Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Herosexual NPCs

This much. I tend to romance same NPC, most interesting one, so changing sex of MC for next playthroughs could lock me with some bore ones. Just an example from player's perspective.

Ye, the most bizarre fantasy of them all!

I think that the player should decide for himself what to do in the game. Nobody forces you to have an affair with a companion or sleep with an NPC, and if you do, then don't complain

Herosexual is a great term, but I'm assuming you meant heterosexual?

Anyhow, I'm gay, and I've grown up having the whole "delicate princess needs to be saved by a big strong man" trope in video games thrown into my face since the early 80's.
I can honestly say it never bothered me growing up because in a lot of those situations, there wasn't any roleplay to be had. I was steering a character's adventure. They just happened to be straight, no biggie.
As games evolved and we started seeing narratives written with the player as a focus and getting to make choices, it was a little annoying to have developers shy away from romances that weren't heterosexual.
Ultimately, I just stopped caring because romance in games isn't a big deal to me and I don't need to see my avatar engaged in virtual sexuality.
If romance is there, great, give me an option that suits me. If you're not going to provide an option that suits me, don't force romance on me and leave it open-ended as a "just friends" situation because that's fine too.

What I do NOT enjoy is this new age SJW cancel culture shit where if every gender under the sun doesn't have an option specifically tailored to them in the game, the developers have to eat shit.
Although I'm grateful when it is there, I don't need gay representation in my games. And I certainly do NOT want developers shoehorning in gay/non-binary whatever when they don't fit into a narrative just to appease people.
Larian, in specific, has mostly handled it well. They left romances general enough to appeal to any sexuality without making it feel basic by playing it super safe.

Bioware walks that fine line of pandering to SJWs, but what they have done well is leaving romance options locked specifically by sexual preference.
Although I have issues with Inquisition from a gameplay standpoint, it did romance right.
I liked that Blackwall only dug chicks. I liked that my husband Dorian only dug guys. I liked that Iron Bull swung both ways. And I loved that it was even so specific as to make some characters like Solas only dig female elves.
It felt specific and real, since not everyone enjoys everything. And getting turned down by someone who isn't into you because of your gender is as real as it gets, and it was handled tastefully.

I just wish that developers would stop forcing romance in general.
Lae'zel propositioned me for sex, which was super odd considering that I had never hinted at being even remotely interested.
I viewed that as a result of the poor, basic "approval" system.
I feel as though developers should allow us to designate our preferences during character creation and give us at least a few opportunities to voice those.
That way some of those situations may never come up, or at the very least there could be a dialog about it, and Lae'zel wouldn't assume that I want some chick Gith lovin' just because our ideologies line up.

I heavily dislike herosexuality as I think you get better characterizations if the sexuality of a character is part of his personality (in a non cliché way) instead if it completely variable to whatever the main character is. Especially when we get more outlandish characters like dragonborn and every male companion suddenly turns gay for lizards.

We Demand More Sexy Sexism?

Herosexual is the term I've seen used when NPC sexuality is determined by whatever your Character is, I liked the sound of it, it doesn't mean Hetero necessarily.

apart from that, I can only agree with you. Fantasy is a pretty trope heavy genre to begin with but I don't think tropes are a bad thing in themselves it only becomes an issue when they become a lazy shorthand for writing characters and scenarios.
And Bioware certainly has the most expectations put on their characters because they've made a big part of their narratives the interplay between their NPCs and between the player and the NPC. Having characters in Inquisition that could reject your advances based on their own personal sexuality (gasp!) was I though a sign of the medium maturing from what I'd grown used to: say what they want to hear, gain love.

Thanks for the response I'm glad I'm getting these

Not criticizing your joke. I was making a point, you are right. When we look at media these are the types of characters that are allowed to be queer.
When writing without sexuality in mind characters are also written without having to be characterized by loads and loads of stereotypes.
If they were to implement different sexualities into the game i would wish that they wrote a character first and then threw a dice to decide on their sexuality since it has no actual impact on character espacialy not in Ferún where queer people do not live in different conditions then the straights.
I think characters written to be queer are more often then not worse characters

(astarion is still heavily queer coded tho, no h8)

I'd never heard herosexual before, but I'm going to start making it an active part of my vocabulary.
But yeah, having Blackwall basically be like "I appreciate the attention and I'm flattered, but wrong tree, my friend" was shocking because it was so on-point.
That was a fantastic and completely unexpected, realistic reaction to how that situation typically goes.

Larian is certainly guilty of a bit of herosexuality, and although I don't exactly hate it because it's typically well-written, it does feel lazy and safe.
This is a good post.

Kevin VanOrd (one of the writers on Baldur's Gate 3) said that all the companions were specifically designed to be, as he put it, "playersexual".

I personally understand both sides, some people want their gender to be acknowledged, and think it improves writing, some don't. For me personally it is a breath of fresh air when no one cares about gender.

Same here.

+1

As loathe as I am to have the solution for everything to be "a toggle", a potential fix for this might in fact be a toggle? Default the toggle to "companions have sexual preferences" and allow the toggle to be changed anytime during gameplay.

Because I very much agree with @Tzelanit and @Ixal that NPC sexual preferences can definitely add to the realism of the NPCs

What's important is to do it right, and not fall into offensive stereotypes. Also have a good mix of NPC options of each sexuality so that the clear best option(s) isn't gated off to certain gender PCs

I'm sorry....I just remembered something....

THE GIRDLE OF GENDERBENDING!!!!

problem solved, I'll close the thread.

In 5th ed, some elves are born with the ability to change gender at each long rest. No girdle needed.

Also, someone might tell Wyll that devils don't have gender they just assume the gender they think is mostly likely to get the response they are after.

What does their real form look like then? They can assume any form they want? Not all devils can shapeshift? Also mizora is a cambion no?

The initial argument is dumb. I'm going to go ahead and translate the con argument against having NPC's available to anyone. Here goes: I'm straight and will get what I want regardless, and I'm a ittle annoyed that the character I like is available to someone else, or isn't straight like me.

There is nothing a straight person can be, think, or like a gay person couldn't. What exactly is the characterization that is so muddled because an NPC is available for everyone. Are they to declare their preferred sexual organ in conversation? What else changes about any character based on their sexuality? Are gay folks supposed to be stereotypes and have to hit all the gay flags or they're just badly drawn straight people?

This is a troll conversation. Even if we are only talking about dialogue relating to romance what would be different between gay and straight outside of pronouns. The basics: I like you. You're neat. You're hot. I want to spend time with you. I am interested in you as a person. Let's bang.

It's not: I straight like you. You're straight neat. You're gay hot. I want to spend time with lesbian you. I am interested in you as a bisexual person. Let's straight bang.

It's dumb. It's a dumb conversation. It's pseudo-intellectualism and polite homophobia. It's selfish straightness that says everything should be for me and reflect me or else there is something wrong with it.

So you saw that manuscript for the Drizzt book they axed, "Gay for Lizards"

I wish I knew what that meant, "specifically designed to be playersexual"?