I think the core of what you have to say is good, and thoughtfully written, but maybe take a day or two and then read over it again and see how it reads to you then - a lot of the time the writing runs on in a way that makes it easy to muddy up the points that you're making. I think also that leading by talking about sexuality does you no favours - it's the least consequential of the issues here, and not particularly relevant to the crux of the issue you're discussing, except in the tertiary sense of being another element affected by the style that they've designed this game with. Making it the top point of your discussion takes away from the very legitimate core of the rest of it, I feel. It would probably sit better as a supporting point; as a more narrow example backing up the discussion about the companions overall malleability based on the player's choices and their reputation with them.

I don't agree 100% with everything you say here, but I do support the core of it, which is that the way Larian have designed this whole system, and run with it, is putting them in the position of tying their own hands and shooting themselves in both feet, for very little gain. Their writing is not good in the first place, but it's made weaker by they way they've forced themselves to write. Characters can and should have fleshed out, developed personalities - other RPGs have been doing this well and successfully for years; Larian undermines themselves by making forceful, headstrong characters who always have comebacks and always get the last word, on one hand.. but in doing so effectively put down and belittle the player consistently, and also have those character-defining comments and dialogues mean very little and stand in stark juxtaposition with their actual behaviour, which is to declare the PC the party leader and to follow them more or less blindly, nagging, perhaps, about their personal goals, but not acting in any way that backs up how strongly they make their demands.

It makes for weak, fake-feeling, shallow and ultimately unbelievable companions and a player character that feels even weaker and less present by contrast, because they get consistently spoken down to, condescended at, insulted and belittled... by people who nevertheless fold over and meekly follow them everywhere for no established reason. They want to make their origin character self-directed, self-sure, headstrong and capable of taking charge and being a leader... but they don't realise that the stronger you try to make companions in that regard, the more clear and apparent the reason for them nevertheless following the player character needs to be to balance it... and right now there is no such reason, at all, never mind a good or clear one. Why have they done this? Because of the corner they've backed themselves into by putting so much focus on origin characters and being able to play them directly.

==

The reason I say that bringing up the sexuality topic first is bad for your overall discussion is because it immediately set me off-side to your efforts from the outset. I wanted to object to and correct many elements of what you were saying (and I still will, in a spoiler below, because there are many things that were said that need a response, for fairness), immediately, and it put me in a combative and negative frame of mind reading forward. It was only because I'm in the habit of making the consciously aware decision to review my own state of mind and read things more fairly when I catch myself having that kind of reaction, that I did so. Reading more fairly, the Core of what you're saying is valid and something that I can agree with.


Regarding the sexuality element:

- Sexuality is malleable, can and often does change over time, and is a spectrum, not an I/O switch. It's a dynamic thing. This is useful, in fact, for having companion characters with ore clearly defined backgrounds and past histories that can include their previous amorous tastes...because people's interests can and do evolve, and that development can be spurred by discovered or gradually growing feelings of attraction to someone that you might not have previously considered. The relationship comes first, the willingness to physically experiment based on that foundation - that's what makes it believable.

- Playersexuality is not a manipulation or a robotic flip; it's just the openly acknowledged reassurance that, IF there is a character that you, or the character you are playing, find yourself wanting to pursue a relationship with, then the game will give you that chance - doesn't mean it will work out, and a well written situation will still give you lots of choices to make along the way that may even end up with you choosing against them anyway, if it comes down to something important enough... but in a fantasy game where one of the elements is all about interpersonal romance, it's a nice reassurance to have. I say this as someone who has played games without that reassurance, and been shafted for my choice of companions - either because there was only one or two undesirable options for my race/sex combination, or because the character I was interested in was simply not available to my particular race/sex. It has never 'enhanced' the gameplay experience to be locked out like that. It has never been satisfactory, believable or an enjoyable experience, ever. It just feels bad and unsatisfying. Play Pathfinder: Kingmaker with a gay male character if you want to see what I mean.

- Playersexuality in a game does not preclude characters having developed and established tastes, but that comes down to quality of writing - Having characters act into sexuality stereotypes as your tool for signalling is tacky, and especially so when that stereotyping is then disregarded to make way for the player's wishes (what we have now in Larian's game); having characters show realistically developed comments and reactions that give honest information and hints about their preferences and where they fall on the spectrum, where it is passingly appropriate for those cues to come up, is far batter.

Here's what we actually know for certain about the characters so far, as absolutes:

- Astarion has had past activities with males and females, but this was under the domination of his master, so can't really be called self-directed or consensual. We don't know where his preferences lay before he was turned. We do know that he expresses flirtatious interest in males and females alike now, but he seems to have a slight leaning towards males; when given the chance to comment, he imagines himself having an evening with some 'handsome' individual.

- Wyll definitely likes females, so he is either heterosexual or bisexual - but he's definitely not gay. He seems equally happy to accept a male character as a brother in arms and a mate, as he does pursuing something a little more physical, but if he's bisexual naturally, it's on the female-leaning side of the spectrum to some extent.

- Gale definitely likes women, very strongly - so he's either heterosexual, or bisexual, but he's definitely not gay. We don't hear him talk about any other past lovers, but Mystra is all that's on his mind right now. Playing the weave scene and other related romance build-up scenes with a male character did not feel unnatural or terribly out of place; if we express our interest to him in these build up scenes, he is surprised first, but receptive. Of all the character romances, the fact that here are several pre-party hooks with Gale make his feel the most natural to me.

- Shadowheart, we know professes to like casual hook-ups, but is the most reticent to actually do so. She's not lying, of course, because we get no insight roll, and she makes no persuasion/deception checks, so we can only assume that she is telling us the truth - otherwise it would be unfair of Larian to have their origin characters lie to our faces without having to roll and without us having any ability to discern their untruth (can you hear my sarcasm?). She gives us no clues (that I'm aware of) as to her personal intimate preferences, yet. She talks a big talk, but seems to be sexually shy and more strongly inclined to being passive/submissive in intimate situations, or to having her partner take the lead in such cases; there are many reasons why this might be the case, and we can't really speculate usefully.

- Lae'zel Is interested in males, this much we know for certain, so she is either heterosexual, or bisexual - but she's definitely not a lesbian. More than nay of the other characters, her dialogues on the topic suggest an open and mercenary natural bisexuality, potentially one slightly male-leaning - however, we can't judge her non-player choice too strongly, since her options, other than you, are pitched as being three males, or Shadowheart, who is not an option regardless of preferences, so other than her willingness to sleep with males, the choice doesn't tell us much else.