Did you just imply that lesbian relationships are never lustful? Why wouldn't a passionate girl like Viconia find a strong, powerful demigoddess like CHARNAME highly delicious?
If it's only lust, it's not a "romance". And demanding FWB NPC paths... I don't know, can we say "ridicolous" and just drop the topic?
I'd sooner buy a Drow priestess falling for an evil female demigod than getting won over by a good male demigod any day.
If it's only lust, it's not a "romance". And demanding FWB NPC paths... I don't know, can we say "ridicolous" and just drop the topic?
It's not something I was ever demanding, but now you mention it, actually, it makes a lot of sense. Adventurers facing deadly enemies day after day may well want the opportunity to let off some steam and have a good time without risking a stronger emotional connection when either of them could die at any time. It's a whole lot more practical than any romance path featuring marriage or babies, that's for sure.
Contractual matters mean that the altering the original romances is going to be solely in the purview of modders. You can also fiddle with the global variables to get into a romance you couldn't normally, though obviously that's not going to change the gendered pronouns for you. And I agree with other people in general that it is fine for characters to have defined preferences.
I am hoping for more same gender romance options (as well as options for the player races that have been neglected), though, especially with characters who are exclusively homosexual or actually bisexual instead of straight-but-gay-for-the-PC (I'm really hoping that at some point in BG2EE Dorn gets to express attraction to a male character who is not CHARNAME). One of the things I find really problematic is this notion that players should be able to completely ignore alternative sexualities unless they want them there, that QUILTBAG characters should be completely invisible unless the player seeks them out. Because gay people exist, and you don't get to pretend otherwise just because it makes you uncomfortable.
@Kaigen: this is a product, sold for money. Unfortunately logic only enters into it when it doesn't affect the bottom line. As long as there's fanatics who'll move heaven and earth in outcries of rage because one male-pixel got too close to another male-pixel, companies will be less inclined to include it in their products. It's utterly ridiculous, but that's how things work in all-too many parts of the world.
I totally agree that plain, not-in-your-face homosexuality should not be a problem or issue whatsoever. We don't have statistics on the populations of the Forgotten Realms of course (not to mention the whole demi-/non-human issue), but it seems a bit unrealistic that there's nothing going on anywhere. Heck, even the BG novels (dreadful though they are) had a nice thing going with Imoen X Phaere.
@Lord_Tansheron Maybe we should ask for a non-romanceable openly gay NPC. It is indeed a bit odd that the sexuality of all other characters seems defined by that of the PC.
@Lord_Tansheron I could argue the point about the bottom line, but that debate would not go anywhere (trust me, I've tried before) because we'd both be making blind assumptions about how large certain groups are and whether good publicity from group X will outweigh bad publicity from group Y. I don't think there are enough gamers out there for whom homosexual content would be a dealbreaker to make this a significant worry, but I know others would disagree. We can, however, look at this from another angle:
You can exclude LGBT people, or you can exclude homophobes.
Regardless of any marketing rationalizations that can be made, that is the choice in question.
The thing people seem to forget here is - this is a fantasy RPG, not The Sims Casual Encounters. If you want to romance pixels so badly, there are games that focus on dating pixels. I simply don't understand how it can be such a big deal if a NPC is romancable or not. There are many mods for that, there are other games for that (frankly not sure if 'dating sims' are only about that, my knowledge stems from Cracked articles...) and there are already romance options in BG, with more being added in BG2EE. And it isn't even the point/genre of the game.
Also, bi/homosexual roleplayers are roleplayers. They might as well play a straight character and romance. Or none at all. Or mix it up just like every other roleplayer. I have never heard/read a single claim that vanilla BG is homophobic just because there are no gay or bi NPCs. I highly doubt no bi or gay player ever played the game(s). It is a much smaller issue than some seem to think, at least for this demographic. The cry for equality doesn't come from the LGBT people, it comes from a (presumably) straight majority that simply wants more options. That's fine, variety is always nice. But it's not about spreading tolerance for minorities or making a political statement. It's exactly the same as wanting shorty romance options (and I dare to guess there are only very few actual dwaves, halflings and gnomes playing BG). I personally don't need token minority NPCs just for the sake of having a token minority character. I rather take a well written character of either orientation, race and alignment.
Did you just imply that lesbian relationships are never lustful? Why wouldn't a passionate girl like Viconia find a strong, powerful demigoddess like CHARNAME highly delicious?
No, you interpreted my words wrong. i'm not saying lesbian relationships are never lustful. Just because drow women look down on drow men doesn't mean there must be lesbian relationships. I'm not saying there should not be lesbian relationships either (Don't make me think back to what happened between Imoen and Phaere in the official novel of Baldur's Gate 2 SoA, that book is horrible!) It actually goes to show how evil to the core they are as worshippers of Lolth, how chaotic their nature can be. They don't treat the opposite gender as equals, they don't show emotions like love and trust to their "friends" or mates, because they believe that trust can be misplaced all the time, leaving yourself open to be betrayed or stabbed in the back.
I have never heard/read a single claim that vanilla BG is homophobic just because there are no gay or bi NPCs.
I'm not saying vanilla BG itself is homophobic. I'm saying that by pretending that gay and bi people don't exist they are implicitly excluding gay and bi players in favor of homophobic players who wouldn't touch a game with gay or bi characters.
The cry for equality doesn't come from the LGBT people
If you look back in that thread I linked, you'll find at least one LGBT person asking for equality.
(Fun fact: During the run of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a group of gay fans organized a letter-writing campaign calling for inclusion. Most of them weren't even asking for significant gay characters, just some openly gay background characters so they could know that there was a place for them in the Federation too. Unfortunately, all that came of it was "The Outcast.")
So...mix it up and problem solved? Game developers should start pulling random orientations out of a hat and randomly generating NPC's based on those pre-established RANDOM parameters. If the characters are all straight or all LGBT then so be it. In nature, numerical equality is totally random and non-existent. Last time I checked nature doesn't go, "Okay we have 100 straight people, time to make these next 10 people gay" or vice versa. People happen to be either or for whatever reasons.
NPC's shouldn't "become" gay/straight/bi simply because of the whim of the PC. Its unfaithful to good character development and as DA II illustrated - totally lazy. In short, I'm alright with homosexuality, but if you want me, as a heterosexual, to tolerate and encourage homosexuality to be implemented in an equal setting, respect heterosexuality as well otherwise your only trying to enforce what amounts to a double standard.
I.e. I can't heteromance that stunning lesbian (BG2 doesn't have one without a mod I believe), you can't bromance Keldorn whom you have a mancrush on. We both walk away disappointed. That's equality!
At the end of the day though, all pixels are asexual so it doesn't really matter anyways.
I'm not saying vanilla BG itself is homophobic. I'm saying that by pretending that gay and bi people don't exist they are implicitly excluding gay and bi players in favor of homophobic players who wouldn't touch a game with gay or bi characters.
Right, but forcefully making existing NPCs with an established personality gay or bi to "show flag" would, in my opinion, be worse than just having no such romances. I'm sure there are homophobes who play BG, but so far, the "outrage" over Dorn wasn't very notable. The novelty factor has worn off, it doesn't come off as OMG PRIDE PARADE LEVELS OF GAYNESS, - subtle enough to just be ignored. Now, if BG2EE came along and made random NPCs bi/gay, it would not only show a clear preference for LGBT players, it would also spoil something many players know and like from way back in vanilla BG2. (LGBT players who like the original game and NPCs included.) It's the friend who gives back your old mixtape and has overwritten half the songs with "politically correct" songs because 2013.
If you look back in that thread I linked, you'll find at least one LGBT person asking for equality.
Well, I'm one who doesn't. I'd hardly call 2 people enough to draw conclusions. I'm not saying I'm against gay or bi NPCs, just that I don't find it neccessary and that I prefer a straight/unspecified/unromancable NPC that is well written to a token NPC that serves primarily the purpose of being reduced to his or her sexual orientation. Because it's a fantasy roleplay; there are enough (and way better) places to show flag.
In the end, it simply doesn't matter what you do - someone will find something to feel discriminated, left out or otherwise offended. "All good and neutral romance options end if charname tries to sleep with them when they first ask - except evil, black Viconia, whose romance ends if you don't sex her up. RACIST SLUT SHAMING MUCH?" Now make her bi or lesbian and you have, theoretically, a perfect storm. I prefer my games to stay away from real world politics and religion, so mixing BG and LGBT rights is way, way more trouble than it's worth. Change doesn't come over night - in the future, there will certainly be games that handle this better, and frankly, I can wait. There are more pressing matters than equality in optional NPC quests.
@Kidcarnival The contract keeps them from going back and rewriting previous NPCs, and I agree with you that that wouldn't be a good option even if it was on the table. But they're going to be adding plenty of new NPCs for the new content, so why not have some of them be LGBT? Why not fill some of those necessary slots of new characters with people who openly embrace an alternate sexuality?
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that following the status quo is not a neutral option. Filling a game entirely with heterosexual characters is a much a political statement as making an effort to include LGBT characters. And games aren't magically going to get better at this without people actually trying something different.
@Kaigen: Did I miss something? Plenty of new NPCs? It's Dorn, Neera, Rasaad, Hexxat, as far as I know. Of which Dorn is already established as bisexual, and Hexxat rumored to be lesbian. (If so, she'll be evil. Notice a pattern? Two non-straight NPcs, both evil? So much to spin a conspiracy from, though I frankly just think it would suck for good aligned players who don't want a Blackguard in their party. That is my entire reason to say "if there's just ONE option for X, make it neutral" - simple gameplay convenience.)
Or I'm misunderstanding your posting and you mean adding non-straight non-joinable NPCs, like a quest giver asking to rescue a same sex spouse or so? I was talking about joinable NPCs so far. Non-joinable, not against that at all. I just get annoyed/irritated if really every NPC hits on charname, regardless who and what charname is. That's not only unrealistic, it also makes it less appealing to try out new parties/NPCs because it's nothing special or unique anymore.
If it's only lust, it's not a "romance". And demanding FWB NPC paths... I don't know, can we say "ridicolous" and just drop the topic?
Funny thing, if you talk to the madam in the brothel at the copper coronet with aerie or jeheira they immediately interject with a "HE IS NOT INTERESTED!!!!" But if you do so with viconia then she says nothing... until you hire a prostitute at which point, even while romancing you, she heartedly approves and says that until now she was concerned about your lack of a sex drive.
@KidCarnival Okay, yeah, I think we were mis-communicating. When I say "NPC's" I'm generally referring to any character who is not the player's character.
I agree with you that having so many joinable NPCs be romantically interested in the PC tends to break suspension of disbelief. One of the things I really like is when party members are in developed relationships with characters other than the PC (such as Aveline in DA2 or the Haer'dalis/Aerie romance).
Edit: On the "both non-straight NPCs being evil" thing, I think that will come down to how well executed they are as characters. There's nothing wrong with a minority character being a villain so long as it isn't an excuse to trot out a bunch of stereotypes and call it a day.
Another sex option depate started, get your tickets for the show here !
@Kaigen: I was joking about the "constructing a case". I'd love to see friendships, friendly rivalries and, in BG1, mentor paths way more than any new romance-with-this-minor-difference.
1. I certainly think Viconia would have made sense as a romance for both sexes but, given just how long ago the game was first released that would have been breaking new ground and then some. 2. The way I personally play BGII Jaheira is very much the mother figure or perhaps much older sister figure to my female Charnames so I think I'd struggle to see her any other way when she's calling me 'child' the whole time. 3. Aerie is so innocent I have a hard enough time seeing her as male romance. 4. Anomen, in game time I just cannot see a male romance working for him as it would need to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity. I really don't believe that, with all his other issues, he would be the sort of character to be out and proud, that said I...
have read Ano as gay in fanfic and the journey he went on was utterly believable, right down to the person he ends up with.
Sarevok
but to reach that end the author spent well over 100 chapters exploring his personality and his sexuality and worked through an awful lot of issues - in amongst many other stories, it wasn't just about Ano - there's just no way the game dialogues have enough scope for that.
So... BG2 fanfic. Of over 100 chapters. About gay Anomen. Romancing Sarevok.
Really.
And you people complain about the official books.
Honestly, don't judge it unless you've read it. The official books - especially the whole Imoen / Bhodi thing were written for cheap thrills. There was so much depth written into the story that by the point this happens it's entirely believable. Especially given there is the suggestion, ironically from the books, that Sarevok's sexual experiences are wide and varied. This was my whole point about there really not being enough space to deal with that kind of relationship in game. & I may have confused you with my phrasing, the whole story wasn't just about that particular relationship, it was a BGII novelisation of which that just happened to be on aspect, the author does a fantastic job of incorporating many of the NPCs, and the main focus is on Charname (who's in a relationship with Jaheira).
It's nice to see a respectful, polite conversation about this for once.
Hah, it's just like marriage, it's nice... for now, just wait for the first radical (from any side) to enter in this discussion or even someone feeling hurt by a comment and then, as pikel bouldershoulder costume to say "Booom!!"
I look at it this way. I don't give a flying fudge what the "characters" like. *I'M* the one who is playing the game. *I'M* the one who PAID for the game. If I want them to them to paint themselves with apple butter while I am just an innocent onlicker then that's what they should do as far as I'm concerned :P
Romances being open to all races and genders works best IMO because then no one gets left out. Consider Dragon Age 1. Sure it offered same gender romances... but in the case of the males I did not find my only option appealing and found Alistair far more compatible with my personality and tastes. Thankfully a mod allowed me to romance him and barring a few odd pronouns, I was way more satisfied with Alistair than I ever was with Zevran. It's not about just having AN option. Its about having an option you actually LIKE.
The more restrictions the more people can enjoy the content. It's really that simple. The "everyone being bi is unrealistic" excuse doesn't fly. You shoot fire from your hands for goodness sake! Are you really going to pull the "realism" card???
Honestly one day I'd love to see a game that has a prologue where the player is asked a series of questions to tailor the game experience (npc's, romances and all) to that players tastes so the player can have some say the type of experience they have in the game world within the context of the story the designers have created. I'd find such a game quite intriguing and it would probably have a ton of replayability with that level of customization built in.
I don't expect the original romances to change. But I'd prefer new romances to be more inclusive of varying types of players.
The more restrictions the more people can enjoy the content. It's really that simple. The "everyone being bi is unrealistic" excuse doesn't fly. You shoot fire from your hands for goodness sake! Are you really going to pull the "realism" card???
It's not about "realism" per se, but more about "verisimilitude." It's about having your suspension of disbelief aided by a world that is internally consistent. Sure, characters can shoot fire from their hands--certain characters, who do so following rules that are laid out by the lore and followed consistently; you can see the way the setting itself has responded to and been molded by the presence of people who can shoot fire out of their hands. Just waving your hands and saying "everyone's bi" without reflecting that dramatic change from expectations bends suspension of disbelief to the breaking point (do you really think a society comprised entirely of bisexual people would look exactly like every other medieval fantasy setting?); doing so specifically for all of the PC's potential love interests and no one else is such an obvious artifice that it breaks suspension of disbelief entirely. It would be like having the detective in a mystery novel shoot fire out of his hands for no explained reason and without drawing any comment from any of the other characters present, simply because it is a convenient means to resolve the conflict in the scene.
And ultimately, restrictions are necessary in order to define a character in any meaningful fashion. A character is defined as much by what they won't do as what they will do. A character that will do anything (so to speak) is not a character, it is a helpful object.
I think this is where A) Replayability and Modding come in. Replayability means that if an intriguing romance is not available to me the first time around due to that character's preferences, I can make a character tailored to those preferences the next playthrough (I'm pretty sure romance options are in fact the driving force behind a lot of my replays of Bioware games). And modding steps in when the developer didn't quite hit the mark you wanted and things need a tweak in the right direction (as was the case with your Alistair romance in DA:O).
I'll leave the serious, sane comments to @Kaigen; the above makes all points I could make. Other than that, I will not even think about discussing this any further as long as there is no option to romance the travel encounter ogre mage with a hermaphrodite charname, because really, DISCRIMINATION MUCH?
Comments
I am hoping for more same gender romance options (as well as options for the player races that have been neglected), though, especially with characters who are exclusively homosexual or actually bisexual instead of straight-but-gay-for-the-PC (I'm really hoping that at some point in BG2EE Dorn gets to express attraction to a male character who is not CHARNAME). One of the things I find really problematic is this notion that players should be able to completely ignore alternative sexualities unless they want them there, that QUILTBAG characters should be completely invisible unless the player seeks them out. Because gay people exist, and you don't get to pretend otherwise just because it makes you uncomfortable.
I totally agree that plain, not-in-your-face homosexuality should not be a problem or issue whatsoever. We don't have statistics on the populations of the Forgotten Realms of course (not to mention the whole demi-/non-human issue), but it seems a bit unrealistic that there's nothing going on anywhere. Heck, even the BG novels (dreadful though they are) had a nice thing going with Imoen X Phaere.
You can exclude LGBT people, or you can exclude homophobes.
Regardless of any marketing rationalizations that can be made, that is the choice in question.
Also, bi/homosexual roleplayers are roleplayers. They might as well play a straight character and romance. Or none at all. Or mix it up just like every other roleplayer. I have never heard/read a single claim that vanilla BG is homophobic just because there are no gay or bi NPCs. I highly doubt no bi or gay player ever played the game(s). It is a much smaller issue than some seem to think, at least for this demographic. The cry for equality doesn't come from the LGBT people, it comes from a (presumably) straight majority that simply wants more options. That's fine, variety is always nice. But it's not about spreading tolerance for minorities or making a political statement. It's exactly the same as wanting shorty romance options (and I dare to guess there are only very few actual dwaves, halflings and gnomes playing BG). I personally don't need token minority NPCs just for the sake of having a token minority character. I rather take a well written character of either orientation, race and alignment.
(Fun fact: During the run of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a group of gay fans organized a letter-writing campaign calling for inclusion. Most of them weren't even asking for significant gay characters, just some openly gay background characters so they could know that there was a place for them in the Federation too. Unfortunately, all that came of it was "The Outcast.")
Some people are straight
Some people are LGBT
Some people suck
Some people don't
So...mix it up and problem solved? Game developers should start pulling random orientations out of a hat and randomly generating NPC's based on those pre-established RANDOM parameters. If the characters are all straight or all LGBT then so be it. In nature, numerical equality is totally random and non-existent. Last time I checked nature doesn't go, "Okay we have 100 straight people, time to make these next 10 people gay" or vice versa. People happen to be either or for whatever reasons.
NPC's shouldn't "become" gay/straight/bi simply because of the whim of the PC. Its unfaithful to good character development and as DA II illustrated - totally lazy. In short, I'm alright with homosexuality, but if you want me, as a heterosexual, to tolerate and encourage homosexuality to be implemented in an equal setting, respect heterosexuality as well otherwise your only trying to enforce what amounts to a double standard.
I.e. I can't heteromance that stunning lesbian (BG2 doesn't have one without a mod I believe), you can't bromance Keldorn whom you have a mancrush on. We both walk away disappointed. That's equality!
At the end of the day though, all pixels are asexual so it doesn't really matter anyways.
Well, I'm one who doesn't. I'd hardly call 2 people enough to draw conclusions. I'm not saying I'm against gay or bi NPCs, just that I don't find it neccessary and that I prefer a straight/unspecified/unromancable NPC that is well written to a token NPC that serves primarily the purpose of being reduced to his or her sexual orientation. Because it's a fantasy roleplay; there are enough (and way better) places to show flag.
In the end, it simply doesn't matter what you do - someone will find something to feel discriminated, left out or otherwise offended. "All good and neutral romance options end if charname tries to sleep with them when they first ask - except evil, black Viconia, whose romance ends if you don't sex her up. RACIST SLUT SHAMING MUCH?" Now make her bi or lesbian and you have, theoretically, a perfect storm. I prefer my games to stay away from real world politics and religion, so mixing BG and LGBT rights is way, way more trouble than it's worth. Change doesn't come over night - in the future, there will certainly be games that handle this better, and frankly, I can wait. There are more pressing matters than equality in optional NPC quests.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that following the status quo is not a neutral option. Filling a game entirely with heterosexual characters is a much a political statement as making an effort to include LGBT characters. And games aren't magically going to get better at this without people actually trying something different.
Or I'm misunderstanding your posting and you mean adding non-straight non-joinable NPCs, like a quest giver asking to rescue a same sex spouse or so? I was talking about joinable NPCs so far. Non-joinable, not against that at all. I just get annoyed/irritated if really every NPC hits on charname, regardless who and what charname is. That's not only unrealistic, it also makes it less appealing to try out new parties/NPCs because it's nothing special or unique anymore.
But if you do so with viconia then she says nothing... until you hire a prostitute at which point, even while romancing you, she heartedly approves and says that until now she was concerned about your lack of a sex drive.
I agree with you that having so many joinable NPCs be romantically interested in the PC tends to break suspension of disbelief. One of the things I really like is when party members are in developed relationships with characters other than the PC (such as Aveline in DA2 or the Haer'dalis/Aerie romance).
Edit: On the "both non-straight NPCs being evil" thing, I think that will come down to how well executed they are as characters. There's nothing wrong with a minority character being a villain so long as it isn't an excuse to trot out a bunch of stereotypes and call it a day.
@Kaigen: I was joking about the "constructing a case". I'd love to see friendships, friendly rivalries and, in BG1, mentor paths way more than any new romance-with-this-minor-difference.
I'm sorry.
=(
2. The way I personally play BGII Jaheira is very much the mother figure or perhaps much older sister figure to my female Charnames so I think I'd struggle to see her any other way when she's calling me 'child' the whole time.
3. Aerie is so innocent I have a hard enough time seeing her as male romance.
4. Anomen, in game time I just cannot see a male romance working for him as it would need to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity. I really don't believe that, with all his other issues, he would be the sort of character to be out and proud, that said I...
Just my thoughts on the matter.
So... BG2 fanfic. Of over 100 chapters. About gay Anomen. Romancing Sarevok.
Really.
And you people complain about the official books.
Just two quick reminders:
1) This forum is PG13 rated so be careful with your words.
2) Remain civil.
Did I mention do not offend other people? Just checking...
If anyone has any doubts...
This is just a friendly reminder for everyone to read the site rules.
Romances being open to all races and genders works best IMO because then no one gets left out. Consider Dragon Age 1. Sure it offered same gender romances... but in the case of the males I did not find my only option appealing and found Alistair far more compatible with my personality and tastes. Thankfully a mod allowed me to romance him and barring a few odd pronouns, I was way more satisfied with Alistair than I ever was with Zevran. It's not about just having AN option. Its about having an option you actually LIKE.
The more restrictions the more people can enjoy the content. It's really that simple. The "everyone being bi is unrealistic" excuse doesn't fly. You shoot fire from your hands for goodness sake! Are you really going to pull the "realism" card???
Honestly one day I'd love to see a game that has a prologue where the player is asked a series of questions to tailor the game experience (npc's, romances and all) to that players tastes so the player can have some say the type of experience they have in the game world within the context of the story the designers have created. I'd find such a game quite intriguing and it would probably have a ton of replayability with that level of customization built in.
I don't expect the original romances to change. But I'd prefer new romances to be more inclusive of varying types of players.
And ultimately, restrictions are necessary in order to define a character in any meaningful fashion. A character is defined as much by what they won't do as what they will do. A character that will do anything (so to speak) is not a character, it is a helpful object.
I think this is where A) Replayability and