It's a fantasy game. People should be able to romance whoever they want. I love DA, and the idea that there are characters that were explicitly gay, lesbian, and bisexual was nice except that they were stereotypes, Dorian was the flamboyant, sarcastic, drunken fop who had a story about family issues related to his sexuality, Sera couldn't be more lesbian if she tried. There characters wer mostly about their sexuality., but they were there so, cool, but it was MY game- why couldn't I romance the character I found most interesting or appealing? Even the DAI thing would be fine, but in most fantasy worlds you get one gay character if any, the world is somehow devoid of them, and it sucks when they do appear it has to be the same character every time.
It is a FANTASY ROLEPLAYING game. Why wouldn't you allow more people's fantasy and more people's roles. Sexuality doesn't even have to work the same way in that world. Sexuality isn't as simple as some would make it in our world. Fantasy. Roleplaying. Game.
Exactly!!! I LOVE the DA universe, but the writers deliberately wrote 'human' gender and sexuality biases into the games. BG:III is NOT set on earth, and (to my very rusty knowledge) there isn't any explicit canon in D&D to say that the world at large even HAS any of these hangups!
I wouldn't even say the companion characters are playersexual as I've managed with no effort on my part to get two of them actively disliking me. I'm not seeing any "I hate you so much I must kiss you" sentiment like we got in DA:2 for example.
There is a world of difference between "Playersexuality" and universal pansexuality in a fictional setting. This game comes across very much as the latter, and I'm here for it.
