While the two terms are not the same thing, I noticed that it is the LGBT sexuality that generates the most disputes.

I rather watch such disputes from somewhere above. Just call me Switzerland :)

@hummer010

From what i read on the Beamdog forum ,the next patch is estimated to come up in about a week.

Ed Greenwood doesn't trump me. He is not D&D itself, and however he viewed D&D is not the same as what D&D was in reality. He's taken a side in this dispute, and he's trying to revise the past to fit the outcome he wants. That's one of the reasons I felt the need to post. I really couldn't care less about this whole dispute, but I don't like to see people claiming things about the history of D&D that simply aren't true. That's part of my childhood.

And no, early D&D wasn't socially progressive in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact, since D&D was always associated with hyper-sexual images of women in the well-known "chainmail bikini," the sort of thing that appealed to male adolescent and teen-aged dorks. If anything D&D was regarded by society at large as crude and juvenile, and not fighting for any kind of rights movement at all. Playing D&D was a semi-shameful act for most people, which was undoubtedly part of its appeal.

As the game aged there was a concerted effort to make it more female-friendly, but that was in response to numerous complaints from female (and male) gamers and in an attempt to broaden the appeal of the game to increase profits.

Exactly. Also who really cares what Ed thinks, he's a terrible writer himself (and he's a whole lot better than the writing in this game). Just like I don't need hate speech or racism in my games, I don't need radical SJW politics either.

But is so EASY to say that people is bullying you for including a trans... (Witcher 3, Inquisition have this, nobody complaint NOBODY...)

Actually the whole line about this Cleric for me is "I born boy but I always wanted to be a girl... " ok nice, actually nonsense at all in a world where you actually CAN BE a woman very easily and fullfill your dream (Why not to fit the lore and write an IMAGINATIVE story about "transexuality" between the lore? A story that maybe this Cleric was THE FIRST ONE THAT INVENTED A POTION TO CHANGE SEX... but hey! make sense and telling a nice story plus a great message is not important... nah! they need to POSE... and if you don´t like it YOU ARE BAD...

Anyway, even considering that the whole thing is bad done, is more than acceptable when I read it, the thing that really made me had a FACEPALM is the line "my name is built by several sounds from different languages that all together express my TRUE ME"

Is so CHEESY and PRETENTIOUS, is is so ridiculous... it really sounds like a SOUTH PARK dialogue where Stan touches his nose when he listen it... could fit one of those EMPTY memes that we people have the weakness to sometimes post them on FACEBOOK to pretend to be so especial.

I would agree that D&D was not intended as a social platform. It was a game first and foremost, born from the war gaming communities of the 1970s. Has anyone read "Playing at the World" by Jon Peterson? It's a monster of a read, but absolutely fascinating.

What was/is great about D&D, however, is that it created a tremendously inclusive community of folks interested in creating/telling stories together. Even as it broadened, historically, it was a game that was open to everyone, and both to widen its paying audience (extend the consumer base) and to continue that community, it adapted to reflect the growing diversity of its base. The tabletop community became a very progressive avenue. I'd argue that as tabletop role playing became less socially "acceptable" in the later 80s and 90s, that spirit of inclusion grew as D&D became a welcome community for folks that felt their interest in fantasy (and commitment to their imaginations) was marginalizing.

Gary Gygax did mention that he found that men were a much larger audience for D&D than women, chalking it up to a male need for adventure (which I find somewhat naive, and I consider Gary in my pantheon of deities), but he would never reject anyone from his table that wanted to play.

I find the whole kerfluffle about SoD slightly disappointing, but not too surprising. The tabletop community went through similar, but not nearly as tectonically violent, shifts as more people got interested in it...the gaming community is experiencing a similar shift, and I think it's safe to say, because of the quality of people involved in gaming (the Tim Schafers, Brian Fargos, David Cages, etc) to be very similar to the legends of D&D. I am really looking forward to getting deeper into SoD, but I think Beamdog has done an excellent job capturing the spirit for a new generation.

Beamdog and the game will be fine. I hope they make BG 3, but I certainly hope it's a new storyline!

Ed Greenwood is pretty rad, btw, and his original vision/tabletop implementation for the Forgotten Realms is much less sanitized than it became for mass consumption as TSR's flagship world. I do prefer Greyhawk but mostly just cause I love 1E.

I think we can all agree that more games in the Infinity Engine style is a great thing, and the more gamers, from any and all backgrounds, involved in the hobby, connecting with a love for interactive narratives, even better. Here's to Minsc and Boo!

Wow, the current gaming environment really embraced this "Gamergate" crap. And looks like the legacy of Baldur's Gate is "tarnished" just because there are gay characters. Stop being crybabies and enjoy the game, isn't what gaming is all about? To forget about your problems and frustrations in life?

Rather then admit they had bad writing that even some LGBT people criticized.

As a big fan of the series I thought this game was a bad idea from the start. The story was closed, people made their own conclusion, built their own perspective on party members in fan fiction etc. And that had to conflict with the "new" character development. Why can't we let the great classics rest in peace? I for sure want another BG, but more a successor in spirit than a game that messes up with believes and things that were established in my mind over decades.
And no, this is not about this one insignificant NPC. Its about all the rest.

Not sure if anyone posted this already but Trent Oster made a new post on Beamdogs forum yesterday where he (among other things) states the following:

"We’ve received feedback around Mizhena, a supporting character who reveals she is transgender. In retrospect, it would have been better served if we had introduced a transgender character with more development. This is a lesson we will be carrying forward in our development as creators and we will be improving this character in a future update."

"Multiplayer – We are acting on reports of multiplayer issues and hope to have this fixed in the next update."

"Minsc – Minsc has a line which generated controversy. Looking back on the line, we agree with the feedback from our community, it has nothing to do with his character and we will be removing the line."

Here is a link to the Beamdog forum post.

Personally I am against a creator editing/censoring/altering their work because of public pressure and that regardless of where this pressure might come from and what my opinion is on the reasons behind said pressure.

That's true for the Minsc line (and I do think putting this line in Minsc dialog was pretty stupid) and that was already true for PoE limerick and even for Mass Effect 3 ending.

No matter how much I might disagree/dislike or even "hate" a plot message/character/message/agenda or whatever I prefer creator to stand by their creation, even if it means me not buying their next work, rather than having them surrender to external pressure and alter it.

Maybe the game is worth buying then. Well I have to check months later if the game got better before deciding.

If this would be the work of a single writer I would agree. But these projects are shared work, different people with vastly different opinions, so there usually is not a "single" creative vision. Also very often things "slip" into such a project that were not intended by the majority of the designers etc. I have no problems with adjusting these things later on and I don't see that as censorship or "caving under public pressure" by default.

This pretty much mirrors what I think about it. They shouldn't have put the line in there in the first place but removing it is also bad. I do think it's great that Beamdog changed their minds on the whole issue and I will now get the expansion next time I can afford it. And also I now hope they will go forward with BG3 and hopefully their writer Amber Scott will hae learnt a lot from this.

Can you import a BG1 character from the non-HD version of BG into this?

Honestly this is the real problem. GG or not we need trans writers at least being consulted for the writing of trans characters if the writer doesn't know jack, if not just written by transpeople completely. Or else it comes off like we see here; kinda like when you write a Russian character with your only known things about Russia being Putin, Stalin, and Vodka. Also IIRC the character doesn't even take D&D lore into account on such subjects, which would've at least added a little depth. For the cherry topping on the shit sundae, as if being in a new expansion wasn't bad enough (beforehand outside of mobile, one could just use a mod to whisk away the new NPCs if they so wished... if only these weren't more important to the expansion), it's also more of an insult to the community they're including to the game.

If this was better done I'd be all for it though, honestly. Even though it looks worse the expansion is optional after all, and those who don't like it can just not play it. Maybe if we're lucky someone with actual know-how about things will improve the characters via mod. As-is, they had some good potential but failed miserably.