Well straightjacket is a little strong, but nonhumans don't really have anywhere near the freedom in their own cultures that humans do. (At least, not in the core AD&D setting. The other settings often follow a different set of rules.) Dwarves and Elves, for instance, are bound by age-old traditions and honor and whatnot, so the paths they take in life are limited not just by the game rules but by their society. There are other physiological things too, dwarves are very magic-resistant to the point of magic items actually failing to function when operated by a dwarf, so dwarven mages are basically unheard of. (Item failure was left out of the games, but their saving throw bonus is also a lot smaller.) Similarly, halflings (as hobbit ripoffs) generally don't play martially-oriented classes because they'd much rather be smoking, drinking, farming, and causing mischief. Humans are the only race that really value independence and freedom and expansion, so (in theory) most adventurers are also supposed to be humans. The call to adventure just doesn't ring as strongly to the others.

It's been so long since I played the original that it might as well be a new game to me. I've been holding out on buying the GoG version because the Enhanced Edition is coming along soon, though a part of me wants to have the original version as well. I don't wanna feel like I wasted my money if the Enhanced Edition makes the original obsolete (not that it's new or anything, but you know what I mean). I also heard that the developers are looking to remake Planescape and set it up for a potential sequel as well as Icewind Dale and maybe even Neverwinter Nights or MDK, but that's serious speculation at this point. It makes me a little apprehensive about buying the games right now.

The original BG can be played with the BG2 engine if you own both games (GOG versions work well for this purpose), with either one of the mods "EasyTutu" or "Baldur's Gate Trilogy". Add the widescreen mod on top of that and both games look phenomenal on modern screen resolutions. I do not think the EE's will make them obsolete in any way, except for maybe multiplayer games. BG MP is very outdated and hard to get to work nowadays.

Especially considering that, in AD&D you could be a Cleric of 'The God of Murdering by Sword Thrusts' or some such and be completely unable to pick up a sword or even a dagger.
I understand what they were going for but the way to encourage appropriate archetypes is not to make classes unable to use certain weapons/armor arbitrarily but rather to impose difficulties (i.e. encumbrance hampering spell casting) on casting non-Divine spells in armor/while carrying a bunch of crap and also to restrict skill levels/proficiencies (i.e. a Mage cannot "Master" or even be proficient with a sword or some such).

The thing you are missing is that there are FAR better ways to encourage or even enforce 'difference' and uniqueness in classes than arbitrary, often nonsensical prohibitions and restrictions. Want Paladins to be distinguishable from Fighters and such? What you do is to grant greater/faster aptitude with certain weapons and equipment (for example, sticking with D&D's already existent proficiency system, allow Paladins to achieve 'Grandmaster' skill with two-handed swords but restrictions on how good they can get with bows, etc. Then of course you have the special abilities like 'Lay on Hands' and such. D&D 3.X does as well as can be expected in some of this stuff considering the ruleset they are stuck with. False. I realize you can 'house rule' ways to patch things up but AD&D clearly states that mages cannot use any weapons but staves, daggers and darts and Clerics cannot use any but blunt weapons, regardless of deity/religion. Again, this is untrue. In the 'real rules' there are simple arbitrary prohibitions and restrictions for races, classes, gear and levels (for non-humans). LOL...okay, lots of problems with the above. 1) You do realize you just said "there is nothing stopping you..." followed by a descriptive explanation of what would stop you from using prohibited weapons, right? 2) In BG a Mage cannot use a sword or flail. period. Nothing to do with the threat of electro-shock. Unless you are a multi-classed fighter/mage or some such, you simply cannot use, touch, equip or wield certain weapons. 3) Do you really not see how much of a desperate rationalization you are offering here?! You are basically saying 'No waitaminute. It now makes complete sense that Elric cannot exist in AD&D because no sorcerer can even pick up a sword because I can imagine the sword might electrocute Elric for trying to use it." ?!

This same applies for other absurdities such as thieves being unable to don plate armor as well. It is fine to penalize thief abilities while wearing heavy armor/being encumbered but the way AD&D does this makes no sense and is simply lazy design. Not in AD&D or Baldur's Gate. You can imagine whatever specious reasoning you want for this but the real truth is that AD&D is a primitive RPG design full of crappy, lazy 'solutions' to perceived problems. This was a latter rule revision TSR offered once they got tired of trying to deny they had done things wrongly the first few times and in the Baldur's Gate games they implemented (in BG 2) "Kits" which allow for different types of Cleric (a very few different types at least). In BG 1 you are stuck without even THIS much.
They seemed to recognize that it would be impossible and dumb to try and come up with a new "Class" or "Sub-class" for every possible fantasy character build in heroic fantasy so they...added a bunch of new secondary character classes but called them "kits" . Oh...well okay then. I will just go ahead right now and roll up a human fighter-mage-thief-cleric so I can create the character I want to play and just ignore the fact that, even though my character concept had nothing to do with him being a priest or a thief, he is now stuck with those 'classes'.
Oh waitaminute...no I WON'T do that because for some bizarre reason humans cannot multi-class! So maybe I will 're-imagine' him to be a dwarf fighter-mage-thief-cleric. Oh except I cannot have four classes in my multi-class build and even if I could, the mightiest dwarf fighter in ANY AD&D world is little more than dragon bait with his level 10 maximum (or whatever it is). Yeah...right. Non-humans in AD&D can be a whole single point better than a human in ONE attribute and maybe a bunch of points worse in other attributes and they can see in the dark better and maybe are a bit better at spotting secret doors in their native habitats. That more than makes up for the fact that, at their maximum levels they could not last 2 rounds with a 20th level human of the same class. Great way to encourage unique character building is to, in effect force non-humans to all be 2-3 classes, and pretty much the same exact builds for every race (i.e. elves are almost always fighter/mage or Fighter/Mage/Thief(or cleric) of some sort). I just cannot stand the idea of playing a dwarf who is an extraordinary warrior, sans magic spells or thief skills (/sarcasm). Except they DO matter even in BG1 where they try to get around the problems via artificial level/experience restrictions (as per the AD&D rules) since it usually makes more sense to be a multi-class elf or dwarf or whatever than it does to be a single classed human. Not in a well designed RPG. That humans would get steam rolled in AD&D and so they figured they must imposed arbitrary level and class restrictions is just more evidence of AD&D's poor design. +4 Straightjacket of Culture is not even usable by humans. ;)

But seriously, you don't think that the very notion that ALL of the human species(on ANY world) is lumped together under the "race" of "human a bit 'striaghtjacket-ing'? No physical, mental or proficiency differences between Vikings, Samurai, Zulus, Melniboean, Rohan (Rohirim?), Cimmerians etc.?

I'm not going to reply to your post point by point because it would take forever. Suffice to say that we disagree about what good RPG design is and leave it at that. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. It's a different philosophy of design. However, there are some points where you are factually incorrect. I'll quote out of the appropriate books.

Cleric weapon usage, Player's Handbook 2e AD&D, 1989 (9 years before BG):
"Not all mythoi are opposed to the shedding of blood. Indeed, some require their preists to use swords, spears, or other specific weapons." It follows with a list of which types of deities like which weapons, many of which are bladed.
Cleric weapon usage and powers, Dark Sun Setting, 1991 (7 years before BG):
"Clerics are not strictly forbidden from using weapons that do not conform to those listed here. However, clerics will not gain their share of group experience awards for creatures defeated using weapons outside this scheme." Other settings have similar lines.
Kits have also existed since 1989 or earlier. Just because BG1 didn't implement them doesn't mean they didn't exist. BG is a simplification of the PnP rules in a dizzying array of ways. You cannot judge the limitations of the PnP game by the decisions made with BG.

Dwarves can get to level 15 in fighter, 10 in cleric, and 12 in thief. This makes a multi-classed dwarf cap out at around 2.2 million XP, which is exactly the same as a level 20 thief, and is only significantly less than a wizard or druid. If the dwarf has a high value in his primary stat(s), he can get as much as 4 extra levels per class, which could take him up to a 19F/14C or 19F/16T (4.1 million, more than any human can attain in base D&D except as a heirophant). So if he rolls well, he can even reach a HIGHER level. With a high strength, he can even be a pure fighter with no problems. These restrictions would only matter if you're playing a high-level campaign (15+), and if you ARE playing a high-level campaign, then the racial level restrictions have almost certainly been lifted.

Dwarves also get a huge saving throw bonus, +1 hit bonuses against many common foes, +4 AC bonuses against many common foes, and a one-point bonus to one of the most important stats with a one-point penalty to the most common dump stat (cha). Dwarves in true AD&D do not get a dex penalty. None of the base races get anything more than a one-point attribute penalty ever. Humans get NO abilities whatsoever other than class and possibly level. There's even an extended section in the DMG talking about how it's totally okay to modify or remove the racial class and level restrictions, you just have to be prepared for overpowered characters because that's not how the system was designed.

What are you trying to say bro? That some races are better at some things? What? Should Samurai get a +1 to their math skills because they're Asian?? Racism. lol

I'm fairly sure that in AD&D cultural differences in skills and abilities are supposed to be represented with classes and/or kits. A bushidō and a barbarian will have different stats and abilities.

How demihumans fit into the equation is a bit iffy for me, but I suppose that's about fair since for the most part they are supposed to be more or less isolated cultures living in a human-dominated world. Some dissonance is to be expected.

Yes. I knew that actually but had something else in my mind when I posted the above. Thank you both for the correction.

More evidence of bad design is this inconsistency. "Barbarian" should technically, even by the apparent design philosophy of AD&D, be a race. Barbarians come from a wide variety of dissimilar classes. Conan was a Fighter/ Thief, same with Fafhrd. Fantasy is chock full of barbarian 'Shamans', 'Witch Doctors', Rangers (including 'Hunters', 'Scouts' and other such related professions), Berserkers (special type of 'Fighter') etc. "Kits" act more as the old "Sub-classes" (often published in Dragon or White Dwarf or other RPG magazines) for the most part and serve to include more fantasy archetypes than are represented well by the primary classes (i.e. a "Witch Hunter" is not just a paladin with a penchant for wide brimmed hats).
Races generally serve as both a species and a cultural designation within a species. Why we have "High Elves", "Sylvan Elves", "Drow" etc..

No argument that the 2e rules are odd/weird/nonsensical, even 'bad'. But despite that, I personally enjoy the hell out of those rules. The quirks of the rule set (IMO, of course) give it a character that later iterations seem to lack.

Now, this could very well be nostalgia talking, as I started playing D&D way back in the late 70's using the original rules (where Elf was a class on its own). All I know is I keep coming back to the BG games and IWD 1 time and time again. No other games draw me back like these ones. And much of that has to do with the weird rule set.

I don't really get what you're saying. If we're talking about Forgotten Realms here, barbarians are not a separate race simply because they're humans. Of course, there could be human subraces but as far as I know as of 2nd edition AD&D these were not established (I seem to remember seeing them in later edition FR books however).

As for the different roles in barbarian tribes (hunter, shaman, berserker, etc.), you're right, they should not be represented with a single class and they aren't. In different AD&D rulebooks all of those roles have been added as kits (as part of TSR's moneygrubbing strategy). As for the "barbarian" class/kit being a generic tribal warrior kind of thing, I think we can chalk that up to the traditional RPG practice of oversimplifying cultures in order to fit them into less pages.

Tony, surely you conceive of multiple ways to do something? If every single game did things just the way you like them, they'd all be the same. Also, don't you have anything better to do that badmouthing AD&D? Surely that time could be spent playing video games or masturbating. You're wasting valuable time on this forum dude.

Newish screenshot with new UI shown:

http://baldursgate.com/images/media/screen08.png

IMHO the new UI is fairly distracting and will probably require some getting used to. (Or a mod to tone those colors down.)