Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback More reasonable romance options.

I'd love that as well. DAI had something like this when romancing the actual gay characters. Dorian and Sera. But unless a character is made gay, any bi (which is the case of Larian games), they'll just change the pronouns and gender in certain dialogues and it's done.

They could also make it more subtle like DA2, where Isabela was the only clearly bi romance, unlike the others who felt forced smh to be bi. And even being bi, she is more interested and protective of Female Hawke, while with Male Hawke she would have fewer problems in sharing or care in hurting his feelings, etc. All that in dialogues that can be found while romancing a character. Honestly, Larian could look at DA2 for the romance part, no need to copy them, but see how much more natural romances felt there.

I'm just talking about it, because it seems romance will play a big part in BG3, since already on ACT1 characters can have intimacy which in other games would usually only be available in the last acts or before the final battle, etc.

This is essentially my problem with having herosexual NPCs, as I said in another thread

The problem becomes especially fraught considering we could be playing every origin character with whatever sexuality we want, but they don't always act that way when not being piloted.

+1 to everything except the last paragraph. I think Daisy's meant to be creepy, and is clearly very successful at coming across that way. Are you team-Astarion where creepy surprise power is neato? Or are you team-Shaddowheart/Lae'zel where it's definitely creepy, wrong, and malignant?

I think it's clear that the Daisy scenes we have so far are the very, very tip of the iceberg for that plotline, and starting it out on an awkward footing adds nice texture the pacing of the story. It also has the side-benefit of grounding you to the reality of the 'pole if you're in all-sidequest mode.

To the original question - I was just making mention of the situation where a person's physical anatomy (whether they happen to own a penis or a vulva) is not a huge determining factor about whether they are of intimate interest to your character. I play several characters for whom it is 'a' factor, but of all of the various factors that are important enough to be considered, it is probably the least important. I play purely heterosexual or homosexual characters too, but most of the characters I play are bisexual to some degree, likely because that makes the most sense for my bisexual brain.

Tying which characters might or might not proposition you to the Daisy is, much like the Daisy itself, making an above-game statement that the only thing that ultimately matters in your intimate or sexual selection is appearance and genital set-up... which I find pretty annoying in base game, and do not want to see anything doubling down on it.

Saying that you can account for bisexual characters by having one or two available regardless of what 'actual' choice the player makes for their character... and that outside those pre-set one or two, you'll only be able to express interest in or share romance with the characters whose genitals match your daisy description is not in any way an acceptable answer here - it's doing bisexual characters an enormous disservice.

==

The Daisy itself is only creepy and off-putting, but considering that so many of your dialogue options there, as well as the literal narrator that forces feelings and emotions onto your character that you didn't put there, strongly implies that it's *intended* to carry at last some element of allure, temptation or endearment... It doesn't; it never does. I don't know this person - why are they touching me and acting like they're already my lover? Get the sod away from me. We can't actually Do that, though, because the game forces us to accept their advances and let them hugs us, hold us, stroke us and kiss us, without even offering a save out, even if we take the aggressive lines. Or worse - perhaps I'm Already emotionally invested in a love interest, and they are my confidant/lover/partner and I dream of them because we're apart right now, and I'm scared of what's happened, and I don't know when, or if, I'll see them again.... and this individual in my head is Clearly not them, and is just wearing their face and appearance? Even bigger sod off!

==

Some folks still have a basic misunderstanding of what having player-sexual characters means. It does NOT mean that everyone is bisexual, so, for those still sorting it out in your minds, get that idea out of your head. It means that each character has a personal intimate preference that is very much a thing and might be straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, aromantic or anything else.... but when you express interest in a character with intent to pursue them (before which, in a well designed game, you have no indication what their tastes might be), then it just so happens that in "This" iteration of the game universe that you are playing, that preference that they have and have always had, happens to be compatible with yours, or at least convincibly so.

Some like to say that having a character that can have different, flexible sexual preferences from one game to the next (often disregarding that they will be as fixed and adamant about those preferences as they would otherwise be within the world space of a single game), somehow undermines their character and destroys them... but that's honestly a farcical suggestion: I could have mentioned at the top of this post that I liked boys only, that I liked girls only, or that I only accepted intimate partners with at least six tentacles, and it would not have changed anything about what any of you thought to understand about my personality and character. Well, maybe that last one... but regardless... a properly built and displayed character is not undone by a flexibility in who they might choose to sleep with, unless who they choose to sleep with is some kind of integral lynch pin that defines their entire character... and if that's the case, they need to be scrapped and rewritten from the ground up anyway. It honestly comes off as pretty gross to suggest that who a person chooses to sleep with is so important and integral a part of who they are and their entire character that it being changable somehow undermines them as a person... No. No it doesn't.

Player-sexual characters exist as a means of giving players the opportunity to pursue and enjoy what they want to in the game, with non-infinite resources. The game designers cannot provide charters to represent every sexual preference multiplied by every sex, multiplied by every personality type, in the hopes of accommodating everyone - that isn't feasible. So, instead, they supply One individual matching the personality trope and style they're building, and allow their exact bedroom preference match whatever player actively signals that they want to pursue - at least in whatever way that character would otherwise allow.

==

All that said: Yes, there are a lot of examples that could be made of player-sexual characters that simply flip pronouns in dialogue and call it a day... and come off as treating you obviously like you are the sex and/or gender that the developers personally imagined them to be interested in when writing them.. and that's a fairly unsatisfying way of doing it... I know that the way I act towards other women that I'm intimate or romantic with is very different to the way I act towards men I'm romantic or intimate with; the relationship dynamics change, for dozens of smaller (sometimes larger) reasons... so it would be much nicer to see a rendition of this where, for example: we know that Gale is interested in pursuing women, because he has an existing past love interest. If we are a woman pursuing Gale, his romantic interactions should flow naturally in a certain way... but if we are a male pursuing him, there will be other considerations and conversations, different conversations that we use to build and define our relationship, and different insights... and we should get to see and explore those.

==

Sozz brings up a very good point that I haven't seen much addressed in the normal flow of these conversations: The design of this game allows and even encourages us to control the whole party, and play as each of them at various times, including in conversations. This stands a very big risk of creating consistency collisions and other immersion breaks when they continue acting along their pre-set ways when not under our control, but can suddenly decide to do something complete opposite of that because we took brain control of them for a conversation... On the whole I think controlling anyone but your main character in conversations is a flawed move, which stands to create more problems than it offers opportunities.

++ your entire comment, but double ++ to this part in particular. Writing this stuff is hard enough, and creating mechanics that add this kind of complexity is - at a minimum - fraught with pitfalls

This next bit might be a little stream-of-consciousness, but I think it's got a good shot of speaking to the topic ...

What I like about crpgs is that they create a defined world with defined rules. Full love and respect to people that hate metagaming, but I'm not like that. I love metagaming. I love using a clear, defined, and established ruleset to optimize for the world I want to participate in (and to try variations). Real life is sufficiently a motherfucker as it is; I want my recreation to feel like I'm accomplishing something, and if that means groking the rules and how to exploit them without fucking up the story, all the better.

For companion romance, playersexual npcs are ideal in that regard - you can build the world you want and incorporate them or not as you choose. Maybe a minority of available companions have anatomic or chrotosomic preferences, but that's just for texture.

I liked the way PoE2 handled this, where there were I think 6 available companions, two aren't interested, and I think only 1 or 2 cared about the contents of your drawers. The mechanic was a combination of sharing similar values (in a much clearer way than "approval" here) plus as someone else mentioned above, relevant dialog options to clarify intent.

And even that is just tip of the Iceberg ...
Once you start concidering other stuff that moderators dont like us to mention it feels weirder and weirder ...

For example, if Karlach indeed get that Halsin-Like big-body, that was datamined ... and still being into my Gnome. :-/
Awkward. :-/
(And dont even let me begin with other options ... Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, Warforged ...)
Sooner or later you find out that your group is totally able to hump litteraly anything. :-/

Disagree here ...
Alcohol, adrenalin, endorfins, and other stuff for sure ... it just feels understandable to me that after such battle our characters would feel the urge to appreciate each other pressence (in they own way ofc.).
What i personaly concider sad is the fact that before the night there is no indication of romantic interests ... and after that night, nobody seem to wish for repeat (dont get me wrong here, i dont need to see sex scene with every long rest ... but i would certainly appreciate if our characters being together a little more officialy ... they could at least lay at same mat. ).

I believe this was right decision ...
It allways seemed almost like a joke, as some characters in certain games are teasing each other with how much they want to bang ... yet they are saving it until the last moment. I mean, come on!
I know that cap. Sheppard is on suicide mission, i get that they wanted some intimacy before that, bcs after they may not even get the chance ... but lets be honest here, every single combat encounter could be as lethal as flying through Omega Relay and fighting whatever lays beyond. So it totally makes sence that our characters should express themself sooner than later. :P

@Ragna

You know that everyone doesn't become hot after drinking alcohol and that everyone doesn't have the same reactions towards the same situation, right ?
It's absolutely non sense that everyone just want to have sex. It's cool that some characters, as you said, after such events want to relax having sex... but not all of them.

I totally agree that romance should happen before AND after the victory.
But no one should forget that this is the beginning of the early access. If sex is the first "romantic" scene... What's gonna happen next ? Sex over and over again ? Wedding ? Buy a house and a dog ? Make children ?

Romance should be slowly developped through the game.
Private conversations is usually how romance (and sex) begins IMO.

Indeed ...
But Shadowheart dont want sex with you, she just want to have intime private moment.
We are talking here about "everyone" ... but in fact that "everyone" is just 4 characters ... i would dare to say its not so hard to find 4 random people who are more open minded to night-adventure after few drinks.

Also, concider their personalities ...
Wyll is spoiled brat (sory for anyone who likes him, but this is what i see) sure, he get few harsh lessons from the life, but basicaly ... he still is ... therefore it dont seem unreasonable to me that this person will get opourtunity for pleasure ...
Astarion is pure epicurean(?) ... there is no way in hells, or heaven that he would deny himself any opourtunity he gets to have "some fun" ... no matter how you define it at specific moment ...
Lae'zel seems to me like someone who sees your night spend together as a reward (for you?) ...
And Gale? Well, im not quite sure about him, he seem to me like lost puppy, he wants to move on, but dont seem quite sure if he even can ... but this carrot on a stick was too sweet for him to resist.

Taking that over and over, for 3/5 your night spend together is just sex ... especialy in Lae'zels case i would even not be surprised if she didnt even involve any feelings ... im not quite sure about Gale, but i would probably involve him too, but it seems to me like for him the moment could be deeper than the others ... and then we have Shadow, who dont want to sleep with you at all (yet).

Also dont forget that not all companions are implemented ... and if another 3(?) i believe i heared to be most likely number, would approach to this night simmilary to Shadow, we would get quite ballanced numbers.

My money would be for sex over and over again ...
Either that, or scene with actual sex will move to "later" part of game ...

I would like to remind you (presuming you played ofc.) Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins ... you can also sleep with her quite early in the game (actualy right in the start, thanks to that stupid present gifts system) ...
And it never ruined their romance, its natural, its nice and honestly i like it most from DA:O ...
Your party just adress you as couple, you can kiss her anytime you talk to her (i would like to see that option in BG-3 ... its especialy sweet when you have Leiliana in party), and yes you can f*ck her every time you talk to her in camp (scene is not there tho), sometimes she wants to, sometimes she tells you no (just for tease i would say) ...
But the point here is even tho you are acting like two rabbits, your relationship keep evolving ...

That is the thing ... i simply dont believe those two things exluding each other.

This very much.

I think it would be great if romance could be built up (in multiple encounters), just spending some intimate moments flirting, later maybe a kiss or two, and only at the end the "party".
(Obviously, this could be different per Origin Character.)

I was also thinking about what RagnarokCzD said.

And it made me think the best solution would be (just like in real life), if the Origin, and NPC characters would actually have preferences, and would only offer you the dialog (or accept your propsal) if you meet their preferences.

This would also add the immersion that you can't just get anyone you'd like. Just like in real life.

I really find it stupid, that all of the Origin characters are interested in both genders...
Most people are not, and even if I respect those who are, I personally feel this being forced on me.

Some people want the companions and other romanceable people to be available to the player. Personally I don't but there are many that do. That's why there are mods in some games to make that possible.

As far as we know, they aren't. Playersexual =/= Bisexual. This distinction generally gets explained, and subsequently ignored without being addressed or responded to, time and time again in these sorts of threads; it was explained once already here, if you'd like to read up a bit.

“ Also, concider their personalities ...
Wyll is spoiled brat (sory for anyone who likes him, but this is what i see) sure, he get few harsh lessons from the life, but basicaly ... he still is ... therefore it dont seem unreasonable to me that this person will get opourtunity for pleasure ...
Astarion is pure epicurean(?) ... there is no way in hells, or heaven that he would deny himself any opourtunity he gets to have "some fun" ... no matter how you define it at specific moment ...
Lae'zel seems to me like someone who sees your night spend together as a reward (for you?) ...
And Gale? Well, im not quite sure about him, he seem to me like lost puppy, he wants to move on, but dont seem quite sure if he even can ... but this carrot on a stick was too sweet for him to resist. laugh”


Great points Ragnarok. However, there are only *three* who ask u for sex unprovoked. Laezel, Asterion, and Wyll. You have to actively pursue Gale for him to do it.

Thus, only 3 of the 5 party members are horndogs. And it kinda makes sense given their personalities (as quoted above).

That would explain why i was unable to get something about him.
Also i never romanced Gale, so ... i was lacking the info.

Lets be honest with each other for a second ...
It dont seem to me as matter of sexuality, its just lazy design ... developers was either unable, or affraid (you surely agree that this can easily become hot topic ... and if you dont, check the others threats on this topic that was locked) to point out some restrictions for characters ... both in gender, and race matter ...

For one its coveniently easier to just let anything f**k anything, and leave people to decide what theyr heart (or different organ) desire ...
And for two, they would be moving on thin ice once any character would admit that he dont want to have anything to do with you "bcs you are *XY*" ... even tho it might seem perfectly logical to some of us, bcs people usualy do have prefferences ... there is certain group of people on internet that is actively (maybe too actively sometimes in my taste) searching for such "injustice" and then roast its originator to crisp. :-/

So answer is simple in my eyes ... its easier, its safer ...

I'm always honest with my words, Rag... It gets me in trouble sometimes.

It isn't a one-or-the-other matter. There is no feasible way that a decision was not deliberately made at some point, on how to handle this, and they chose to make all of the companions player-sexual, rather than giving them locks. There's always the possibility that "what's easier" was a part of the decision, but there is no potential scenario where it was the only deciding factor; this choice was deliberate.

The new pathfinder game, on the other hand, is continuing their own philosophy for this, and have all of their companions with completely locked in sexualities and preferences... and to be frank, it's one of the things that's turning me off checking it out just yet.

Now, if they opt to handle it in the completely lazy way, and just flip a few pronouns around (or with their writing avoid them altogether: I think there are a total of three, maybe four, places in the game currently where your character if referenced with a third person pronoun.), then we might guess that the ease of it was a bigger factor... but we have to at least hope, for now, that they'll take the better road on this matter, and tailor the variables to account for the difference more naturally.

I missed out on catching it, the first time, but apparently when there were more intimate scenes in place for Astarion in the first round, it lined up for human females, but they'd just flat swapped the male models into the same choreography (or rather, there was only one scene, and it was designed for a human female and no-one else), and it didn't line up at all and was terrible. As I said, I didn't catch it myself, so that's a second hand report... but one hopes it's not indicative of their approach, and that the removal of it pending refinement is a better sign.

Not to talk only about the visual choreography, of course - if anything this is more important for the writing than it is for anything else, but we have to look at what we have to work with... right now, the scenes don't change at all regardless of whether your character's has an innie or an outie, aside from the afformentioned pronoun flips. I would like to hope for more than this, eventually.

The fact is that the companions are also playable characters. How would you feel if when you decide to play Shadowheart, and she was straight so you will only be able to romance male characters, or Gale, let's say he was interested only in women, you would be forced to romance only them?

Because if they weren't playersexual, and were locked by their sexual choices, wouldn't make sense to remove it when playing as them and having the freedom that would be against their tastes, etc. This is in my opinion why they are made playersexual, because they are also playable characters. I prefer this way, and if you don't like X gender, don't go for it. I don't think it gets easier than this.

Me too ... i just sometimes dont say everyting out loud.

Oh i didnt mean it was the only deciding factor ... i just concider it to be major one.

But concidering rest of the post ...
We must admit that characters sexuality may still be a placeholder for some reason.
I MEAN ... the decision may not have been made yet. O_o

Honestly? It would feel okey to me ...
Im used to it from other games ... i was never able to romance Morigan as a Female, nor a Aleister as a Male, and my Dwarf-female in DA:I was sentenced for life in solitude, since she had no fiting partner present in game (Feel free to read as: I refused to let Iron Bull anywhere near her ).

It just feels right. O_o
If i decide to play *XY* character, i should count with that character is *XY*, no matter if i would like that for myself or not ... and if his, or hers options will not please my eye all i need to do is simply "choose to spend night allone", wich is certainly there ... so no problem for me.
If i would have option to play DA:I as Dorian ... and had option to have sex with Sera, i would concider it either bug, or massive immersion break. :-/

Simmilar that i really, honestly hope, with my whole hearth, that when Origin companions become playable, we would never be allowed to play Shadowheart as benevolent, friendly, allways willing to help, Githyanki-lover (and im not meaning it just sexualy right now) ...
Bcs that would completely ruin the character. :-/

I see your point, but that would simply make awful in terms of choices when paying any of those characters, even more than what I think it will be. Because like you said, this new Origin, unlike DOS2 in my opinion will have a lot of problems and limitations. I can't see any of the origin characters making sense if we got all dialogues options for them, which by it alone will limit them a lot. And if by that also limited their romantic choices. That would be awful. Maybe we get romantic interests outside our companions, and they will have the restrictions you want. On them, I would agree.

Now just imagine that Larian would listen to what we want ...
And allow us to play as a Goblin. :-/

What can i say except: Ugh.

If Larian listened to what some ppl want, they would have to abandon their plans and copy other games instead of trying their own ideas. And yeah, I keep seeing ppl wanting to play as Goblin, ugh.