as I in no way want to shut down valid debate. Personally, I think with good will, consideration and respect for other forum members we should all be capable of working out whether something we are tempted to post crosses the line. But I acknowledge there may be grey areas and as I have said, if anyone has something specific they want to post and they are not sure if it is appropriate, they can PM me with a draft. As long as it appears they are asking in good faith and have tried their best to make their post civil and constructive, I will happily provide a steer.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I think the addition is fine. It's optional so those who are uninterested in it do not have to use it. To those who value it I'm sure it is appreciated. I think the politics involved are irrelevant to the forum and are best discussed elsewhere (there is definitely no shortage of places to do so).
Eh... still not really sure where you're coming from, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not understanding the issue that you're feeling.
When I say "one" I mean any one, any individual randomly average person, if they have any reason to expect something at all, will expect a particular thing - so no, the average peasant farmer who has never been further than the township half a mile away would not 'expect' the angry githyanki to be screaming Vlaakith's name... they don't have a reason or grounds to expect anything... but a person, such as a planar scholar from waterdeep, who would reasonably be in a position to have an expectation - that expectation would be that if this githyanki worships anyone, that one will be Vlaakith. That is a reasonable expectation, and it will be an accurate expectation the extreme vast majority of the time. If their expectation is incorrect, that's a surprise.
If the expectation is wrong and the githyanki is extremely unusual, that will require some explaining, and probably a decent amount of initial mistrust from those who have enough knowledge to expect otherwise. It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism. I feel like you're jousting at a far distant hill by making that leap of connection. The difference here is that it is factually true that githyanki culture is intrinsically evil as defined by the world space, and that githyanki, in their majority are culturally evil when they exist as part of their native society - which does, factually, cover the extreme vast majority of all githyanki. Are githyanki themselves intrinsically evil? No, of course not... and the entire point of this section of discussion is making a point of that very fact.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12. So the Githyanki that introduces themselves cautiously at the Laughing Beholder, on the Rock of Bral, as being a Paladin of Lliira, who considers their home to be Faerun, on Toril, and not the creche where they were first raised... would likely raise eyebrows for its unusualness, but not for saying that they were a paladin at all. What's the concern or problem that you have with this? I simply do not understand why you feel like that's something to object to.
For the rest...
I'm really not sure I understand why you're objecting to that either... backstory is backstory; it's the stuff that happened to you before the adventure that is now beginning. It's the stuff that was formative towards putting you in the position you are now in, as the person you now are. If you are a representative of something particularly unusual or strange, then there's probably a wonderful story to go along with how that came about - that's called backstory! The adventure is not the story of how those events came to be - they're backstory. They are the choices that the character made that set them on the path to end up here, instead of somewhere else - the adventure is not concerned with them, save as the repercussions of them may happen to come up if the actual adventure you're embarking upon touches them. That's why it's called Backstory, and not just Story. Whatever it comes from, wherever it comes from, however it comes about, the choices that your character made that ended up setting them on this path and putting them here are all backstory - they cannot 'come from' anywhere else, because they are backstory by definition.
The choices you make now, moving forward, as this person, and the way those choices further impact and change you - they are the focus of the adventure you're now embarking up; they are what matter most, and are what the grand adventure is build out of... how you, as a character approach those choices and make them is, in good character roleplay, at least somewhat influenced by the person you are as brought to this point - by your backstory.
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it? Are you saying that a githyanki who participated in a raid on a sword coast city, was injured, left behind, rescued, healed, and came to understand genuine kindness for the first time, and decided to dedicate themselves to a new cause, and a new home... is 'too dramatic' a backstory for you to permit at your table without it being played out in an adventure first? Because that sounds ridiculous, and I do not, for a moment, believe that that is what you are actually saying of yourself... so, because I can't really fathom that that is your actual angle, and I do not know what your actual angle is... No, you have not made yourself more clear, I'm sorry - I'm exactly as confused and oblivious to your complaint as I started.
Again, I know I sound exasperated here, and I am a little, but I don't wish to make this come off as a conflict or as being fighty... I'm just really not understanding your position, at all... I'm trying, I promise!
I'll work backwards because the last point is probably the more important.
Originally Posted by Niara
Are you seriously suggesting that if a player came to your table with a character combination that you thought sounded weird, you would insist that that was 'too dramatic' a thing for them to have in their backstory, and you'd insist that it would have to be played out in an adventure first, before you could accept it?...
I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity.
Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent.
Originally Posted by My Terse Friend Niara
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger are all in-universe, living terms (less so Barbarian in direct reference to the class); no-one in universe will look at you funny if you say you are a Paladin of Lliira (unless they think that the joydancers don't have paladins... they do), not in the same way they will look at you funny for saying you're level 12.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Cleric and Ranger exist in Toril the same way they exist in our world. They are words used to describe things, they might carry extra weight other than that for metatextual reasons. A character with class levels in Wizard, might never have heard the term wizard used to describe him, or possibly can only call himself that after getting a diploma from a certified and sanctioned School of Magic (which itself might not be recognized or understood very far afield). Considering the myriad ways different religions and even sects within a religion, have terms for their priesthoods, the very idea that Cleric is used to describe all users of divine magic would strike me as narrowminded. The distinction between a Cleric and a Paladin in-universe, might be as little as where they were assigned or it could be political, like Charlemagne's own, or on if your Paladins represent the militant orders or the knightly ones more. A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a priest or paladin.
Originally Posted by My Dear Friend Niara
It's not a story device to say that there can - and will - be exceptions: it's a universal truth; nothing is absolute and exceptions can always occur in a fantasy setting full of strangeness. So... I'm not seeing why you're identifying anything here as objectionable. Really, I'm a little hurt and perhaps mildly offended that you'd liken anything I'm saying here to being in alignment with that kind of 'good one' racism.
"good one" as my link was meant to convey had nothing to do with race, something I hadn't even considered, +1 internet discourse. More to do with the way people when given an opportunity will minimize the possibility that they would be as evil as the society they live in conditions them to be.
Spoiler tagging because the back and forth between Sozz and I is quite apart from the core topic of the thread at this stage.
(We're a long way off the core topic here)
Honestly, Sozz, and again, this is said in friendship and with good intentions, but I feel that you're quite determinedly (though I'm sure not deliberately) mischaracterising me and what I'm saying - to reiterate where you say I stand, despite the fact that I just corrected you on that and informed you that that take was not accurate - to repeat, again, no, I do not stand there, and the 'one' I use is an entirely in-universe 'one', like I said previously. Please don't ignore and disregard that in order to characterise me otherwise a second time.
Originally Posted by Sozz
I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity.
Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent.
I would prefer it if you answered my question by answering my question - because your answer feels like you're trying to avoid saying openly "Yes, if a player came to my table with a character combination that I thought sounded weird, I would disallow it regardless of whether it was officially permitted or not, and I would not accept an unusual or unique backstory as an appropriate vehicle for explaining or justifying their character's unusual situation". That's not a DM I would ever want to sit at a table with, and that's not a DM anyone should ever want to sit at a table with. It sounds like that's where you actually stand, because of how you chose to address the question - if that's not correct, then you might do better clarifying yourself by answering the question clearly... if that's not how you feel, then a straight "No, that's not accurate" would do well here... and if it is, then don't dance around it as though you know it for the bad take that it is already - because that is how it comes off when you do.
So no; a githyanki playable character does not immediately come up to the line and require negotiation, unless the Dm is ruling to lock out official content ahead of time - and that weight is on the DM for being more restrictive than the game world and game lore suggests they should be. It's an officially published race set up and presented as a playable character, well before any content related to astral play and spelljammer was raised. A DM that would deny that is the one stepping on extant world lore, and disregarding it - not the player. It's their right to do that if it fits their game of course (the entry even says as much), but make no mistake - it is the DM straying from the world presented by the lore, not the player, in that case. Not allowing them in your game space as players is a DM choice to remove something from the world.
A githyanki joining the game to assist an otherwise good and neutral neutral aligned group of people for a quest based on Toril would almost certainly need to have backstory elements that explained how this came to be, because it's incredibly unusual - that's what backstory is literally for; to do that exact work. That's part of the game, not straying from it or taking away from it. Certainly, a player who has no interest in providing any kind of backstory to support their unusual situation is potentially posing immersion difficulties or world coherency concerns... but again, that's what backstory is for; to do that work; a DM should ask the player, during character generation or during pre-session or session zero discussions, how their unsual situation came about and work out those backstory elements... not tell them flat that their choice is to weird and requires a live adventure to explain, so they cannot do it.
Do you doubt that I can present you a perfectly believable backstory to explain how and why this githynaki character lives on the outskirts of Daggerford, pays dedication to Lliira and gives thanks in her name, and is interested in joining the group of adventurers who are now embarking on an adventure to explore the recently uncovered dungeon of the mad mage Halaster Blackcloak, and is approximately at the same level of skill and prowess as the other adventurers setting out (level 1)? Because I can, very easily... and if you would not doubt it of me, then why would you doubt it of anyone else, to the point of ruling it out of your games for being 'incoherent'?
Break for air and space: I don't want this to feel like an argument and I'm trying to vet my wording to be as even-handed as I can. I'm still trying to work out and be clear where you stand, or stood, when you objected to the example I make initially, and why you did so, and there's no hostility.
==
In universe, a Bard is very different from a bard - that's entirely in universe and has no meta-break involved in it at all. One of them is a person with a natural talent for manipulating the world around them through song, sound and word magic, while the other is a lute player, and their skill at playing the lute is not a relevant consideration in the distinction. Yes folks who speak different languages in different parts of the world will naturally use different words for it, but the term of reference is 100% an in-universe term of reference for a person with that particular capability, whatever language it is spoken in. The same is true of Sorcerer, of Warlock and of Druids, and yes, of Paladin too. I'll give that there's a lot more fuzz surrounding some of the others, that's fair.
Quote
A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a [...] paladin.
No, they would not. You can insert our-world fuzziness into your organisations in your own world if you want, but that's you harming the coherency of the world and stepping away from its established structures of lore... in any Toril-based situation they would be frowned on for misleading and misrepresenting themselves if they did so - Paladins are a tangibly definable thing, and no fighter who fought for a deity as part of an organisation would be called or be permitted to call themselves a paladin if they were not one - unless it were an unscrupulous order, or particular individual, that actively sought to deceive people. Yes the exact word used would change in different languages and different nations, but that's neither here nor there and is irrelevant to the point.
==
On topic (sort of, but, erm, not really)... To Ioci, I would very much appreciate it if you would not make commentary to the tune of erasing or denying my sexual preference from legitimacy. It is rude and harmful to front the idea that someone is not 'really' bisexual if they are not actively flirting with men and women around them irrespective of their particular tastes and interests, or that they are somehow hiding it or in denial if they are not. You as a heterosexual male (I presume, and sorry if I'm mistaken) do not flirt with every woman you see - you are not required to perform your sexual preference publicly and consistently in order to be considered legitimate. Do not put that on others, as you did in your above post, please. I'd also appreciate it greatly if you could avoid speaking about people of sexual preferences other than your own as though they were alien species or single homogeneous groups that were all the same.
==
Actually, none of this is really on the core topic of the thread, which is related to gender and gender presentation in the video game... so considering I've spoken my own consideration on that score, I'll probably excuse myself from the thread as well now - I'm happy to continue discussion via pm with others if they still wish to pursue or clarify them further.
This topic is about translating player concepts into the game world. Identity or gender identity specifically, but talking about any character concept that might trigger the same response seems on topic enough to me.
It wasn't my intent to mischaracterize you, I merely interpreted what you said, such as: "Githyanki are not intrinsically evil", that's an out of universe take, you might not agree, it's not an attack on you. Whether or not they are, if your character lived as a Githyanki for any amount of time, they are. If a Githyanki crashes in the woods, but there is no Waterdeep scholar to observe them, are they expected to be anything? The perspectives used in your example are not the ones I'm interested in, I'm interested in the Githyanki character who is now in the woods, you want them to be good, I want them to be Githyanki. That doesn't preclude them from being good, but it's not something I want to handwave.
Just don't tell me your perspective is in-universe and consider the matter settled.
Originally Posted by Niara
That's not a DM I would ever want to sit at a table with, and that's not a DM anyone should ever want to sit at a table with.
If I made the statement, what would that make me? You have a line Niara: its me! It doesn't sound like I'd have fun at your table, and it doesn't sound like you'd have fun at mine, but there are people for each and both. I can't help but feel like I'd either be discomfited with the leave given, or totally disinterested during a game where Githyanki show up without causing significant ramifications to the world and story.
Regardless, despite your belief that I'm equivocating, when I said it wouldn't immediately cross the line, I meant it. If someone wants to go extraplanar at level 1 in the Forgotten Realms, that's going to require a lot of work. I would probably ask them why they want to play a Githyanki, why they don't think playing anything else would equate that, and whether or not they would rather play an extraplanar campaign. Their reasoning doesn't have to be compelling, but they have to work with me to hammer this into the square peg.
Again though, we're not talking about the start of some hypothetical tabletop game, we have actual evidence of what we're talking about. The DM wants us to have the option to play Githyanki in a level 1 FR campaign, and to do it...a Mind-Flayer ship, attacked by a Githyanki war party, crash lands in the wilderness outside Baldur's Gate. Of those abducted by the Mind-Flayers is the Githyanki T'av. Good so far. Unfortunately the game is inconsistently able to accommodate us further, slightly incoherent even.
This is what happened to an option that is supposed to be in the game, now multiply it by all the options that aren't part of Larian's mission statement and the problems will only compound themselves.
The idea that people in Kara-Tur use the term Bard doesn't sound right to me. Has Kara-Tur been dealt with in 5e yet? Still, yes Bard is a special term, like I said, for completely metatextual reasons. The game has been passed through a lot of hands, some where less adroit than others, a person can be referred to as Bard, and it can still be the abstraction of bard. I'm reminded of MMO dialogue, because there's so little effort for people to behave 'in-character' the veil between story and game is often transparent.
Originally Posted by Niara
No, they would not.
Probably not, casting divine magic is probably required, and yet...If you chose to take holy vows, but not "levels" in paladin, what would the end result be? This last line was maybe a stretch, but the overarching point still stands. If you think that one point undoes it all, that's fine. I didn't want to have to go through every class. It was about the imperfect translation of the world to the table, do you have anything to say about that, or is it just that one point that you wanted to make?
I was going to put in a little light-hearted blurb here, about a small hamlet's public house being 'terrorized' by a Githyanki paladin, and a Drow ranger, but it's too late, so just enjoy the concept. There was a great bit in there about Astral Plains...oh well.
The background is just to give you a slight advantage on rolls, now if they give us a place of origin like example instead of Baulders Gate you are from Elturel that would lead to some very interesting dialogue and be be pretty cool.
My Name is Regulator and im a Hoarder in the lands of Faerûn.
how much stuff is to much stuff, because its certainly not enough stuff.
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though.
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though.
Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language.
Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd.
If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad.
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though.
Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language.
Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd.
If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad.
This is some next level of bull...
What is the option for people who feel that they are neither man nor woman? That's not covered under polymorph or disguise spells, and not covered by druid shapechanges either. It is specifically how they present to society rather than any specific physical feature. What is the solution for them?
Remember the human (This is a forum for a video game):
A final (unless I get another severe itch to overzealously rummage for data) bit of research - apparently, as it turns out, the identity selector from character creation is only there in the English version of the game to begin with (which makes sense considering the wording of the text of the update that introduced it, but I thought that they'd have it throughout but only the English version will recognize the dialogue changes? Or something to that extent).
In any event, given the aforementioned language specifics, I have doubts that the supposed plan to support the identity selection in all the languages will come through in the end. We'll see, I guess. It is curious to see discrepancy in UI elements of all things between the languages the game's available in, though.
Omg how they dear this. I want to be identified in any language.
Joke aside. I agree with you. I think in a game like Cyberpunk it totally fit in the theme to have this gender..... It. And I have zero problem with that. But seriously I don't think there are plastic surgery clinic's in dnd.
If somone want to identify as a women or a man they can just use a f.... Ing disguse/polimorph spell. Or better if someone feels him self to be a Pikachu chose the druid class. But common do not expect as a druid male person (shape changed to a wolf) to be identifyed as a women leaporad.
This is some next level of bull...
..but if the identity feature is optional why would it bother you?
I’m going to appeal to everyone to try to take the heat out of their language on this topic and, as I’ve said, do their best to engage constructively and without insulting those who have different views.
There is nothing necessarily offensive about thinking that gender nonconformity wouldn’t be a thing in Faerun, and folk who believe that it wouldn’t be are free to explain clearly, calmly why this is so. As long as they are showing good will and at least attempting to avoid insulting those whose real life experiences might be unavoidably bound up in such a discussion. And to avoid dragging in modern real world politics or events, as far as that’s possible when such a debate would need to involve extrapolating from our world to Faerun.
However, it is not clearly “bull†to think that there would and should be trans individuals on Faerun on the basis that it’s not a modern setting. Though specific modern meanings of terms related to gender have only been coming into currency over the last 60 or so years, there’s evidence of various kinds of gender non-conformity throughout human history and in multiple cultures, even in some where there would have been strong taboos against it. Plus, of course, someone might argue that the purpose of the world as a game setting in which players have the flexibility to create the characters they want to play takes precedence over any considerations of “realism†anyway.
In that context, calling allowing players to create trans PCs “next level bull†seems unnecessarily dismissive, though of course people could reasonably disagree that the sorts of considerations I’ve suggested above are compelling or decisive.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
![[Linked Image from bg3.wiki]](https://bg3.wiki/w/images/thumb/d/d4/Minthara_Approval.png/26px-Minthara_Approval.png)
in spells as a desciptor is evil no matter what you do, and it has nothing about what right or wrong, its just part of the fantasy fact, it just is...
![[Linked Image from i.redd.it]](https://i.redd.it/a604rad7j4651.png)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/RajZth1.jpeg)
