[BG3] Retrofit the Refugees

[orinEsque]

This is an idea and I'm wondering if I'll go forward with it. War refugees need shelter, of course they do. But the discourse about it in BG3 is far too... modern.

The word refugee is too kind for stranger hating populace of medieval/late renaissance period. Also it was coined in 17th century. So the idea is to replace it with other words depending on the speaker. E.g.:

Positive
sanctuary-seeker, people fleeing from war or monsters, people fleeing their home
Neutral
wanderer, exile, foreigner, stranger
Negative
outcast, stray, freeloaders, roaches

Only issue is there is a total of 133 voiced lines from 62 different NPCs. Rest are player lines that are easily altered.

Will need volunteers for voice line alterations if I go forward with this.

[Vaako]

Wouldnt survivors fit better in the context what they are fleeing from?

[orinEsque]

Wouldnt survivors fit better in the context what they are fleeing from?

True, the tieflings would be exiles and the rest would be survivors I guess.

[Oyster Sauce]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

[Goblin_Hammer]

War-torn survivors?

[orinEsque]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

Hmm you are right. being pedantic here about the word refugee would just create more work. Plenty of english words in there that wasn't in medieval times... hmm. i'll just stick to turning the corpse names to Dead Man/ Dead Elf etc.

[Oldtimer]

Wouldnt survivors fit better in the context what they are fleeing from?

True, the tieflings would be exiles and the rest would be survivors I guess.

Not necessarily if I may say so: the usual term for commoners back when was 'serfs', but also the word 'villein' was used - there was small differences in how they were viewed and regarding their status, but apart from that, you could borrow one of those words to use as the more age and time-appropriate word for 'refugee' which is more modern. Words have a tendency to change meaning over time - 'villein' became 'villain', just as 'pussy' is a derivate from 'pusilanimous' (weak, soft), and there is no reason to not look into it, unless its too much work - I don't have that much of a problem with the word refugee either, but it is too modern (and part of the problem with BG3, being a modern RPG with a fantasy setting).

[SoLong]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

Which makes the painfully modern "See, this is just like the European refugee crisis!" viewpoint even more insufferable.

[orinEsque]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

Which makes the painfully modern "See, this is just like the European refugee crisis!" viewpoint even more insufferable.

You gotta remember though definition of foreigner was a lot narrower... slavs were not considered of same race, even one region was in war with another....

War of the roses etc...

If i get around to it @Crusaderknight20 and perhaps our new friend (@Prismatika ) working on the alternate wyll voice can help out with this project.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

There was no English word for 'refugee' until the 19th(?) century or so. Might have even been later than that.
The closest equivalents essentially mean outsider/alien.

[Oyster Sauce]

I don't see the issue with "refugee" here. The city they're from is along the same river as Baldur's Gate, about as close as Candlekeep. They wouldn't be considered foreigners.

There was no English word for 'refugee' until the 19th(?) century or so. Might have even been later than that.
The closest equivalents essentially mean outsider/alien.

It was first used in English in 1685. What's the cutoff here (and for all medieval fantasy games)? Would you care if the game said "debris" which was introduced to English decades after "refugee"?
If the goal is immersion, I think there are bigger fish to fry than tracking down the etymology of every loanword, such as the 1950s French-Canadian cuisine I was eating at camp.

[rusty_shackleford]

It was first used in English in 1685. What's the cutoff here (and for all medieval fantasy games)?

'refugee' referred to a specific group of french protestants seeking shelter: https://archive.org/details/universalet ... 4/mode/2up
note the date of the book, 1763. Bailey's dictionary was the most popular dictionary that existed at the time.

the catch-all term for asylum seeker is fairly new

[Humbaba]

Call them muhajirs, problem solved.




-Humbaba

[orinEsque]

I dunno, the whole word wasn't invented back then doesn't really work as a rational argument because even English wasn't the same English we speak. Perhaps we can reduce the frequency with which you are bombarded by the word by half ? Or where it make sense to use another word. Because for example the tieflings are more likely to be called Elturan exiles.

The refugee refugee refugee nonsense is clearly a very distinct jibe at players to remind them that hoardes of illegal economic migrants are invading the west with the thriving smuggling business run by the ****.

[orinEsque]

@ArcaneLurker This thread may be of interest to you.

[ArcaneLurker]

Ah, my issue isn't necessarily the use of modern words, just the obviousness of their underlying intentions. Quite tricky to undo something like that.
It's like, after seeing how many people didn't like the Thieflings (they also record gameplay choices, hence why they were seething about Character Creation choices), they thought to double down in Act 3.
So instead of providing something interesting, like in Act 2 (with the Nurses especially), they decided to re-tread the same boring ground whilst making it even worse.

The things that annoyed me about Act 1:
It's obvious they're trying to draw a parallel with contemporary issues, and they're not the only game that has done this, but the Elturan exiles are temporary Asylum seekers, running from an actual threat, not just hostile, ungrateful economic migrants taking advantage of welfare state that despises White people. Kagha is therefore unreasonable to the eyes of most, considering the huge walls and how much space they have behind those walls. Then of course she tries to kill a child over theft/ religion, rather than something anywhere near deserving of such a harsh penalty. Also Kagha is protective over a cult, full of a wide variety of people, it just doesn't make sense for a druid to be excluding them for the sake of it, and spouting borderline-Hitler quotes.

In Act 3:
The main issue here is how the characters & NPCs react to the ordeal, rather than the use of the word itself. The parallels and biases are emphasised even stronger, with the villainous anti-refugees being even more villainous, not just killing a child in reaction to thievery, but going even further than that. It's like they thought: "Okay, what about THIS?"
I guess, the concerns could be about "these people are wounded, too weak, and can't work to provide the necessary food supplies for the increased population, thus we're stuck with the burden of looking after them, not only that but they're liable to spread diseases, and the desperation of their situation will drive them to commit crimes within our city" but it seems like a lot of the dialogue is something they crafted with modern anti-immigration sentiment in mind. This creates a situation where the Baldurians seem crazy in the way they react to the inhabitants of neighbouring villagers, cities or regions coming to hide behind their walls. It wasn't unusual for people to run behind city walls when there was an impending invasion force.

Positive
sanctuary-seeker, people fleeing from war or monsters, people fleeing their home
Neutral
wanderer, exile, foreigner, stranger
Negative
outcast, stray, freeloaders, roaches

I see your point about having more variety being an improvement, but it seems excessive & unnecessary for you to take that on as a modding project.

[Rand]

after seeing how many people didn't like the Tieflings (they also record gameplay choices, hence why they were seething about Character Creation choices), they thought to double down in Act 3.

They're spending resources analyzing this nonsense?
Why? It's a completed game... allegedly.
They botched so much in act 3, such as the Zhentarim stuff. Are they looking to fix it, or worse, manipulate player choices by removing content people are choosing for the "wrong reasons"?

This really disgusts me. Games are supposed to be art. Say something, but have the courage of your convictions, like CDPR did with the original Witcher trilogy.

[Rand]

On the topic of refugees. I don't think the fact it's a modern word is an issue.
It conveys the correct meaning, if stripped from the modern political/perverted ethical slant by simply taking it literally.
In the ancient era, I think it was more common to use other terms, but the standard meaning was the same. Dispossessed or war exiles or whatever all can mean people who fled strife in their last home.

[Rand]

In Kingdom Come Deliverance, a game that tries more than most to be historically accurate, the displaced people of your starter town flee to a nearby lord's town.
The locals struggle with the conflicting impulses of being charitable Christians and the burden their local lord has placed on them by allowing the townsfolk to take up temporary residence inside the walls.
Some of course are more selfish and intolerant than others.
But it's presented neutrally to allow the players to think how they want about it. Both sides' complaints, the displaced townsfolk and the locals, have merit.

[ArcaneLurker]

after seeing how many people didn't like the Tieflings (they also record gameplay choices, hence why they were seething about Character Creation choices), they thought to double down in Act 3.

They're spending resources analyzing this nonsense?
Why? It's a completed game... allegedly.
They botched so much in act 3, such as the Zhentarim stuff. Are they looking to fix it, or worse, manipulate player choices by removing content people are choosing for the "wrong reasons"?

This really disgusts me. Games are supposed to be art. Say something, but have the courage of your convictions, like CDPR did with the original Witcher trilogy.

It was during Early Access-- Most of the people who bought Early Access were evidently not the kind of people they wanted to create games for (White guys), and they voiced those frustrations through passive aggressive posts. Over the course of Early Access, and into release, the game became more pozzed, with obvious things being ugly Black characters taking the forefront of the Character creation, and the "identity"/ genital stuff.
That being said, I'm pretty sure they still have access to the current player data after release, although I'm not sure they'd bother looking.

Well, in Act 2, they pretty much didn't bother doing an evil route, and forced you back on to the same linear path if you tried to diverge. Just assumed that was because of a lack of time/ resources.

Divinity Original Sin 1 & 2 weren't at all "based" but it seems like Larian became more ESG-orientated over time, much like how CDPR has replaced the Polish guys that worked on the Witcher trilogy with lots of women.
I'm not sure what you mean about conviction, they do seem a bit wishy-washy, perhaps because ESG is top-down imposed, but I think the major problem here is they haven't really got a logical angle or legitimate parallel so it comes off as sophistry or manipulative.

[ArcaneLurker]

In Kingdom Come Deliverance, a game that tries more than most to be historically accurate, the displaced people of your starter town flee to a nearby lord's town.
The locals struggle with the conflicting impulses of being charitable Christians and the burden their local lord has placed on them by allowing the townsfolk to take up temporary residence inside the walls.
Some of course are more selfish and intolerant than others.
But it's presented neutrally to allow the players to think how they want about it. Both sides' complaints, the displaced townsfolk and the locals, have merit.

Yes, they try to strip the anti-refugee sentiment of merit by making it irrational or over-the-top villainous.
It's understandable that some people would prioritise themselves, whereas others would offer a helping hand freely.

[rusty_shackleford]

On the topic of refugees. I don't think the fact it's a modern word is an issue.
It conveys the correct meaning, if stripped from the modern political/perverted ethical slant by simply taking it literally.
In the ancient era, I think it was more common to use other terms, but the standard meaning was the same. Dispossessed or war exiles or whatever all can mean people who fled strife in their last home.

The idea of welcoming a great deal of fighting age men who are fleeing war in their own home is a modern one. I assume to some degree that women just don't get it, but most men do. These people are detrimental to your society, why would you want someone in your home that fled their own when they were needed?
You'd struggle to find any good examples.

You have the huguenots… which wouldn't have been possible without religious solidarity. That is, they weren't welcoming strangers who were down on their luck, they viewed the huguenots as compatriots. It's also not really an example of refugees caused by war, because they were effectively being expelled. These were presumably, mostly upstanding industrious fr*nchmen looking for a new home, not seeking refuge as we come to understand the concept now.

[ArcaneLurker]

On the topic of refugees. I don't think the fact it's a modern word is an issue.
It conveys the correct meaning, if stripped from the modern political/perverted ethical slant by simply taking it literally.
In the ancient era, I think it was more common to use other terms, but the standard meaning was the same. Dispossessed or war exiles or whatever all can mean people who fled strife in their last home.

The idea of welcoming a great deal of fighting age men who are fleeing war in their own home is a modern one. I assume to some degree that women just don't get it, but most men do. These people are detrimental to your society, why would you want someone in your home that fled their own when they were needed?
You'd struggle to find any good examples.

You have the huguenots… which wouldn't have been possible without religious solidarity. That is, they weren't welcoming strangers who were down on their luck, they viewed the huguenots as compatriots. It's also not really an example of refugees caused by war, because they were effectively being expelled. These were presumably, mostly upstanding industrious fr*nchmen looking for a new home, not seeking refuge.

And in addition to them all being fighting age men, it doesn't take much research to find out that the MENA immigrants believe this economic migration is a form of jihad, in revenge for wars waged, and also in pursuit of global Islam, and therefore the rules of jihad apply. Of course non of it would be possible without the state, charities & international organisations orchestrating it.

[Rand]

This is a good point. Historically, the male refugees came AFTER losing the battle, not before/during.
The people that fled before the battle were the elderly, women, and children.
It is 100% correct (in every way) to say that people looked quite negatively on fighting aged capable men showing up in an area with the aforementioned groups.
They were correctly seen as the lowest sort of men, opportunists or troublemaking cowards or what have you. You know, the kind of men that say they're "feminists" or that are really leftist nowadays.
Except back then men were trained better in the first place and the worthless shits were kept in line for fear of retribution.