|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Sorry, I assumed that vx_phoenix_vx maybe haven't read Shadowheart's thread or entire Halsin's thread, so I decided to discuss a bit. If you're aware of a discussion that another forum member isn't, the best thing to do is to link to that rather than start the discussion again, especially if you're aware there have already been moderator warnings against derailing this thread by importing discussion from one that was locked. And if you're aware you've already posted nearly two hundred times in a month on pretty much the same topic already (maybe you weren't aware, but you have). Of course, if folk haven't already pushed the limit of what counts as spam, then thresholds are different, and a short, friendly discussion on a topic that's a slight deviation from folk who've not already more than had their say on the matter isn't something I'd crack down on as a moderator. But those who have already abused their chance to have their say should resist the urge, at least until a respectable amount of time has passed.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2023
|
And who would you chose for that? As Shadowheart romancer I'm fully against adding in there too. I'm not sure about Gale and Wyll, don't think it would be a good theme for them, but I've never romanced them, so maybe people with experience could tell us more. I haven't romanced Gale, but I have romanced Wyll, so I'll comment briefly from that angle. Wyll thinks Halsin is a good and good-looking guy, and he wishes Halsin the best. However, Wyll's romance makes it extremely clear that he wants a monogamous relationship with the player character. If the PC tells him that Halsin has made overtures, Wyll will set boundaries in what I think is a very calm and mature manner. He says that he and the PC can still have a great story if the PC wants to be with Halsin; but that story won't be a romance. He's also firmly against anything with the drow twins. Honestly, what Wyll wanted was already so clear so that I felt kinda bad even just testing these things out and reloading. I already knew the sort of thing he would say, and my PC would never even open up the question naturally, if I hadn't been briefly out-of-character curious. Really, I think the issue is that all the origin party members are written as not wanting to share the PC with each other. (I haven't played all the romances, so I am chiefly commenting here on the basis of material I have seen from other people; please do correct me if I'm wrong about anything.) When you consider that all of them can romance each other when the player is playing them, we can't just reduce this to a compatibility issue. They are honestly all compatible with each other (obviously depending on how the player chooses to RP the origin character). If they are not interested in romancing characters together that they would be happy romancing alone, the conclusion seems clear. They are all monogamous. How that's supposed to work with Halsin possibly being in the picture I genuinely don't know. People with more knowledge of Halsin's romance would be in a better picture to comment on that than I would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Gale is also firmly monogamous - poor guy nearly has an anxiety attack when you bring the Halsin thing up to him - but he can be persuaded into an encounter with the drow twins. He's definitely not very into it, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2023
|
I think Astarion is there specifically because he can't say no. The player has the opportunity to be an abuser or feel horrible later on. To me, it's icky. But so is ascending Astarion, and many players choose that. On the one hand, options in rp are good. On the other hand, there has to be a line somewhere. And if doing that to a character with Astarion's backstory doesn't cross this line, the game should clearly communicate that this is what you're doing and give you an out if it's not what you intended to do. We may realize that he says yes because he has a very hard time saying no, but not everyone does. And when this is not clearly communicated and has no repercussions later on, it has no narrative or character development significance and becomes only another one of Act 3's questionable moments. I tried to talk to Astarion about Halsin's offer once because I was curious what he would say. I expected my character to be able to tell him that they don't actually want to go through with it, that they just wanted to know what he thinks about it. But the game didn't give me that option so I had to F8. If the game gives me an option to rp a certain kind of person, it's fine. If the only options the game gives me are to rp this certain kind of person, it's not. Apologies to the mods if this has been said before. I haven't read through the entire thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2023
|
It's important to remember, all of the origins are playersexual: how they act in their companion romance is not reflective of the canon the player creates for them when playing as them. It is not a clear conclusion that any of the origins are monogamous: because any time the player plays them, they can pursue the poly arrangement.
Gale happily romances Halsin and Astarion, or Halsin and Shadowheart. Gale loves kissing his two lovers.
Same with Wyll, same with Karlach, same with Lae'zel. These are characters who canonically act poly in poly playthroughs of their origins.
Playersexual means both the romance options are always hot for the player character, and it means that the player decides the sexuality of the character under their control, monogamous or polyamorous.
The way origins express their preferences while not the player character is just as valid as when they are the origin, but we can't say that any of the origin characters have a hard sexuality the way the recruitables we don't RP, like Halsin/Minthara do, because when we play them we make them how we like for that run.
It's nice to have a game where all the playable characters are available for being poly and pursuing non-monogamy. Like, they could have coded it with preferences: if you play as Karlach, she only will date Shadowheart or Lae'zel if she's lesbian or something, or if you play as Wyll, you can't have the option to romance both Shadowheart and Halsin if Wyll is monogamous. But they didn't do it that way. They are playersexual characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2023
|
Correct me if I completely misunderstood your statement here, but are you suggesting that what origin characters do while under the control of the player should be considered canon or something to that effect? I'm just saying because I think that opens a big can of worms. Can't Karlach also raid the grove and massacre the Tieflings too? (while you play them as an origin character).
While yeah, that's possible, in an alternate universe where Karlach is comically evil, it kind of goes against her entire actual character. Origin characters don't have alignments, but I think there are certain things they were specifically written not to do or agree with. When you boil it down to that level, there's no argument to be made because nothing is static.
You can never have enough choices, I agree, but they still need to be well-written choices so that they can make sense. Maybe it would make sense for Karlach to massacre the Tieflings, if there was proper build-up towards that end. I'm not a professional writer, but I imagine consistency is pretty important to crafting a good story
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2023
|
It's different when you play as Tav though. Not all the companions are available for a poly/open relationship. So you can play an origin character as poly, but you can't have a poly romance with them as Tav? Makes no sense.
Larian wanted to give us player freedom by making the companions playersexual, yet they take away our freedom by limiting poly romance to a few characters. It's especially limiting for straight men and lesbians, who aren't given any options.
I really hope this gets fixed in the near future, as I can't see why romancing a couple origin companions at once could be a problem. We certainly can't use the excuse that a companions characterization doesn't fit because Larian cleary doesn't care about that. So they mine as well go all in on player choice and allow ALL companions to be open for poly or mono.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2023
|
It's important to remember, all of the origins are playersexual: how they act in their companion romance is not reflective of the canon the player creates for them when playing as them. It is not a clear conclusion that any of the origins are monogamous: because any time the player plays them, they can pursue the poly arrangement. I'm not sure to what extent you were responding to me here, but regardless I want to be clear about what I was saying before. I wasn't making any claim on the basis of how the player RPs when they are playing as a particular origin. As you say, how an origin character behaves as the PC is not canon for how they behave when they are a companion. As a PC, you can make them all do things that the companion version would never do. However, when any of the origin characters are played by the player, any of the origin companions can fall in love with them - or so I understand. So, for example, Wyll and Karlach won't get together if you're playing Tav or Durge, but they can get together if you are playing as either of them. If you like, you can choose to interpret this as simply an extension of the playersexual writing. I don't think that's an unfair interpretation. Most days, that's how I view it myself. But today, reading back over people's comments, I found myself looking at it differently. Maybe the fact that all origin companions can romance all origin PCs means that they all have a certain romantic compatibility with each other. If Companion Karlach would romance Tav or Wyll when either of them is the PC, but would not romance Tav plus Wyll, maybe that points towards her being written as having a strong monogamous preference. The same seems to apply to all the origin companions. Given that they can be read this way, it honestly seems difficult to see how they (as companions, not PCs) could be written as cool with having a poly relationship with Halsin. They have already refused poly relationships with the other origin companions, who they'd arguably be romantically compatible with, so why would they make a special exception for Halsin? I do think this "problem" disappears if you simply choose to say "every origin companion is playersexual, and that's the only reason they all seem compatible with each other." I just don't feel 100% confident that this is the only reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2023
|
are you suggesting that what origin characters do while under the control of the player should be considered canon or something to that effect? Wanting poly romance is one of choices afforded to the player when RPing as the origins that can become that game's canon, yeah of course. Gale falling in love with Astarion, then propositioning Halsin too, and negotiating between the three of them is completely in-character for Gale. Because for a person who selects Gale in the character creation screen and then plays this poly route with him, Gale is poly. The sexuality of being monogamous or polyamorous is not coded into the origins, they have all of the options available to them so the player decides. The studio could have coded it so they weren't playersexual, right? If they guided the romance options, then certain paths wouldn't be open. When we as fans write about the characters, I just have been keeping in mind that to say something like, this origin is obviously monogamous, or to say, that origin is clearly not able to consent to wanting poly, remember all the other fans who are experiencing the characters from the inner world of playing as them and making decisions with that character to want poly. Playing the origin stories to experience them is just as valid a type of gameplay as staying on the outside as a Tav and only seeing the origins through the perspective of their companion stories. Fans, in the case of origins, can't say that any origin is hard-coded with one static sexuality, and that that is the only correct way to interpret them, because other fans are being the characters and choosing different paths romantically, and experiencing the character in love in all the ways the game allows. I hope that helps elucidate the point I'm trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
My understanding of what poly requires by definition is a relationship and commitment to the other person, just not ONLY to that person. Open communication and active consent are core tenants and when they are not actively reinforced always, you have a toxic relationship on your hands. Let's see if I can discuss this with running afoul of the rules  It's a semantic issue. I think two distinctions help us understand this issue: splitting v lumping and prescriptivism vs descriptivism. (spoiler for length - I'm a voluble rabbit) Origins. Yes you are right that poly was used in contradiction to lifestyle and open marriage arrangements that had prohibitions on forming emotional attachments to secondary partners. The injunction "you can enjoy their body but not their affections" led to situations where the new partner never got their emotional needs met.
Years go by. And poly is becoming more an more accepted and more and more popular. Where I live there is a very high concentration of poly people and if you get on the apps you will often see people complain "is everyone here poly?!"
Now presciptively poly means many-loves and was designed to describe loving relationships with many people. But this meant many different things for many people. For some people it meant kitchen table polyamory where everyone get along - for others it's something closer to the og open marriage where the 'dating separately' partner had little or no contact with the new partner. And so we get a thousand and one new categories and you have people who call themselves poly but also free agents who form no permanent attachments. You have relationship anarchists who reject the loving hierarchy idea of primary and secondary partners and you even have relationship anarchists who reject the very idea of relationships. Because there's not equivalent of the French academy that is going to come along and force people to start using the term to only refer to loving relationships a thousand flowers were free to bloom; I'm no longer sure there is a model poly relationship
Because each group of humans works out it's own relationships so you have as many understandings of poly as you have poly people. Words change as they get used differently by different people. My inner decriptivist believes that poly has become a catch all - a category like queer. If someone calls themselves queer you just don't know if they are gay, bi, pan, sapio . . .
Now I have seen people trying to preserve the meaning of polyamory by using ENM to describe relationships that don't necessarily stress love and relationships. But in my experience unless the person using ENM as substitute for lifestyle they could be classified into one of the thousand and one different flavors of poly. In my experience people who eschew poly in favor of ENM have negative impressions of poly people. I heard someone say "yes, but I'm not in your club" once.
Splitting vs lumping. In biology there is a distinction between splitters and lumpers. Splitter see many different species and sub species - lumpers tend like to see only handful of species and believe that many of the creatures listed as separate species shouldn't be. I tend to be a lumper with the word poly - it's a broad tent.
Spoiler for real life experience Now I have dated someone who refused to commit on relationship anarchist grounds so listing someone who avoids commitment as poly doesn't seem strange to me. "we have what we have, let's enjoy it while we have it. it will end some day . . . labels won't change that . . ." I do *indeed* understand why some find those attitudes frustrating! Now I do take Niara's point to heart. It would be nice to have a game with a loving, kitchen table poly relationship. Or someone with a nesting partner looking for a secondary. And have that person play some vital role in the party like tank or healer. I'm lucky to live in a locale where poly relationships are fairly well accepted and so my view may be jaundiced. But, again, whatever the problems with Halsin, however much he disappointed some fans, I don't see his aversion to relationships as fatal flaw nor do I object to his relationship style being classified as poly
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2023
|
So in regards to the datamined content:
1. For the ultimatum, I am firmly team Halsin here. He has no way of knowing Minthara doesn't mean him harm. He is an escaped sex slave to a Drow noble, and Minthara is a Drow noble who advocates for slavery multiple times. This isn't about cruelty, it's not about wanting her to suffer (which is why Halsin respects Tav's choice if they pick Minthara, with no ill will)- it's stating a boundary. He will not stay where she is, knowing that he will never feel safe if she is there. I can't believe Halsin is being made out to be a monster for this, honestly, but seeing all the other completely mild or understandable things that have gotten him a hatedom, I really shouldn't be surprised.
2. The ending- I'm happy about it.
3. The revised post-Drow scene: THIS was what I wanted, more than the ending to be fixed; as a survivor, I was desperate to have my voice heard on the hurtful way he was written before. I still have some concerns (the way the player can talk to him about repressing his trauma sounds really harsh and judgmental instead of genuinely concerned about Halsin's Stockholm Syndrome, and his reaction if the player character essentially suggests selling him back into slavery is way too mild. For any other character, this would result in them instantly dumping the player. I need this to be treated as an irredeemably evil thing, if it is kept as an option. And definitely not being followed up by him "thanking them for their counsel" the same as for the other options.) Other than those concerns, I am thrilled, and grateful to Larian for fixing the original, deeply hurtful scene.
Last edited by autistichalsin; 05/11/23 06:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2023
|
I don't see his aversion to relationships as fatal flaw nor do I object to his relationship style being classified as poly You may not see it that way but it IS a fatal flaw to make a romanceable character, a character you are meant to build a relationship with, to be relationship adverse. Him being a relationship option was the entire reason he was added to the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2023
|
You may not see it that way but it IS a fatal flaw to make a romanceable character, a character you are meant to build a relationship with, to be relationship adverse. Him being a relationship option was the entire reason he was added to the game. Um. No. Romancing him is why he was made a recruitable companion. He was always in the game, and overwhelmingly positive fan response and demand is why he was made a romanceable companion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2023
|
So in regards to the datamined content:
1. For the ultimatum, I am firmly team Halsin here. He has no way of knowing Minthara doesn't mean him harm. He is an escaped sex slave to a Drow noble, and Minthara is a Drow noble who advocates for slavery multiple times. This isn't about cruelty, it's not about wanting her to suffer (which is why Halsin respects Tav's choice if they pick Minthara, with no ill will)- it's stating a boundary. He will not stay where she is, knowing that he will never feel safe if she is there. I can't believe Halsin is being made out to be a monster for this, honestly, but seeing all the other completely mild or understandable things that have gotten him a hatedom, I really shouldn't be surprised. This is nothing but cherrypicking. He can't accept a female Drow noble because of what he had to experience in the Underdark, yet he still talks way to positive about his "youthful misadventures" and gladly takes the opportunity to get it going with the Drows. If he really would be shocked by everything he went through, he would most likely have a huge problem with Drows in general. Larian should clearly draw some boundaries. He either should be fine with every Drow (not only for sex) or every Drow should have a hard time with him, that means its more difficult for a Drow Tav to earn his trust/approval, he should be clearly against Minthara but also clearly against the Drows in the brothel. You can't just ignore his past just to have another (poorly written) fade-to-black scene just so the crowd is happy. In all honesty, this game is really a good example of how not to include sex into a game. No one is talking about the good story, no one cares for all the nice things they included in the game. No, social media is just full of horny posts, thirsty, hormone-driven people like this is a truth or dare-party for some 14 year olds. If this is what future RPGs are aiming for, then I guess I have to step away from it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against sex, it's quite the opposite, but if a company says something like "sex shouldn't feel like a reward" and "we take relationships serious" then they shoud live up to the expectations - and clearly they failed. Like someone said in another thread, it feels like some 16yo "romances". For everyone older than that (or at least with a more grown-up mindset), this feels just like a party consisting of multiple Costas from the movie Project X.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2023
|
You may not see it that way but it IS a fatal flaw to make a romanceable character, a character you are meant to build a relationship with, to be relationship adverse. Him being a relationship option was the entire reason he was added to the game. Um. No. Romancing him is why he was made a recruitable companion. He was always in the game, and overwhelmingly positive fan response and demand is why he was made a romanceable companion. Yes that is what I meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
You may not see it that way but it IS a fatal flaw to make a romanceable character, a character you are meant to build a relationship with, to be relationship adverse. Him being a relationship option was the entire reason he was added to the game. Agree (with what you meant)! I wish they would revise it so he is not relationship adverse! That would make the romance so much better if you don’t have another romance in the game but still works if you do have another romance. Can’t speak for other people, but when I was requesting him as a companion and romance in EA, I didn’t mean for sex scenes only but also for a sweet romance story, which to me seemed to fit with his character in EA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2023
|
This is nothing but cherrypicking. He can't accept a female Drow noble because of what he had to experience in the Underdark, yet he still talks way to positive about his "youthful misadventures" and gladly takes the opportunity to get it going with the Drows. If he really would be shocked by everything he went through, he would most likely have a huge problem with Drows in general.
Larian should clearly draw some boundaries. He either should be fine with every Drow (not only for sex) or every Drow should have a hard time with him, that means its more difficult for a Drow Tav to earn his trust/approval, he should be clearly against Minthara but also clearly against the Drows in the brothel. You can't just ignore his past just to have another (poorly written) fade-to-black scene just so the crowd is happy. In all honesty, this game is really a good example of how not to include sex into a game. No one is talking about the good story, no one cares for all the nice things they included in the game. No, social media is just full of horny posts, thirsty, hormone-driven people like this is a truth or dare-party for some 14 year olds.
If this is what future RPGs are aiming for, then I guess I have to step away from it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against sex, it's quite the opposite, but if a company says something like "sex shouldn't feel like a reward" and "we take relationships serious" then they shoud live up to the expectations - and clearly they failed. Like someone said in another thread, it feels like some 16yo "romances".
For everyone older than that (or at least with a more grown-up mindset), this feels just like a party consisting of multiple Costas from the movie Project X. I will just add +1 to this, because you basically voiced my opinion too. 3. The revised post-Drow scene: THIS was what I wanted, more than the ending to be fixed; as a survivor, I was desperate to have my voice heard on the hurtful way he was written before. I still have some concerns (the way the player can talk to him about repressing his trauma sounds really harsh and judgmental instead of genuinely concerned about Halsin's Stockholm Syndrome, and his reaction if the player character essentially suggests selling him back into slavery is way too mild. For any other character, this would result in them instantly dumping the player. I need this to be treated as an irredeemably evil thing, if it is kept as an option. And definitely not being followed up by him "thanking them for their counsel" the same as for the other options.) Other than those concerns, I am thrilled, and grateful to Larian for fixing the original, deeply hurtful scene. I would say this: on one hand yes, the issue with drows should be expanded and processed, but BEFORE we go to brothel, not after. On the other hand, this scene appears basically out of nowhere. I don't know, maybe the writer wanted to add some "spiciness", but the tool he used is wrong. So there is another option, the easiest one imo - cut this dialogue and Halsin's line in brother about "reminds me of my youth".
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2023
|
I'm not gonna make it a secret that I don't like Halsin(Act 3), but casually revealing he was a drow sex slave after your orgy with the drow twins is insensitive on part of Larian. Wouldn't that make a normal person go: "You're telling me you went through something traumatic and I basically made you live through that again?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2023
|
I would say this: on one hand yes, the issue with drows should be expanded and processed, but BEFORE we go to brothel, not after. On the other hand, this scene appears basically out of nowhere. I don't know, maybe the writer wanted to add some "spiciness", but the tool he used is wrong. So there is another option, the easiest one imo - cut this dialogue and Halsin's line in brother about "reminds me of my youth". To be honest, when Halsin said that he felt reminded of his youth I totally thought he was just talking about some sweet sexy nights he had with some Drows back in the days - just to be slapped with the truth the next day. As a player, you kinda feel uncomfortable in that situation. Even if you never had to go through abuse, you feel ashamed at how the topic is brought up and handled. I'm not gonna make it a secret that I don't like Halsin(Act 3), but casually revealing he was a drow sex slave after your orgy with the drow twins is insensitive on part of Larian. Wouldn't that make a normal person go: "You're telling me you went through something traumatic and I basically made you live through that again?" It's even worse that the Tav is not really interested in talking about his past. Plus - if the datamined stuff comes into the game - if you are a Drow and you tell him you could bring him back, that's just plain heartless and even worse writing.
Last edited by JeyFrey; 05/11/23 02:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2023
|
To be honest, when Halsin said that he felt reminded of his youth I totally thought he was just talking about some sweet sexy nights he had with some Drows back in the days - just to be slapped with the truth the next day. As a player, you kinda feel uncomfortable in that situation. Even if you never had to go through abuse, you feel ashamed at how the topic is brought up and handled. After this dialogue I felt that I became an abuser unwillingly. And plus, my Tav is a half-drow (not Llothist, but still a drow) so my guilt was doubled. And it sucks. =(
|
|
|
|
|
