Well is it possible to make companions react our queerness?
Like Shadowheart asking if we are Gay if we romanced a male companion. Because if the world isnt gonna react our partner choices I kinda dont think it's a representation. Like having a big important (please not fetishised lesbians to satisfy cis-straight men) character being a gay or smth.

I like how dos2 and bg3 are open for queer relationships but its just except the pronouns dialouges are all the same, gay relationship works different than straight relationships. I am not asking for whole new relationship experiance (actually I am but I know its impossible) but maybe having a conversation with Gale about how would he feel if we change positions? Asking about how does he feel having a company of man maybe? Extra lines just for the relationship types are very welcome and very representative. It's just whats the point of being queer if they are gonna react same to me wheather I am man or woman.

(If there is already, I havent experianced it for my 200 hours of EA experiance, which is also an issue I think.)

As far as I know companions are what is called "player sexual" - so they will be happy to sleep with PC regardless of their sex.

I know it, please read carefully.

I agree. It would've been nice at some point to state I am gay. It seems sort of a natural conversation and obvious thing that people would find out about the PC during travels.

It's been a while since this conversation has showed up. I agree it'd be nice if there was such dialogue.

E.g., Gale has had past romantic relations with men and women. Somewhere in his dialogue, perhaps only when/if we start flirting with him, he mentions this. Perhaps, if you're a man, he asks something like "hypothetically, do you think you could love a man?" to gauge your interest (obviously with better writing).

E.g., Wyll has only has past romantic relations with women. When we initiate romance with him, he says something like "he's never felt this way about a man."

A few short dialogue lines like these would help to flesh out the companions (more preferences = more characterized character) but still allow for a player of any sex to romance any companion. Preferences, not restrictions.

Only if they do it in a natural way of context, like for example, Shadowheart making a pass on my male Tav, and I then will be allowed to reject her with something like, "sorry girl but I'm more into guys, nothing personal". (personally, that could more than welcomed be followed with "btw, have you noticed if Gale is interested in anyone at the camp?" Gosh, that man is dreamy! Confident, intelligent(can be discussed) and just the right amount of chest hair)

Agreed, it should fit naturally into the storyline dialog, or be part of the character's background so it makes sense.

Dialogues that help ground the playersexuality of individual characters into a more in-universe representation of the sexuality and openness to the player by various degrees of the particular game being played would actually be really nice - as others mentioned, characters all remaining potentially romanacable by the PC, but having dialogue within their relationship texts to touch on it and give it a feeling of realism... it would be more than any other game I can think of has ever done, but it should still be possible. As well as being a grounding element for the companions, it would also serve as another chance for the player to define something about their character, which is always a good thing to add in where possible.

As it is, my character went to the party, and did romance Astarion. Astarion was the only one who flirted with the PC and thus seemed interested. Gale, I had at very high, but did not flirt at all.

Wyll strangely, announced he was quite jealous of me picking Astarion, however, Wyll has never indicated at all any interest, beyond the party event and has said nothing before or since to indicate any emotion or feelings whatsoever.

I just wonder, if being able to have a dialog about this might have triggered some earlier interactions to taylor the experience more.

I'm going to gently disagree, while keeping in mind I have limited experience with romantic relationships of any kind.


This is surprising to me. From what I can tell, the main difference between straight and gay couples is that the latter need to deal with societal perceptions while the former don't. Other than that, all the dynamics are the same. I'd posit that in a world where no sexual preference bore any stigma, conversations between gay and straight partners would be exactly the same, save for the pronouns.


This is confusing to me. Does sexual orientation have a point? Does it need a point?


I don't see how realism can be balanced between every charcter acknowledging that sexual peference is a thing and yet still being open to relations with Tav. If sexual preference is worth talking about with the NPCs, that means it has an in-world impact. The fact that no-one mentions it means it's not a big deal to anyone. Isn't that a world you'd want to live in?

I feel I've reached the limits of my expertise. My gut instinct is that Earth would be a better place if relationships worked more like they do in BG3 and DoS2. We already have enough clerics telling us how they feel about specific orientations.

+1

I like that they made it so low key. The classiest way of doing it.

It's not that simple, I'm afraid... the dynamics are different, and some of the roots of those differences do exist at an intrinsic level, no matter how much we try to adopt an unilateral outlook and behaviour.

That aside, yes, orientation and preference does have a point, because these things aren't simple binary switches; people are unique and individual, and the degrees to which they are open or willing to experience various things are a spectrum. The purpose of making characters playersexual, rather than just universally bisexual is so that different preferences and sexualities can be displayed, without actually hard restricting the player's hopes, and making it so that, by convenient coincidence, they are actually able to pursue the character they are taken with, with theirs.

More to the point - a world where everyone is open to sexual intimacy with everyone, regardless of anything else about them, as an enforced universal truth, simply feels fake, because that's just not what people are like... and no, personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was expected to be okay at a personal level with everything, because it would take something away from people, rather than giving it to them. Also, you'd have to start drawing lines in the sand anyway, because sexuality, sexual preference and what people like or are okay with goes well beyond 'boys and/or girls'.

Like it or not (and not liking it is fine!), but within the context of our media, characters being coded to be identified in certain ways is a thing - it's a way of signalling without being overt about it that all human societies all over the world have developed in different ways, quite independently of one another, because it is quite natural at a creature level for us to do this... and it has permeated forward through all of our higher-order and advanced civilisation trappings.

Taking it back to a basic level, for example, I am a very bisexual woman, and then some... but the dynamic I have with my male partners is different from the dynamic I have with my female partners, which is different again from the dynamic I have in multiple partner situations... they are intrinsically different experiences, and in any relationship where sexuality is a part of it, the intrinsically different experience and nature of that aspect causes intrinsic differences in the rest of the relationship naturally - and that's okay. It's a good thing. But it means that out there ,there are people who would not at all be interested in me - and that's okay too. In between that, there are people who might never consider themselves open to a certain type of intimacy, until a particular individual turns their head that way; they may not have physical attraction to that type of person normally at all, but this particular individual is someone that, because of everything else about them, they can see themselves with, and it tips that balance into a willingness to try with them what they would not with someone else. I've seen this before in fact.

So... when a character exists with an entirely heterosexual background, as far as is visible in the depiction and information available in game (Wyll - he might be anything, but in terms of just what we see directly in game, and the absolute information we have, and his general media coding beyond that... he's purely heterosexually-facing), when they are in fact open to romance from a same-sex character, it feels contrived and fake if there isn't some kind of lamp-shading to acknowledge that this is different from what we know and have seen so far; having a conversation about it not only adds depth and uniqueness of the character, but it gives the player chance to define more of their character tote game, which the game can potentially take on board and work with later.

I agree with Flooter's point that characters acknowledging their sexual orientation would imply an impact on gameplay. For example, if a character is straight, and your character is of the same gender, should they acknowledge the fact that they are straight even though every such character can still ultimately be romanced? Or should there be characters that are unbending in their sexual orientation, as many are in the real world? I think the latter makes much more sense, but would require substantial changes to romance in the gameplay (e.g. this character will never be attracted to you, this character is more easily attracted to you than others).

I personally like the current romance system, where straight, gay, bisexual, race, doesn't make a difference. You can explore that as your character wants without being limited in any way. And it just doesn't makes sense to me to keep romance options unlimited while claiming characters have preconceived sexual orientations. That is, it seems arrogant to be able to "flip" any and every character because our character is just so great.

As an aside, I personally disagree that straight and gay relationships are different. In my experience, its pretty much the same (outside of the bedroom). Anyways, I enjoy the current system where romance between any race and gender is just assumed to be "normal".

I tend to agree with Niara. If the characters are indeed interested in a same-sex relationship with Tav, to some extent, there should be some flag or indication of it earlier or in there backstory or dialog that might acknowledge it.

Honestly I don't think I care too much about this. I mean.. sure, it could be nice, but I also think it could be nice to see a world where this stuff does not matter at all. Refreshing. It would even be ideal. And I am saying this as a gay man myself. Would be nice if people didn't give a crap about these things at all.

I noticed with this playthrough there was some dialogue added with Astarion and Wyll that seemed to be flirting. So more to come in this regard possibly.

Also I would be remiss not to put the old locked Herosexual NPC thread in, it was very interesting to see everyone's pov there.

Ok, I can see what you mean. You touched on some fascinating topics, and though we don't see eye to eye on all of them, I agree with the endpoint. Thanks for taking the time to explain. To show my gratitude, I will spare you my thousand word essay about human cultures and lines in the sand.

this as a gay man myself. Would be nice if people didn't give a crap about these things at all.[/quote]

As a straight man I fully agree, enough is enough..Does it matter? The most Macho guy I've ever known is gay, he dragged me out of a situation I cannot say online as a fellow Marine and I survived because of him, one of the proudest moments of my life was being his best man at his wedding. Stop judging a book by it's cover and open your minds for gods sake it's 2021.

How about take a leaf from the witcher 3 and have the option to sit about like you would with a bunch of mates getting drunk and talking shit? Learn that your companions have actual personallites behind the constant neurotic rants? Then they could work some hints in about sexual preference (if necessary) organically during anecdotal chit chat? The forced nature of the "romance" in BG3 is totally inorganic and off putting to say the least, it almost feels like sexual assault.

Personally don't care for romance options considering the available options and implementation. It doesn't make sense for a Githyanki to be interested in sexual encounters with non-Gith considering they are born from eggs and are closer to insects than mammals. I don't even know if there is any lore on Githyanki mating rituals.I am happy for representation in all things as long as it is organic and leads you there gradually by choice not by design.

As you choose your "who do you desire" on character creation why not choose sexual preference also? That seems pretty representitive to me.

This is where playersexuality as a concept comes in - generally speaking, you aren't 'flipping' people; in individual plays, the world is reconfigured so that, by coincidence, what you want is available, this is the essence of what playersexuality in NPCs is. This means that if you pursue an NPC that is male and has established female partnerships in their backstory, and are generally straight-coded (again, I don't like that that's a thing, at all, but it is, nevertheless, in public media... changing this has to be done by gradual steps, if you want it to stick), with a female character, then in this game, they are heterosexual, and always have been. If, in a different game, you pursue the same character with a male, then they are bisexual to some extent, and always were. (Variations and individual elements of personal backstory non-withstanding of course)

As Soul-scar says here - the sudden forced nature of how it's handled in BG3 right now is the main sticking point, and if feels inorganic and forced in most cases. Having more casual character building that can allow the leanings and preferences of the characters to feel more organic and better blended with what we see of their character elsewise would be a good thing... especially if their open sexuality runs at odds with what we already know and have seen - some way to smooth that into something that feels like a natural part of the character would help here.

==

For the relationship aside,

I don't like that kind of coding either. Isn't BG3's current stance a step toward erasing it by teaching players to ask NPCs rather than rely on coded clues and assumptions?

I said it countless times and i say it again, even tho it may not be directly related to the topic ...
Companions should have sexual prefferences (both gender and race) and react with different way to our proposal (also should not propose themselves, unless we match both their prefferences).

Like: Wyll like Woman ... Human, Elf, Drow or Tiefling
(I take the liberation to presume that Mizora can act as a proof that he would obviously not have problems with horns and tails ... )

Reputation enough to romance ... Camp scene:

Tav is Female Human ... Tav: Are you coming on to me? > Wyll: I hadn't imagimed myself so subtle. Or to put it in another way: Yes.

Tav is Male Human ... Tav: Are you coming on to me? > Wyll: I didnt mean to ... well, on the other hand, why not? Are you interested?

Tav is Female Gnome ... Tav: Are you coming on to me? > Wyll: No! I mean, no offence but i didnt mean to ... this never even crossed my mind! > *moment of awkward silence* > Tav: Its okey, im not interested either. / Shame, i hoped we could ... > Wyll: Good, i mean lets drink to that. Friends! / Well, now when you mentioned it ...

Something like this.

You are gay man, which means you cant understand bisexual, pan or something includes more than one gender. Straight people usually has only straight romance experiance, Gay/Lesbian ppl has only one gendered relationships. But when you are not restricted for one gender, you realise that relationships differ and you act different. It's not exclusive to bedroom, you realise there are different patterns.

Also about representation, if a straight person can ignore and easily ''not see'' the queerness in game, its not representation. It is an illusion, representation is only meaningful if it helps you irl. Like its about normalizing, its about saying '' we exist, we are here. ''


This is bi/pan erasure btw pleaso dont do it. Things i wrote are also an answer if you think this is a proper representation.

The way you play your character in the game will reflect your character's sexual preference and gender identity more than a strict tick box at the start of the game ever could. All they need to do is implement the romances in a more natural way, progressing over time as a result of Tav's dialogue choices. Give us options to state preferences *in the moment* as the characters evolve, rather than shoehorning your character into a certain sexual role before the game has even begun. Let us flirt with non-romanceable characters on the fly to demonstrate our sexual preferences before they even matter.

Representation isn't just "I'm here on the screen" - it's about how meaningful that aspect of the character's identity is portrayed. If it doesn't have nuance and depth, if it doesn't evoke at least some sentiment of that community's real life experiences, then that community isn't being represented at all beyond shallow stereotypes and vague references.

You are being deliberately combative toward other people and intolerant towards different sexualities and opinions. You just told a gay man he doesn't/cannot possibly understand bi/pan because he is not them followed by a statement about hetrosexuality in the same sentence. You attempt to shut someone down for "no possible understand because you are not" then make a statement about "something you are not". Mmmm.

Work with me here. I said add sexual preference options. Is bi/pan not a sexual preference? Of course it is. What you are asking for is deliberately paradoxical in that it would be impossible to AI code behavior to account for every possible individual human identity to be "represented"......in an individual companion. I am not being difficult just pointing out the reality.

If you are the only person capable of understanding and you shut down anyone (bi, straight, gay) you assure cannot possibly understand because they don't fit your ideal, then how prey tell can anyone other than yourself understand? Serious question.

There are no right answers to what you are asking. I was willing to discuss and contribute to your feedback but as I do not represent everyone in existance with a unique identity I will leave it there.

You cant understand what you dont experiance but you can sympathise . You are mistaking what i am asking, read my original post alone to understand my point. I will put it very simply, MLM, FLF, MLF and other types of relationships exists. A strictly FLM person cannot truely understand the difference of being in a different kind of relationship. That is my point. You can only read, hear or observe. You dont experiance it. And I am not being offensive, my english is not my native language so I am truely sorry if I sound offensive/combative.

Also it is very VERY simple when it comes to representation. Now imagine you are having a full rest in game, it is after you trigger your romance. Wyll approaches you and asks '' So you are into man, especially this Gale guy huh? '' and a few lines of dialouges happens. Game recognising your character as queer means a lot to the community. It means you validated, you are welcome. Or maybe an important NPC being in a queer relationship or being Trans,NB. That means a non-queer player has to see that they exist, they are valid. That is what i am asking/trying to achieve.

I'm not in favor, just because it is very very much work to reflect all possible interactions that could happen and the ROI on that work would be not really huge. Everybody being playersexual is the best way to handle it and besides that it is enough to have companions make minimal references to any romance plot at all, if any. Best case is after establishing a romance there is just the romance plot between you and your chosen companion. I really dont see too much merit in the others reacting to it too much. This goes for any possible constellation.

Disagree ...
Its 3 reactions per proposal situation, and litteraly everything else can stay the same.

Indeed. Playersexual companions is boring and kind of lazy writing.

Well ... the point of my suggestion it keep companions playersexual (they all can get Wyll into the bed) ...
While keeping the "approval" rates just the same, so everyone can romance Wyll exactly the same ...

But hide it under different reactions, so players have different experience with different characters.

I mean yes ...
The fact that no matter if you are Gnome, Half-Orc, Dragonborn, or Elf ... no matter if you are Male or Female ... everyone is totally attracked to you, sexualy ... THAT is lazy writing. Especialy since its sooo damn easy to hide that.
But on the other hand i can understand some players frustration ... friend of mine desperately wanted to romance Dorian ... yet she allways play female characters, this was first time in last decade she played male, just for this.

I guess you could call it lazy writing. I mean, it is. I hate the idea, for instance, that Minthara is willing to engage in relations with a surface elf. She'll even mention how she would've taken the character as a consort in Menzoberranzan, and that's ridiculous. It ignores conflict and setting and atmosphere and depth.

So. I get that it's lazy writing.

Except it's also not. From the writer's perspective, I get it. What are they supposed to do? It's a hot-button issue. While I love storytelling that allows for conflict and immersion, it's easier to just say all the characters are playersexual and avoid any arguments that might otherwise arise.

Take Race tag under concideration and write at least one more line that would be fiting other options?

I mean in case of Minthara it dont even seem so hard ...
She would say to Drow that she would take her as consort to Menzoberranzan.
She would say to everyone else that she would keep her close for rest of her days.

The message is practicaly the same, but it dont conflict any specific.

Minthara has some pretty strong bigotry towards surface elves as evidenced by the dialog, much as Wyll has towards goblins who he nicknames gobos. It would require a lot of storytelling to make such relationships flow naturally, if at all.

The game is already welcoming to every sexuality because you can pursue whatever kind of sexual encounter/relationship you wish. I don't really see why there should be the added validation of the game acknowledging your sexual orientation...it's just stating the obvious.

Personally I'm not a fan of the 'anything goes' sexuality of BG3 because it doesn't feel immersive; the concept of a gnome seducing a drow just seems ridiculous but maybe that's just me. I understand the rationale behind it but I don't agree with it.

As a heterosexual female I personally prefer companions with a set sexuality, but it does reduce choice of partners, and inevitably leads to complaints that the character a player wants to romance is unavailable to the character they want to play. I think it's realistic to expect to encounter characters/couples of varying sexuality in the course of the game, not so much to expect the romances explicitly to represent every possible player preference of both partner and sexuality--in a game in which the romances are a feature, not the focus of the game.

Believe it or not, but i actualy hate to present myself like this.
But this is actualy yet another problem my suggestion solves ...

People are able to romance anyone ... so nobody can complain about unaviable character.
And companions have set sexuality, that feels more natural.

I would like some dialogue reflecting this sort of thing, even in the case of herosexuality. It can add to their depth and offer some nice commentary as well.

Wyll is, like myself, definitely hetero-presenting. For me it's just that I've never met a guy i wanted to be with, even though i find some guys attractive. So me being bi/pan is virtually indistinguishable from me being hetero. So if i ended hitting it off with a guy, I'd let him know that. It would make sense to me if Wyll acknowledged it too (if he doesn't already, i haven't romanced him, but as an example).

I'm a male hetero and I've been playing female characters for half of my life now, I don't usually insist on romancing all / any character but I like the fact that if one character seems nice, I can try it. I say "character" as a habit but their personality must be really awesome for me to like them despite being a male.

now, what I understood from the setting was that in a world where there are dwarves, elfs, lizard and cat people, with a vast variety of skin color, the notion of same sex relationship or not was just a non-issue.
maybe it is just wishful thinking since I have been wishing for our society to move past these considerations for years, representing the full spectrum of orientations as normal in any fictional world we create or help create is something we can do to try and push the change but I get that in the meantime, this might indeed feel like missed opportunity.

to put things on perspective, when d&d started, female characters could only go as far as 15 in strength. now, tasha's cauldron of everything is suggesting to drop the racial stereotypes too. we don't need to bring what we don't like to our made up worlds.

as for the playersexual thing, yeah, it would definitely not hurt to have a baseline preference from the followers and them requiring a bit more "work" in order to convince them to see us as a romance target, with potentially an initial rejection and then the character coming back after some time passed...

I understand the different player viewpoints here, but I think all of the various wishlists here amount to a lot of work for developers for something that is a pretty low priority for the game.

I personally find myself not caring about romance dialogue options and a few related cutscenes, but more about about the richness of what I can do in the world. Do the developers really want to spend the time and money to create custom sexual preferences between each character and every permutation of race and sex with accompanied voice-acted dialogue just so the relationship dialogue options feel a bit more organic? I would much rather they spend that time to create a more in-depth crafting system, more things to do in the camp, etc.

We've seen a lot of different perspectives on what would be the ideal way to handle sexual preferences, but its just too subjective so no matter how they changed it many people would probably be unhappy with the change. So from the developer perspective, there's just too many things that are better uses of their time and would make a larger percentage of players happy.

I don't think that an initial rejection based on sexuality followed by a later acceptance would be a good implementation. That would seem to imply that sexuality is a choice and you can make someone be attracted to you by perseverance even if you're the "wrong" gender for their sexuality.

An initial caution - "I've never been in a relationship with a man so let's take it slow okay?" - is fine, but an outright "I'm not attracted to men" [time passes] "okay now I'm attracted to men" is...not great.

Let's just randomize companions' sexuality every playthrough... More realistic for both the player and their character NOT to know their preferences, no?

Personally, I dislike romances in BG3 and their current (approval-based) implementation and have little hope this changes. I'd rather Larian's (writing/voiceacting) work/effort went just about anywhere else...

D&D doesn't care about queer, as it doesn't care about homos and it doesn't care about straights. There is no love parade, no gay marriage and no civil rights for trans.

And you know why? Because it's a fantasy fiction world which doesn't care about real world politics and social concerns.

And I am tired of people bringing that kind of irrelevant stuff into my hobby.

And you showcase the issue with this idea. I don't recall Wyll expressing interest in tieflings or drow in the game. Wyll constantly tries to flirt with Lae'zel and prefers her to Shadowheart. There is even some humorous banter because of that. And Lae'zels looks can hardly be considered a beauty standard in this setting. So my personal interpretation of Wyll's romantic inclinations would be different from yours. And I am pretty sure it is different for other players too.

The moment you start imposing restrictions on a system that was previously open, you will get a lot of unhappy players who would find that the romances they have pursued in the EA are suddenly not possible anymore. And a lot of negative feedback as a result. I doubt that Larian would be interested in this.

Quoting this to second it; I generally like the shape of what Ragnarok has to say here - that everyone should be ultimately available in a player-sexual way, but that that should not abolish them having individuality and personality, which includes various leanings and preferences - those leanings and preferences, because of the ultimate player-sexual end point, should not be absolutes, and if you're running against how they might normally lean, then some acknowledgement of this - while still moving forward - would be nice, and would make the interpersonal setting feel that much more realistic.

Currently, in another game I'm involved in, there is an NPC who has only ever been with other women, and generally considers that to be her preference, however, since she's been travelling with the party: while she's been physically attracted to a couple of the female party members to various degrees, she couldn't really make friends with one of them, and the other doesn't see her 'that way'... however, one of the male party members has bonded with her very closely, and they share a great many similarities in beliefs, outlooks and desires for the world around them... over the past few months of game time, they've developed a very tentative affection for one another, and she's been working out a lot of very confused and uncertain feelings. Just recently there was a very sweet evening conversation between them where she explained that she preferred girls, and always had, but that she liked him, and that he was sweet, and kind and that she'd never been attracted to boys, and still wasn't, but that he was nice, and she thought maybe, it would be nice to try to see if this goes any further... but that she's nervous about it, and wants to move carefully... she was so adorably embarrassed about it all and he was really sweet and supportive it was a very nice little conversation. They haven't gone any further than hugs and occasional kisses so far, and likely won't for a while, as they're carefully seeing what they're each okay with... but it's really nice; this is, to me, the case of how an adaptable player-sexual npc should be done. She's clearly got, and still has, her own lesbian preference, and the ways that that impacts related parts of her character still do, but her relationship with this player is a stronger element than her normal physical preferences, for this specific, particular situation, and so it's progressing tentatively and carefully, but it is progressing.

Amen.

curiously, that's exactly what I did not wanted to convey... I tried many different formulations and none were satisfying... anyway, the idea was the character initially stating what they usually do, what their comfort zone is and gives some kind of metric as to how far off the proposition is for them. then after some time, they could potentially come around. I'm not advocating for any form of insistence from the player or a binary change, more something like experimentation with potentially something like a definitive "no" if the character's preferences are too far away from what our character is... which I would not necessarily appreciate but it would be a great characterization...
on the opposite side of the idea, the character might discover something new and like it, that is what I was going in my previous post...

D&D is just a framework for real people to live their fantasy. as a white male, I spent 25 years in my life before realizing what representation even meant. why ? because it was absolutely obvious to me that everyone could be anything. but it turns out if you never see people like you doing specific things, you might end up thinking that there is a reason for this and the reason is people like you simply can't do it... it might be that those persons absolutely lack imagination or that our society is built around the idea that those in power will do all they can to stay in power, I am not quite sure, but when I see backlash at the simple idea of bringing diversity, I really think that some people absolutely lack imagination...

First of all ... it was example.
Second ... it would not be set by players, but by developers, who actualy know what partner would Wyll preffer, since they are the one who decide it.
And third and last ... what are you talking about? o_O
"Romances they have purused in EA not possible anymore", have you even read it whole? The point there is that any romance is possible, exactly bcs people would be dissapointed if they are blocked out for some character strictly.

This really sounds great, but to implement it this way that would require A LOT of additional work. :-/

As a lesbian woman, I'm already happy, that there are same sex relationships in most games nowaday. I mean - remember how we women only had Anomen (aka one of the worst companions ever) as a love interest in the old games?
I would be ok, if the sexuality of the companions would be addressed, but that is not a focus for me, since I'm as romantic as a stone. But it would make sense, if they have some preferred gender for example and maybe are surprised, that they find themselves attracted to a pc from the other gender - would give the characters some depth.
I mostly play romances to see, if they add storyline, so I often do all available romances - male and female - and then settle for my favorite one (which is Shadowheart in BG3).

Not really, at least, not to do in basic form... it would just be the kind of structure that we're already talking about; characters with preferences but which are nevertheless open to pursuit by anyone, and the way the various relationship building dialogues and cutscenes run are different based on whether the pursuing player is in line with their usual preferences or not.

I mean it would work like that with Shadow ...
That night scene ia almost inocent ...

But it would need some new scenes for most others ... especialy those that go to bed so fast as Astarion.

The preferences of companions are now "set" by the players, since you can create your own headcanon story; the page is blank, so to speak. (Edit: And I'd point out that this is what the developers have decided. )For that to be set by the developer's, you'd first have to take this away from the player. And the companions have been available for a long time, which means people have their own interpretations. Frankly considering how much of a discussion changing Minthara's haircut caused (and the directions that discussion went), I think that keeping the companions playersexual makes sense as the safer choice.

I think you're missing what Rag is saying, Ash... he's not suggesting that the character not be playersexual - he's saying precisely that they should be, but just that they should have developed characteristics in that field, which will modify how their dialogues and scenes play out if you do pursue them.

We can fix him! :P

I'd rather used modded companions. I seldom bothered with ANomen anymore after the first playthrough.

It's understandable

Anomen is a lot more interesting as a concept character than as an actual party member in my mind, let alone a romantic interest. I just wanted to make a "fix him" joke.

Yeah, he might sound interesting on paper, but sadly, he is just annoying. His whole plot is about some entitled person making demands basically.

Anomen...I don't know *how* I managed to get through his entire romance. A shame the other male romances (Valygar, Haer'Dalis) were cut. Although the Viconia romance can also be said to be rather unhealthy, Anomen always seemed rather uncomfortably 'real' and IMO he certainly shouldn't have been the only option for female characters.


Although I didn't always like the idea of exclusively 'player-sexual' romance options, experience has taught me that if they aren't treated that way, they always end up skewing heavily. Queer romance options, options for female characters invariably get lesser priority-they are the ones that get cut, or get less work put into them.

I do wish that it extended a bit more to the writing though? All of the party members bar Asterion are written as being solely interested in the opposite sex everywhere except where you romance them, where the player character's gender isn't really mentioned at all.

I kinda feel like the player's gender and perhaps choice of race should impact the romance scenes and dialogue a little more than it does. Shadowheart and Minthara get over the player being a elf or gith really fast. Wyll and Gale talk about the women in their lives a *lot*.

haven't played bg 1 or 2 but it checks out

the medium is rapidly evolving, if bioware ( which is one of the main reference in the vast-character-pool / limited-party / romance-when-not-fighting genre ) is of any indication, they started with three possible romance in mass effect 1 ( space racist girl for guys, space nerd guy for girls, genderless space squid for everyone ) and added more options in the next games, with various degrees of success...
the way they did it, with characters having their own preferences is interesting for fleshing out the characters and, if you play the custom character straight with a self insert, you might even never notice the others aren't interested since neither are you...
I guess, the problem might be if you like a character which is defined as not interested, as much as it is realistic, it's a bit sad... maybe, there is the idea of character interpretation but this is another story

seeing wyll hit on laezel, then shadowheart while my (female) character stands just next to them was almost vexing... until shadowheart destroyed him and then, I was almost sorry for him. almost.
I mean, I wouldn't have tried him, his oath-of-glory-paladin act is rather annoying but, for all those years playing a female character, I rarely notice a difference in the way my character is perceived... and I don't know what to think about it. ( maybe that's a question for another topic ) the companions reacting a bit more to our race and gender might be interesting ( I would also like to be able to comment on the banter but asking for user input would kill the dynamic... )

back to the subject, it indeed kind of make no sense for some companions to be down to anything but I won't judge. on the other hand, I wouldn't say no to more female companion, at least one or two more, just to have a full party. ( maybe the bard in the druid grove ? )

I disagree with the OP. It is better that the game doesn't make a big deal of it. There doesn't need to be some pronouncement of "I'M GAY!" just like there doesn't need to be any statement towards a member of the same gender saying "I'M STRAIGHT". It is simple enough that you can politely decline or accept any and all advancements from NPCs that aren't welcomed. It doesn't feel contrived or fake, it feels sincere because it truly doesn't matter. If you make the right choices in game, an NPC will be interested in you, or not, your choice. Any microscope on their sexual preference is a waste of time and cry for attention. Maybe in Forgotten Realms they have gotten over the need to label themselves. We could only be so lucky.

+1

I think that's giving fantasy short shrift if you don't think it can handle issues of politics, race, sex and gender.

It's disingenuous to say the reason for playersexual characters isn't about anything other than not having to deal with this issue. It's not about storytelling, it's about how to not have to tell those stories. We have fantasy stories that do, and their characters are always going to feel more real to me.

Why is it that it's only ever 'bringing politics into the hobby' when it's queer stuff and never straight stuff?

Somehow people forget that the original series already had multiple queer party members in it. It's true that the player character had pretty few avenues to express that (some male drow slaves in the underdark and a succubus in Watcher's Keep are the only ones that come to mind off the top of my head)

It's not always been terribly visible or well-executed, but queerness isn't something new to the Forgotten Realms, either in video games or in a general sense.

You might note that his original quote says:

"it doesn't care about straights"

I would also complain if a conversation along the lines of...

"We have an evil tadpole in our head trying to murder us."
"You know what that reminds me of, Wizard?"
"What is that?"
"Back when I was a young man in my village and I saw a girl. That is when I knew I was straight."
"Oh, really? That is so fascinating."
"I know... I know it is. EXTREMELY fascinating."
"It is so interesting, tell me more."
"Well let me make sure I am being polite. I identified as a man and she identified as a woman."
"Of course. Gender is a social construct, I am glad we could clear that up on our journey together."
"Well I started to look at the world around me and realize I was attracted to the ladies, you know? Because I am straight. Like super, duper straight."
"Yes, being straight IS really great."
"It is. It is so great."
"I know. I'm glad you know that I think it is great."
"I'm glad that I know that you know that I know that you know that I know it is great."

Who cares? If characters are attracted to one another then they can express it and act on it, like they already do.

Uhh, it’s a Dungeon-running-murder-hobo-thingy. To “handle” something it has to have something to say, beside appealing and selling to as wide of a market as possible. It seems it didn’t manage to appeal quite enough to OP.