No Alphabets 7.1 — Baldur's Gate 3

[UltraFan123]

It's a shame the default setting wasn't Greyhawk.

Or Eberron, which is a shame since the Eberron setting is pretty awesome.

Dragonlance is a great setting too.

[Kain]

"Of course, this isn't exactly out of place in certain historical periods and cultures. For example, the Greeks and Etruscans were particularly known for having frequent orgies, Canaanite religion frequently involved cross-dressing (which may be why the Bible forbids it) and the nobility of many cultures from the Ptolemaic Egyptians to Hawaii to the House of Habsburg practiced various forms of incest so as to keep power within the family and avoid muddling their bloodlines with peasant genome; Rome had all of the above at various points. Therefore, some individual cultures or nations with these things going on probably wouldn't be too far off the mark, and notably, the post that included the stuff about incest also included that Ed himself is against incest... but when the whole **** world is into this stuff, it's not treated as a problem, no one questions it, and there's no sign of things changing, then clearly the author has something on his mind."

It happens when cultures stop being cultures and become playgrounds of overpowered sex freaks. It heralds the end of a dynasty, a nation, an empire or even an entire race. The proceeds can be long or short but inevitable.

[Kain]

Vanilla BG3 rich dresses are as lore unfriendly as *******. Just because you wanna fap to it doesn't make it lore friendly all of a sudden. Also every example you gave are playable characters, not random NPCs that are there to feed into the environment and timeline of the game. Having nobles dress like whores is a modern concept... so this again:

Depending on the level of decadence, a noble can be just a ***** with much greater influence.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

All of this got me thinking: was there a time when Forgotten Realms wasn't the perversion it is now? Is there a clear line when Greenwood was no longer beaten by his hands with the censorship ruler, was given complete freedom and crammed all the fetishes he knew into the gaming universe?

A lot of stuff got cut by TSR. Greenwood would cry his books were unreadable because the flow was ruined during editing, but as it turns out they were just unreadable altogether.
It's a shame the default setting wasn't Greyhawk.

Am I reading you right: the whole Forgotten Realms setting isn't worth getting into? I mean, Greenwood wrote it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgotten_Realms

Creative origins

Ed Greenwood began writing stories about the Forgotten Realms as a child, starting at the age of eight.[5] He came up with the name from the notion of a multiverse of parallel worlds; Earth is one such world, and the Realms another. In Greenwood's original conception, the fantastic legends of Earth derive from a fantasy world that can no longer be accessed.[6] Greenwood discovered the Dungeons & Dragons game in 1975, and became a serious role-playing enthusiast with the first Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) game releases in 1978.[6] Greenwood brought his fantasy world into the new medium of role-playing games when a university student named September invited him to play AD&D with her.[5]: 72  The setting became the home of Greenwood's personal campaign.[7] Greenwood began a Realms campaign in the city of Waterdeep before creating a group known as the Knights of Myth Drannor in the Shadowdale region. Greenwood felt that his players' thirst for detail made the Realms what it is: "They want it to seem real, and work on 'honest jobs' and personal activities, until the whole thing grows into far more than a casual campaign. Roleplaying always governs over rules, and the adventures seem to develop themselves."[6] Greenwood has stated that his own version of the Forgotten Realms, as run in his personal campaign, is much darker than published versions.

Starting in 1979, Greenwood published a series of articles that detailed the setting in The Dragon (now Dragon) magazine, the first of which was about a monster known as the curst.[5]: 72  Greenwood wrote voluminous entries to Dragon, and used the Realms as a setting for his descriptions of magic items, monsters, and spells.[7] When Gary Gygax "lost control of TSR in 1985, the company saw an opportunity to move beyond Greyhawk and introduce a new default setting".[9]: 87  In 1986, TSR began looking for a new campaign setting for AD&D,[5]: 72  and assigned Jeff Grubb to find out more about the setting used by Greenwood as portrayed in his articles in Dragon.[9]

Greenwood states that Grubb asked him "Do you just make this stuff up as you go, or do you really have a huge campaign world?", and Greenwood answered "yes" to both questions.[6] TSR felt that the Forgotten Realms would be a more open-ended setting than its epic fantasy counterpart Dragonlance, and chose the Realms as a ready-made campaign setting upon deciding to publish AD&D 2nd edition.[6] Greenwood agreed to work on the project and began working to get Forgotten Realms officially published.[10] He sent TSR a few dozen cardboard boxes stuffed with pencil notes and maps, and sold all rights to the setting for a token fee.[6] He noted that TSR altered his original conception of the Realms being a place that could be accessed from Earth, as "[c]oncerns over possible lawsuits (kids getting hurt while trying to 'find a gate') led TSR to de-emphasize this meaning".[6]

Jon Peterson, author of Dungeons and Dragons Art and Arcana: A Visual History, said that Greenwood "was that rare obsessive DM who just seemed to have more ideas and energy to pour into his world than even the folks at TSR did. Naturally when TSR was shopping for new campaign worlds as part of their cross-media strategy, they had to get the Forgotten Realms. R. A. Salvatore took Greenwood's world and created characters and stories for it that made him a bestselling author and sustained TSR as a major fantasy book publisher".

[rusty_shackleford]

Am I reading you right: the whole Forgotten Realms setting isn't worth getting into? I mean, Greenwood wrote it.

pretty much yea, but a lot of the forgotten realms was added against greenwood's wishes but per contract he's allowed to add whatever he wants to it
it's a big clusterfuck

[rusty_shackleford]

look at this harlot, she is practically naked

Selection_022.webp

[logincrash]

He was angry about this change

I'm fine with removing the pants ridding up the asscrack, but I think the leather chaps look cool.

[Acrux]

All of this got me thinking: was there a time when Forgotten Realms wasn't the perversion it is now? Is there a clear line when Greenwood was no longer beaten by his hands with the censorship ruler, was given complete freedom and crammed all the fetishes he knew into the gaming universe?

A lot of stuff got cut by TSR. Greenwood would cry his books were unreadable because the flow was ruined during editing, but as it turns out they were just unreadable altogether.
It's a shame the default setting wasn't Greyhawk.

Am I reading you right: the whole Forgotten Realms setting isn't worth getting into? I mean, Greenwood wrote it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgotten_Realms

Creative origins

Ed Greenwood began writing stories about the Forgotten Realms as a child, starting at the age of eight.[5] He came up with the name from the notion of a multiverse of parallel worlds; Earth is one such world, and the Realms another. In Greenwood's original conception, the fantastic legends of Earth derive from a fantasy world that can no longer be accessed.[6] Greenwood discovered the Dungeons & Dragons game in 1975, and became a serious role-playing enthusiast with the first Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) game releases in 1978.[6] Greenwood brought his fantasy world into the new medium of role-playing games when a university student named September invited him to play AD&D with her.[5]: 72  The setting became the home of Greenwood's personal campaign.[7] Greenwood began a Realms campaign in the city of Waterdeep before creating a group known as the Knights of Myth Drannor in the Shadowdale region. Greenwood felt that his players' thirst for detail made the Realms what it is: "They want it to seem real, and work on 'honest jobs' and personal activities, until the whole thing grows into far more than a casual campaign. Roleplaying always governs over rules, and the adventures seem to develop themselves."[6] Greenwood has stated that his own version of the Forgotten Realms, as run in his personal campaign, is much darker than published versions.

Starting in 1979, Greenwood published a series of articles that detailed the setting in The Dragon (now Dragon) magazine, the first of which was about a monster known as the curst.[5]: 72  Greenwood wrote voluminous entries to Dragon, and used the Realms as a setting for his descriptions of magic items, monsters, and spells.[7] When Gary Gygax "lost control of TSR in 1985, the company saw an opportunity to move beyond Greyhawk and introduce a new default setting".[9]: 87  In 1986, TSR began looking for a new campaign setting for AD&D,[5]: 72  and assigned Jeff Grubb to find out more about the setting used by Greenwood as portrayed in his articles in Dragon.[9]

Greenwood states that Grubb asked him "Do you just make this stuff up as you go, or do you really have a huge campaign world?", and Greenwood answered "yes" to both questions.[6] TSR felt that the Forgotten Realms would be a more open-ended setting than its epic fantasy counterpart Dragonlance, and chose the Realms as a ready-made campaign setting upon deciding to publish AD&D 2nd edition.[6] Greenwood agreed to work on the project and began working to get Forgotten Realms officially published.[10] He sent TSR a few dozen cardboard boxes stuffed with pencil notes and maps, and sold all rights to the setting for a token fee.[6] He noted that TSR altered his original conception of the Realms being a place that could be accessed from Earth, as "[c]oncerns over possible lawsuits (kids getting hurt while trying to 'find a gate') led TSR to de-emphasize this meaning".[6]

Jon Peterson, author of Dungeons and Dragons Art and Arcana: A Visual History, said that Greenwood "was that rare obsessive DM who just seemed to have more ideas and energy to pour into his world than even the folks at TSR did. Naturally when TSR was shopping for new campaign worlds as part of their cross-media strategy, they had to get the Forgotten Realms. R. A. Salvatore took Greenwood's world and created characters and stories for it that made him a bestselling author and sustained TSR as a major fantasy book publisher".

Forgotten Realms suuuucks, dude. World of Greyhawk is where it's at. https://greyhawkonline.com/greyhawkwiki/Greyhawk

[Kain]

We are living in a world where not seeing perverts and sex freaks everywhere is a fantasy.

[orinEsque]

He was angry about this change

I'm fine with removing the pants ridding up the asscrack, but I think the leather chaps look cool.

Hmm I'll put a note in to making a new model

[logincrash]

He was angry about this change

I'm fine with removing the pants ridding up the asscrack, but I think the leather chaps look cool.

Hmm I'll put a note in to making a new model

I was just making conversation. I don't even play BG3.

[RayoSombrio]

Just arrived at the circus. Good job there, too.

Lol yes. The freak being replaced by a real woman is one of the best works.

[Face]

I had to uninstall the mod and its components to get the post-Shadowheart decision Nightsong flying away scene to stop crashing. The only other mods I had installed were NoIntro, Teleport to You, Disable Critical Fails, Really Shadowheart, ImpUI, Cheaters Spell Scroll and Really Better Romance. Just FYI.

[orinEsque]

I had to uninstall the mod and its components to get the post-Shadowheart decision Nightsong flying away scene to stop crashing. The only other mods I had installed were NoIntro, Teleport to You, Disable Critical Fails, Really Shadowheart, ImpUI, Cheaters Spell Scroll and Really Better Romance. Just FYI.

I'm awareand fixed it. I'll release the update soon.

[Voolux]

I don't think covering up CERTAIN characters specifically for immersion, is the same as censorship.

Who would turn up to a political event dressed like they're on a night out? Especially in that setting.

Sure a player character barbarian woman might, but not "noble / rich" aristocrat NPCs.

Let me add this as a plus that having armor as a medieval/fantasy style fighter means that your "moveset" is very limited.
We all know the Crusader Knights from history, and they were the most well equipped and armored fighters around that time. It is no secret that in such armor you cannot move as freely. Therefore, having less armor for a female (or just simply agile) type warrior is the best counterpart.
The best example is the Night Elves from Warcraft. Remember how they were introduced in Warcraft 3? That's why the females were usually the fighters, and the males are druids/caster type.

Sadly, the modern 'muricans think that a female showing some skin means sexualizing. Which is utterly stupid. I bet these people never went outside during summer season, and witnessed actual real women, because they barely have any clothing on. I guess we should scream on them too:
"Stop sexualizing yourself!"

What a clown world we live in...

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't think covering up CERTAIN characters specifically for immersion, is the same as censorship.

Who would turn up to a political event dressed like they're on a night out? Especially in that setting.

Sure a player character barbarian woman might, but not "noble / rich" aristocrat NPCs.

Let me add this as a plus that having armor as a medieval/fantasy style fighter means that your "moveset" is very limited.
We all know the Crusader Knights from history, and they were the most well equipped and armored fighters around that time. It is no secret that in such armor you cannot move as freely. Therefore, having less armor for a female (or just simply agile) type warrior is the best counterpart.
The best example is the Night Elves from Warcraft. Remember how they were introduced in Warcraft 3? That's why the females were usually the fighters, and the males are druids/caster type.

Sadly, the modern 'muricans think that a female showing some skin means sexualizing. Which is utterly stupid. I bet these people never went outside during summer season, and witnessed actual real women, because they barely have any clothing on. I guess we should scream on them too:
"Stop sexualizing yourself!"

What a clown world we live in...

having female fighters is ******

[rusty_shackleford]

with regards to humans: best I can do is accept a handful of female fighters who are the absolute best in the world(read: player characters), but if I see female mercenaries, guards, etc., then your setting is ********

humans have a high sexual dimorphism compared to other mammals, definitely leaning towards some of the highest in the mammal kingdom afaik

[Voolux]

I don't think covering up CERTAIN characters specifically for immersion, is the same as censorship.

Who would turn up to a political event dressed like they're on a night out? Especially in that setting.

Sure a player character barbarian woman might, but not "noble / rich" aristocrat NPCs.

Let me add this as a plus that having armor as a medieval/fantasy style fighter means that your "moveset" is very limited.
We all know the Crusader Knights from history, and they were the most well equipped and armored fighters around that time. It is no secret that in such armor you cannot move as freely. Therefore, having less armor for a female (or just simply agile) type warrior is the best counterpart.
The best example is the Night Elves from Warcraft. Remember how they were introduced in Warcraft 3? That's why the females were usually the fighters, and the males are druids/caster type.

Sadly, the modern 'muricans think that a female showing some skin means sexualizing. Which is utterly stupid. I bet these people never went outside during summer season, and witnessed actual real women, because they barely have any clothing on. I guess we should scream on them too:
"Stop sexualizing yourself!"

What a clown world we live in...

having female fighters is ******

It's fine for me in fiction and fantasy, if they are not Mary Sue plot armor types.
Like Eowin or Arwen, they were just fine. (Yeah I know, Eowin wasn't really a warrior..)

[rusty_shackleford]

Like Eowin or Arwen, they were just fine. (Yeah I know, Eowin wasn't really a warrior..)

Arwen wasn't human, she's 3/4ths elf, which means a lot in tolkien's world

also she's a direct descendant of Bëor, and probably closer to something like 15/16th elf tbh

[UltraFan123]

Female warriors I may be willing to believe if they aren't actual warriors but rather the rogues who specialized in dodging and sneaking around during combat, since such style makes the most of a small and lightweight body.

However, if for whatever reason the setting insists that they must appear in the battlefield, I would still prefer if women remain as long-range support with crossbows or forearms because good aim is something they objectively have that's truly on par with men, as shown not only in modern shooting events but also the historical Soviet army had women snipers who were surprisingly good at it.

[Finarfin]

I don't think covering up CERTAIN characters specifically for immersion, is the same as censorship.

Who would turn up to a political event dressed like they're on a night out? Especially in that setting.

Sure a player character barbarian woman might, but not "noble / rich" aristocrat NPCs.

Let me add this as a plus that having armor as a medieval/fantasy style fighter means that your "moveset" is very limited.
We all know the Crusader Knights from history, and they were the most well equipped and armored fighters around that time. It is no secret that in such armor you cannot move as freely. Therefore, having less armor for a female (or just simply agile) type warrior is the best counterpart.
The best example is the Night Elves from Warcraft. Remember how they were introduced in Warcraft 3? That's why the females were usually the fighters, and the males are druids/caster type.

Sadly, the modern 'muricans think that a female showing some skin means sexualizing. Which is utterly stupid. I bet these people never went outside during summer season, and witnessed actual real women, because they barely have any clothing on. I guess we should scream on them too:
"Stop sexualizing yourself!"

What a clown world we live in...

The "Wearing armor means you cannot move around freely" is literally a hollyjew meme. You can run, move and even do rolls wearing full armor.

[rusty_shackleford]

because good aim is something they objectively have that's truly on par with men,

The olympics has separate male and female categories for shooting.

[rusty_shackleford]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

[Finarfin]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

Female Humans as frontline warriors - No but healer and mages yes
Female of other races that have other physical attributes or are stronger - like the Hrothgar from XIV can be frontline warriors as they are both muscular yet agile.

There is nothing wrong or shameful about playing to your strengths. If you are not physically strong enough to overman your opponent you should be ranged or supportive.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

[Finarfin]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

Always was? Who has a problem with Bae'zel?

[rusty_shackleford]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

Yes, they're not even demihuman(which I think is too close to human for it to count), but some lizard race that lays eggs.

Another example is Drow, which were specifically created to turn human sexual dimorphism on its head. Them being evil is well, you can maybe guess how Gygax viewed a female dominated society

[UltraFan123]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

Yeah the gith in-lore are basically an interdimensional monastic warrior race, so even if I dislike the BG3 wokeness it isn't out of place to see a female gith warrior.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

Always was? Who has a problem with Bae'zel?

If your setting is grounded or very low fantasy: Just keep women out of combat.
If it's fantasy: Support roles, magic(witches are a well known and old archetype), etc.,

If you want women warriors, just use a different species. It's not hard!

This is passable now?

Yes, they're not even demihuman(which I think is too close to human for it to count), but some lizard race that lays eggs.

Another example is Drow, which were specifically created to turn human sexual dimorphism on its head.

She looks like someone who'd be blown away if I sneezed in her direction. She doesn't look muscular or strong. With her build, she'd be more suited to the role of a rogue than a warrior.

[Finarfin]

This is passable now?

Always was? Who has a problem with Bae'zel?

This is passable now?

Yes, they're not even demihuman(which I think is too close to human for it to count), but some lizard race that lays eggs.

Another example is Drow, which were specifically created to turn human sexual dimorphism on its head.

She looks like someone who'd be blown away if I sneezed in her direction. She doesn't look muscular or strong. With her build, she'd be more suited to the role of a rogue than a warrior.

You assume that that stature is the same as the stature of a human though.