Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Was BG3 overly sexualized?

In real roleplay I know it the other way round: you play how you play and those labels develop as you play. You can decide to try a certain role, but whether that works out depends on too many variables.

It also depends a lot on the gaming group. You cannot play intimacy well, if you don’t have absolute trust in your group — and that everyone will do their best to respect the borders of everyone else — while shallow silliness is the easiest play style, but can also relax after an intense scene. Regardless of whether that scene was solving a complex puzzle (I fondly remember decrypting a text by hand with a time limit), witnessing mass-murder, or an intense discussion whether to leave ones child behind to save the world.

Depending on the group, roleplaying can be very, very different.

I once disbanded a group when a player didn’t respect the limits of another player. Repeatedly touching their hair unbidden and unwanted is a no-go.

I played an addicted character who got deceived and misled by a bard who wanted to drag him into a terrorist uprising (and I reported him to the judicator after 24 hours of play — one of the hardest decisions I took in gaming groups).

I played a former prostitute trying to build a life. He was easy to have and used all he had to stay afloat. And we faded to black early.

I played a mage who regularly rejected advances by a panther-shapeshifter team mate who would have caught a bullet for him (and did, more than once). In retrospect I think that that character was too cold.

I played a dragoness who got intimate a lot with a draco-form officer.

And a space pilot who turned from fighter to healer over 10 years of play — and I’ll never forget the look on the face of the GM when I made advances on a mortal enemy when we were on a ship that had an enforced truce.

Not to forget a warrior monk who only cared about doing the right thing and died while killing a demon pact-holder.

I play an android who is bound to follow the orders of the others in the group to the letter (and no, no one abused that; instead they are trying to teach me to take my own decision — except for one who thinks me too dangerous to exist, and I’m not sure who is right).

And an unsure juvenile carer for the elderly who just discovered that as a chosen one he can transform the necklace the weird old lady gave him into a heavy spiked artifact chain to slaughter vampires together with the house keeper and the weird old lady and a doddery war veteran who complains about the feeble uncouth youth when he’s not drinking too much of the homebrew drugs of the lady.

And a fake academic who took over the life of his officer who was an actual academic and looked almost exactly like him (but he’s almost insane now; we’re playing Call of Cthulhu; what happened to the noble night in another CoC campaign isn’t for the public).

And many, many more (and yes, I could keep going, but I think I made my point about gaming groups being different).

Horny bards might be a trope for unimaginative players, who think, high charisma means high sex appeal only. I never encountered them.in my games and am glad for it.

Yes, the options for roleplay in D&D can be as varied as our imagination allows... But honestly, in all the games I've participated in, the intimate connection between player characters, if there was any roleplay, it was only in a "roll of the dice" format, no one ever verbally describes anything. There can be some jokes, like the party mage throws a silence spell on the door, or in the morning a character comes down the stairs to the common room of the tavern, sings a romantic song, throws a 1, gets a terrible yell, everyone feels bad about it, but he feels good, and he is chaotic-evil and he feels even better about it. This can be interesting for character motivation, especially in evil parties with internecine intrigue when two people start leading the game against the leader of the group, and in good parties for extra character enlivening, roleplay embellishment. The DM can take advantage of this to create a situation like kidnapping, etc.

But in BG3 in terms of sexualization is clearly not to blame the fans of D&D, they have nothing to do with it. A recent lecture by the romance feature lead Baudelaire Welch lifted the veil of mystery as to who this is all for. Quote:

«So, take the bear scene from Baldur's Gate 3. Why did it make such an impact? This is what it meant to me while I was involved with pitching it.

Look, this was not in the depths of my subconscious when I was pitching it. A sort of shit-eating grin was on my face when I was pitching it. But this is what it culturally means to me. It feels like a watershed moment in gaming history, where the fanfiction community felt like we were not a subculture within a fandom, but the majority audience that the game was catering to.

just in perhaps one scene or, you know, in a series of scenes, but still the majority audience. Players in the fan fiction communities had been joking for years post-Early Access about the different degenerate things they wanted to do with Druid Daddy Holson, and we gave them an incredibly silly scene which takes an identity moniker from the gay community literally. The gay bear becomes the gay bear.

And we gave them something which feels like it's from the tradition of CrackFic and present it as if it's a mainstream game feature. And then you feel like all the time you spent horny queer shitposting with your friends in your Discord is validated. It is real. It is a wonderful way of engaging with the game. It's seen. And how many other games on this sort of scale have made you feel that way?»



Time of the cited quote: 15.10

Judging by this lecture, it's for the " shitposters from Discord" and fanfiction audience.

Unholy father-mother of an inexplicable eldritch deity.

It actually made me recall a datamined tidbit from EA about how Halsin was supposed to have a spouse and child originally. From what could have been a wholesome sage mentor with a feral side to him (albeit with a lore-breaking physique for an elf, but that's another story) he was literally reduced to bad fanfic-tier horny bait, and they're gloating about it. Though, to be fair, with how the romance is handled, it more or less applies to every romanceable character, but Halsin is particularly egregious.

Given what other traits Halsin was given in the full game by his actual writer, it seems like deliberate character assassination? Viconia and Sarevok and Minsc and Jaheira may have been knackered by "virtue" of incompetence/overconfidence rather than malice, but with Halsin it seems like he was purposefully sent on a downward spiral once the pre-release rewrites and stitchings began. Makes once imagine how tired the team was with the game around a 2 year EA mark given its release state. The lack of a definitive edition / expansions might be partially attributed to that as well, I guess, and not only to the Hasbro/WotC dumbbuggery which would have also hampered the game alongside its development path, depending on their level of involvement.

The saddest thing here is that we might never get another D&D RPG or even a good game with where things are going. Owlcat have denounced 2e Pathfinder, too, and I cannot blame them. This is all off-topic, though, so I'll stop here.

I feel the need to set the record straight on this point because it's important to me; Owlcat has denounced anything. They said several years ago that they weren't interested in doing a Pathfinder 2e game, yes. But also after that point a manager at Paizo directly said that in their discussions with Owlcat there was no sense that Owlcat had any issues with the system itself or disliked it. Maybe I've missed something else that's been said, but given that context it seems like Owlcat just meant they didn't want to do anything PF2e at that time/they didn't have plans for it. Which makes perfect sense since they'd just done two games in that setting and still had extensive DLC on the way (the last of which is coming next month alongside a major patch adding a lot of free content). Maybe they won't end up doing a pathfinder 2e game in the end, but it's not flatly off the table in the way a lot of people are saying it is.

How many of the originals' fans will be looking forward to it, though, given how 2e is in many ways what 4e was for D&D back in the day?

As for WotR, you'd think they'd work more on Rogue Trader instead...

Following @Gray Ghost's example I also feel the need to set the record straight on something here. PF2 is actually quite popular, and is NOTHING like when D&D moved to 4e. And it gained a huge numbers of additional converts after Hasbro/WotC's big fiasco over their OGL back in January this year. My own VTT gaming group moved from D&D 5e to PF2, and they are all extremely happy for having made the move. And I personally would rate PF2 way better than D&D 5e, where unlike with D&D Paizo has done a good job in PF2 of streamlining and simplifying the rules from PF1 without dumbing down the system and stupidly gutting systems such as alignment/morality or race. So I would very much LOVE to see a PF2-based game, and given my recent turn away from Owlcat I would love for it to be from some studio other than Owlcat, Tactical Adventures being a great choice.

Well, that rather shocked me to be honest. I had argued earlier in this thread that I didn't see the game so much as over-sexualised but more that the relationship aspect of the romances had been neglected. Leading to most NPCs wanting to have sex with Tav so quickly it was a bit surprising (and then very disappointing when interaction with NPCs fell off a cliff in Act 3).

I had assumed it was a pacing issue, now I'm beginning to see that maybe there was a drive to turn BG3 into 'Horny Gate' from some of the romance writers. I feel that is a shame, personally. Sure I hang out on Discord and joke around, but when I am paying this much for a game, I'm not looking for shallow smut.
I want to see a solid story, consistent and logical character development for the NPCs and more of a romance in the traditional sense. i.e. a relationship that develops between characters over time and which may include sex.

Shame. Halsin, it turns out, could have been a much more enjoyable and interesting character. Actually, what repulses me about him is just that - “bad fanfic-tier horny bait”. When I first meet him, he does not cause any rejection, he seems curious and cheerful. And in the third act, “Thank you, dear Orin!”. Before this, I thought Halsin was an unnecessary companion who was written specifically for “it,” and it turns out it could have been different. A companion who has a family would have been a much more interesting idea in my opinion - it gives the character their own story. Sometimes this story also affects the player's attitude towards the character, for example in Pathfinder there was the need to make a choice about where to go and what to save. I chose the option to save Queen Galfrey, and disregarded Areelu's advice, missing a very significant artifact, but I didn't do it for the queen, I did it not to destroy the beautiful couple of Irabeth and Anevia, Irabeth was more important than the artifact, I just wouldn't have been able to tell Anevia of her death. If only Galfrey had been there, I would have chosen the artifact. It's sad that BG3 took a different route of “emotional impact” on the player.


And here it's all together. “Horny” is stuffed to the point of nausea, and the aspect of the relationship itself, in a deep sense, is ignored. Much is built on the charm of the beloved companion, his facial expressions, his looks, his voice, his intonations, his lines, and the player's headcanon. And the player's lines in a romance are fine when they're only simple and shallow, and sometimes they're downright ugly. When I, for example, think of the same Witcher and the romance with Triss, I realize that I was not deeply affected by it, simply because I am a woman of heterosexual orientation, and if I compare exactly what the writing, there is only a sigh. Or BG2 and the romance with Viconia, a complex and deep romance. It's frustrating.


+1000

You’re generalizing from one scene to the whole game.

If you watch that video up to 20:44, you’ll see the much wider perspective they had.

They wanted to show a variety of relationship styles, among them ones that turn out badly.

Having a CrackFic scene was just one of many very different kinds.

Including a scene where when you push for sex, you realize in the morning that you acted as predator, hurt an already traumatized partner, got sex — and lost all.

(besides: thank you Marielle for sharing the video!)

With Lae’zel, there’s no cliff in Act 3, because even the Orpheus decision is relationship-relevant, though the sensual parts sadly end much earlier, but in my second playthrough — this one with Shadowheart — I feel that cliff. After the lake scene, and maybe the dark elf siblings, the relationship is rather dead.

@Marielle, thanks for posting the video! I watched it a few times, and I've got two takeaways.

1. Larian consider romance as a feature that strengthens the product.

Among the three reasons given as to why romances matter beyond fan service are "Romance will be the longest tail part of the fandom you create" and "some communities will feel automatically included in your fandom." Maybe it was just how the talk was structured, but Larian show here they have no reason to include a feature aside from fan service.

2. Nowhere is any kind of thematic relevance to the rest of the game even discussed.

The lack of focus on theme or connection between romance and the rest of the game speaks volumes on how BG3 was put together. The romance writers created their own work to maximize their own audience and plopped it into BG3, where thematic cohesion was never a consideration.

Trigger warnings for stuff in BG3
My position is that art is about intent rather than impact. Intentionality is how you create something that's greater than the sum of its parts, not by trawling Discord for ideas. I'm fine with following an artist into some dark places if the craft is good enough that I can tell what's being actually said by the author. (Disco Elysium made me cry and I love that game for it; at no point did I question whether the game wanted me to take it seriously.) But if the artist wants to explore dark corners with nothing meaningful to say, they will end up saying awful things by default. Things like "this dark corner has nothing I find scary, you people must have a problem."

To answer the thread's actual question : I don't know if BG3 was overly sexualized, but I feel it was poorly sexualized, with either no or contradictory thematic relevance to the rest of the game.

I mean, it certainly wasn't between the lines. It's the very text of that conversation. He's telling you he's tired of being metaphorically or literally sexually abused and used for things, mostly sex. Amongst the things he says in the conversation where you can pressure him into sex is "I don't think I want you to think of me in terms of sex. I don't know if I want anyone to". In that department at least, it's not subtle and something a player could accidentally stumble into.

I fully admit ignorance on the specifics; still haven’t played the complete game. The specifics are important, here, no doubt. But the way the dialogue was framed in the talk was ‘players who are looking for sex as a reward will get the bad ending and a reminder this isn’t a game.’ So if you say this outcome couldn’t be stumbled into, I believe you, but there’s no denying the intent is to have players take the game’s text seriously here while, I argue, they may need to ignore it elsewhere.

This is pretty much my impression too, while not for the whole game and all the romances, then at least for Astarion's.

I had been discussing Astarion's act 2 scenes before the video popped up and the way Welch talks about it, pretty much confirm my issue with the scenes, especially the post-Araj scene. The way Welch talks about it, Astarion is the victim who can get further maltreated by an inconsiderate PC, only he is not. In his act 2 scenes, Astarion is both the victim and the abuser. He is the victim of Cazador but he also applied his internalised abusive behaviour to win over and exploit the PC.

In the Post-Yurgir scene, this gets addressed (as it starts with Astarion's confession) and you can very superficially express your concerns, in the Post-Araj scene, Astarion makes fun of you if you inquire if he only used you and shows no remorse for his actions at all. Instead of - or in addition to - the scene described in the video, which is a rare case not many people will naturally get, I would have liked it if the actual romance path had gotten more than fleeting consideration. How does Astarion deal with the PC he has come to care for, but whom he has maybe deeply hurt? The writing has no interest in this question, and instead of focusing on the connection between the two characters the romance is about and how they overcome this hurdle, it focuses solely on Astarion's pain.

This one-sided approach gets problematic down the line when it comes to the ritual. If you follow the whole Spawn vs Ascended discourse, it is solely focused on the importance of the ritual as a transformative moment, not on the ritual as an affirmation of Astarion's always abusive vampire-mindset. A mindset which Astarion overcomes on his spawn-route by learning to care for the PC and admitting that other people also have a right to be treated well.

Another topic that really bothers me in regards to Astarion is how the "dry spell" is handled. If you continue the romance with Astarion, you agree that you don't have sex for as long as he needs it. In the Post-Yurgir scene, he expresses a desire to experience "something real" but he has no idea what real intimacy looks like. The writing seems to have no idea what it might look like either, because it never bothers exploring this topic. The dry spell is treated as exactly that, a time of celibacy and denial, instead of one to explore the ways of the heart. I find this deeply disappointing for a game that wants to deal with all kinds of experiences, but is so completely unimaginative in this regard.


I think this is mostly an Astarion problem though. Gale's romance and general interactions do a marvellous job at showing character through player interaction and so do Lae'zel's. I think Gale and Lae's romances (at least what I have seen from Lae's) are also the best paced, as they are tied deeply into the main plot. As @ArneBab wrote above, if you romance Lae'zel obtaining the hammer and freeing the Githyanki becomes part of your romance because the matter is important to Lae'zel. If you romance Gale, tackling the brain and dealing with the Crown is the culminating moment of your romance. The writing of both characters also does not shy away from writing conflict between the characters and the PC, real sensible conflict that can be resolved in a way that strengthens the bond between them and the PC. The writing for those two gets far too little credit as does their amazingly nuanced voice acting.

Edit: As not to be too harsh. I agree with a lot of points in the video, I just think they are badly executed for Astarion - or at least Astarion & normal Tav. Especially the point that a romance should not culminate at the end of the story, is one I wholeheartedly agree too. And again this is something Gale and Lae'zel do beautifully as they both have the confirmation of the romance in act 2 and act 3 for both romances consists of planning your life together.

(I’m keeping this all in spoiler tags)

(this now becomes maximized SPOILER, so I add a second tag)

@Flooter, thanks for your post! I hadn't looked at the larvae story from that perspective before. But now... Yes, it's made me look at the game in a new way.


I got the same thing, only in the opposite sense - Larian punished me for being “overly” empathetic and sympathetic to a fictional character. I wasn't going to allow the option for Astarion to “remain a spawn forever” and burn in the finale to the taunts of the companions. For that, the game forced me to endure scenes of 3 types of domestic violence as a “Valentine's Day gift”. I can't play it anymore. The worst part is that many other people in our fandom who have experienced SA/DA in real life have relived their traumas because of these trigger scenes. GamePro magazine wrote about it: “Neue Astarion-Küsse in Baldur's Gate 3 wirken verstörend auf Fans und das ist der Grund”. The article has a warning about triggered violent scenes, such a warning is put when content has been peer-reviewed. But in the game there was no warning, the traumatizing scenes were presented as a “gift”. Can this be called “art”?


Do you mean this one? Slide from the lecture:



I would probably call this list: “A Practical Guide: How to Make a Player Unhappy in Your Game with Romantic Relationships”.

But I'm very interested in other players' opinions on this. Tell me please, would you like to see such a thing in a romantic relationship with your favorite companion in your game? Would you be interested in this way of developing your romantic relationship? Does this approach to relationships make for a better story? Or would you prefer a classic romantic relationship like we've seen in Pathfinder, Dragon Age, The Witcher, previous Baldur's Gate games, and other good RPG games with the possibility of romance?

I think you are way too hung up on that one screen Marielle. This is more about allowing romances taking unexpected turns when it is appropriate than about necessarily squeezing all of these elements into each and every romance. From what I have heard, Lae'zel dumps you if she remains on the Vlaakith path, Shart degrades you to a friend-with-benefits when she becomes Mother Superior, Gale dumps you if you first edge him on to take the Crown and then last minute change your mind about it at the dock. I haven't heard anyone complain about either. You can be piece of garbage to all of your romantic interests at some point, which makes being a decent person to them feel like it has weight.

Personally, I like romance to be the B-plot and have it tied into the main story, so it lends an additional layer of emotion to the goings on. I prefer it to be heavy on the friendship and adventuring aspect and thus do like it depicted as an interaction between and exploration of the personal stories of both characters involved.

I don’t mind putting problematic bits in romances, if well done, with warning signs enough (I find some of what I experienced in BG3 too ambiguous or badly marketed), and also a coherent respect for agency (from player character to player, I don’t think it’s good to put them back against a wall with no narrative tool to get out of it, most of all when the story still gives them some free will, resources and friends).

In the presentation (thanks for the video by the way) it’s mostly about the player character and what they can do to Astarion, rather than the other way around. I don’t mind options to portray that, in regard to your lover, or your friends and others on the way. You can role play a bad character, at least one that would be in that mindset. Or it’s even your thing. But the dialogue options and the scenes are quite on the nose. So I don’t know if, in that case, it really makes people feel bad. I mean, I don’t really think it’s like you’re going somewhere unexpected. Maybe it would have to be more subtle and better crafted to really have an impact, to me at least.

I have problems with the Astarion romance too. Spawn and ascended endings both. It’s the first I did and I still love the character. But Anska wrote a few things that I tend to agree with. And personally, I don’t feel like it’s a relationship I’m actually welcome in. The way the character is, but also the way it’s handled. My character is there for it, I’m there for it, and I just feel like a passive prop and it goes nowhere near where I would actually find it interesting to go. And I wouldn’t mind the looming threat of loss of agency and such with ascended Astarion, but even if it’s there in the story, I don’t feel like it’s focused on in a satisfying way. It was much better when I tried Lae’Zel and Halsin (no matter that one’s other potential problems).

I don’t know if it’s just me too, but I don’t feel like certain things on that list are that novel. I mean, in the Dragon Age series alone, even if it’s been a while. I remember making Alistair king as a non Cousland in Origins, which gives a certain twist to the romance. The friendly or antagonistic system in Dragon Age 2 was also something. And the case of Anders there. There’s Solas in Inquisition, a few things with Sera, and also the outcome with The Iron Bull in the DLC Trespasser (one path after his quest in game makes for quite the surprise there). Maybe it’s just me who doesn’t understand what they were trying to say in their presentation, but I guess I don’t get it completely.

I don’t really think, just my own point of view, that the game is over sexualised. To me it’s just sometimes a bit over the top, with what feels to me like tokens and gimmicks here and there, maybe even some shock value, and it isn’t necessarily worked on enough to fit with the rest. Outside of romance, I also found it a bit too much. Mizora’s offer happened a bit out of nowhere to me, honestly. It’s better for the Emperor, and I suppose it depends how your character connected to him or not, but still. I found that the bit with Haarlep lacked a lot of subtlety. Again, might be just me, but I find it all very superficial. In the video they remind the audience of the Dragon Age : Origins sex scenes, how they had people laughing and how badly they aged. To me, it’s also possible to go for racy or titillating without being too graphic, and still produce a cringe scene that will age badly. I’d say maybe it’s about style and substance both.

I think though that the marketing was a bit over sexualised, at least it worked hard with that aspect present. And I’ve always found it funny that Astarion, the objectified one whose romance is made to touch a lot on this, has been used so much to that effect (bear scene, drips, etc.).

The presentation closes with summary slides which I believe prove my point. (my commentary in green)

To summarize, romance matters beyond fanservice because it brings in a bunch of dedicated fans. (Also, you get to have an impact on people for cheap - good or bad, doesn't matter as long as it’s memorable).

The aspects of romance writing described here enhance the experience for the fanfiction community above all else. It's explicitely about maximizing word counts on fanfic sites - not improving the overall game experience.

So yeah, they go for dark themes. But it feels like they do so because they're ticking boxes, not because those themes coalesce into something meaningful.


Edit:
Sure, why not? I've no doubt a strong story could include one or more elements on the slide you show. The key is being aware of what it contributes to the rest of the game in order to keep to the experience cohesive.