Hickory: Aaaaaaaaand the cowardly downrep dregs of the forum flock to Zaxares' aid. Don't you feel proud that this pond scum is in your corner, Zaxares?
You probably won't believe me on this, but I do not know who are the people downvoting your posts, nor did I request their aid or somesuch. Anyway...
Hickory: No, YOU "look". I never indulged in any "monster of hate" tripe, but everything you are spouting IS apologist in regards to the subject at hand. Cherry picking and putting words into my mouth doesn't work on me.
I still fail to see how anything I have said is "apologist". To return to the original subject, the question I was originally replying to was whether or not Siege of Dragonspear has a "political correctness agenda", and I stand by my stance that it does not. As I've mentioned before, one conversation in a game that probably at least a good half of players will never even see does not make a game suddenly have an agenda. If anything, I could think of a few examples where it could be argued that the game is instead biased against female characters.
I'm going to get into spoilers here, so for the benefit of anybody who's following this conversation who hasn't played Siege of Dragonspear, you might want to look away:
SPOILERS BELOW 1. The biggest example would probably be Caelar Argent herself, where it's revealed at the end of the game that she's been lying about the true reason for the Crusade all along. Her real goal is to rescue her uncle, Aun Argent, who many years ago voluntarily offered himself up to the baatezu Belhifet in Caelar's place after Caelar foolishly read some forbidden tomes and summoned Belhifet, who promptly laid claim to her soul. So for all these years she's been crippled by guilt over her uncle's gate, and now, to right that wrong, she leads thousands of souls into the Nine Hells to certain doom under false pretenses.
Now, if I was a feminist, I could argue that this is another classic example of how pop culture reinforces the stereotype that women shouldn't be put into roles of responsibility because their "emotions" will get in the way and lead them into making disastrous decisions. What's more, Caelar is a general, a role typically reserved for men. DOUBLE societal no-no! She has to fail, and fail HARD to show that this thing must not be permitted.
2. The second big example I can think of is Schael Corwin, one of the new companions in SoD. She's notable because she's probably the first companion in a D&D game who's also a single mother. I personally wasn't very wowed by her story and interactions, but it's the final conversation with her that's memorable. At the end of the game, you're framed for the murder of a high-ranking VIP, and, if you're a Good character, despite everything she knows about you and everything you've been through together, and EVEN if you're romancing her, Schael turns on you and helps arrest you. Later in prison, her last words to you are about how, even if you're innocent, you should plead guilty and allow yourself to be executed for the good of maintaining law and order (since the city of Baldur's Gate is in turmoil over your arrest, with half believing you to be Sarevok 2.0 and half believing you're innocent, and the two sides are ready to start rioting in the streets).
So again, if I was a feminist, I could raise a ruckus about how this is a disgraceful first appearance of a single mother in a fantasy RPG, a "See? You gotta shun single mothers because they'll never be able to truly love you." message that reinforces single parents as "untouchable has-been's". What's worse, if you played through as a Good character that made mostly noble choices throughout the game (as I did), the Dukes exile you from Baldur's Gate and you never ever get to see Schael redeem herself for that last scene. (If you made mostly Neutral or Evil choices through the game, you instead have to escape through the sewers, and if you're Neutral or have romanced her, then Schael shows up as part of a squad sent to recapture you, but she changes sides and helps you escape. I myself was not aware of this possibility until some other players told me about it.)
END SPOILERS So there you go, that's two examples for how one could claim that Siege of Dragonspear does not have political correctness. Far from it, in fact! But do I actually believe that? No, I don't, because overall the game feels just like the other Baldur's Gate gates, a fantasy adventure romp through the Forgotten Realms that, yes, could have been better here and there, but it was still enjoyable enough.
And that's basically the point I've been saying all this time. Despite all the controversy surrounding the EEs and Beamdog (some of whose points I reiterate I feel are entirely valid and Beamdog should not be immune to criticism over them), I still feel that Siege of Dragonspear is a fun experience for anybody who enjoyed the BG saga and it's worth taking a look at. (By all means, wait till GoG has another one of its 50-75% discount sales too. That's what I did!) I just don't want players who enjoyed the other Infinity Engine games to miss out on something they might actually wind up liking.
dtgreene: Here's an idea: Try making a mod that does just that yourself. It shouldn't be too hard, particular,ly the first part, and it would be a good way to learn how to mod.
Ehhh, I don't think it's worth the time. As I mentioned before, this conversation only fires if your character is female and you didn't recruit Voghiln into your party when the opportunity first arises. It hardly seems worth the effort making a mod to adjust a conversation that I never saw and wasn't that bothered by anyway.