Oh boy, is it time for the playersexual conversation again? It has been a few months by now...
Originally Posted by Lady Avyna
I think romance character options being player sexual is the best way to go. That way no one feels limited to who they can romance because the one they find attractive happens to be gay or straight. This is an issue that happened with BioWare regarding Dragon Age: Inquisition where a lot of female players wished they could romance Dorian as a female because Dorian is that cool but were unable to as he happens to be a gay character. As for the romance in BG3, it's not limited to sex, you can go on a date.
So, for Dorian, iirc a fairly big part of his backstory was that
he didn't want to marry his [female] betrothed and his father attempted to use blood magic to change his sexuality and do his "familial duty". This is obviously an allegory for shock conversion therapy, etc.
This is intrinsically tied to him being gay, and without it this specific aspect of his backstory (and resulting effects on his personality, relationships, etc) wouldn't exist. Following that logic, characters having a preferred sexual orientation can add to their characterization and potentials for storytelling. In this specific example, people who went through similar experiences might identify more with Dorian, which is good, no?
With playersexual companions, you gain the flexibility that everyone can romance anyone. However, you lose the possibility of the above characterization, since companions are presented as effectively bi/pan. Alternatively, they're presented as a specific sexual orientation but (unexplainedly) make an exception for the PC, which some would argue breaks immersion.
Are your (and are others') thoughts that the gain in romance options from the companions being playersexual *outweighs* the possible loss in additional characterization/stories?
(basically what @Zerubbabel says)
Originally Posted by Zerubbabel
I don't think it's a problem per se, but there is something to be said for each character having their own sexuality to make them feel more like real characters rather than romance cutouts waiting for you to approach (which, ultimately, they are, but it's nice to hope for greater suspension of disbelief). HOWEVER, I think inclusivity and breadth of choice for everyone may far outweigh one's desire of realism in characterization, so this is fine by me if handled well.
In regards to Dorian's character development, it has to do with his sexuality. Whereas making a character player-sexual or bi for that matter, the writer can focus on other things that matter to that character besides their sexuality. You get to focus more on them as person rather than what gender they are attracted to.
I really liked Karlach, but perhaps you can use respec to change her into a tiefling barbarian without a scarred body--or you could just celebrate that she survived 10 years in the Blood Wars with her character seemingly intact and not focus on the scars.
In regards to Dorian's character development, it has to do with his sexuality. Whereas making a character player-sexual or bi for that matter, the writer can focus on other things that matter to that character besides their sexuality. You get to focus more on them as person rather than what gender they are attracted to.
What gender they are attracted to can be a part of their person: backstory, personality, and relation to other in-world characters. Why should writers not place [at least some] focus on sexuality? Sexuality is a big part of real life after all, and so stories that ignore it are by definition going to have less potential than stories that include it. As shown by the Dorian example: if he was playersexual, then the story couldn't (not without being immersion breaking) use a plot point that depended on him being strictly gay, and in doing so use that real-world allegory. Would you prefer that Dorian's story was changed in order to make him playersexual compatible?
I agree that a character's sexuality shouldn't be their entire personality, but it's not an either/or. Writers can include sexuality and "other things that matter to that character besides their sexuality" as aspects to a character.
I have to admit that I was disappointed in DA:I because I thought Dorian was a very good character for gay males, but was not impressed by Sera and thought lesbian characters were short-changed in comparison.
On the whole I like a game to either have a lot of romance options with defined sexualities or for them to be player-sexual if you have fewer options. There's little worse in game romances than having the only character that sounds like a good romantic partner not be an option for the character you're playing.
I think romance character options being player sexual is the best way to go
100% agree. this is a no-brainer. There, very hypothetically, might be story reasons to give an NPC defined sexual preferences, but that almost certainly would mean that the NPC's sexual preferences are key to the story, and that's not a general-audience RPG at that point.
In regards to Dorian's character development, it has to do with his sexuality. Whereas making a character player-sexual or bi for that matter, the writer can focus on other things that matter to that character besides their sexuality. You get to focus more on them as person rather than what gender they are attracted to.
What gender they are attracted to can be a part of their person: backstory, personality, and relation to other in-world characters. Why should writers not place [at least some] focus on sexuality? Sexuality is a big part of real life after all, and so stories that ignore it are by definition going to have less potential than stories that include it. As shown by the Dorian example: if he was playersexual, then the story couldn't (not without being immersion breaking) use a plot point that depended on him being strictly gay, and in doing so use that real-world allegory. Would you prefer that Dorian's story was changed in order to make him playersexual compatible?
I agree that a character's sexuality shouldn't be their entire personality, but it's not an either/or. Writers can include sexuality and "other things that matter to that character besides their sexuality" as aspects to a character.
Adding a sexuality story does not make for a good potential overall story, that depends on how good the writers are. Think about it this way, it's better to have all the romance options be bisexual than to limit them to a certain gender preference because you might not like your choices given to you. For example, what if they made Lae'zel gay but Shadowheart straight, not a good choice for gay females. Now, if they are all bisexual, you then have the choice to pick who you like and are not limited.
Very strange to hear Shadowheart and Karlach being constantly lumped into the category of 'evil' romance options.
Karlach seems to be very much a goody-two-shoes and apaprently is very sweet and bubbly underneath the surface?
And Shadowheart seems to be a very heavily telegraphed redemption character. She's not even available as a romance option right now in EA for evil characters, for heaven's sake!
IDK why OP needed to clarify why they mean for 'straight men' either. Literally every romance option is pansexual in this game. 'Straight men' have the exact same number of romance options that match their orientation as lesbians do.
Except it is limiting. It is non inclusive to have all romances be bisexual and willing to have sex with any race. I find it insulting, and it by default it makes the characters worse because it majes them come across as 'less real'. I prefer da/da2 over da3 overall, but da3 did a better job here. The anti hetero abd anti gay agenda with 8 bisexual romances is insulting, non inclusive, and lazy design.
Also, FYI, women in life do not usually like their men being attracted to other men. We men, since were biologically perverts, arent as set against lesbian sex, but that is another discussion. So, it is sexist against women.
Bottom line there seems to be a lot of cope defend all bisexual romances despite all limiting, anti roleplaying, and poor writing in its very existence.
Still, this is small potatoes compared to the fact there are zero hot dwarven women to bang. Lmao
And, no heterosexual and gays atent being 'pandered' to. Both gays and hers have zero romances geared to them. Lmao Its all bisexual romances.
I think romance character options being player sexual is the best way to go.
Well actually! Sexual prefferences of companions, and their playersexuality are not mutualy exclusive. :P
It was talked about in the past, and we have come with ... i would dare to say quite elegant solution.
Whole romances would stay as they are ... Except very first night, when you express your romantic interest for the first time. Each companion would get preffered race and sex ... or at least one of those.
Then ... If your pc fits both and they are interested, they would propose ... the rest afterwards go as usualy. If your pc fits one, they would not propose but just hint as if trying to find if there is any interest ... the rest go as usualy. If your PC fits nine, you would need to be the one who propose, and when you do they would be surprised, but willing ... the rest go as usualy.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 12/07/2304:48 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
Except it is limiting. It is non inclusive to have all romances be bisexual and willing to have sex with any race. I find it insulting, and it by default it makes the characters worse because it majes them come across as 'less real'. I prefer da/da2 over da3 overall, but da3 did a better job here. The anti hetero abd anti gay agenda with 8 bisexual romances is insulting, non inclusive, and lazy design.
Also, FYI, women in life do not usually like their men being attracted to other men. We men, sunce were biologically kerveets, atent as set against lesbian sex, but that is another discussion. So, it is sexist against women.
Bottom line there seems to be a lot of cop defend all bisexual romances despite all limiting, anti roleplaying, and poor writing in its very existence.
Still, this is small potatoes compared to the fact there are zero hot dwarven women to bang. Lmao
And, no heterosexual and gsys atent being 'pandered' to. Both gays and hers have zero romances geared to them. Lmao Its all bisexual romances.
um....yeaaaah.....probably better off if I don't respond to most of those positions you have there.
Anyways. 'Everyone is pansexual' is a necessary compromise to make sure everyone has the maximum number of romance options. I mean, yeah maybe it would be ideal for everyone to have their own sexual orientation because not everyone is Pansexual IRL, but I can guarantee that we'd be having this conversation again, but with even more vitriol if the romances were divided evenly gay/straight/pansexual. Like can you imagine if the most conventionally-attractive companion, Shadowheart was Lesbian? We'd never hear the end of it. Having everyone be pansexual might not be real-to-life, but it's always some serious bad feels when you can't romance whom you want. Remember BG II when all straight women had was Anomen, and gay female characters had to settle for getting their soul sucked out by an Alu-fiend or gay men getting an erotic massage from a drow slave? I do.
We used to have romance options gated by sex. We don't need to go back to those dark days.
Exactly. We should be able to romance whoever we are physically attracted to. Some may want to deny this but looks do matter.
Yep. I think Larian has done an excellent job of making romance options available to all players. We paid for the game, we should be able to have the experience we want.
One thing for sure, sales seems to have EXPLODED after Larian Reveals Salacious Romance Scene. Sex sells way better than trying to be faithful to D&D. Nicely played. The game needed at the bear minimum some hard PR push. Still surprised Larian went that far in. And please, lets just not called it "romance" in BG3. Its downright kinky odd porn written by young "adults".
Love the studio in their ability to make great games. Big shout out to the programmers and designers. But not a fan on the content planning design/decision makers and editing staff. These scenes should of been cut out of the game asap. Or made more tasteful/shorter. They need better directing.
Cinematography 101 : With good directing, camera work and writing, a single look and silent moment can be 1000x more powerful than a sultry sex scene.
Last edited by Count Turnipsome; 12/07/2308:29 AM.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Well there's hope that there will be brothels in the city with high-class beautiful courtesans like in Witcher 3 and with possibility to hire them in our camp
Dude. I'm attracted to many lesbians. Doesn't mean they should attracted to me. They are lesbians. I'm not owed their interest. The ego on people thinking everyone should desire them. Lmao
Come on. There's fantasy then there's delusion. Lol
Except it is limiting. It is non inclusive to have all romances be bisexual and willing to have sex with any race. I find it insulting, and it by default it makes the characters worse because it majes them come across as 'less real'. I prefer da/da2 over da3 overall, but da3 did a better job here. The anti hetero abd anti gay agenda with 8 bisexual romances is insulting, non inclusive, and lazy design.
Also, FYI, women in life do not usually like their men being attracted to other men. We men, since were biologically perverts, arent as set against lesbian sex, but that is another discussion. So, it is sexist against women.
Bottom line there seems to be a lot of cope defend all bisexual romances despite all limiting, anti roleplaying, and poor writing in its very existence.
Still, this is small potatoes compared to the fact there are zero hot dwarven women to bang. Lmao
And, no heterosexual and gays atent being 'pandered' to. Both gays and hers have zero romances geared to them. Lmao Its all bisexual romances.
I'm pretty sure the existence of bisexual people isn't sexist to women. That's leaving behind the territory "a scretch" and entering the territory of Olympic level Gymnastics. It's classic biphobia. Both playersexuality and the often stereotype heavy representative diversity approach has its downsides. No need to sprinkle in biphobia disguised as progressiveness.
Thank you to the vast majority of posters here who are contributing thoughtfully and considerately on topics that can be sensitive and in some cases touch on folks' real lives.
I'm just going to give a quick reminder to anyone who needs it that while it's okay to disagree it's not okay to be dismissive, it's not okay to just keep repeating the same points rather than agreeing to disagree, and it is best to avoid making wider statements about sexuality, womens' preferences or sexism and stick to what is directly relevant.
Thanks again, all!
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
