Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback I Request Escapism

Dear Larian.
I have been told this forum is a good way to reach you, so here I am.

My only request related to Baldur's Gate 3 is this.
Please give me the option for my (female) characters to not wear a shirt/bra/etc. when I feel like not wearing one.
I look to D&D and its ilk for escapism from the frustrations I have with the real world, and a big factor in that frustration is the prevalence of nipplephobic attitudes and policies.
I honestly don't care if it's a day 1 DLC that adds the option, an "AO" version of the game(if the ESRB is that sexist), or something like that, but I really don't want to rely on the unreliable and tedious nature of mods (I rarely find topless but not nude ones, btw) and I'm only asking for in-game topfreedom, not even full nudity.

I like to think that fantasy worlds like D&D wouldn't discriminate towards women's right to go bare-chested, when it's normal to see, for example, female warriors or rulers. They often talk about equal rights, but that should extend to the in-universe nudity standards too, I believe.

Maybe it could be an option that can be toggled in the game menu, so as to not bother those who disagree with me.

@everyone: I am not open to any kind of debate, and I'm aware of the reasons why most game companies wouldn't do this. I am only posting this as a message to Larian Studios.

+1

Larian, please free breasts for LadyKjell.

"No short, no shoes, no service" is just a people friendly policy regardless of gender.

I am sure that there will be modders who will accommodate you, though.

Though luck if you are tall then.

No idea who told you that you can reach Larian here ... but im affraid you were missinformed.
Larian is (un)reachable all the same trough all channels ... depending on your personal believes ... either all the same, or not at all anyway ...

Im affraid that the only way to be actualy sure your message reached them, would be start working there. :-/

---

Slight offtopic ... can anyone explain to me why all those people who want something theese days have tendencies to use phrase "i have right(s) to ..."? O_o
Is there anything wrong about simply want something lately?

Hey LadyKjell,

This is part of a general request that has been raised by a number of folks over the EA period, to have more full rights and control of our undergarments, as well as more varied options for them that we can choose - I'm still waiting for a simple, plain and functional chest band, personally, as well as the right not to bother with one for my particularly lightly endowed characters.

Threads on the forums generally end up starting debates and don't tend to go anywhere or reach consensus, but if you want to make absolutely sure that someone at Larian reads your feedback directly, you're better off sending your comments to their direct feedback form - at the very least you will receive an acknowledgement that they've received it, though they won't comment any further for general feedback.

You can find their feedback form here: https://larian.com/support/baldur-s-gate-3#feedback

Let's be reasonable, folks. Enough is enough. I'm over here trying to get to Baldur's Gate, not Sodom and Gomorrah.

I am of belief that BG3 should be PG13, like the originals. That said, looking at a wider D&D media, it does seem to be more of a kinky casual fantasy these days, then cheesy mythological Tolkien wanna-be in a game setting form.

To be clear - there is nothing 'kinky' or innately sexual about anything the OP of this thread is requesting.

There is nothing obscene about breasts. If males don't have to cover their nipples if they don't want to, then neither do I, or my characters... and that's just fair.

Now... practically speaking, if you're moving around on an average adventuring day, then unless you're particularly lightly endowed, you're probably going to want some proper support... but it's not hard to imagine a video game where you don't actually have to worry about physics like that, and can imagine a world where you can just relax and be comfortable about it without any uncomfortable repercussions.

I just want to be able to pick my own knickers... don't *make* this a sexual request when it's not one.

Fair enough though. I mean, Cyberpunk allows you to create your character pantless, and while I find it pointless and unnecessarily distasteful (but that's hardly an isolated example in Cp), it doesn't impact my fun (or lack thereoff in case of Cp77)...

[I don't like Cp77 very much. But I like it a little bit.]

To be fair, you never see your character past the creator in CP2077 (unless you activate photo mode). In BG3 you see it pretty much all the time.

Breasts aren't sexual? lol, I dare say there's a multi-billion dollar industry that would disagree.

+1

I'm pretty sure Niara's point wasn't that breasts aren't sexual, but that turning this request into a sexual kink is not right, which I agree with. Personally I do not see an issue with it as this is a mature game with nudity, sex and sex references. And I think it would be really cool to be able to have a bare-chested female Barbarian with body warpaint all over her to look like someone who's fully embraced the tribal and primal wilderness.

However... I will go and say that breasts are not sexual, it is simply a dumb perception of modern society. Breasts are just a body part like any other and any body part can be sexualized. In the past, a woman showing ankles was considered sexual. And a woman acting outside of certain established behaviors was considered a slut. It's simply the treatment of modern men towards women that keeps creating these weird sexual perceptions and rules that keep changing as time goes by.

Anyone claiming otherwise is free to simply take a look at any of today's tribes still following the old ways and you will see actual full equality where men and women live together in union, where all women are bare-chested just like men are. From Amazon tribes to African tribes to Asian tribes, bare-chested women are a completely normal thing. Only the dumb modern society thinks it's some sinful act to be a bare-chested woman or to have breasts in media.

Not thinking it should be sexual doesn't mean it's not sexual, even if you think those who sexualize it are "dumb."

It not being sexual in one culture does not make it non sexual in another culture.

In other words, you seem to striving for some sort of absolute truth, when there's a simple truth at hand. And the simple truth is this: something is as sexual in a culture as that culture makes it. As it happens, in this modern culture, breasts are sexual. Trying to tell people that they're not really turned on by breasts, that it's all in their head, is a funny game. I guess the end result is trying to change the world or something. Not sure.

Well ask yourself why are you not attracted to a pair of breasts on a torn apart corpse of a naked woman. Because if what you say is true and you actually believe that breasts are sexual no matter what, then you should be attracted to a pair of breasts in such a scenario as any other. If that is too extreme, then a more relatable circumstance would be a woman breastfeeding or being topless on a nudist beach. I mean if that attracts you I won't kink shame, but I think my point is clear.

Simply put; breasts are sexual depending on the circumstances, but not on their own and definitely not at all times, otherwise it becomes objectification. Which is exactly what always caused men to impose rules upon women. So because of this in the Western society breasts are taboo, while in Eastern society the entire woman is taboo and has to hide herself.

Regardless, I simply see no issue with this request as the game already has full on nudity and intricate sex scenes, so a topless female character is not even remotely sexual compared to everything else in the game, especially Minthara's 69 treatment.

Question: Cant this be said about anything?

I mean ... what part of body is sexual all the time, under any circumstances, on its own?
I cant imagine any.

To start, some folks certainly are attracted to that.

Even so, it's not a fair example. Breasts are sexualized in society. Death is not. The gruesome nature of death overwhelms the sexual nature of the breasts.

As for nude beaches and breastfeeding, I guarantee there are plenty of teenage boys who wouldn't mind watching both.

Also, just to be clear, the sexualization of breasts doesn't mean every breast is attractive. Some are more attractive than others. Individuals have preferences, but society at large tends to prefer ones that can be described with words like "pert."

Whereas something described as "saggy" would generally be less attractive and thus less sexualized in popular culture.


Well now, in complete fairness, Minthara is evil. How can we expect anything else? Pure debauchery. Shaking my head.

As for your point about objectification, I'm not sure what you mean. What does that have to do with sexualization? I get that you might not approve of things you consider objectifying, but that sounds more like a personal stance than a commentary on what popular culture finds sexual.

People on the internet just love banning "female presenting nipples". (thanks, social media, for putting that phrase into the public awareness /s). I don't get it, personally, even being attracted to women, I don't get the absolute insistence from some groups that boobs are overtly sexual and can't ever not be sexual.

It's funny because we already have nude player models in this game, they get used for the sex scenes, and the underwear is a separate added layer. Given that there is already nudity and sex in this game, you would think that asking for a nude option alongside underwear wouldn't be a big thing, but here we are.

EDIT
How to get naked in DnD

Oh, let me add to that, Piff, with a great resource I know!

Jaybird's Guides to Naked Adventuring

Jaybird's guides are fun and interesting, and a very sensible and mature approach to the concept of backgrounds, philosophies, deities, patrons and other elements of the game that can involve or invoke elements of nudity and exposure as a natural part of the world space, and how it can work in a fun and mature way.

That aside, I did mean what I said: breasts are not inherently sexual, and nothing said so far has been any kind of argument or supporting reasoning to say otherwise - Jand as insisted that they 'are', but given nothing to back that up. We can definitely find them appealing and attractive, but that does not make them sexual any more than finding eyes or hair or freckles appealing and attractive does to them; it doesn't.

For the record, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong, Crimson) Crimson was pointing out that marking 'female breasts' as an inherently sexual thing automatically and at all times, irrespective of circumstance (such that a circumstance must 'outweigh' their inherent sexual nature before it can seem unappealing) is actively objectifying the breasts, and thus the female they are attached to - it is fixating on the breasts as an object with an inherent sexual nature, and reacting to them solely; that is unhealthy objectification of the woman those breasts are attached to, and if you cannot see that then you are a very, very long way down the ultraconservative rabbit hole.

Breasts are not inherently sexual - they are a part of a human body, and we are sexual creatures, but they no more need to be hidden than male nipples do, which is not at all.

How are female breasts sexual? Is it because they are a secondary characteristic which in our biology acts as a stand-in for advertising fitness to reproduce? Because if so, then I have to tell you that the male chest and torso serves the exact same purpose; if one of these things is inherently sexual for that reason, then they both are, and if that means that one of them must be covered and hidden, then they both must be. They aren't, and shouldn't.

Is it because they are often an erogenous zone for many women? Once again, so are many other places - the shells of the ears, the hands, the neck, the centre of the back, the thighs, the soles of the feet - variously, these are all sometimes so for many different men and women alike; add the male chest and nipples to this as well, of course. Once again - if female breasts are inherently sexual for this reason, then so are the other areas I mentioned; if one of them needs to be necessarily covered and hidden for this reason, then they all must be - on men and women alike. They aren't, and shouldn't be.

Breasts serve a function in women, which is to feed offspring during the earliest phase of their life. This is not a sexual thing, and it is not a sexual purpose or function. Short of having a child to rear, they spend the majority of their existence not even fulfilling or being able to be utilised for this purpose at all. They have no other biological purpose beyond this, and their existence as secondary characteristics.

So, again... what reason can be given for necessarily having to hide or cover them; in what way, does a person claim that they are inherently sexual things? What legitimate justification is given for this claim?

They can be sexualised; anything can be sexualised. Their presence as a secondary characteristic and their propensity to act as erogenous areas lends them to this, in fact - just the same as the male chest and torso does, and just the same as the buttocks of either sex do. So yes, they can definitely be sexual fixations for some people - many people, even. That's not my fault, and it has nothing to do with me; other people's fetishes do not and should never control my rights. Shall we ban balloons because some people find watching young ladies sit on them to pop them to be arousing? Shall we ban g-strings, becuase they show off the buttocks?

"...Actually, can we outlaw g-strings on women just in general... I'm really not a fan, they aren't comfortable... Let the men keep wearing them though; that's sexy." - I might think that, in my mind as an aside, in jest... but this is what sexism looks like folks; this is the kind of thing that people like Jand, above, are pushing for as 'truth', and it's not okay. Destructive sexism strokes both way - both in the expectation of display, and the over-sexualisation of that display, but also in the repressing and restricting of freedoms to control your own self. The only solution is to evoke freedom of individuals to dress and present as they wish to, within the confines of their own self.


Does that mean the solution might necessitate changing a lot about our world and how individual men and women within it are treated both by each other and by the media we consume - including our video games? Yes... It may well do. How do we change the world then? One step at a time, unfortunately... and this is one of those steps that we can stand up and support fairness for. So, honest question, Jand; do you want to be the person helping to support fair and equal treatment of presentation and representation... or do you want to be the person fighting against it and striving to preserve modern misogyny? It is, really, that simple a question.