Probably one of the worst moves Overhaul could possibly make at this point is to restrict an option that's already there. I can't think of many things with more PR-nightmare potential than removing content to fit a character into a perceived stereotype.
However, in the case of the Dorn "romance", nothing has really happened in BGee - just a couple of pretty ambiguous comments in dialogue, which aren't even readily identifiable as the beginning of a romance, and have so far done nothing except confuse numerous players who have posted threads on this forum asking where the romance is. So actually, this content isn't really "already there", it's merely been some stage-setting for content which won't occur until we get BG2ee. So at this stage, Overhaul could change what happens in BG2ee without changing anything in BGee.
I'm inclined to trust that the writers know the characters best and will see all new content through to a satisfactory conclusion with the story
The history of the BG series is all about writers and developers having fine ideas which would make a stunning game if implemented, but finance and marketing guys then putting their feet down and saying "we don't have the resources to do all that, just cut it short with the cheapest and quickest possible solution, because it's going on sale next week whether you've finished it or not".
This isn't just the history of BG, it's the history of most other games as well, because that's the way the software industry works. I have more faith in Overhaul than in most other development companies, but even so they (of course) have finance and marketing pressures like everyone else, and are therefore inevitably subject to pressure to cut corners whenever possible.
Although it would also be awesome if they expanded the options in BG2EE as well (which is why I'm eagerly awaiting news on any possible new characters for the sequel)
On this, we agree.
So far, however, they've said that Dorn + Neera + Rasaad will continue, plus there'll be one (and only one) additional NPC whom we haven't yet met (and the hints are that it'll probably be Evil and probably be a Thief, although that's not explicitly confirmed).
Perhaps you may agree with me that this isn't very satisfactory, and share my hope that Overhaul will manage to find time and money to develop a few more NPCs than their current plan.
@Gallowglass I see, your problem is not so much the Dorn romance itself, but that it's the only option for a non-straight romance. I agree that that's a problem, but I don't think the solution is introducing restrictions into Dorn's romance. I have to agree with @Sylph that the better solution would be creating additional romances that fill that gap. Even though there hasn't really been much romance content yet, it's long been announced that Dorn will romance anyone, and I'm guessing at this point there are many people who have played through BGEE with the intent of having their character romance Dorn in BG2EE, who would be annoyed if suddenly they were declared ineligible.
(On the subject of the software industry forcing out games before they're ready: the opposite happens too. Those games turn to vaporware more often than not [see: Starcraft: Ghost] so they don't get much attention, but we've had some spectacular failures of games that were horrendously delayed and then bombed because there was no one willing to put their foot down and say "Okay, we have to actually finish this game." I'm thinking Daikatana and Duke Nukem: Forever here.)
@Gallowglass I see, your problem is not so much the Dorn romance itself, but that it's the only option for a non-straight romance.
It's not so much that he's the only option for same-sex romance (although that's part of the problem), but more that he's the only option for various entire species regardless of orientation or alignment or anything else; the latter seems to me a much bigger issue. It's too broad a brief for any single character to be able to fill in a plausible way, and especially so for an extreme character like Dorn; he's a daft choice for this role.
I'm guessing at this point there are many people who have played through BGEE with the intent of having their character romance Dorn in BG2EE, who would be annoyed if suddenly they were declared ineligible.
I see your point, but I don't think it's an insuperable difficulty.
1) If Overhaul say "We've had a better idea, so some of you will still be able to romance Dorn in the next installment, but don't worry, the rest of you will have a more plausible option instead", then I reckon that'd be widely acceptable.
2) I'm not convinced that very many players will have played through with the specific intention of romancing Dorn in the sequel. Some of course, but I'm sure most players have no rigid plan for a romance in the sequel, and even among those who do have a definite plan, most will have some other plan than Dorn.
3) I suspect that most of those players who have already played through with the specific intention of romancing Dorn in the sequel will have deliberately played a character who is reasonably plausible in a romance with Dorn, like another half-orc or an Evil human. Because if you seriously plan ahead to romance Dorn, then you'll want to roleplay something you can readily believe, so very few people indeed will have played (say) a Lawful Good Gnome Priest of Lathander with the specific intention of romancing Dorn. (Sure, somebody somewhere will have done exactly this for a laugh ... but if you're simply playing for a laugh at the absurdity of such a character romancing Dorn, then you won't have much ground for complaint when the absurdity is fixed.)
Hence I reckon the number of people seriously upset by Overhaul making a change now, before the sequel comes out, will actually be very small.
On the subject of the software industry forcing out games before they're ready: the opposite happens too.
Fair point. I think that's pretty unusual, but yes, it can (and does) happen that way round too. In both cases the underlying cause is the same: the resource requirements of software development are exceptionally difficult to predict accurately, so it's an inherently difficult process to manage effectively.
It makes no sense to limit Dorn's romance options. The issue is that Dorn is attracted to power, and as a Bhaalspawn he finds you attractive. Limiting who Dorn can romance makes no sense, because that would limit Dorn's own personal preference.
Also, what you state about orientation and alignment is not particularly accurate, since all races can romance Rasaad and Neera provided they are Female and Good (in the former) or Male and whatever alignment they wish (in the latter). Neither of these options have any kind of race restrictions on them, only alignment and gender options. It is true that Dorn is the only available option if one wishes to play a *gay male* Bhaalspawn, but this is the only situation in which Dorn is your only option. Lesbian Bhaalspawns meanwhile, have no option whatsoever. I believe they are planning on fixing that in BG2:EE.
On one hand, I agree that there is probably a very limited number of people who would complain if Dorn's romance was restricted to "neutral or evil, human or half orc" for the reasons @Gallowglass lists. People either already have a charname who fits those criteria, or they have a charname who is intentionally the least believable combination, precisely to underline the absurdity. (Like I already plan an absurd charname to try out the Anomen romance...)
On the other hand, limiting things that are already there and announced is never a good thing. Even if you never ever give your paladin charname clubs, you would feel something was taken from you if there was suddenly a restriction "paladins can't use clubs anymore". It wouldn't have any effect, ever, on the way you play your bow using ranger, but you'd still not go all "was about time someone took the damn clubs from the paladins!" The effect such a change has is more "hmm, I never thought about giving a paladin clubs, but now that you mention it... THIS COULD BE AWESOME! WHY WON'T YOU LET ME TRY IT?!"
I do hope that BG2 makes Neera an additional option for lesbian charnames, and not the rumored evil female thief. It would be hard to argue against "gay = evil" if both same sex options were evil NPCs, and open the whole can of worms about rep management, the polls showing that a majority plays good aligned charnames/parties and so on.
I think it's highly likely that the lesbian option will be the much-rumoured EFT, which, yeah, opens the whole 'gay=evil' can of worms. Dragon Age: Origins had the whole 'gay=foreigner' thing going on, which wasn't quite as bad, but still kinda problematic.
Ugh. I hope they don't seriously go there. NPCs that go "both ways" in terms of romance should also go "both ways" in terms of alignment - neutral, to be available to every kind of party and avoid unfortunate implications like that. I think TV Tropes already lists Viconia as "sex is evil" because she's the only romance that will break if you do NOT sleep with her. Give the evil NPCs a break and not stack all stereotypes on them.
It would be hard to argue against "gay = evil" if both same sex options were evil NPCs
Maybe this discussion is pointing up that it has opened a whole can of worms ever to have included romance options in these games at all, it might have been a strategic blunder.
Various religions teach something like "gay = evil", and many people hold such opinions even if not for religious reasons. From a commercial standpoint, how should a software company deal with this reality?
On the one hand, a company can climb the barricades and aggressively reject such opinions by overtly and prominently including favourable gay content, but that always risks alienating potential customers who disagree and generating hostility from religious authorities and (in some countries) official censors, and even risks being pigeon-holed as "that gay software company which makes gay games for gay people". This is unlikely to be a wise commercial choice (unless it deliberately intends to specialise in the gay niche market), and investors would therefore be harder to find.
On the other hand, a company can avoid any problems by producing nothing with any orientation-relevant content, so that the issue never arises. This is usually going to be the safest bet commercially, it offends no-one. However, it does nothing to make a game stand out from the competition, so it's pretty unadventurous.
On a foot (I've run out of hands), a company can include romantic content because it's different and original when other companies are avoiding the issue, but stick strictly to the majority orientation to avoid alienating people (both players and investors) who aren't comfortable about including other preferences. This is what Bioware did with the original BG2, and it worked well at the time because the inclusion of any romance at all was sufficiently unusual that there was no immediate clamour to include minority tastes as well. However, when additional content is later promised, then of course some players want other preferences included.
On the other foot, a company can include some gay content to appeal to those who want it, yet at the same time try to avoid getting on the wrong side of those who don't like it, by quietly placing all gay content in an unfavourable context, but then try to avoid commenting on this decision so as not to offend many of the same people who wanted gay content in the first place. This is where Overhaul appear to stand so far, although (of course) they haven't said whether this is by accident or design. Investors might buy this plan (and that matters commercially!), but it's a very difficult balancing act to get away with, because players are not all mugs and will notice what's been done, so those players who want gay content are likely to get upset before very long.
I don't see this as a very satisfactory range of choices for a company, but I'm not sure there are others. There's no way around the plain fact that sexual orientation is a divisive issue on which people have sharply different and completely irreconcilable views, so whatever decisions are taken there will always be some who get upset. Upsetting a lot of potential customers is a death sentence for a company in a competitive market, so a company in this type of situation has to think carefully.
By the way, before some narrow-minded gay-advocacy fanatic butts in to say "Gay is good and we demand that the game affirms that gay is good, the social conservatives and religious believers and prejudiced bigots can all just f*** off!", the problem is that lots of those people might indeed just f*** off if too provoked, which might be a lot of potential customers going down the pan (perhaps in some countries more than others). Commercial game design needs a more mature attitude than simplistic sloganising.
Various religions teach something like "strong women = evil", and many people hold such opinions even if not for religious reasons. From a commercial standpoint, how should a software company deal with this reality?
On the one hand, a company can climb the barricades and aggressively reject such opinions by overtly and prominently including favourable strong women, but that always risks alienating potential customers who disagree and generating hostility from religious authorities and (in some countries) official censors, and even risks being pigeon-holed as "that chick software company which makes chick games for chick people". This is unlikely to be a wise commercial choice (unless it deliberately intends to specialise in the chick market), and investors would therefore be harder to find.
On the other hand, a company can avoid any problems by producing nothing with any women, so that the issue never arises. This is usually going to be the safest bet commercially, it offends no-one. However, it does nothing to make a game stand out from the competition, so it's pretty unadventurous.
On a foot (I've run out of hands), a company can include strong women because it's different and original when other companies are avoiding the issue, but stick strictly to chauvinism to avoid alienating people (both players and investors) who aren't comfortable about including strong women. However, when additional content is later promised, then of course some players want other preferences included.
On the other foot, a company can include some strong women to appeal to those who want it, yet at the same time try to avoid getting on the wrong side of those who don't like it, by quietly placing all strong women in an unfavourable context, but then try to avoid commenting on this decision so as not to offend many of the same people who wanted strong women in the first place. Investors might buy this plan (and that matters commercially!), but it's a very difficult balancing act to get away with, because players are not all mugs and will notice what's been done, so those players who want strong women are likely to get upset before very long.
I don't see this as a very satisfactory range of choices for a company, but I'm not sure there are others. There's no way around the plain fact that strong women a divisive issue on which people have sharply different and completely irreconcilable views, so whatever decisions are taken there will always be some who get upset. Upsetting a lot of potential customers is a death sentence for a company in a competitive market, so a company in this type of situation has to think carefully.
By the way, before some narrow-minded feminist fanatic butts in to say "Strong women iare good and we demand that the game affirms that strong women are good, the social conservatives and religious believers and prejudiced bigots can all just f*** off!", the problem is that lots of those people might indeed just f*** off if too provoked, which might be a lot of potential customers going down the pan (perhaps in some countries more than others). Commercial game design needs a more mature attitude than simplistic sloganising.
Making a gay option neutral is a... wait for it, neutral position. It neither says "gay = evil" nor "gay = good". It merely acknowledges "gay exists" and leaves it to the player what to make of it. So this would be the least offensive option, while at the same time satisfying the most customers. Neutral alignment is flying under the radar in all areas anyway. How many TRULY neutral NPCs are there? Very few, if you'd poll it, most would be seen as a "better fit" for good (i.e. Jaheira) or evil (i.e. Faldorn). There is no ending for neutral charnames. There are only very few items restricted to neutral alignment (counting non-druid specific items; there are mainly restrictions to either good - Drizzt's scimitar - or evil - Neb's dagger).
Therefore I reckon it'd make much more sense if Dorn were restricted to certain believable types of romantic partner (as are all other romance-able NPCs), and some other option(s) is/are created for those left out.
See, there's another way to look at this: I remember, quite clearly, the moment it was revealed that Dorn was the same-sex romance. Up until that point, everyone had assumed it would be Neera, because of course the female elf mage would also be up for girl-on-girl (cue the teenage boys guffawing like Beavis and Butthead). Then someone on these very forums announced that it was Dorn, and my first thought was "Whoa. Now there's something I've never seen before." An evil half-orc blackguard is bisexual and it's not A Big Deal? Never even heard of anything like that in D&D fiction. So if that's the route Beamdog wants to take for this particular game, more power to them. It's more than Original BG had, and it's something that just isn't done (because on the rare occasion that D&D narratives bother with the "monster's" perspective, they tend to be uniformly heterosexual or asexual anyway unless it's the freaking drow).
2) I'm not convinced that very many players will have played through with the specific intention of romancing Dorn in the sequel. Some of course, but I'm sure most players have no rigid plan for a romance in the sequel, and even among those who do have a definite plan, most will have some other plan than Dorn.
What are you basing this assumption on? Most BG fans I've spoken to tend to plan their PC's storyline throughout the entire trilogy before they even roll the dice - that's why these forums were alight with speculation when the dev team first mentioned that the three NPCs would be romance options.
Various religions teach something like "gay = evil", and many people hold such opinions even if not for religious reasons. From a commercial standpoint, how should a software company deal with this reality?
By recognizing (correctly) that such people are not likely to be gamers anyway and their opinions are therefore irrelevant. I mean, I seriously doubt the kids from the Westboro Baptist Church have a PS3, you know?
Various religions teach something like "strong women = evil" ...
Hilarious parody, I'll give you a Like for that.
Seriously, however, it may be a better analogy than perhaps you intend. The problem of potential customers believing "strong women = evil" is true in some places, such as the sorts of places where women are denied education and forced to wear masks, etc.
Fortunately for game companies, such places are not major markets for video games, so it's not a big commercial issue for games to ignore such attitudes. And even in those places where there's a widespread disapproval of strong women, the same places often have even harsher attitudes to gays.
By contrast, in other lines of business, where companies want to be successful in those places, they do need to be sensitive about not offending their cultural norms if they want to succeed.
On the other hand, the number of potential customers who aren't comfortable with gay material is much larger and clearly exists in many places which are major game markets, not just minor backwaters. Thus it's a much more serious commercial consideration.
I think you overestimate the homophobia of the gamer market. Mass Effect 3 depicted several same-gender romances in a positive fashion, and despite (or maybe because of?) that and all the controversy with the ending, grossed over $200 million in its first two months and has sold millions of units.
I just want a character I feel is believable and complete in and of themselves. I don't want a romance written where the character is either shaped by the PC to fit with the PC or is just a vessel for reflecting admiration for the PC - regardless of what the PC is like, what the PC does or what the PC stands for.
This applies to all three of the new NPCs but most of all to the bi-sexual PC since those are often written in insultingly simplistic fashion where the romance for the PC is just a matter of inserting PC's name and using the same lines of dialogue with different gender pronouns as applicable.
It is a matter of character development and writing - not sexual orientation.
If this was a sports game, let's say FIFA Soccer or NBA or something... the audience may be as @Gallowglass describes. Pro sports simply still have a stigma on gay people and several (retired) players have stated they didn't come out in their active time because of likely fan reactions. (I know absolutely nothing about US sports, so I have no idea how relevant/famous these people are.) However, fantasy games appeal to a nerdier audience - pretty much the opposite of sports games, to speak in stereotypes. That's the same audience that bought Mass Effect and Dragon Age with their same sex options. So yeah, overestimation.
Making a gay option neutral is a... wait for it, neutral position. It neither says "gay = evil" nor "gay = good". It merely acknowledges "gay exists" and leaves it to the player what to make of it. So this would be the least offensive option, while at the same time satisfying the most customers.
Personally, I'm very happy for games to acknowledge that "gay exists" and leave it to individual players to respond as they choose, so I reckon we agree about how the world ought to be.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world actually is. For many of those who believe "gay = evil" or have some equivalent opinion, promoting the assumption that "gay = neutral" is likely to be seen as promoting (what they regard as) evil, and people often get upset at that sort of thing. So I don't think it solves the commercial problem of trying not to offend potential customers.
... such people are not likely to be gamers anyway and their opinions are therefore irrelevant.
On the contrary, I think lots of such people are gamers. Maybe not quite so large a proportion are gamers as in the population as a whole, but nevertheless there are millions of ordinary families in ordinary churches (and mosques and synagogues and whatever) who adhere to traditional teachings which are gay-unfriendly, and there are millions more people who are uncomfortable with gay material for sundry other reasons of their own, and there are millions more who are just plain bigots, and so on. Globally, it probably adds up to billions of people.
There must be a huge number of gamers in that population segment, i.e. one heck of a lot of potential customers, and they can (and probably will) very easily choose some other game if they don't feel comfortable with this game. You may not like the beliefs and attitudes of those people, and I may not agree with them either, but their money is the same colour as anyone else's.
As individuals we might refuse their money if we disapprove of them strongly enough, but a business in a competitive market doesn't survive if it drives away customers, and that's why the inclusion of romance options has left Overhaul with a rather awkward issue to consider.
I mean, I seriously doubt the kids from the Westboro Baptist Church have a PS3, you know?
I guess probably not, but that's a tiny sect of wacky extremists. If they were the only people who were uncomfortable with gay material, then of course they could just be ignored (as usual).
If this was a sports game, let's say FIFA Soccer or NBA or something... the audience may be as @Gallowglass describes. Pro sports simply still have a stigma on gay people and several (retired) players have stated they didn't come out in their active time because of likely fan reactions. (I know absolutely nothing about US sports, so I have no idea how relevant/famous these people are.) However, fantasy games appeal to a nerdier audience - pretty much the opposite of sports games, to speak in stereotypes. That's the same audience that bought Mass Effect and Dragon Age with their same sex options. So yeah, overestimation.
Let's not get too high brow for the audience, though. This is an audience that still clamors for bikini armor so it isn't above some of the old stereotyping either.
I agree that there is an appetite for a well written same sex or bisexual romance - but it isn't without some commercial risk due to the subject matter.
I just want a character I feel is believable and complete in and of themselves. I don't want a romance written where the character is either shaped by the PC to fit with the PC or is just a vessel for reflecting admiration for the PC - regardless of what the PC is like, what the PC does or what the PC stands for.
This applies to all three of the new NPCs but most of all to the bi-sexual PC since those are often written in insultingly simplistic fashion where the romance for the PC is just a matter of inserting PC's name and using the same lines of dialogue with different gender pronouns as applicable.
It is a matter of character development and writing - not sexual orientation.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, when romance options were introduced in the original BG2, I found the writing standard very patchy: some dialogues seemed fairly credible, but others were cringe-inducing. Overall, I reckon the romance options were a rather weak aspect of BG2, it might have been more convincing and immersive without the romances (even at the cost of being less original and different).
Being a good fantasy writer does not automatically make someone a good romance writer, it's not quite the same skillset. Some writers can do both very convincingly, but most are better sticking to what they know.
I just want a character I feel is believable and complete in and of themselves. I don't want a romance written where the character is either shaped by the PC to fit with the PC or is just a vessel for reflecting admiration for the PC - regardless of what the PC is like, what the PC does or what the PC stands for.
Except that, as @Kaigen pointed out, the onus is on the player, not the NPC. Let's not forget that romances aren't compulsory in RPGs; in most BioWare games, the mechanism requires that the player deliberately trigger lines that are clearly flirtatious or romantic in nature. If you're expressing those feelings towards a particular party member, it stands to reason you're doing so because that's the romance most suited to your particular PC.
What you seem to be asking for is a mechanism in which the player can pursue a character only to be rejected due to incompatible personalities or somesuch... but from a practical standpoint, that just doesn't work because it shifts the power of choice to characters the player does not directly control.
On the contrary, I think lots of such people are gamers.
Again I ask: what are you basing that assumption on? Because it seems more reasonable to me that families who subscribe to "traditional teachings" tend to take a dim view towards depictions of violence in the media as well, and would probably view all video games as "murder indoctrinators". These would be the same idiots who went on Fox News and declared "Mass Effect" to be an alien sex simulator despite never actually playing the game. Are these the people Beamdog should be trying to placate?
It's not like the entire world and the "billions of average joe homophobes" are the target audience though. The people who would seriously not buy a game because of a same sex romance option - that they could as well ignore - are, on average, older people who aren't overly interested in computer games. The younger generation of both gamers and believers is more tolerant than you give them credit for. For example, there are LGTB friendly churches and religious organisations, even in the US. Note - I am in Europe, and I'm aware that there is a huge difference to the US when it comes to religion and opinions based on it. It's very possible the views on same sex relationships are very very different, but where I am, it's really not such a big deal (and legal to marry in my country and, as far as I know, almost all bordering countries, too).
Anyway, in BG, it's really easy to ignore romance options. I ignore all of them, because they seem to be cheesy, lead to undesirable results (redemption - not a good thing if I want an evil party) and generally don't work with my idea of a fantasy game. I wanna kill dragons, not talk about my feelings. They also seem unrealistic and out of place to me because they exist and friendships do not. When I meet people, chances I become friends with them are way higher than starting a romance - it's not realistic to me that there isn't a single friendship path (unmodded), yet such a large number of love interests.
The game doesn't force anyone to play a romance at all; the story works perfectly fine if you ignore that option. The game is in no way advertised as "romantic simulation" or however they call those dating games. I simply can't see it become such a big deal - and commercial risk - to take the "gay = neutral/make of it what you want" stance. It would be one of many optional side quests, not openly supporting or dooming anything because... who really cares about one of many optional side quests when considering wether to buy a game or not?
@KidCarnival: While I disagree with your position on the "value" of romance in fantasy games - if Jaheira and Khalid can have it, or Drizzt and Catti-brie, or any canon D&D couple, it stands to reason that the PC of a D&D-based game should be able to participate in that kind of story as well - I completely agree that participation is entirely dependent on whether they choose to do so. There were a few homophobes in this forum who were acting mortally offended when the same-sex romance was announced, to which I said: "Well, if you don't want a gay romance in your game, don't romance the gay character." It really is that simple.
... someone on these very forums announced that it was Dorn, and my first thought was "Whoa. Now there's something I've never seen before." ... Never even heard of anything like that in D&D fiction ... it's something that just isn't done
A surprising and original idea is not necessarily the same thing as a good idea. Other people may have thought of it many times before, but all rejected it because they decided it was a daft idea.
However, I actually reckon that Dorn as a bisexual romance option could be made fairly credible with some decent writing. Dorn being a romance option for gnomes (and so forth) is the part which I reckon is daft.
Most BG fans I've spoken to tend to plan their PC's storyline throughout the entire trilogy before they even roll the dice - that's why these forums were alight with speculation when the dev team first mentioned that the three NPCs would be romance options.
Participants on this forum are mostly the hard core of dedicated fans, especially back when that announcement was made and new players hadn't yet got involved. That's not remotely a representative sample of the mass of players!
It's possible for an experienced player to plan their character's story through the trilogy, and indeed I sometimes do that myself (although not always). Nevertheless, plans made in advance often change as a character develops and takes on "a life of its own", that interaction with your character is part of the fun of the game.
Less experienced players probably don't start with much of a plan in mind. They probably can't, in fact, since they probably don't know the game well enough to have a clear idea of what they'll do and when they'll do it.
A surprising and original idea is not necessarily the same thing as a good idea. Other people may have thought of it many times before, but all rejected it because they decided it was a daft idea.
Nope. The fantasy genre in general and D&D in particular are slow to adapt to changing social mores - it's taken them this long to realize that female characters might be able to do more than pose in metal bikinis or hang off the male hero's arm. Beamdog's ahead of the curve on this one.
However, I actually reckon that Dorn as a bisexual romance option could be made fairly credible with some decent writing. Dorn being a romance option for gnomes (and so forth) is the part which I reckon is daft.
Except that your PC does not represent all gnomes. Dorn won't flirt with Tiax or Jan - he's attracted to you specifically, possibly in spite of your PC's race, because of the power you could potentially wield.
Participants on this forum are mostly the hard core of dedicated fans, especially back when that announcement was made and new players hadn't yet got involved. That's not remotely a representative sample of the mass of players!
Perhaps you're right. Tell me, then, where's the representative data you're using? Because you've made a lot of assertions that are as yet unsubstantiated...
@KidCarnival: While I disagree with your position on the "value" of romance in fantasy games - if Jaheira and Khalid can have it, or Drizzt and Catti-brie, or any canon D&D couple, it stands to reason that the PC of a D&D-based game should be able to participate in that kind of story as well - I completely agree that participation is entirely dependent on whether they choose to do so. There were a few homophobes in this forum who were acting mortally offended when the same-sex romance was announced, to which I said: "Well, if you don't want a gay romance in your game, don't romance the gay character." It really is that simple.
Most people disagree with me on the value of romance in general. I see no point in it in real life either, but I know it is an important part of life for most others. If I was generally interested in that kind of thing, I might also value it in roleplay, but it's not making any sense to me and therefore, I can't find a place for it in the story I play. I'm only speaking for myself when I say "ignore all romance options" - and as my postings may show, I'm all for more and better options for the players who are interested in romances.
There are "a few homophobes" everywhere - thing is, they are still there. They stick around despite the oh so offensive gay content because they still like the rest enough to overlook it. For example, take the audience of Spartacus Blood & Sand. The show has, from the beginning, featured gay characters and has, also from the beginning, had a lot "omg stop showing those fags" posters on the official and bigger non-official forums (i.e. IMDB). These people know there will be relatively graphic same sex content, yet they are watching the end of the fourth season, actively discuss it and know all the "oh so offensive" scenes from season 1 on. If it was so offensive to them, they would have stopped watching a long, long time ago. Yet there they are, still watching, still ranting - and still paying for premium pay TV that, according to most, has no other show that interests them (so I must assume they pay for "offensive gay content"). That's hardcore fans. They rant, they discuss, they hate, (they are usually less articulate or civil than we are here). But no matter how much they rant and hate, they also stick around and spend money on the very thing they claim to hate. Because the rest is good enough, and somewhere deep inside, they must realize that it's just a minor thing and not worth giving up something they otherwise enjoy. And in a MA rated TV series, it is much harder to overlook the parts one doesn't like because they aren't optional or triggered by the player.
In short - the few homophobes you find everywhere are a vocal minority and only a small fraction of them will really opt out. Most just rant to rant about something, and if it wasn't gay content, they'd complain about something else. It's not driving a large customer base away. (Sidenote: Spartacus is also the highest rating show Starz ever had, and it's likely not only the good writing - that went to hell in season 2, but the ratings are still constant. I'm not saying it's popular because of the gay content, but it's certainly not hurting the popularity either.)
On the contrary, I think lots of such people are gamers.
Again I ask: what are you basing that assumption on?
Observation and experience. I come into contact with a wide cross-section of people for real-life reasons, and I tend to notice if they're gamers because I'm a gamer myself. Age and marital/family situation make a lot of difference to who is or isn't a gamer, but religious and moral opinions don't seem to make a noticeable difference.
Because it seems more reasonable to me that families who subscribe to "traditional teachings" tend to take a dim view towards depictions of violence in the media as well ...
Yes, that's a pretty common topic of conversation.
These would be the same idiots who went on Fox News and declared "Mass Effect" to be an alien sex simulator despite never actually playing the game.
No, they wouldn't be those idiots at all.
I'm talking about a lot of ordinary family types living quietly but worrying about some things which they regard as "unhealthy influences", not a few extremist activists who go on TV to shout about stuff. People who don't believe that Mass Effect is actually an alien sex simulator, but who nevertheless might see that slot on Fox and conclude that Mass Effect probably contains material which would offend them and therefore decide to buy a different game instead or refuse to buy that game for their kids.
Are these the people Beamdog should be trying to placate?
If you mean just the few people shouting on Fox News, then no, obviously that's not enough people to worry about.
If you mean the broad mass of people who are somewhat concerned (for various reasons) about the type of content which appears in games and whose buying-decisions may well be affected by their concerns, then yes, that's a big market and Beamdog needs their money.
@Gallowglass Yes, but just because a potential buyer sees the inclusion of homosexual characters as a negative and would rather they were left out doesn't mean they consider said inclusion a dealbreaker.
Once again, I direct your attention to the Mass Effect series: After same gender romance was conspicuously absent from Mass Effect 2, people were annoyed and banded together on the internet to complain to Bioware about the lack of inclusion. And if you went into the comments section of any number of articles reporting on this or op-eds calling for the return of SGR to the series, you would find any number of people expressing negativity towards the idea; they expressed homophobic sentiments or thought it was stupid pandering or didn't want to see characters "changed" to be gay. Fast-forward to ME3, which featured multiple LGB characters, some of which could be romanced by the main character. And it made bank, which suggests that all of those complainers bought the game anyway or else their absence was made up for by new players attracted to this environment of inclusion.
And I have yet to hear anyone refer to Bioware as "that gay company that makes gay games for gay people."
That said, I'm not sure why you insist on arguing this point that including gay characters is "dangerous" when apparently you don't have any problem with Dorn being bisexual. Why not spend your time arguing that Gnomish love interests are dangerous because nobody likes Gnomes?
I just want a character I feel is believable and complete in and of themselves. I don't want a romance written where the character is either shaped by the PC to fit with the PC or is just a vessel for reflecting admiration for the PC - regardless of what the PC is like, what the PC does or what the PC stands for.
Except that, as @Kaigen pointed out, the onus is on the player, not the NPC. Let's not forget that romances aren't compulsory in RPGs; in most BioWare games, the mechanism requires that the player deliberately trigger lines that are clearly flirtatious or romantic in nature. If you're expressing those feelings towards a particular party member, it stands to reason you're doing so because that's the romance most suited to your particular PC.
What you seem to be asking for is a mechanism in which the player can pursue a character only to be rejected due to incompatible personalities or somesuch... but from a practical standpoint, that just doesn't work because it shifts the power of choice to characters the player does not directly control.
Isn't that how it works with the existing BG romances? I don't recall Viconia going after dwarves, elves, gnomes, etc. or Viconia accepting a romance with a character whose personality doesn't match (won't tolerate any cruelty or insults, focus on helping others and protecting the weak, wants to save himself for marriage, etc.).
I am saying affirmatively that I think characters are better done when they have some personality of their own independent of the dialogue choices of the PC. I think that includes having some standards for starting a romance and a threshold of compatibility where the romance either progresses or breaks depending on the dialogue.
For example, if the premise is that Dorn is so attracted to power that he will romance any race or alignment or charisma (at times in spite of those characteristics and therefore there are no standards for starting the romance) then at least embrace that premise and have him attracted to PCs who give dialogue choices about embracing power, etc. and turned off by the PC trying to distance him/herself from his/her powers, shelter the weak, etc. The PC should be given romance breaking dialogue options along the lines of "I just want to get rid of these powers and live a normal life!" or "Of course I don't want anything to do with Bhaal's legacy. There is no value in power when it brings nothing but death and pain to those around me." and lines about the Bhaal-taint that end in an embrace of power and a deepening of the romance ("I will be the Bhaalspawn that seizes my father's legacy and assumes the power that comes with it." or "I won't be ruled by my father's evil taint. I am my own man/woman, and I will not have anyone tell me what to do -- not even my dead father. I will become more powerful without that tainted part of me than even my father could foresee.") If it is the power that is the driver, then explore that power and give the PC options to deepen the romance or break it off if they aren't compatible.
There needs to be some narrative with Dorn where you can imagine how he would interact with the world and with others without the PC in it. So far so good for BG1 on that front, IMO.
If the Romance vesion of Dorn simply falls for the PC regardless of the characteristics, actions and dialogue choices by the PC (other than selecting flirts), etc. then that qualifies as a fail for me because Dorn is just a mirror of affection for the PC. The same goes for Neera and Rasaad. A romance should not be driven solely by the choices of the PC. That isn't how relationships work in real life and isn't a realized character for story-telling purposes.
Comments
However, in the case of the Dorn "romance", nothing has really happened in BGee - just a couple of pretty ambiguous comments in dialogue, which aren't even readily identifiable as the beginning of a romance, and have so far done nothing except confuse numerous players who have posted threads on this forum asking where the romance is. So actually, this content isn't really "already there", it's merely been some stage-setting for content which won't occur until we get BG2ee. So at this stage, Overhaul could change what happens in BG2ee without changing anything in BGee. The history of the BG series is all about writers and developers having fine ideas which would make a stunning game if implemented, but finance and marketing guys then putting their feet down and saying "we don't have the resources to do all that, just cut it short with the cheapest and quickest possible solution, because it's going on sale next week whether you've finished it or not".
This isn't just the history of BG, it's the history of most other games as well, because that's the way the software industry works. I have more faith in Overhaul than in most other development companies, but even so they (of course) have finance and marketing pressures like everyone else, and are therefore inevitably subject to pressure to cut corners whenever possible. On this, we agree.
So far, however, they've said that Dorn + Neera + Rasaad will continue, plus there'll be one (and only one) additional NPC whom we haven't yet met (and the hints are that it'll probably be Evil and probably be a Thief, although that's not explicitly confirmed).
Perhaps you may agree with me that this isn't very satisfactory, and share my hope that Overhaul will manage to find time and money to develop a few more NPCs than their current plan.
(On the subject of the software industry forcing out games before they're ready: the opposite happens too. Those games turn to vaporware more often than not [see: Starcraft: Ghost] so they don't get much attention, but we've had some spectacular failures of games that were horrendously delayed and then bombed because there was no one willing to put their foot down and say "Okay, we have to actually finish this game." I'm thinking Daikatana and Duke Nukem: Forever here.)
1) If Overhaul say "We've had a better idea, so some of you will still be able to romance Dorn in the next installment, but don't worry, the rest of you will have a more plausible option instead", then I reckon that'd be widely acceptable.
2) I'm not convinced that very many players will have played through with the specific intention of romancing Dorn in the sequel. Some of course, but I'm sure most players have no rigid plan for a romance in the sequel, and even among those who do have a definite plan, most will have some other plan than Dorn.
3) I suspect that most of those players who have already played through with the specific intention of romancing Dorn in the sequel will have deliberately played a character who is reasonably plausible in a romance with Dorn, like another half-orc or an Evil human. Because if you seriously plan ahead to romance Dorn, then you'll want to roleplay something you can readily believe, so very few people indeed will have played (say) a Lawful Good Gnome Priest of Lathander with the specific intention of romancing Dorn. (Sure, somebody somewhere will have done exactly this for a laugh ... but if you're simply playing for a laugh at the absurdity of such a character romancing Dorn, then you won't have much ground for complaint when the absurdity is fixed.)
Hence I reckon the number of people seriously upset by Overhaul making a change now, before the sequel comes out, will actually be very small. Fair point. I think that's pretty unusual, but yes, it can (and does) happen that way round too. In both cases the underlying cause is the same: the resource requirements of software development are exceptionally difficult to predict accurately, so it's an inherently difficult process to manage effectively.
Also, what you state about orientation and alignment is not particularly accurate, since all races can romance Rasaad and Neera provided they are Female and Good (in the former) or Male and whatever alignment they wish (in the latter). Neither of these options have any kind of race restrictions on them, only alignment and gender options. It is true that Dorn is the only available option if one wishes to play a *gay male* Bhaalspawn, but this is the only situation in which Dorn is your only option. Lesbian Bhaalspawns meanwhile, have no option whatsoever. I believe they are planning on fixing that in BG2:EE.
On the other hand, limiting things that are already there and announced is never a good thing. Even if you never ever give your paladin charname clubs, you would feel something was taken from you if there was suddenly a restriction "paladins can't use clubs anymore". It wouldn't have any effect, ever, on the way you play your bow using ranger, but you'd still not go all "was about time someone took the damn clubs from the paladins!" The effect such a change has is more "hmm, I never thought about giving a paladin clubs, but now that you mention it... THIS COULD BE AWESOME! WHY WON'T YOU LET ME TRY IT?!"
I do hope that BG2 makes Neera an additional option for lesbian charnames, and not the rumored evil female thief. It would be hard to argue against "gay = evil" if both same sex options were evil NPCs, and open the whole can of worms about rep management, the polls showing that a majority plays good aligned charnames/parties and so on.
Various religions teach something like "gay = evil", and many people hold such opinions even if not for religious reasons. From a commercial standpoint, how should a software company deal with this reality?
On the one hand, a company can climb the barricades and aggressively reject such opinions by overtly and prominently including favourable gay content, but that always risks alienating potential customers who disagree and generating hostility from religious authorities and (in some countries) official censors, and even risks being pigeon-holed as "that gay software company which makes gay games for gay people". This is unlikely to be a wise commercial choice (unless it deliberately intends to specialise in the gay niche market), and investors would therefore be harder to find.
On the other hand, a company can avoid any problems by producing nothing with any orientation-relevant content, so that the issue never arises. This is usually going to be the safest bet commercially, it offends no-one. However, it does nothing to make a game stand out from the competition, so it's pretty unadventurous.
On a foot (I've run out of hands), a company can include romantic content because it's different and original when other companies are avoiding the issue, but stick strictly to the majority orientation to avoid alienating people (both players and investors) who aren't comfortable about including other preferences. This is what Bioware did with the original BG2, and it worked well at the time because the inclusion of any romance at all was sufficiently unusual that there was no immediate clamour to include minority tastes as well. However, when additional content is later promised, then of course some players want other preferences included.
On the other foot, a company can include some gay content to appeal to those who want it, yet at the same time try to avoid getting on the wrong side of those who don't like it, by quietly placing all gay content in an unfavourable context, but then try to avoid commenting on this decision so as not to offend many of the same people who wanted gay content in the first place. This is where Overhaul appear to stand so far, although (of course) they haven't said whether this is by accident or design. Investors might buy this plan (and that matters commercially!), but it's a very difficult balancing act to get away with, because players are not all mugs and will notice what's been done, so those players who want gay content are likely to get upset before very long.
I don't see this as a very satisfactory range of choices for a company, but I'm not sure there are others. There's no way around the plain fact that sexual orientation is a divisive issue on which people have sharply different and completely irreconcilable views, so whatever decisions are taken there will always be some who get upset. Upsetting a lot of potential customers is a death sentence for a company in a competitive market, so a company in this type of situation has to think carefully.
By the way, before some narrow-minded gay-advocacy fanatic butts in to say "Gay is good and we demand that the game affirms that gay is good, the social conservatives and religious believers and prejudiced bigots can all just f*** off!", the problem is that lots of those people might indeed just f*** off if too provoked, which might be a lot of potential customers going down the pan (perhaps in some countries more than others). Commercial game design needs a more mature attitude than simplistic sloganising.
On the one hand, a company can climb the barricades and aggressively reject such opinions by overtly and prominently including favourable strong women, but that always risks alienating potential customers who disagree and generating hostility from religious authorities and (in some countries) official censors, and even risks being pigeon-holed as "that chick software company which makes chick games for chick people". This is unlikely to be a wise commercial choice (unless it deliberately intends to specialise in the chick market), and investors would therefore be harder to find.
On the other hand, a company can avoid any problems by producing nothing with any women, so that the issue never arises. This is usually going to be the safest bet commercially, it offends no-one. However, it does nothing to make a game stand out from the competition, so it's pretty unadventurous.
On a foot (I've run out of hands), a company can include strong women because it's different and original when other companies are avoiding the issue, but stick strictly to chauvinism to avoid alienating people (both players and investors) who aren't comfortable about including strong women. However, when additional content is later promised, then of course some players want other preferences included.
On the other foot, a company can include some strong women to appeal to those who want it, yet at the same time try to avoid getting on the wrong side of those who don't like it, by quietly placing all strong women in an unfavourable context, but then try to avoid commenting on this decision so as not to offend many of the same people who wanted strong women in the first place. Investors might buy this plan (and that matters commercially!), but it's a very difficult balancing act to get away with, because players are not all mugs and will notice what's been done, so those players who want strong women are likely to get upset before very long.
I don't see this as a very satisfactory range of choices for a company, but I'm not sure there are others. There's no way around the plain fact that strong women a divisive issue on which people have sharply different and completely irreconcilable views, so whatever decisions are taken there will always be some who get upset. Upsetting a lot of potential customers is a death sentence for a company in a competitive market, so a company in this type of situation has to think carefully.
By the way, before some narrow-minded feminist fanatic butts in to say "Strong women iare good and we demand that the game affirms that strong women are good, the social conservatives and religious believers and prejudiced bigots can all just f*** off!", the problem is that lots of those people might indeed just f*** off if too provoked, which might be a lot of potential customers going down the pan (perhaps in some countries more than others). Commercial game design needs a more mature attitude than simplistic sloganising.
Seriously, however, it may be a better analogy than perhaps you intend. The problem of potential customers believing "strong women = evil" is true in some places, such as the sorts of places where women are denied education and forced to wear masks, etc.
Fortunately for game companies, such places are not major markets for video games, so it's not a big commercial issue for games to ignore such attitudes. And even in those places where there's a widespread disapproval of strong women, the same places often have even harsher attitudes to gays.
By contrast, in other lines of business, where companies want to be successful in those places, they do need to be sensitive about not offending their cultural norms if they want to succeed.
On the other hand, the number of potential customers who aren't comfortable with gay material is much larger and clearly exists in many places which are major game markets, not just minor backwaters. Thus it's a much more serious commercial consideration.
This applies to all three of the new NPCs but most of all to the bi-sexual PC since those are often written in insultingly simplistic fashion where the romance for the PC is just a matter of inserting PC's name and using the same lines of dialogue with different gender pronouns as applicable.
It is a matter of character development and writing - not sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world actually is. For many of those who believe "gay = evil" or have some equivalent opinion, promoting the assumption that "gay = neutral" is likely to be seen as promoting (what they regard as) evil, and people often get upset at that sort of thing. So I don't think it solves the commercial problem of trying not to offend potential customers. On the contrary, I think lots of such people are gamers. Maybe not quite so large a proportion are gamers as in the population as a whole, but nevertheless there are millions of ordinary families in ordinary churches (and mosques and synagogues and whatever) who adhere to traditional teachings which are gay-unfriendly, and there are millions more people who are uncomfortable with gay material for sundry other reasons of their own, and there are millions more who are just plain bigots, and so on. Globally, it probably adds up to billions of people.
There must be a huge number of gamers in that population segment, i.e. one heck of a lot of potential customers, and they can (and probably will) very easily choose some other game if they don't feel comfortable with this game. You may not like the beliefs and attitudes of those people, and I may not agree with them either, but their money is the same colour as anyone else's.
As individuals we might refuse their money if we disapprove of them strongly enough, but a business in a competitive market doesn't survive if it drives away customers, and that's why the inclusion of romance options has left Overhaul with a rather awkward issue to consider. I guess probably not, but that's a tiny sect of wacky extremists. If they were the only people who were uncomfortable with gay material, then of course they could just be ignored (as usual).
I agree that there is an appetite for a well written same sex or bisexual romance - but it isn't without some commercial risk due to the subject matter.
Unfortunately, when romance options were introduced in the original BG2, I found the writing standard very patchy: some dialogues seemed fairly credible, but others were cringe-inducing. Overall, I reckon the romance options were a rather weak aspect of BG2, it might have been more convincing and immersive without the romances (even at the cost of being less original and different).
Being a good fantasy writer does not automatically make someone a good romance writer, it's not quite the same skillset. Some writers can do both very convincingly, but most are better sticking to what they know.
What you seem to be asking for is a mechanism in which the player can pursue a character only to be rejected due to incompatible personalities or somesuch... but from a practical standpoint, that just doesn't work because it shifts the power of choice to characters the player does not directly control.
Note - I am in Europe, and I'm aware that there is a huge difference to the US when it comes to religion and opinions based on it. It's very possible the views on same sex relationships are very very different, but where I am, it's really not such a big deal (and legal to marry in my country and, as far as I know, almost all bordering countries, too).
Anyway, in BG, it's really easy to ignore romance options. I ignore all of them, because they seem to be cheesy, lead to undesirable results (redemption - not a good thing if I want an evil party) and generally don't work with my idea of a fantasy game. I wanna kill dragons, not talk about my feelings. They also seem unrealistic and out of place to me because they exist and friendships do not. When I meet people, chances I become friends with them are way higher than starting a romance - it's not realistic to me that there isn't a single friendship path (unmodded), yet such a large number of love interests.
The game doesn't force anyone to play a romance at all; the story works perfectly fine if you ignore that option. The game is in no way advertised as "romantic simulation" or however they call those dating games. I simply can't see it become such a big deal - and commercial risk - to take the "gay = neutral/make of it what you want" stance. It would be one of many optional side quests, not openly supporting or dooming anything because... who really cares about one of many optional side quests when considering wether to buy a game or not?
However, I actually reckon that Dorn as a bisexual romance option could be made fairly credible with some decent writing. Dorn being a romance option for gnomes (and so forth) is the part which I reckon is daft. Participants on this forum are mostly the hard core of dedicated fans, especially back when that announcement was made and new players hadn't yet got involved. That's not remotely a representative sample of the mass of players!
It's possible for an experienced player to plan their character's story through the trilogy, and indeed I sometimes do that myself (although not always). Nevertheless, plans made in advance often change as a character develops and takes on "a life of its own", that interaction with your character is part of the fun of the game.
Less experienced players probably don't start with much of a plan in mind. They probably can't, in fact, since they probably don't know the game well enough to have a clear idea of what they'll do and when they'll do it.
There are "a few homophobes" everywhere - thing is, they are still there. They stick around despite the oh so offensive gay content because they still like the rest enough to overlook it. For example, take the audience of Spartacus Blood & Sand. The show has, from the beginning, featured gay characters and has, also from the beginning, had a lot "omg stop showing those fags" posters on the official and bigger non-official forums (i.e. IMDB). These people know there will be relatively graphic same sex content, yet they are watching the end of the fourth season, actively discuss it and know all the "oh so offensive" scenes from season 1 on. If it was so offensive to them, they would have stopped watching a long, long time ago. Yet there they are, still watching, still ranting - and still paying for premium pay TV that, according to most, has no other show that interests them (so I must assume they pay for "offensive gay content").
That's hardcore fans. They rant, they discuss, they hate, (they are usually less articulate or civil than we are here). But no matter how much they rant and hate, they also stick around and spend money on the very thing they claim to hate. Because the rest is good enough, and somewhere deep inside, they must realize that it's just a minor thing and not worth giving up something they otherwise enjoy. And in a MA rated TV series, it is much harder to overlook the parts one doesn't like because they aren't optional or triggered by the player.
In short - the few homophobes you find everywhere are a vocal minority and only a small fraction of them will really opt out. Most just rant to rant about something, and if it wasn't gay content, they'd complain about something else. It's not driving a large customer base away. (Sidenote: Spartacus is also the highest rating show Starz ever had, and it's likely not only the good writing - that went to hell in season 2, but the ratings are still constant. I'm not saying it's popular because of the gay content, but it's certainly not hurting the popularity either.)
I'm talking about a lot of ordinary family types living quietly but worrying about some things which they regard as "unhealthy influences", not a few extremist activists who go on TV to shout about stuff. People who don't believe that Mass Effect is actually an alien sex simulator, but who nevertheless might see that slot on Fox and conclude that Mass Effect probably contains material which would offend them and therefore decide to buy a different game instead or refuse to buy that game for their kids. If you mean just the few people shouting on Fox News, then no, obviously that's not enough people to worry about.
If you mean the broad mass of people who are somewhat concerned (for various reasons) about the type of content which appears in games and whose buying-decisions may well be affected by their concerns, then yes, that's a big market and Beamdog needs their money.
Once again, I direct your attention to the Mass Effect series: After same gender romance was conspicuously absent from Mass Effect 2, people were annoyed and banded together on the internet to complain to Bioware about the lack of inclusion. And if you went into the comments section of any number of articles reporting on this or op-eds calling for the return of SGR to the series, you would find any number of people expressing negativity towards the idea; they expressed homophobic sentiments or thought it was stupid pandering or didn't want to see characters "changed" to be gay. Fast-forward to ME3, which featured multiple LGB characters, some of which could be romanced by the main character. And it made bank, which suggests that all of those complainers bought the game anyway or else their absence was made up for by new players attracted to this environment of inclusion.
And I have yet to hear anyone refer to Bioware as "that gay company that makes gay games for gay people."
That said, I'm not sure why you insist on arguing this point that including gay characters is "dangerous" when apparently you don't have any problem with Dorn being bisexual. Why not spend your time arguing that Gnomish love interests are dangerous because nobody likes Gnomes?
I am saying affirmatively that I think characters are better done when they have some personality of their own independent of the dialogue choices of the PC. I think that includes having some standards for starting a romance and a threshold of compatibility where the romance either progresses or breaks depending on the dialogue.
For example, if the premise is that Dorn is so attracted to power that he will romance any race or alignment or charisma (at times in spite of those characteristics and therefore there are no standards for starting the romance) then at least embrace that premise and have him attracted to PCs who give dialogue choices about embracing power, etc. and turned off by the PC trying to distance him/herself from his/her powers, shelter the weak, etc. The PC should be given romance breaking dialogue options along the lines of "I just want to get rid of these powers and live a normal life!" or "Of course I don't want anything to do with Bhaal's legacy. There is no value in power when it brings nothing but death and pain to those around me." and lines about the Bhaal-taint that end in an embrace of power and a deepening of the romance ("I will be the Bhaalspawn that seizes my father's legacy and assumes the power that comes with it." or "I won't be ruled by my father's evil taint. I am my own man/woman, and I will not have anyone tell me what to do -- not even my dead father. I will become more powerful without that tainted part of me than even my father could foresee.") If it is the power that is the driver, then explore that power and give the PC options to deepen the romance or break it off if they aren't compatible.
There needs to be some narrative with Dorn where you can imagine how he would interact with the world and with others without the PC in it. So far so good for BG1 on that front, IMO.
If the Romance vesion of Dorn simply falls for the PC regardless of the characteristics, actions and dialogue choices by the PC (other than selecting flirts), etc. then that qualifies as a fail for me because Dorn is just a mirror of affection for the PC. The same goes for Neera and Rasaad. A romance should not be driven solely by the choices of the PC. That isn't how relationships work in real life and isn't a realized character for story-telling purposes.