That's not the point.  The point  is that the woke think that the existence of a cursed item proves their virtue signaling should be accepted and celebrated.  Their insanity is a curse, just like the girdle.

Quote from: JRR on August 14, 2023, 03:37:11 PM
That's not the point.  The point  is that the woke think that the existence of a cursed item proves their virtue signaling should be accepted and celebrated.  Their insanity is a curse, just like the girdle.

No, it IS the point. You're just nitpicking a separate point that has nothing to do with and doesn't dispute what I was actually talking about in the post you quoted.

Even if what you say is true (and it technically is on some level), you're inserting a completely separate tangent that doesn't address what Psyckosama and I were talking about in the post that you quoted. Which pertains to whether polymorphic magic capable of altering character sex exists in D&D, not whether the specific item I mention is technically a "cursed" item (kinda like the woke also are).

You're right.  I quoted the wrong post.  I meant to quote the post of Psyckosama attempting to differentiate between types of sexual retardation.   So, yes, the girdle and polymorph has always existed, but it was never a cure for the transane.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 14, 2023, 03:31:29 PM



Polymorphic magic capable of sex changes has still existed in D&D since the onset, right?

B-But my narrowminded agenda! 

SJWs. Alt-right. Opposing sides, but same shit, different day.

Characters polymorphing into a different gender to, let's say, escape from or infiltrate something are a staple of literature of all ages. It was not the desire of "changing gender" but more that version of the masks from "Mission Impossible" (or Mystique from the X-Men).

The girdle was a cursed item because it forced the character to change gender, and it couldn't be removed. I personally I'm half-way: it is a juvenile concept, but also a good lesson for all those players who wear anything "because is magical!!" (in my experience, more than a DM can suffer).

I'm nearing the end of Chapter 2 now and the only thing that irked me when it comes to sexuality, etc. is that every companion is hitting on you.
Basically, every companion (and a few non-companions) is hitting on you once in the game - my guess is that's how they clumsily introduce the romanceability of the companions. Not player-initiated but they'll make sure to let you know they dig you for whatever reason.

I won't lie, I found that absurd, especially since they all do it around the same time in the game, and it threw me out of the experience somewhat.
It would be a lot better if only the ones that actually make sense writing-wise to be raunchy or into you (like the vampire or Karlach to an extent) started hitting on you on their own, the rest would be better if you had to initiate anything.
It's a shame, too, since other than that I find the companions to be really well written (maybe except Wyll who I found just quite boring, but maybe there is more to the guy if you actually put him in a party, to me he's just a bench warmer).

Also, one awkard thing happened where Gale would just declare his surprisingly broken heart to me after I had chosen a different companion as my romance in a way that made it seem like I had been flirtatious towards him.
That's without me ever doing anything of the like.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that was actually a scripting bug and not intended. Still, quite funny.

At least once you basically tell the companion to f off, they'll leave you alone with it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a mod that just straight up makes companions less thirsty.

And if you are too bothered, you can just create custom companions - so yes, you can create your entire party yourself after some point in Chapter 1.
I might do that just to not have to carry Astarion with me - don't get me wrong, he's very believably written, but still a believably written horrible person to have around 

That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Again: goddamn, Larian, is this absolutely necessary?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 15, 2023, 07:02:58 AM
That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Again: goddamn, Larian, is this absolutely necessary?

(Looks at the sales...) Uhm, dunno.

Quote from: Reckall on August 15, 2023, 07:47:13 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 15, 2023, 07:02:58 AM
That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Again: goddamn, Larian, is this absolutely necessary?

(Looks at the sales...) Uhm, dunno.

I very, very, very, very strongly doubt the sales are because of the overly thirsty companions.
Nobody plays games of that caliber because you can romance someone.

Instead, it's usually a welcome addition and some people do expect to be able to romance companions.
All fair enough, but that doesn't mean you have to make every companion behave like a stereotypical 80s "lusty barbarian".
And it isn't really consequently done, either. If everyone's really that raunchy, why are they not having a go at each other instead of just the player?

It is noticeably of a lesser quality of writing than the rest, because the companions who otherwise have very strong and believable personal agendas are suddenly all degraded to fuckbois/girls (but only towards you).

Even most dating sims don't write their characters as openly lusting after the protagonist before cultivating a relationship. If every companion is openly promiscuous, then that makes them less distinct from one another. Them only being interested in the PC just comes across as strange.

There's nothing wrong with having companions romancing each other. Indeed, it's so rare that adding it would be a welcome novelty.

Like, if I was writing a game with romance, I would require the PC to build a friendship with the NPC first. This would then open side-quests where the PC could decide to develop a romance, or remain platonic. Each romance would be colored by the NPC's personality or reveal aspects of their character that aren't immediately apparent. For example, the upper crust business person might be really tight-laced but secretly yearn to release his or her passions, or the rugged individualist who speaks painfully blunt is secretly a big cuddly teddy bear.

I don't care about having lots of player choice if the options don't feel believable within the story's own context. Is the Forgotten Realms supposed to run on Gor logic or something? If the story expects me to take it completely seriously, then it needs to maintain a coherent logic and not operate like a theme park or a porno.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 15, 2023, 07:02:58 AM
That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Yeah, that's been an off-putting part of the game for me. Especially when you're talking and it seems that every option you can select is flirtatious, when you just either want to end the conversation or talk about something that doesn't involve banging each other. It's also gotten me to assume that anything that can be interpreted as romantic interest will be. For instance, I'd been talking to Gale in camp and he mentioned showing me something "magical". Since he's a wizard, I figured it was a spell or item, so I told him we'd discuss it later. Then I was talking with the other NPCs and they're all like "so you and Gale are a thing now." And I'm like WTF? No, we're...oh, wait, he was probably talking about his penis. Re-load.

It's not a huge thing (the NPC interactions, not Gale's... I mean, I have no idea), but it does seem overdone. At least it's just in camp during a long rest and not everyone you run into during regular gameplay.

Quote from: TheSHEEEP on August 15, 2023, 05:38:49 AMI'm nearing the end of Chapter 2 now and the only thing that irked me when it comes to sexuality, etc. is that every companion is hitting on you.
Basically, every companion (and a few non-companions) is hitting on you once in the game - my guess is that's how they clumsily introduce the romanceability of the companions. Not player-initiated but they'll make sure to let you know they dig you for whatever reason.

I saw someone playing the Hogwarts Mystery mobile game, and whenever they had romance events, all of the students were Bi. And not just in you could choose them for romance, your same sex friends would hit on you.

Whenever they had cutscreens of the students, the romance would be same sex.

Choice is one thing, pushing it on everyone is quite another.

Quote from: TheSHEEEP on August 15, 2023, 09:11:41 AM

Quote from: Reckall on August 15, 2023, 07:47:13 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 15, 2023, 07:02:58 AM
That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Again: goddamn, Larian, is this absolutely necessary?

(Looks at the sales...) Uhm, dunno.

I very, very, very, very strongly doubt the sales are because of the overly thirsty companions.
Nobody plays games of that caliber because you can romance someone.

Instead, it's usually a welcome addition and some people do expect to be able to romance companions.
All fair enough, but that doesn't mean you have to make every companion behave like a stereotypical 80s "lusty barbarian".
And it isn't really consequently done, either. If everyone's really that raunchy, why are they not having a go at each other instead of just the player?

It is noticeably of a lesser quality of writing than the rest, because the companions who otherwise have very strong and believable personal agendas are suddenly all degraded to fuckbois/girls (but only towards you).

Yeah, this is mega lame. I'd prefer it done the way BoxCrayonTales mentions. Have no issue with them including romancing options and sex, but characters throwing themselves at you and only you from the getgo is retarded. It should be built up slowly, unless the NPC is a nymph, and companions should be able to romance each other as well (perhaps prompted by you, either IC, or OOC by letting you pick the NPC's dialog options).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 15, 2023, 07:02:58 AM
That is a common complaint I've been hearing: that the NPCs are amazingly thirsty. Like, nerds at the Playboy Mansion levels of thirst.

Again: goddamn, Larian, is this absolutely necessary?

  It's arguably in keeping with Greenwood's vision of the Realms. 

  (IMO, for that reason and others, the Realms as envisioned by Greenwood might be described as "60s Fantasy." Greyhawk feels like "70s Fantasy" from the exposure I've had to it, Dragonlance is definitely "80s Fantasy", and Planescape is "90s Fantasy.")

I remember years ago that the Auren Auseph mod for Baldur's Gate 1/2 included Auren spontaneously romancing another NPC if the two were in the same party. It's the only time I remember ever seeing two NPCs in the party having a romance during adventuring.

Too often I find that crpgs write the world and characters as revolving around the PC and having nothing outside of that. I'm already burned out on the Tolkien-ripoff fantasy genre, I really don't like this kind of writing either. I like being able to suspend my disbelief.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 16, 2023, 06:45:46 AM
I'd prefer it done the way BoxCrayonTales mentions. Have no issue with them including romancing options and sex, but characters throwing themselves at you and only you from the getgo is retarded. It should be built up slowly, unless the NPC is a nymph, and companions should be able to romance each other as well (perhaps prompted by you, either IC, or OOC by letting you pick the NPC's dialog options).

I don't think the player should be an outright matchmaker, but that's just me.