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

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.