Am I the only one to be annoyed over all this political correctness of this game?

Ok, I can partly see why they made the kids unkillable, though I don't see it was necessary... But they've removed the harlots, one of the greates sources of humour in the BG-games... I mean is this going to be like nuclear-family entertainment? I think it's too much...

Am I alone?

No harlots ??! :mad: :flaming: :mad: What the hell do they expect adventurers after a hard camapaign of slaughtering goblins and the like to do in an .. uhm ... inn ... drinking ?! :toofar: :sosad: I cannot roleplay my paladin any longer .... :cry:

In BGII harlots -- or "sex workers", as they prefer to be called -- *were* politically correct. There were both males and females, as your need might require.

What's wrong with that?

Yeah, the next thing you know you'll even see BLACK PEOPLE in these games.

The horror!

Methylviolet: I meant that this game has been turned into something that (nearly) discourages free roleplaying. I don't understand why everything has to be so politically correct... I would say that if you had a hard day of slaying children, well who wouldn't need a harlot...? J/K

But still...

Firestorm, don't decieve yourself, if you were ever able to roleplay that game, you'd have the option to actually be the prostitute.

No more child killin fun?......i mean no more paying for sex?....i mean do they actually expect us to follow the storyline or anything?? :p

i hope they will release a children pack like FO2
:evil:

I have the feeling that immediatly after release there will be a mod to abuse children and have harlots :rolleyes:

I hope so.

Firestorm ... I think they realized that our world is scarey enough as it is right now. Today we are on the brink of war (again) there are 4 children abudcted in LA, and lots of other evil crap going on.

Why add to it?
Why give sick imaginations more fuel for the fire?

If people feel the need to make a "killable kids" modification, more power to them.

Honestly, I could care either way, but I know that it doesn't take away from game play...

The hookers, that's a different stories, and from what I heard JE Salvador got a nasty case of something from one, and that bug won't go away ;) :lol: just kidding

I would have loved to roleplay a harlot - and boy would I be a choosy harlot - no dwarves, but lots of elves! :D :bigeyes: :love: :roll:

Political Correctness is the downfall of Western Civilization!!!! I hate it, hate it, hate it!

It's turning everyone into little whiny asses who blame everyone but themselves for their lot in life! It's annoying!

The whole walkie-talkie thing in ET! Ugggh! It's driving me bananas!!! I hope this did not offend the banana growing/eating public...'Cause we can't have that! :p :grin: :rolleyes:

Is your gaming experience really impacted by not being able to kill children?

"Is your gaming experience really impacted by not being able to kill children?"

Not truely.

But, anyone else remember Fallout?

If your NPC's wiped out a kid, you were labeled a child killer and quite nearly had to reload. So it was major incentive to not whack the kid. There's one mission where you had to trick the kid to leave the church before you whacked Joan the Cultist.

And, hello; truely chaotic evil characters have no qualms about whacking kids. Anyone remember David Koresh?

This is a *really* strange occurance, though. And not being able to listen to courtesans peddle their "wares" takes away from some of the atmosphere. But even the first one didn't have chits displaying their "wares"; at -20C, you can etch glass with your nipples. So it's not a major hit unless there's a fairly large city and it's moderately warm in the area.

The question is, are they missing from the atmosphere, or would they not really be there in the first place?

If they want to label a game as a role playing game, they should have the decency not to force everyone to conform to whatever morals and ethics that "political correctness" demands!

In a good role playing game the players should be allowed to do anything and then possibly face the consequences of their actions.

Lets also not forget that what today is generally considered evil/unlawful/taboo in a lot of cases were quite accepted and lawful. Indeed the opposite is also true: for example homosexuality is in most of the world no longer a crime, but not too long ago it was. What makes some people sure that todays prevalent values are the "right" ones? Don't they think these values will undergo changes in the future?

Is it then necessary to enforce the current ethics in every damn computer game as well? :mad:

Do not take away the freedom to play and experiment with different values, morals, and ethics in our games! This is what freedom of speech is all about.

[ August 19, 2002, 14:49: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

@Earl Grey
I highly doubt that childkilling will ever be "accepted", "the norm", or "the right thing to do".

That said, I don't see why they excluded the harlots, though. Perhaps they'd freeze to death in the snow? Or maybe some kid's parents got mad at PST?

You've got to understand that not everyone playing this game is an adult. Some people may get ideas from it.

The decision was probably made by weighing together the lesser of two evils. Obviously soemthing spurred them to make these changes. Whatever it was, it was worth more to the game designers to make the changes. But look at all the new and improved changes that have been made to other aspects of the game. Don't be so negative, it looks like they are catering to the gamers quite well.

"Some people may get ideas from it"Indeed! Do we want to stifle the development of new ideas? Do we not want to encourage thoughts free from the shackles and oppression of the ideas of the time?

Ok, I know what you mean. Some psychopath might kill, but I ask you then if risks are not a part of everyday life. Something we cannot eliminate. Is the "risk" of allowing free thought in a role playing game even worth considering?

Let me answer it this way:
I believe a society where the thoughts and actions of every individual is completely controlled and no individual can take any action not sanctioned by the "state" will lead to less physical injuries and less deaths.
The question is: Do I want to live in it?

Edited:
The minor detail of not being able to kill everything in the game does not bother me so much. The fact that they actually put effort into censoring and imposing their ethics - or rather they are pushed into censoring their game by some groups in society - is what I object to. :bang:

[ August 19, 2002, 17:32: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

The question about this isn't really whether or not killing children and having harlots adds/detracts to the game (hey, you're a teacher, what better to do after work than to picture your students and repeatedly hammer their faces?), it's the principle of the thing.

If they made a game where the only dialogue choices were good, or where you couldn't have any other storyline but the main one, I'd flush it down the toilet. The whole point of RPGs is to be able to do anything... Grrr, it makes me mad. Not that I miss the harlots (their voices scare me) but it's the point of it.

I can't stand that nowadays people think if you mention anything related to race, gender or sexuality, you're automatically being racist/sexist/homophobic. Get over it! More than half the time they're not discriminating. You can't have free thinking without some people thinking the wrong way :D That had nothing to do with anything... but anyway ;)

This is true. Even game developers/coders are subject to the whims of the Allmighty Ca$h.

And, even though these people with MBA's have no clue what a RPG is, much less ever played one, they are the ones that control the flow of said Ca$h. Throw them a doughnut, and they will allow the Ca$h to flow.
I'm not justifying here, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Ca$h rules all; you must be one with the Ca$h. Stretch out your feelings and the Ca$h will always be with you; I'll be back, with more Ca$h.

I can't stand that nowadays people think if you mention anything related to race, gender or sexuality, you're automatically being racist/sexist/homophobic. Get over it! More than half the time they're not discriminating. You can't have free thinking without some people thinking the wrong wayIf there is a right and a wrong way of thinking, it's not free thinking, is it? I agree with the above statement. Unfortunately, since most of the people buying these games are Americans, and because of the problems America has been having in recent years, they thought it necessary to implement these rules. I'll bet that somebody will come out with a mod that changes that a month after the game is released anyway.

And, even though these people with MBA's have no clue what a RPG is, much less ever played one, they are the ones that control the flow of said Ca$h. Throw them a doughnut, and they will allow the Ca$h to flow.Am I supposed to take that as a personal insult? Yes, the whole purpose of the gaming industry is to make money. BIS has decided that they will make more money by making the game politically correct. Live with it.

Yes, I understand that killing children isn't and (hopefully) never will be "the norm", "accepted" or "the right thing to do", but... Will killing other people (adults, young people, old people), will (also, hopefully) never be either. but it is still allowing, even encouraging, you to do so. For me a life's a life, so it makes no sense...

ejsmith, David Koresh didn't kill kids. The U.S. government under the leadership of Janet Reno killed them and then lied to say they didn't know the tear gas they sprayed into the compound was inflammable.

Koresh was a crackpot cult leader, but the FBI was the truly evil one in that case.

I find it frustrating to cast a fireball or skull trap and then have some dumb rugrat walk right into ground zero, lowering my rep, messing up my alignment, and causing a town to turn on me. So from my point of view, not being able to kill kids (accidentally or otherwise) is an improvement. And as for harlots- well, honestly, who cares? You can't own slaves or smoke dope in most RPGs either and no one has ever to my knowledge complained that this is kowtowing to political correctness. Harlots are not an essential part of a well-rounded universe. Trust me on this one, guys. ;)

"And, even though these people with MBA's have no clue what a RPG is, much less ever played one, they are the ones that control the flow of said Ca$h."

Just for the record- some of us with MBAs know what an RPG is! Business knowledge and gaming knowledge are not incompatible.

Scralp:

(*giggle*)

Everyone that has an MBA and frequents SP:

Sorry. I was referring to your colleagues in that last post.

Argh, why can't you ppl let this topic die? What do you want next, a molester feat so you can lure the kiddie into that dark alley before you kill him, or maybe a rape skill to use on all those lonely frighten women? This has nothing to do with political correctness and it does not force any morals on you. In fact the designers have gone out of their way to make viable evil options, so much so that many are saying evil is the best way to play. And I personally would rather see all villagers be unkillable so I could throw around area of effect spells when fighting monsters in town (appearently a bigger part of this game at least in the begining) w/o worrying that lil timmy or uncle bob will get a scratch or burn and try to punch my armored butt to death instead of worshiping me for killing the orc who was about to kill him.

Earl Grey: what possible productive positive new idea could result from players being able to kill the kiddies in iwd2? Again they haven't said you have to be a goodie two-shoes paladin, you can be a mean selfish jerk cleric of bane and go around bossing and blackmailing everyone you meet. That's allowing free thinking. Letting you kill everyone in town and then reload a save and continue on, which is what you'd pretty much have to do, is pointless (though de-populating a city can be fun for a few minutes). And of course the 'current ethos' will be the one used to determine right and wrong and enforced in the game. What should they do make up some arbitrary ethos that may or may not ever exist?

Shralp: you couldn't be more wrong. Koresh's cultists set the fires (after MURDERING atf agents who went to the compound on a routine LEGAL check). Reno was a lousey AG but in this one case she has been unfairly critisized.

@Palpatine
First, let me again stress that my objection is general.

If you in earlier games have been able to kill the general populace - old as well as young - and now you are not it means two things:
1. Less realism.
For instance I believe it is good that you have to take into consideration "innocent" people when you fight. Are your character prepared to "sacrifice" those "Innocents" to get the job done or not. If he/she isn't, then you must be very careful with your Fireballs. :)

2. Censorship.
It was implemented and now it isn't so this is hardly a case of there being more work to do, rather the opposite.

So here is the reply to your question "what possible productive positive new idea could result from players being able to kill the kiddies"Players role play in a world where they can cause death to "innocents". Learn to take responsibility for your actions. The way it has been implemented - people either try to kill you or they shun you - is better than nothing.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And of course the 'current ethos' will be the one used to determine right and wrong and enforced in the game. What should they do make up some arbitrary ethos that may or may not ever exist?I'm not saying using the current ethos is all wrong - although using something resembling a medievel ethos would IMHO be more appropriate - I'm saying don't censor actions in games just because those actions would be criminal in Utah or wherever. Don't restrict actions, instead make the world the character lives in impose sanctions!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

... you can be a mean selfish jerk cleric of bane and go around bossing and blackmailing everyone you meet. That's allowing free thinking.I beg to disagree. If that's all that can be offered because of deadlines, programming limits etc. it would be fine. But it isn't.

What does the following mean to you:
This you must not do and so we do not allow you to role play a character doing it!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Finally - and know that I am just stating a fact here and not expressing whether I think war is right or wrong - I must at least make an attempt to remove the blindfolds many, not only here but everywhere, are walking around with.
Is killing innocents allowed today?
Yes, indirectly it still is. It is called war. The more "civilized" governments tries to avoid killing "innocents" but going to war means you are accepting the killing of "innocents".

Just for the record- some of us with MBAs know what an RPG is! Business knowledge and gaming knowledge are not incompatible.Exactly my point of the last paragraph in my previous post Sprite.

I have to agree with Earl Grey. Having to worry about innocent people when you're fighting is part of what makes the game fun.

This you must not do and so we do not allow you to role play a character doing it!It means those humanitarian groups have had their way with our beloved industry. It means that the game has been tainted.

In these games I've never killed innocents, but if we no longer need to worry about killing them, it will take away some of the challenge. Now we can actually use some of the AoE spells.

Well, never fear, Earl Grey: Killing kids and talking to prostitutes was as bad or worse in the 'medieval ethos' too. Its your free speech and "I should be able to do anything I want' attitude that would be squashed in a real medieval environment.

Anyway, the invulnerable kid thing is most likely a legal issue. This is an internationally marketed game AFAIK and there are countries in Europe (for example) where it would be (or likely soon will be) illegal to portray child killing. I am beta testing a WW2 game that has absolutely no swastikas anywhere in it because it is illegal in Germany to use that symbol.

The prostitute issue is a different one. I don't know what motivates that one. Maybe it affects their ESRB rating? More likely they realized none of the Ten Towns were large enough to support streetwalkers or brothels. In small, isolated communities like that there are probably a few women who sell it on the side, but none who do so as a full time occupation. Not unless it is some sort of 'boom town' situation, where the town is swarming with transient men.

Lastly, roleplaying games ARE NOT about doing whatever you want. You can't set up shop or become a farmer. You can't run for mayor or say "screw this, its too cold, I'm off to Maztica". So stop acting like this is a bizarre infringement on your gaming options.

@Vormaerin

Killing kids and talking to prostitutes was as bad or worse in the 'medieval ethos' too.
... attitude that would be squashed in a real medieval environment.Maybe, maybe not. My point is really not whether something would be against the ethics of a specific time period, but rather that an action ought not to be excluded from a game just because it is illegal/unethical in real life. You handle illegal/unethical actions by having the in-game autorities and society impose sanctions.

Why is stealing allowed? Will that not "encourage weak individuals" to go out stealing?
Why would killing some characters be allowed but not others? Does this mean that it's ok for you to go out and kill some people but not others?

... the invulnerable kid thing is most likely a legal issue.Possibly true and it might also be an effort to lower some age group certificate or it could be that pressure has been received from some group.
Whatever the reason I think it is important to fight against censorship. Speak up if you think something is wrong!
For example the german laws you mention should IMO be revoked. Laws, no matter how stupid, will not change unless those who oppose them speak out.

Lastly, roleplaying games ARE NOT about doing whatever you want.I see your point but I humbly disagree with you.
If I ran a role playing campaign and the party expressed a wish to become farmers I would allow it.
There are a few ways to go about this:
- Make farmlife so interesting the players enjoy it (difficult).
- Make it so boring they take up adventuring again (easy).
- Have them retire to their farms after a little while and start new characters.

Again this is not my point. I'm not suggesting that we be given the option to become farmers in a CRPG.

The major point I wish to make is:
Don't cut down on realism when you don't have to.

Ok, I keep hearing flak about NwN's dungeon master stuff. I guess there's a lot of DM's who just chuck 10 dragons in there, and like to watch the players get wiped out.

Not a lot of fun, IMHO.

But, that's the deal. If you go make rules saying there can't be any more than 2 dragons in one area at any time, it takes away from the people who *want* 10 dragons. America did this with prohibition back in the 1920's, and then ended up reversing it so all the boot-leggers weren't shipping methanol instead of ethanol.

So, what's this all mean?

Don't play with that DM anymore. Boycott is the keyword here. As is with child killing and sex-with-halfnaked-hookers-in-the-middle-of-a-snowfield isn't a viable option. Don't shut it out; just make it so people are much more inclined not to. And to support Grey, you could have a patch that gives a manual toggle in the .ini file.

Child Wacking=0
Naked Chicks=0

I'm not sure what the point will be, but someone already called it. There's libel to be a kid-whacking mod out at some point. Unlike other people, I remember when some NPC blocked a doorway in Fallout1.

Anyway, the games that suck the most, by far, are the ones where you have to follow the developers story exactly as they see it. This is why so many people call Icewind Dale "linear", and hated it. Hello, BG2 is every bit as linear. This is vector addition, and they all add up to a displacement that's 5km east.

Now, if you have a game (can't think of one here; Deus Ex is linear too; so's Star Control2) where you either choose north or south, and nothing after that decision gate (including the movies) is the same, then the game is non-linear.

If you're heading to London, but you stop by Moscow first, that's one path. If you're heading to London, and you swing by Abi-Dhabi first, that's another path. Now, if your final destination is New York, and you circle Luna first, that's a *different* path...

Well,

I rather think they *do* have to "cut down on realism" in this case, assuming they want to sell the game in those other markets. Now, perhaps you want to move to Germany (and elsewhere) and tell them they are full of crap with their laws. Feel free. But the 'any speech, no matter how harmful, is allowed speech' is pretty unique to the US. All or nearly all of the other countries in the world have more restrictive views of free speech. Hate speech and various forms of 'incitement' are restricted in many, many countries. And guess what? THEY LIKE IT LIKE THAT!

Regardless, this (no child killing in video games) isn't actually a censorship issue. No one is preventing the free expression of ideas with this restriction. You just aren't allowed to make a game depicting it. Video games are not generally considered 'speech' under the law.

Coincidentally, free speech "no matter how harmful" is also not the law in the U.S.