Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Playersexuality discussion and its effects on Companion writing

As the mods are constantly intervening in other threads about the way sexuality is handled in BG3 once playersexuality is brought up because it apparently derails discussion about the way sexuality is handled in BG3 for some reason, here a thread dedicated to this topic as by their request.

What is playersexuality?
Playersexuality means that all companions will always be attracted to your PC, no matter their race, sex and gender.

Why I think its bad.
It cheapens the companions and makes them, when it comes to their sexuality, an ambiguous limbo. The sexuality of a person does affect his personality and behaviour around others. By leaving this undefined it leaves a gaping hole in the personality of companions and complicates writing their story.


Examples for that are Wyll and Gale. Their backstory already establishes that they are attracted to woman. So depending on the gender of the main character they are either Bi or Hetero. Yet as it ultimately can't be defined to allow for playersexuality it can never be referenced at all. Wyll openly flirts with basically every female companion in the party and when he talks about his past he also hints at his successes with the ladies.
But despite never mentioning anything with other men we still have to believe that he is Bi when playing male characters. If Wyll had a defined sexuality, either Bi or Hetero, all this awkwardness would be avoided and his dialogue and backstory which fit his romance options a lot better.

Another example of playersexuality gone bad is Shadowheart. Her dialogue makes it abundantly clear that she has no love for Githyanki or Selune, at least in Act 1. Yet she has no problem with hooking up with a Githyanki cleric of Selune player character as a consequence of playersexuality.

This commitment to playersexuality also presents another problem as it prevents some storytelling options as you can't have a companion which is not willing to have sex with the player. So no married person who wants to get back to their family or devoted character with among other things a vow of celibacy. And neither can any story reference their sexuality directly.

With such obvious disadvantages, why is Larian using playersexuality? In short time/money.
With playersexuality they did not need to write different dialogue for romanceable and non romanceable player characters (or leave non romanceable PCs with a lot less interactions with the companions as Larian made sex a big part of it). And they can get away with less companions if they want to offer a "romance" choice for every combination.
And they don't have to deal with some thirsting twitter users complaining that they can't have sex with their favorite companion because of not fitting sexuality.

This also leads back into the general impression of horniness and overdone sexuality in BG3. As now everyone is a romance option you also have "romance" dialogue with everyone and them also hitting on you. Especially as Larian seemed to think that having sex with a companion apparently is one of the primary goals when talking to them in the first place and also the reason why there is no general friendship path.

For a much better implementation look at the Pathfinder games (Kingmaker and Wrath).
There companions have determined sexuality, hetero, homo, bi and not interested in romance at all and non of it feels out of place and fits their characters while allowing the story to also reference their sexuality when it makes sense without awkwardly trying to leave it ambiguous.

I like playersexual companions! There are a limited number of companions and having them playersexual provides the most options and content for everyone.

This is more or less a complaint about the contrivances and limitations that are inherent in this genre of videogame.

One might also ask why, in the first act, the ritual to close off the grove, which is stated to be a time sensitive issue in dialogue, will never be completed no matter how long it takes the player to get on with the questline. It's a sacrifice of plausibility and narrative urgency in favor of player agency, a tradeoff.

It isn't realistic that such a diverse group would all happen to be sexually fluid and open-minded, it's a contrivance that favors giving the player the most options, maybe not pulled off with the most grace in this particular game, but I still think player agency was the correct thing to give preference in this case.

Because everything else in the game like spells, monsters, magical weapons and potions is totally realistic correct?

I rather prefer quality content than cheap quantity playersexuality gives.

What is Playersexuality?

Here is a nice definition from Google (cause we all use Google, it's taking over the World People!!): "Playersexual" is a term used for characters in video games or visual novels who are attracted to the player character regardless of gender or other characteristics.

Why I think it's a good thing?

If you are playing an RPG Game, you are also role-playing. If you can role-play as a Barbarian smashing heads and wearing green skin, you can role-play that the heartthrob in your camp is as hetero as you are.

Or they can be as gay as you are as well.

Playersexuality isn't the main reason for bad writing. Most often it is used as a Tool to say 'Well, they made them all Bi now the writing sucks!'. Funny enough, when similar writing sucked and had hetero only...you only hear cricket noise.

The only thing player sexuality does is allow all the players to romance whomever they want. Nothing more than that.

It has no impact on the writing of a character itself. And it can be proven by simply switching said flag from player sexual to whatever orientation you want. If a character is written badly, do you really think turning him Gay or Hetero he gonna become a better character???

Does it take so little to change a player's opinion from Hating a character to loving it?

Let's see now, everyone knows Anomen Delryn from Baldur's Gate 2 right? He is the only romance for a Hetero lady where her male counterpart had: Viconia, Aerie, and Jaheira.



Remember him?

Do you really think that if a mod was installed and turned him gay there would be any change to him?

He still will be a douche. calling Jaheira 'My Lady' one second and then a 'Wench' a second later. He still will rebuke an older paladin (Keldorn) when he gives him advice.

He still will sound pompous and blame everyone under the sun for his sister's death except his own actions.

And that's what player sexuality does. It doesn't add by Magic new dialogue to someone. It doesn't change their main background story.

If someone was to mod Anomen to be romanced by a male Charname, they will remove the flag that block a male Charname from doing so.

But if you want his dialogues to change to fit his now Gay orientation? That has nothing to do with player sexuality and will need a full rewrite. And that has a tie to the writing itself. From his name, his family ties, and his personal Quest.

But player sexuality limit options in characters' backgrounds no?

Again, the writing is limited. Player sexuality doesn't have an effect on that.

And the issue is how the player sees the player's sexuality.

If player sexuality for you is = Everyone is gay now.

You are the one limiting yourself, not the game.

If you believe that the writing is lacking in background and nuances, then the fault is poor writing. Blame that. Not player sexuality.

But X Character in Y Game only Harped about Sleeping with women!

What's the point? Many peoples were known to be married, had children, even grandchildren, and later in life, they came out as Gay.

It is not unheard of.

It just means this X character has never had a relationship with the same sex and if romanced, the player would be their 1st gay experience.

Care to give us an example???

Sure.

Fallout 4, starts you as a married man or woman.

Many didn't like that. Because being married kinda take away from the blank background some like much more.

I didn't let that stop me though.

And romanced the journalist Piper.

B-but she was Married and even had a KID! Won't you think of the Kid????

The way I saw it is that my character was once married. Then she got frozen and years passed her by. Her quest was about finding her baby. Nowhere it said she had to bang every companion and get married again.

If anything the main story seemed more centered around building settlements and taking down bad guys. Who got time for romance when you have bad guys to kill?

But yes, on her journey to the closest town she met Piper by the gate. She even gave her an Interview and was nicknamed 'Blue'. Then they joined forces, and on adventuring they went together.

During their travels, Piper confides in 'Blue' about raising her sister and other things.

Time passed by as they built settlements, added more people to their friend's group and chased bad guys while looking for little Junior.

You know how the story ends right?

They lived happily ever after in a house that had no lock. Every night they had to find a different bed to do Woohoo because Bethesda couldn't be assed to create doors that lock the settlers away. Bunch of Perv!

But that was all forgotten once morning came and did the Lover's Embrace. it's a glow from the Woohoo you had before going to bed.....any bed really. The wasteland doesn't judge when it comes to trying to kill you.

Ew...but what about some Storytelling that can't be told like a Vow of celibacy when everyone is Playersexual?

What about it?

The companions are called a 'Romance Option' for a reason. If you want a Virgin or an eunuch then just don't romance them and go to the nearest Lampost and pretend it never had sex and won't sleep with you.

Believe me, you won't hurt his feeling. He still lights up no matter what you say to it.

But seriously though, peoples choose to do the romance because they want to spice things up in their games.

Everyone is tired of the broody, lone Wolf jackass whose great love is his dog or horse.

And again, this has nothing to do with player sexuality. Believe it or not, but you can have a character who is let's say a Virgin or has a vow of celibacy and be player sexual.

The only thing again player sexuality mean is: ANYONE CAN TRY TO MAKE A PASS AT THE NUN. It doesn't change the fact the NUN IS A VIRGIN AND HAS A VOW OF CELIBACY. If she is written that she never break her Vow and never bedded anyone, and yet at the end of her story she still says 'I LOVE YOU BUT AINT SLEEPING WITH YOU EVER! CAUSE MY BODY BELONG TO JEEBUS!' then yes.....she can still do that and be player sexual.

Do you get it now????

B-but all them dudes hitting one meh, and I just wanna be bros!! it's so awkward!!

Grow up.

Already there are several nasty, inappropriate, and thoughtless angry responses to the OP’s (generally) thoughtful, but imperfect, post. This forum should be for everyone and all should be treated with politeness and respect… or so I keep reading…

Agree with OP. I can't believe how prevalent it has become.

I agree with the OP, I've hated playersexual companions since I first met them in DA 2.

What I'd like to have is an option to toggle off same sex romances (or romances in general) altogether.

I don't care about their sexuality, but the writing and how it is delivered is tasteless and just straight up bad.

There is no character development, they should look at how Mass Effect and Dragon Age did it. This fuckfest of homosexuals wanting to fuck everything feels completely out of place.

I already told gale in act 1 that I don't want to have sex with him. First thing I hear from Gale while traveling through the shadowlands is how fuckable I look in the shadows. Its smut. Porno level writing.

I actually think playersexual companions are a great idea in games like this because it doesn't cut people off from the companions they paid money to be able to romance unless they play a character they don't want to play. At the same time, I can understand the issues with being hit on by characters of the gender you're not interested in.

However, I don't think the solution is a toggle to disable same-sex romance because that only solves the problem for some players and makes it worse for others.

Instead, I think it would work better for NPCs to default as playersexual but for players to have the option to toggle off interest from a particular gender. That way both lesbians and straight men could avoid male characters coming on to them if they wanted to.

I rarely agree so completely with Icelyn, but this is one of those moments. The relatively few number of companions means playersexual is simply the only feasible option. If it wasn't, you'd have a Cyberpunk 2077 situation, with a bunch of dudes getting frustrated because Judy rejected them. That said, and I've said this before, I would love if they actually depicted a real gay relationship in a game, that actually discussed some of the issues real gay people have to deal with. It seems like gay couples in most games are just completely accepted, no issues, not even a mention of "well, it was hard for her family, but they've come around, etc, etc" All the issues that gay people have to deal with are simply glossed over, as if we're living in a perfect fantasy world. Meanwhile racism, violence, all other bad things are completely commonplace. I know WHY they do it, but it'd be nice to see some nuance.


Which nasty comments are you referring to?

edit: nevermind, didn't read the post immediately above yours. Report posts if you think they're inappropriate.

I agree with Icelyn and Boblawblah here - I think with the limited number of companions, playersexual is the best way to deal with it tbh.

Playersexual. Realistic? No. More fun? Yes. That's the whole point of this game: to escape reality and have fun.

I'm another supporter of playersexuality myself.

People come into these games from all sorts of places in life and with their own orientations.

Yes, in real life you don't typically have the luxury to interact with anyone and everyone, but games are supposed to be a fantasy.

That said, you don't necessarily need to follow this approach in every single game, but I'm personally glad they chose to go down that route in this case. It gives all of us more freedom and flexibility as players to customize our own experiences in terms of roleplaying.

I would encourage you to PM me or report specific posts that you think are nasty or inappropriate, explaining why you think they are problematic, as I confess I am not seeing several posts that would fit this bill. In fact, I see one overlong, sometimes overheated post that I've contacted the poster about, but other than that the discussion seems mostly positive.

However, in the same way that I encouraged us not to derail the thread about the dodgy behaviour (either by design or caused by bugs) of the specific BG3 companions that some players have observed, I am going to ask folk to focus here on playersexuality as an approach to offering romance choice in the game. Specific issues with companions not taking no for an answer or treating us as though we are in relationships when we are not and so on can be discussed in one of the two linked topics below, but not here please.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=879476&page=1
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=879755&page=1

Posts that would fit better in those topics published in this thread will be moved, though I'd appreciate it if you could save me the trouble and post in the right thread to begin with

That I dispute.
Although it depends on what your definition of fun is. If for you fun is having sex with companions then playersexuality is of course an advantage.
But when you want to experience intricate and immersive stories then playersexuality is a disadvantage because of the awkwardness and ambiguity it requires.

Limited resources, time, etc. player sexual is best in these situations. No one wants an Anomen again. If it’s a choice of player sexual vs shallowly written romances just so check marks can be ticked, I would rather have no romances and just leave it up to modders.

When does it end! There are what now over 60 genders identities?


Edit for clarity of source…
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders

I'm also going to encourage folk to say their piece and then try not to keep repeating themselves just because others don't agree. This is a topic on which we simply aren't all going to see eye to eye, and in the end are going to have to agree to disagree. It's of course fine to ask follow-up questions on substantive new points raised, to answer if someone asks you a direct question, or to respond if someone has quoted and replied to a point you've made and you think they've misunderstood what you mean. But please recognise when you've made your view clear and help prevent this discussion going round in circles.

And also let's not get into how many different ways gender identity can be characterised. A gaming forum simply isn't the right place to discuss that, and while the fact that sexuality is far from a simple matter is relevant all we need is that general point so let's not get derailed by unnecessary side debates.

I think I might have an entirely different take on the issues with player sexuality among NPCs.

While I generally agree its a good thing, I think that there is ultimately one potential issue with it, and that is the lack of ability to tell queer narratives.

See, when writing stories with LGBT characters you get caught in the is/ought problem pretty easily. Both of these methods have their advantages and disadvantage. In this instance player sexuality represents a form of "ought" stortelling, so we get the disadvantages of chosing ought, which is lack of reprerentation of the queer experience and uniquely queer stories.

Which isnt a bad thing, its just a disadvantage.

(the is/ought problem, if oyu dont know can be summed up as... ought means "what it ought to be" meaning showcasing a more idealized world, and "is" means showing things as they are to tell these stories... neither method is bad, both can tell good stories, they have their advantages and disadantages... nobody is homophobic or ableist for picking one over the other)

I guess one response would be that playersexuality is precisely what allows you to build your own personal narrative with more freedom, whether queer or otherwise, rather than the game designers forcing all players to accept the boundaries they decided to include.

Yes, we don't get to say "the game developers presented a specifically queer narrative" in that respect (although, for the record, BG3 already has several in-universe gay or lesbian relationships among various NPCs, so it's pretty queer per se! I think that's good). Roleplaying with this system is meant to be very open-ended, so you can't determine much of that without the player's input.

However, you can say "my personal BG3 narrative was very queer" due to the decisions you made, thanks to the character creator combined with playersexuality. We can do this even with characters that, in another reality without playersexuality, might not be available as options for a queer romance (or, of course, vice versa).

I'm in favor of companions having set sexualities and possibly even race/class/etc preferences. I feel that it can (if done well, and not stereotypically) add characterization to companions, making them feel more real. Additionally, it allows for backstories and companion quests that might relate specifically to their sexuality and thus resonate with certain players: e.g., Dorian's backstory and relation to his father in DAI. See @urktheturtle's point above re: telling queer narratives.

However, BG3's cast of companions is too small. For a decent chunk of the game, there are effectively only 6 companions. (Halsin doesn't count because he doesn't actually join your party until midway through Act 2, and neither does Minthara because she's locked behind the evil route).

I think the tradeoff point, where having set sexualities isn't too limiting on romance options, is at >8 companions. With 4 men and 4 women:
- 1 of each can be straight
- 1 of each can be gay
- 2 of each can be bi
This would allow for any player to romance 6 companions (3 if you refuse to be e.g, in a gay relationship). Maybe 1 or 2 fewer if certain companions have race/religious restrictions, like SH maybe not being willing to romance a cleric of Selune.

Dorian in inquisition is a great example of what you can do if a companion has a set sexuality, his story was a distinctly queer narrative that many peopel can empathize with that actually was connected to worldbuilding and lore.

However, that doesnt mean player sexuality characters are wrong... its just different.

I don't know where you got that idea... My idea of fun is to have a relationship with any of the characters with any gender/build.

The Pathfinder games are some of the worst examples you could have used, there isn't a single lesbian romance option option in both games, all female characters are either straight or bi, and there is only one gay man in Wrath, zero in Kingmaker, that's one homosexual in two games, I'm fine with companions having a specific sexual orientation but not if they all end up straight or bi, which is usually what happens, Cyberpunk 2077 or ME3 did it well and I would be fine with that, but it does create some frustration if the number of romance options is very limited.


That's a completely different issue, the romance options being player sexual does not mean that ALL companions must be romance options to begin with, it's completely possible to have both some player sexual companions and some already married/asexual or whatever.

Okay, my moderator hat is now off, but in the interest of trying to moderate this thread fairly, this will be my one and only post on this topic as a forum member. Much as I think it's an interesting, if potentially thorny, one.


Personally, I'm a sucker for an enemies-to-lovers trope, so my first planned character to experience the SH romance is of course a cleric of Selune! I am not in favour of limiting romances by race/class/etc in BG3, though ideally if there is some specific story reason why a companion would have a prejudice against my character, I'd like the opportunity to confront, discuss and overcome that in dialogue. If that's too tricky, I'd rather be able to headcanon how reconciliations came about than just have romances ruled out by the game when chances are they'll be exactly the ones I want. (And yes I did love the potential for rivalmances in DA2 )

More generally, I agree with the folk here who think that playersexuality is the most pragmatic approach to maximising player choice with a limited number of romance options, and for me in a game like BG3 which puts so much focus on player agency and replayability, that seems the right thing to prioritise. In other games, I would possibly agree different choices about companion sexuality could make more sense. But the chances are that I'll play and replay BG3, and so I appreaciate that I'll have lots of flexibility to have different romances for my different PCs. I expect I'll try most of them with PCs of different genders in the end.

I do, though, agree it can be immersion-breaking for everyone to be hitting on our PCs. But I disagree that limiting who we can romance, or indeed defining player sexual preference up front, solves that problem. WotR does have characters with defined sexualities and my PC in my playthrough was bisexual, but it was still really weird when Lann, Daeran and Arushalae all started treating her as though they had something special when she'd only been friendly and reasonably helpful to them. I'm perfectly prepared to just ignore some of that weirdness as the price of giving me and other players choice, but I also think part of the trick of good romance writing in a cRPG is to mitigate it by using various tricks to hide the fact that all characters are romanceable in a specific playthrough, and that applies regardless of whether the game has companions with pre-defined sexual or other preferences.

And as for all companions being playersexual limiting the stories we can tell, I guess I agree with that too. And I also agree that it's not necessary (and in fact would be undesirable) for every game to tell a story in which a companion's sexual orientation is important. And that where there are stories that writers want to tell that can't be done with a playersexual companion, then they still might be able to tell that story or something like it in the game by using non-companion NPCs. Again, I think Larian have made the right choice for BG3 by prioritising flexibility for players to engage in different romances, but I might have a different opinion about a different game.

I always used the term "Herosexual". But Playersexual works too.

And I have no issues with it. As long as the rest of the writing is up to snuff.

If you have Herosexual companions, then yes, the player can romance whoever they want. Which is good. It's choice and freedom. It lets you hook up with whoever you like (or like for the character you're playing) without having to worry about playing something specific just to experience a romance.

On the other hand, if companion orientations were set, you'd be more limited. And if they were to do that, they would expected to have VASTLY better writing for each (which sadly BG3 doesn't have). Where every character is well designed, with a detailed history including past relationships that would be brought up to help give your romance with them (or lack of ability to do so) more depth and meaning.

It would be great to see more detailed writing with character relationships, that you can explore as you get closer to them. But most games just skimp out on that. Which is a shame.

What makes "Playersexual" weird in Baldur's Gate is the sheer volume of player-sexual characters. It doesn't map on to reality properly. You just HAPPEN to encounter 12 different people with vastly different backgrounds, races, and origins, who all are ready and willing to sleep with you totally indiscriminately? Is this how reality really works? Obviously not.

There's also the matter of heterosexual people who don't want to be courted by people of their own sex. This is also a phenomenon that doesn't occur in real life with this sort of abundance: it's not the case that I go out in to the world and encounter a legion of men propositioning me for sex.

The way playersexuality is implemented is such a wild departure from how real romance works in the real world that it makes people uncomfortable, which should come as no surprise.

There are some people who will love the sex-fest, and there are some who will not. It is, unfortunately, a zero sum game: pleasing one crowd means displeasing the other crowd. This is why the user should have the option to decide for themselves whether they want the hardcore polyamorous pansexual playersexual experience that is currently in the game, or a more conventional "boy-meets-girl" experience. I assure you the number of people who prefer the latter is much greater than you realize.

@dbloom Well said—and should not offend anyone.

After reading these boards, as well as other forums, I won’t be purchasing this game. I am a little sad because I have played D&D, then AD&D, then numerous CRPGs over the span of 40+ years. I was really looking forward to a return to Baldur’s Gate.

Oh well, for those who revel in this sort of thing, ENJOY!

Peace out.

Hem

Except you're never forced to be in a relationship with anyone except the person you choose to be. So it's not an issue.
It's not like you're forced to have a relationship with every companion. In fact you actively have to select specific things to be able to get into one. If you don't want to romance a person, then don't. Then their sexuality is irrelevant.

I agree with that. Playersexuality doesn't automatically mean the player has to accept all possible options.

Outside of stuff like conversation bugs or, of course, temporary misunderstandings (which can also happen in real life, ironically enough)...nothing in the game forces you to pursue any romance with someone that you're not interested in.

If you've made a mistake or if the dialogue wasn't clear, then you can usually say "no" and simply put a stop to any further progress with that person.

Playersexuality can be played completely straight or completely queer, or somewhere in between. It's all open to preference and up to the player's choice.

All you would get in this scenario is "I wish the male hetero companion was more this" and "I wish the female bi companion was more that".

I agree with the posters who have said the writing is the problem rather than the sexuality per se. A companion gives you the glad eye and you say "yay" - you can then take it as far as you want or the game will allow. If you say "nay" then that is the end of it.

Or you could all just go and play the Sims. I wonder if there are people in Sims fora bemoaning the lack of sneak attacks.

I'm kinda glad someone brought this up because Dorian is an interesting example to me. Someone else mentioned it and it's an ought/is situation again, and neither one nor the other is "right" and both are valid wants, but Dorian's questline was in large part about the fact that he was gay and his father didn't want a gay son. I see the benefits of showing queer narrative, but so much of queer narrative in media is queer pain. I know what it's like to have family reject you, and while I'm not against games depicting it, and I'm not against Dorian, Dorian was *the* gay option. And? Even so, when the game released people modded him to be romanceable with women anyway, adding a whole 'nother layer onto the thing.

So often gay people exist to be gay in narratives. What is a straight-person narrative? Straight people are allowed to be anything, do anything, want anything. None of their stories are defined by what body type they love. They are just allowed to exist and have a personality outside of that. Queer people aren't allowed to just exist independently of queerness. We have to always have a point, a reason for being there, and we have to be there in "realistic" numbers.

The player-sexual nature of characters in baulder's gate 3 does not prevent sexuality from being able to be a part of a character's narrative. If anyone has played or romanced Astarion you know this. His whole deal is a cope. He if you romance him this is a big part of your relationship. For instance, if you are with Astarion and try to initiate something between the two of you and the druid, Astairion But most people just see Astarion as the bluster he is in the beginning of the game, and call him creepy and pushy when there are very clear and firm ways to tell him to 'stfu' in game.


You are *never* forced into a relationship with anyone in this game, any time you are can be explained away with bugs or not having clear dialogue options, which has been discussed and discussed and discussed. You don't "fall in" to intimacy scenes with anyone in this game though, any flirty is textual and only Lae'zel is anything approaching obscene about it.

But what purpose does this conversation serve exactly? We've already addressed a few times that the chances of Larian listening and changing the characters to not be player-sexual is slim-to-none to occur. If it's that big of a deal for people, I would recommend petitioning a modding forum, or something of that nature, and getting yourself a mod to make the game how you think it should be.

I'd say the point of this conversation is for those who have an opinion on this subject to get it off their chests, given it keeps popping up in other places.

I'm about to log off for the night, so I'll just ask one more thing before I go. To help prevent us going round in circles which will be frustrating for everyone, can people please speak for themselves and avoid making general claims about what other people elsewhere want or feel? What people on these forums feel about the issue on balance will be clear from reading this thread in any case. I guess if someone has some actual evidence to support claims about how many BG3 players in general want what then at least there'd be a sound basis for that discussion, though it's still a different question from what any of us here personally want Larian to do.

My thoughts on player sexuality in general:

I think it's lazy writing designed to only cater to the people who want to be able to romance everyone regardless of what character they make. I can sort of sympathize with how it came about which is this: Players want to have agency with their characters on what they can do, to include what sexuality they want to have. Therefore, some game studies have concluded that to allow for players to have their agency, they need to have every character open to them. I think this is an illogical and harmful conclusion to reach. A character's sexuality is an integral part of who they are, and knowing what sexuality they have while writing their dialogue options is required for appropriate dialog options. If every character in the game is player sexual, it essentially means every character in the game is bisexual, and their dialogue options have to be bisexual. This becomes very bland and very boring to have every character behave the same way in that regard. It becomes very immersion breaking in fact when you're playing a fantasy game with a huge variety of creatures and locations and classes, but then everyone's sexuality is the exact same copy and paste?

My thoughts on player sexuality in BG3:

BG3 took an already bad idea with player sexuality and decided to also make it far worse by making most if not all of the characters also very horny. Getting laid by pretty much whoever you want on the 2nd night after meeting them is a very strange story arc in an otherwise very well done epic RPG. What's even more confusing to me is that Larian obviously knows how to make a good role playing game. They understand that players like to have progress towards a final end goal, will smaller milestones along the way. The fact that they take this knowledge of how to make a good RPG and just toss it in the trash for their "romance" portion is confusing at best. Winning over the character of your choice in a playthrough should be a long winded affair, it should have little milestones you accomplish to connect to the character, and if you do well, you will eventually be with the person you "love". Having an entire cast of horny bisexuals is incredibly bland and boring.

My recommendations to fix the romance in BG3:

First, go to the drawing board for every NPC and decide what their sexuality will be. Rework their romance stories to incorporate their individual sexuality. Just because a player wants to be a horny bisexual, does not mean they get to force every NPC to also be one. In addition to giving them gender based sexuality, also think about race based sexuality as race in a fantasy game is far more dramatic than just shade of brown. Also think about religious based sexuality and maybe class based. I'll give a couple of examples on how this could work.

Gale: only attacted to female characters; only attracted to human, elf, half-elf; only attracted to characters with at least 1 level in arcane casting class. Gale is essentially still in love with Mystra, and therefore pulling him away from that love is a massive undertaking if the player wants to accomplish it. The only characters who have a chance are females with some near resemblance to the goddess and can use magic themselves. The teaching of magic that is really just sex is replaced with actual teaching of magic with no sex. Gale will offer to, and teach your character unique spells that can only be gained from Gale. Every time your character unlocks the ability to cast the next level of arcane spells, it will unlock another offer from Gale to teach you the unique spell for that level. Eventually, if you build enough friendship with Gale, and learn enough spells from him, you can enter a romantic relationship with the mage.

Astarion: attracted to both make and female characters; attracted to any race; attracted to all classes except those with divinity channels (he doesn't trust those that can turn). Astarion is your typical long-lived hedonist. He has seen far too much pain and suffering in his life and is willing to accept any break to that pain, to include breaks via sexual encounters. However, he has learned about the power that divine classes have over the undead and refuses to risk making himself vulnerable to anyone with that power. Astarion is one of the easiest and earliest characters to romance, however he will never become a character you can form a permanent bond with. Only temporary trists in the sack.

If NPCs get their own unique sexuality, then learning how to win them over becomes an actual challenge and goal. Figuring out how to be with every NPC becomes an epic quest in and of itself for the players rather than just a throwaway task that anyone can do.

Why though? Why is the straight guy able to be in a long-term thing, but the bisexual guy written to be unable to get past his trauma? In the end, sleeping with the character is not the goal. Romancing the character is. A conquest is not romance, and calling Astarion a romance option and then only allowing the player to sleep with him is convoluted, not to mention playing into bad stereotypes about bisexual people.

People seem to think that the reason people argue for player-sexuality is so they can just sleep with everyone, so I'm just going to say it. I'm asexual. Intimacy is not what I'm looking for in a relationship. It's not why I do romance. And while im not repulsed as some people may be, it's kind of shocking to me that I am handling the supposed 'overt-horniness' of the characters so well, when it seems to be such a problem for a lot of people. which definitely makes me wonder about what peoples' motivations are.

As far as I'm concerned, the way people treat Astarion is indicative. The ideas people who clearly haven't paid attention to his questline get about him is indicative. Astarion's character would have to be completely rewritten for your idea to make sense. In the game as is, you can form a permanent bond with him, only then you start to get into the problem of the game having no really clear defined conclusions with its endings which isn't what this conversation is about.

Also, I only ever hear about why Wyll and Gale are totally straight, and Astarion is definitely not. No one arguing for player-sexuality to end ever discusses what they imagine the sexuality of the women would be, or any of the other men. Why? I've known queer people like Wyll and Gale. Bisexual doesn't mean you've definitely dated both women and men, or even an equal number of each. So Wyll and Gale having dated/mostly talking about women doesn't strike me as odd.

If you feel I'm misconstruing you in any way, let me know. *Have* you romanced Astarion? Did you keep him in your party?

You're misconstruing me in that don't I care at all if my suggestions are used, or think they are balanced. I honestly don't care which sexualities take a long time and which are short etc. I was just coming up with some random suggestions as generic idea starters, not intending to be the final product on either character.

And I agree, I think the entire BG3 experience is a bad stereotype of bisexual people.

Fair enough, but this is not what I said.

I believe there are both down and upsides to playersexuality and the lack of it. I generally trust developers to make a choice that fits their game best. I do expect everyone to be limited roughly equally when it's not in the game, however. At least when the cast is sizeable. There being good and bad sides to either does not mean thoughtfulness of implementation isn't a factor.

Playersexuality in a game such as Bg3, hypothetically:
-- means Devs don't have to design a cast around romance. This works best if you don't want to center their content around a relationship.
-- allows players to decide spontaneously hours into the game.

Bg3 will probably not make the list of top 10 "playersexuality done right" clickbait articles. My issues are mainly that:

1) a system with a core strength of simplicity is made complex through unstable romance pathing.

(The *far* worse half being down to bugs. The other, choices people made without knowing it opens the romance path)

2) not enough options for friendships.

3) like with the prior point, the extra time wasn't harnessed to give every companion a satisfying ending, either. This leads to the question of "but then *why*?"

Not to be unfair to Larian, but I suspect their initial goal was too ambitious. Cut content, unrealized, yet much hinted at endings, the hints are plentiful. That the design errors make the romance system itself seem insufficiently playtested just tops it off.

Ironically, I *am* sceptical that removing the mechanic would not just create a different kind of bad. It's not within my power to say if it would be worse, or better, or even a mixture. It's within my power to say that removing it would solve none of the problems I have with the game. As an individual. As of now I'm not even aware if Larian is satisfied with this end result or not.

To be honest, I regret having stepped into this conversation in the first place and feel like it was a bad idea on my part.

It does strike a nerve just a little too close to home and while I do stand by what I've said, I'm usually pretty fair at eating my feelings, and today I definitely haven't been. That's my bad. And I'm sorry.

I entirely understand Larian's motivations in employing across the board playersexuality but it is a damaging phenomenon. My chief concern is not the characters' sexualities but the lack of true fellowship. I want a bro like Samwise or Dr Watson or Alistair from DA: Origins or indeed my real life friends and the simple reality is that any element of romance intrinsically changes the nature of the relationship. This is not to denigrate other relationship types or arrangements but it is not the classic fellowship that is such a staple of fantasy texts. Gimli loves Legolas but, outside of fanfiction, he is not attracted to him. This is important and to dismiss it misunderstands the relationship.

I want to like this post so much. As a queer person myself (I'm the L in LGBTQ+) I really hate that queer people in media are often just there to be the queer trope. Make an interesting character and maybe along the line one might find out naturally that they are queer, don't make it their only character trait. It's boring and insulting. Dorian was a bit better than that, since he had other topics going on for himself, but I agree, that it was unfortunate that his gayness was the main topic. They handled it better with Sera, the lesbian character. It was never outright mentioned, that she is lesbian, you just could only romance her as a female character.

Maybe that is, why I like the companions in BG3 to be playersexual, it never becomes a topic. Shadowheart is not about being lesbian for example, she has a whole story. That way, the companions actually come across as more natural, because otherwise I fear, Larian might have fallen into the queer trope character pit like so many other companies before them.

Playersexual is simpler to implement. It is easier to have a blank canvas for romances and given it is a less important aspect of the game (arguably this is a crpg not a visual level) that is why the Dev went that route (this and avoiding backlash from any vocal minorities which make for bad PR).

It is also, objectively, an inferior path Vs. having predefined and rich back story for each NPC.

The issue and the awkwardness comes from the facts:

1. as noted by OP, Larian did actually flesh out the backstory of wyll and gale establishing them as likely not just playersexual.

2. maybe to due to bug or not companions are currently heavily hitting on you regardless of your gender.

I think 1. is fine after all the majority of the players would likely setup these characters to follow Larian path and if the incoherence affects you because you play a gender neutral tiefling with a woman body and male genitalial... Well it is on you.

2. Is I think the root of the problem. Interestingly my wife view was: "well being a good looking elf woman in a group of men will likely lead to a few unsolicited demands". So in that setup unwanted solicitations, some might say mild harassment, might be questionable but sort of realistic. The goofiness is coming from SH also being interested or wyll and gale hitting on you as a male. If think a very easy fix here which will go a long way on satisfying everyone is simply to add a sexual orientation for your character when you define your sexual identity. After all we can choose genitalia, gender, body type.... The lack of sexual orientation is a glaring problem.
I don't think it is controversial at all: we will still have non mainstream relationship portrayed in the game (e.g. Isobel) and it is solving all the controversies on that front.

Food for thoughts. But given the number of threads on that topic it is a simple implementation. Flag the orientation (male, female, any) and block the opposite romance path.

People keep saying that playersexuality prevents in dept, predefined backstories for the characters and... does it? All the characters already have rich, pre defined backstories. If you mean specifically regarding past romances, were those ever really that much of a thing? At most we only ever heard about one really important romance or we would hear about a string of casual flings. In any case, we get the same treatment here. Gale has a romance that is central to his plot. We never hear about any others because they don't actually matter to the plot at hand, but most relationships won't be relevant. So I really don't think playersexuality gets in the way of that. As for missing out on plots specifically about a character's sexuality, again that assumes we would be getting such a plot but for playersexuality, which isn't going to be the case always or even often. As other people have pointed out, such plots are always given to queer characters and while plots about being queer are worth having at times, they should not at all be the default or even the majority.

I firmly disagree that playersexuality is inherently inferior or lazy. It's no lazier than Larian not changing their movement approach or not including readied action. It was not where they wanted to put their resources into. They gave us this (in my opinion a bit too small) pool of companions, and they probably felt like providing enough of a breadth of romance options would require more companions and time they did not want to devote. Also worth noting is that not everyone is going to want to play a character that can romance every other character in a race/sex locked game. For instance I never play guys in games where I have the option to play as a woman, so that would automatically rule out straight women companions for me. And I can live with that, but it's nicer for me to not have to and see more romances as a result.

Hi folks, for transparency, I have removed a couple of posts from this thread.

I am going to ask that everyone avoids importing the terminology of the culture wars here. I am sure none of us are actually unaware of the wider social and political context in which we are having this debate, but these forums should be an oasis in which we can have friendly discussions of what we think of Larian's games with a diverse, global community. And that means leaving some stuff at the door, including jargon that has become so loaded that it is inherently political and provocative. We can best keep things constructive and positive here by saying clearly, calmly and in plain English what we mean. As long as, of course, what we mean in itself doesn't contravene forum rules, and if, for example, it involves negative opinions of other people for their sexuality or political views, then we need to keep that on the other side of our keyboards here as well.

Thanks, all, for mostly keeping discussion of this potentially thorny topic reasonably light and drama free.

I generally agree. Though overall what really annoys me, is that NPCs will try to hit on you, even when you give them no reason too.
Instead of just considering you as a very good friend, they suddenly profess love to you, when your reputation with them goes high.

There is a good reason why romancing in video game historically meant to be controlled by player. Player always the one who initiates romance, by flirting with specific NPC, or showing other kind of romantic affection. Then they can return the kindness, or give you a cold shoulder, depending on where they like you or not.
When NPCs tries to be initiative about starting a romance - that's at best will just annoy lots of players. At worst will make player avoid speaking with those NPCs completely.

I do think romances in this game are janky for reasons that have nothing to do with playersexuality. It's not that the companions hit on you, I actually like that, it's that the triggers for interest seem way too sensitive. Apparently Halsin thought asking about his past lovers was a come-on, and he gave a whole dramatic speech that honesty felt uncomfortable. I actually had to turn gale down twice, once at the act 1 party and then again when I made things official with Karlach.

Censorship is bad no matter what. The game can be viewed as politically very provocative and challenging, yet you dare censor those who think different?

Yes, I "dare censor". My role here is to ensure that forum rules are followed and that as far as possible this is kept a fun, friendly place where people of any sexuality or political leaning can discuss Larian's games. By participating in this community you sign up to abide by its social contract.

It is true that the game opens up challenging political themes, and that is why we don't outright ban political discussion when it is relevant to the game. But we do insist any such discussion here is carried out respectfully, civilly and without heat.

If this thread continues to attract posts that flout those rules I have two choices: lock the thread to prevent them being posted in the first place, or delete the offending posts so that people who are willing to discuss in line with forum rules can continue to debate. I have chosen the latter approach in this case as the one that allows most freedom of discussion within the framework we should all be operating under here.

We are all free to discuss things that aren't suitable for conversation on this public, open gaming forum on other places on the internet that are more appropriate for such debates.

I will also say that while I think it's worth my clarifying here why I am doing what I am doing with respect to moderating this thread, public challenge to moderation decisions is also not in accordance with forum rules. Please PM me if you have any queries or arguments.

I would just to say I've played over 200 hours and not once managed to get the male characters into romance state, only laezell and shadowheart.

It is the case that you actively have to not only pursue the conversations, but also have them in your group to get approval during quests.

Since I play a sorcerer, I don't use wyll or gale much. Wyll I only slot in when I need animal speaking, and gale I still haven't used.

Even while mainly using Laezell, Shadowheart and Astarion, Astarion is very difficult to romance as he prefers evil options, and even ones that disagree with laezell. A lot of options give approval with shadowheart and laezell, but disproval with astarion.

From what I see even laezell wont like evil choices, she generally just wants the 'show of force option', and generally shadowheart tends to agree to those as well despite hating githyanki. Astarions approval bonuses neither not only agree with them, but also don't agree with any of the good companions - gale wyll and karlach.

In fact using gale wyll and karlach in your group, all the good options will give approval boosts to all 3.

Astarion is the most difficult companion to raise approval with, at the expense of not raising it with anyone else.

Spoilerish but in the place where you meet jaheira, surrendering the cleric to the evil winged guy is one of two options to get approval with astarion, but every other party member won't approve. Its pretty much near impossible to make astarion happy without displeasing everyone else.

I've not yet seen someone have a bugged Astarion. I know he seems the type, but much of his behaviour is actually rooted in trauma. He's not really a sex pest. Like Lae'Zel, he's prone to putting up a persona

I love talking about Astarion, so I'm going to jump in again if thats okay.

I did basically the whole game with Lae'zel, SH, Astarion in my party (sometimes Karlach) and I feel like Astarion is a character that I don't find hard to please the way I play while also keeping the others happy (I was friends with all four of the others), but there are some approval boosts that it helps if you know they are there. For instance, if you pick him up on the beach, rest immediately before picking up any other companions. In that dialogue, there is an approval boost for saying 'thanks' when he offers to watch over the camp that night lol. When he offers recommendations for how to kill you, and you respond 'poison' as I did, he also approves and I think he approves with the other method options too. Also, there is a one-off dialogue with a cat where if you talk to the cat and admire the cat you get two approval boosts. + neither of these effect SH, Lae'zel or anyone else. (Basically, you just have to spend time with/on Astarion). Also, if you make Zorru bow to lae'zel and then choose to wait for him to do it, there are approval boosts for Lae'zel + Astarion, and in the following conversation, another approval boost for L + A but a minus for SH. There are also L + SH boosts that don't effect Astarion at all, so all of these end up balancing themselves out more or less).

If I were to tie that into this conversation I'd say, it is impossible to sleep with Astarion by or before the second long rest, except for maybe if you are just not long-resting, and even then that will still be hours into the game. First long rest w/ him you either have a dialogue or someone else's welcome-to-camp dialogue, second rest he stalks off into the wilderness, third rest is the (which can be pushed off further if you have other cinematics to see first or something). The dialogue where Astairion is looking at the sky is tied to his 'fair' friendship and I usually get around Druids Grove, but no matter what you choose in this dialogue, even the 'im interested', you can't sleep with him here. He refuses you. Then, at 'good' approval, at some point when you start a conversation with him, he will proposition you and then at the next long rest (as long as there are no other cinematics waiting) you begin his romance then. Otherwise, it's after you do the druids grove quest or goblin quest.

Other cinematics with other companions, and story beats, all push these things further back.

Visiting druids grove does not have enough approval 'ups' to get you to 'good' approval. Or, at least from what I've seen. The soonest ive ever started a relationship with Astarion was at the goblin camp and hours into the game. So you would have to be speedrunning friendship with him, and taking him everywhere with you, and never long resting, for him to sleep with you by second rest.

Despite being flirty, he doesn't throw himself at you, and from what I've heard, and the statistics Larian gave out, people actually get rejected by him very often.

But if you are even interested in Astarion a little I would recommend you at least take the time to be his friend. He deserves nice things.

Can I ask that we keep discussions of possible problems with specific relationships to the thread that we've been using for that purpose at https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=880727.

And people are more than welcome to give feedback on romance arcs with companions (as long as they use spoiler tags appropriately!) but unless it's to illustrate a specific point about playersexuality I'd encourage you to create a separate thread on the topic in our Story & Character Discussion subforum. In fact, I'm sure that threads on all the romances there would be welcome to forum members not interested in playersexuality, now that some folk seem to have finished the game. I'm still a long way off that myself!

It is inferior.

Think about it logically: either you remove the relationship aspect from your backstory or you don't. If you do you have a backstory less rich than if you had it. That's for the lazy approach.

Assume you do keep a backstory containing some reference of past love interests. Then either the playersexual approach falls into that narrative (a win) and then you draw with the case where you had preset interest in the first place. Or the player doesn't fall into that narrative and you essentially made your character bi or pan sexual in effect and now your elaborated backstory is clunky.

So I was just about to comment that people on the steam forums now think his use of Darling is also 'sexual assault', as well as the misconception that it is 'flirting'.

Based on the accent and words, we can clearly tell that Astarion speaks British English from 100-200 years ago in the real world.

Back then and even today, it is common place in Britain to be referred to and call others 'love, honey, sugar or darling'.

This might come as a culture shock to Americans, but no one is flirting with or coming onto you when they use these words, it is as common as 'how are you?' except in the UK it will very often be 'how are you my love?'.

So one time I overheard my dad on the phone, not sure who with, but it could have been his doctors surgery to a random telemarketer. All of his responses were 'Yes love. No love. Yes love. Yes love'. Etc.

A past interview I went to, I had a female interviewer casually referring to me as 'Yes my lovely'. Darling is much more older English but still commonly used, as are sugar and honey. Even when stopped on the street by a random stranger and asked for directions, you will very likely hear 'Its this / that way my love / darling / honey / sugar'.

I guess most Americans would be traumatized and have to phone the police to claim they have just been sexually abused if exposed to such language lol.

I have in fact heard 3 times from men who are new or recent to Yorkshire 'I was surprised that I was called love by another man, like is that gay? Was that person gay? Why did they say that?' Like no, they say it to everyone they meet, sorry but you're not that special and that person will not retain any memory of having met or spoken to you lol.

*** Ahem ***

A couple of reminders given the last posts ...


And also ...

I fully disagree with you. Firstly, I don't think mentioning past romances naturally makes a backstory more rich, it just means there's more of it. Really, how much value do past relationships add? How much do they come up in games? Like I said, you at most get one major relationship that tends to directly impact the character's arc. For example Leliana in Drsgon Age: Origins. It's heavily improved that she and Marjolainne were lovers, and Marjolainne was a major part of her story in the game. Look at Oghren, he gets two past relationships mentioned, both of which are important to his arc, and he's never even a romance option. We never hear about Morrigan's past loves or crushes or romantic experience, or going to a later game, we don't hear about Cassandra's either. We don't actually hear about Dorian's past relationships, and his plot was centered around his sexuality. See also, Gale. Playersexual but his one big relationship, Mystra, is central to his plot. So really, making characters playersexual doesn't impact whether we hear about their past romances or not.

Sorry to mod if this is still too off topic but just to clarify I personally wasn't referring to his use of 'darling' as flirting. He just is a flirt in his dialogue. He flirts with SH a little too while walking around, and obvs as you get friendlier with him he flirts with you, but there is tons of indication that it's all just talk. 'Darling', to me, is not flirting either, although I'm not British. Unless you are specifically speaking to a significant other, 'sweetheart', 'sugar', 'honey', 'love', are all used to strangers casually in the states and aren't indicative of flirting. America is also big though, so some places may find it more strange than others, but I don't know anywhere that its weird or unheard of. (I will say though, usually the people who will most likely call you like that are women in the US).

Guaranty Americans in the Steam forums have been called these things by people who aren't their significant other/family and didn't think it was strange at all.

For your logic to make sense it would also need to follow that bisexuality is an inferior or less-vaild sexuality. At the very least, a "less sensical" one.

What if there was an option at the start of the game to set your romance preference? So you could pick it as anyone / male only / female only, and then only companions of your selection could enter their romance discussions with your character?

I don't care but this would pretty much instantly solve every complaint on this issue.

Essentially, yes. I said before here and I mean this genuinely, I think if people are really that upset about it I would recommend petitioning a modder to do so. It would probably be done faster that way too than if they were to get Larian to do it.

And again I give reminders, having had to move a couple of posts to the appropriate thread as well as remove some that aren't respecting the guidelines I have laid down in attempt to help us discuss this potentially thorny topic in a constructive way.




I am starting to get the feeling that everyone who has a point to make about playersexuality has now made it and we're just spinning wheels and going off on tangents here. If there's not another post soon by someone new wanting to give their own personal take on playersexuality, I am going to lock this thread as it's now causing way too much work given that people aren't actually talking much about the topic it was created for.

I for one appreciate that the companions are playersexual. I like the greater choice it gives me. I don't enjoy being locked out of a romance because I'm playing as a male character, or because I'm playing as a halfling.

In the real world, there are all sorts of reasons you and another person don't click: sexual orientation, chemistry, level of physical attraction, etc. But there are also billions of people on the planet, and the chances that you can find someone who you do click with are much higher. In a fictional game world, where there are finite options in terms of romance, I'd much rather be able to pick from all of the available choices. That way I can make sure I'm pursuing a romantic storyline with the character I most want to pursue, rather than just the one I'm forced to pursue because they're all that's available.

I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing us back on topic bthebard!

Absolutely not. That would be against the forum rules and ignoring our dear mod reminder.

To put it logically. If a companion backstory states it is A and playersexual makes it B there is a logical break.

A or B don't matter it is the break in the narrative that does. In that case removing the reference to A entirely would be better.

If you prefer consider a character as vegan and upon meeting you will move to a meat only diet. That's confusing.

I hear your argument. But in that case the ultimate solution is not to have playersexual companion but let them creating them entirely like we are doing it with the guardian. That would be an (almost) infinitely better solution.

Playersexual gives you 2 human male one white one black, a tiefling female, a half-elf female, a gith female, and a high-elfe male assuming you are comfortable with a bi setting. If you are straight and species agnostic (the vast majority of players) that's 3.

So the playersexual approach double your diversity Vs. Preset sexual preference for companion while sacrificing back story continuity in some cases.

Meanwhile consider what a respec of companion appearance would have yielded. (Noting than allow you to respec their class which for gale/wyll/sh is breaking continuity too)

Oh, and as I've not repeated this one for a while, also:

By God, you’re trying.

Okay, all. I'm logging off for the night. It feels like lots of folk have had their say on this topic and we can all now see the variety of different opinions people have on the approach to player-sexuality in BG3. But actual on topic posts have tailed off, so to protect everyone from the propensity this topic unfortunately has to prompt discussion that is uncomfortable or even upsetting for many forum members, and the amount of my time and attention it takes, I'm going to now call time on it. The thread will remain here as a record of the different views forum members have on the subject.

If anyone has any genuinely new take on the topic not already represented here, they can feel free to PM me and I will consider adding it to or reopening the thread.