1981 réponses à ce sujet

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...



How far does gender segregation in a plot have to go before it becomes unacceptable to you? If Manquisitor gets to go on adventures, while Femquisitor's entire story consists of staying home and making sammiches, will you acknowledge that as problematic? Or is that cool with you?

Where is your limit? What content is acceptable for gating behind gender barirers and what is not?

Speaking of slippery slope claptrap...

[Silfren]

Firky wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The latter is what I was thinking, given the matriarchal nature of the chantry.  I actually didn't even think of the first one (a good thing maybe?  Haha).

I think that making a distinction of "male bashes, female seduces" is certainly placing a non-trivial amount of our expecations from reality into the game.  I don't know if that is necessarily a good idea, however.  It places assumptions and undoubtedly you'd get some people going "Shouldn't I be able to seduce as a man?  I mean, the power brokers in the chantry are women!?"  and "Why can't I bash as a woman?" and so forth.  Though this is more just a concession that not everyone is going to be satisfied.

My mind went there first because that's about all I expect from videogame narratives.

I'd argue that something like the discrete Cullen-based content based on gender in Origins would be hard to be unsatisfied with but, technically, why can't a guy have a passing romantic moment with the guy? Which comes back to, "Cullen isn't gay." (Based on available evidence.) So, I don't know. It's a weirdly circular thing.

Had Bioware been willing to make that side story of Cullen's be part of the male Mage Warden, I'd have applauded them SO EFFING HARD--and so would a lot of gamers I know.  It's very telling when you see little random story bits like that with traditional gender dynamics, but not a single, solitary one that fits a different dynamic, in a fictional world that is supposed to not have a problem with same/sex couplings.

Which isn't to say I hold Bioware at fault for not having done so.  But the conspicuous lack thereof is nevertheless illustrative about the sociodynamics at play.

Edited for clarification.  I'm getting too tired to type properly...

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 07:27 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

Honestly, this whole argument is ridiculous to me.

For the sake of simplicity, the elements of choice in games like Dragon Age can be separated into two categories: Narrative and Mechanical. A narrative choice (see: class, story decisions) may be as significant as deciding whether a character lives or dies, or as minor as a class-specific interrupt that only affects the resolution of its respective cutscene on a purely aesthetic level. What both have in common is that both serve to enrich the universe, to make it more believable, to strengthen the narrative. No, class does not have a considerable impact on the story (you can argue it should, but that's an entirely different animal), but creating content that only can be accessed by a specific class is logical, preferable, internally consistent, simply because people with different skill sets will approach problems differently. It helps suspension of disbelief and adds realism, even if only subtly.

What I would call a "mechanical" element is one that exists entirely for the player's benefit. Whilst obviously both categories exist to "benefit" the audience, they are not comparable. Romances are optional. They have little to no bearing on the setting or plot (you could argue that they should, but that's again a different conversation), they don't much change the game's atmosphere, nor are they something that need or should be included as a logical measure to safeguard the audience's suspension of disbelief. Though they are usually the only way to fully explore a character (which I think is a writing flaw, but whatever, no one asked me), they are a specific feature included for the personal satisfaction of the player.

That's it.

That's all.

Claiming that making NPCs available to everyone (wrt sexuality; personality or background is something else) limits or "reduces" variation by course is nonsense, because it really doesn't. How NPCs approach romantic relationships depending on the PC's gender could easily be modified, and even if it weren't at all, it would make no difference. Limiting another player's options within a mechanical element does not increase yours. Nor does increases theirs diminish yours at all. Locking out X character for Y reason is not a "consequence"; whether they're locked for someone else or not has zero implications for your story, and really, most wouldn't even know unless they searched it up on a website like this one. Restricting a mechanic that was included literally only to make the game more personally enjoyable does nothing but inconvenience people who are often inconvenienced (or straight up punished) in the first place.

Essentially you're out here complaining you can't f*ck up someone else's fun. Like, that is just wack as hell. Like, that is some Macklemore-banging, square-ass dude weak sh*t, just killing all sorts of vibes.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 30 juin 2013 - 07:22 .

[someguy1231]

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, choices. Choices in the story, not outside of it.

It's irrelevant to me whether the choices are in or out of the story.

Plaintiff wrote...
Again, the keyword being choice. I choose not to take those paths, I am not prevented from accessing them at the outset.

What is so bad about being prevented from accessing them? That's how RPG elements should be done. All classes except the Engineer are "prevented" from accessing the Engineer's action in Omega, yet many ME fans praised that. This reminds of those people who were playing Fallout:New Vegas and constantly whined whenever they saw dialogue choices blocked out from them because they didn't have the right perks or speech skill.

Plaintiff wrote...
Again, that is a choice made in the story, by Geralt. It is not predetermined for him because of his gender.

Doesn't matter to me. Any choice the player makes, in story or out, should impact the game. Yes, that includes blocking some content and making others available.

Plaintiff wrote...
I have no problem with the story being affected by choices made in the story. I have a problem with choices being blocked to me because of the protagonist's gender. The ability to create my own character already has significant value, in and of itself, it does not need to affect the story, nor should it.

Again, why? Why must gender be purely a cosmetic choice? Why must it have no impact on the story? Why do so many people here argue for more RPG elements, but "draw the line" at gender for some reason?

Plaintiff wrote...
How far does gender segregation in a plot have to go before it becomes unacceptable to you? If Manquisitor gets to go on adventures, while Femquisitor's entire story consists of staying home and making sammiches, will you acknowledge that as problematic? Or is that cool with you?

As I said before, the more impact a player's gender/class/origin has on the story, the better. So in that sense, there is no "too far" in that regard.

For your second question, yes I would consider that problematic.  All players should have roughly equal amounts of content available to them due to their unchangeable choices (gender, class, origin, etc). Whenever a male character gets exclusive access to a certain quest/NPC/whatever, a female character should get a corresponding quest/NPC/etc only available to them. Also, that Witcher 2 example I mentioned earlier does not significantly impact the game's length. You still get roughly the same amount of content, just that alot of it has changed.

Plaintiff wrote...
Where is your limit? What content is acceptable for gating behind gender barirers and what is not?

As long as it's well-integrated into the story and doesn't signficantly impact game length, any content is acceptable.

[Thomas Andresen]

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff,

Do you support segregated content for mages and non mages? Surely the  "decision" to be a mage is as inescapable as the "decision"  to be male or female? I understand that the players themselves are not mages but folk play characters of opposite gender to their own all the time.

While I know it wasn't directed at me, I'll answer anyway.

First of all, I wouldn't mind class gated content, so long as there would be the same amount of content for all three classes. I don't mind at all how each of SWTOR's base classes have their own unique story. In fact, I love it.

Secondly, the decision of which class to choose is for many people a fundamentally different kind of decision. I alternate classes all the time, but I barely ever alternate which gender I choose for my character.

[David7204]

That is nonsense. Romance is a hell of a lot more than just meritless fluff for the player. In nearly all stories in existence, the narrative could function with most or all of the supporting characters removed, combined, or integrated into the protagonist. That does not make those characters silly fluffy garbage fun, which is the only criteria you're using to condemn romance (It isn't necessary for the plot to function.)

Modifié par David7204, 30 juin 2013 - 07:28 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

David7204 wrote...

That is nonsense. Romance is a hell of a lot more than just meritless fluff for the player. In nearly all stories in existence, the narrative could function with most or all of the supporting characters removed, combined, or integrated into the protagonist. That does not make those characters silly fluffy garbage fun, which is the only criteria you're using to condemn romance (It isn't necessary for the plot to function.)

Yo. I don’t think I’m alive anymore. I’m in a different f*cking dimension. I have three legs, twenty-seven eyes, and my name is Andy.

Because I don't see where I did or said any of that. Please, someone confirm to me that I'm typing English, because I know I mess up sometimes and start mixing in the mother tongue.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 30 juin 2013 - 07:31 .

[someguy1231]

Random Jerkface wrote...
Restricting a mechanic that was included literally only to make the game more personally enjoyable does nothing but inconvenience people who are often inconvenienced (or straight up punished) in the first place.

Cry me a river for those people. I'm firmly of the belief that an RPG should offer significant enough deviations in content that experiencing all of it would require at least two full playthroughs. I had to do three full playthroughs and a partial fourth of DA:O to unlock all achievements and see all content and endings, but you don't see me whining about it.

[Silfren]

Random Jerkface wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That is nonsense. Romance is a hell of a lot more than just meritless fluff for the player. In nearly all stories in existence, the narrative could function with most or all of the supporting characters removed, combined, or integrated into the protagonist. That does not make those characters silly fluffy garbage fun, which is the only criteria you're using to condemn romance (It isn't necessary for the plot to function.)

Yo. I don’t think I’m alive anymore. I’m in a different f*cking dimension. I have three legs, twenty-seven eyes, and my name is Andy.

Because I don't see where I did or said any of that. Please, someone confirm to me that I'm typing English, because I know I mess up sometimes and start mixing in the mother tongue.

Pretty sure it's English, tho' I suppose if you altered the brightness of your computer screen, and squinted cross-eyed while reading through dirty glasses, it could pass for the alien language of a three-legged twenty-seven eyed featherless birdlike creature from the planet Zojun from a parallel dimension where Bioware doesn't exist because Zojunians blew up planet Earth twenty-thousand cycles ago.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 07:40 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

someguy1231 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...
Restricting a mechanic that was included literally only to make the game more personally enjoyable does nothing but inconvenience people who are often inconvenienced (or straight up punished) in the first place.

Cry me a river for those people. I'm firmly of the belief that an RPG should offer significant enough deviations in content that experiencing all of it would require at least two full playthroughs. I had to do three full playthroughs and a partial fourth of DA:O to unlock all achievements and see all content and endings, but you don't see me whining about it.

Now, sis. You know that's a false equivalence.

it could pass for the alien language of a three-legged twenty-seven eyed featherless birdlike creature from the planet Zojun from a parallel dimension where Bioware doesn't exist because Zojunians blew up planet Earth twenty-thousand cycles ago.

SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT, TBH.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 30 juin 2013 - 07:43 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@LPPrince: Thanks for the link. It would be nice to see how Mr Gaiders proposed handling of the LIs plays out. It is interesting. It doesn't look like all followers will take the bi route, without forgetting sexual diversity. It also doesn't mean all romances have a happy end. I hope it gets implemented. It sure will get a lot of forum attention. Ghehe.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 juin 2013 - 07:42 .

[Silfren]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@LPPrince: Thanks for the link. It would be nice to see how Mr Gaiders proposed handling of the LIs plays out. It is interesting. It doesn't look like all followers will take the bi route, without forgetting sexual diversity. It also doesn't mean all romances have a happy end. I hope it gets implemented. It sure will get a lot of forum attention. Ghehe. [/quote]

...Shyeah.  That's not his proposed handling.  It's the way Gaider would like to do it in a perfect world where he has all the resources he needs.

[quote]David Gaider wrote...
As I've said before, I too would prefer set sexualities if all things were equal-- if I had enough resources that "realism" could be my biggest concern (ignoring for the moment how very subjective that is). But they're rarely equal, and in the case of DA2 simple fairness won out. As it should. I get that some people felt weird (for whatever reason) when they found out a character could romance someone of a different gender in another game... but I will not count that as being more important than allowing players a simple choice in who they
romance, provided that it doesn't impact our ability to write the character. And it does not.

As for what our plans are for S/S romances in DA3, we've not discussed it. And we will not, probably for
quite some time. I can, however, safely say that whatever changes we make will not be derived from concerns over "unrealistic bisexuality" or the veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) homophobia that crops up here
from time to time. Our primary concerns are fairness, fun and (above all) making good characters that you'd want to romance (if you were so inclined to romance anyone, as it will always be an optional element).

And that's all there is to it. A statement I expect to make numerous times as versions of this thread keep cropping up. I look forward to the day when this sort of content is simply taken as a given, rather than used as fodder for awkward arguments.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 07:49 .

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff,

Do you support segregated content for mages and non mages? Surely the  "decision" to be a mage is as inescapable as the "decision"  to be male or female? I understand that the players themselves are not mages but folk play characters of opposite gender to their own all the time.

I don't support segregated content generally. Frankly, I already think it's lame that being a mage automatically heaps a ton of plot significance onto a given character, even if they aren't actively blocked from content or given extra content. At the very, very least, I expect an equal amount of unique content given to the other two base classes, and even then, I would still not be thrilled, because Rogue is my favourite class, and I'm unlikely to do multiple playthroughs of Mage or Warrior.

That said, segregating based on class is only very slightly more palatable to me than segregating based on gender or sexuality, mainly because: a) Bioware's lore does not support a sudden 180 turn on these issues I seriously doubt the resulting homosexual content arising from such segregation would be truly "equal" and c) I'm sick to my stomach of media generally that treats homosexuality like some BFD. The fact that it is a non-issue in the plot of Dragon Age 2 is very refreshing, and not something I'm likely to find elsewhere. If that changes, I'll be pissed.

Even in DA:O, Zevran and Leliana were given sketchy histories that people now use to argue why their bisexuality is "justified", as if being anything other than heterosexual requires special training or something.

I don't need or want some infodump about what character xyz's orientation is, or why they are that way, or some plot that involves helping them get over their angst. I got enough of that going on in real life, and if I wanted more of it, I'd be watching Lifetime, not playing Dragon Age. All I want is to be a dashing, gay hero, who doesn't get treated differently from the dashing, straight heroes. Hetero heroes never have to deal with the grief of finding out their princess is a lesbian, so why should I put up with it?

[Thomas Andresen]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Now, sis. You know that's a false equivalence.

I really don't think he's even capable of seeing that.

[Nightdragon8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Yes. The Rivalry System does not work as intended. There needs to be more than two bars, because while you can still be on good terms with a rival, some actions, such as turning over your runaway slave buddy, should not be +100 Rivalry but +100 Dislike or whatever they would like to call it.

So yes, the Rivalry System in its current form needs a rework.

Honestly the DA2 system was better made for DA:O, where in that, a person can HATE your guts, but willing to stick with you cause of the blight. And if anything could see that at least the Warden as a plan, where as Logian's coup could be seen as one of the dumbest things in history. (Darkspawn spewing out of the ground with an Archdemon, and you ditch part of your army just because you dislike how your king is handling the war. From an after the fact look, Logian was an idiot, where his bias over Orisians clouded his judgment and commented treason.

While with the DA:O system woudl have been better for DA2. cause if the person doesn't like you there wasn't a reason for them to stick by you.

If anything we should have gotten them both. a scale for Friendship/Rivalry, and Liked/Hate. The rivalry would then be how you treated eachother, while you could still like the person.

[Hazegurl]

someguy1231 wrote...

Uh, you do know that "real world sexual orientation" is all over Thedas, right? Last time I checked, bisexuals existed in the real world, and that's what many people want all the LIs to be.

No it isn't. YOU are putting it all over Thedas. Who says they are "bisexual" in game or in any of the books?

Also, can you show me where it was ever offiically declared that everyone is Thedas is bisexual/pansexual/whatever you want to call it?

I'm not the one declaring everyone is bisexual or pansexual, that is you and therefore the burden of proof falls on you. Go ahead and try showing proof that Isabella considers herself "bisexual"  You might as well proclaim that the Eluvian is a telephone. 

In DA:O Morrigan was only romanceable by male players, and Alistair only by female players, so that clearly implies that not everyone in Thedas is open to romance with everyone regardless of gender.

I didn't realize that Fenris, Anders, Isabella, and Merrill represented every single being living in Thedas. Ya know, cause when I role play I pretty much assume that each person is there own individual self and not the entire country or region they live in.

As I said before, I'm in favor of making the player's starting choices impacting the game as much as possible. Yes, having gender affect what LIs are available to you is one of them.

And as a role player I prefer to simply immerse myself in the story and not think of how I as a player must make Z choice to get X outcome.

Hazegurl wrote:"Also, I loved that Engineer interrupt. It's only natural that an Engineer would be able to fix it, afterall, it is a world where that is sort of an Engineer's job. "

You wrote: "And I'd like that impact to be explored further, not just with class, but also with origin, race, and yes, gender. "

You've missed the point. An Engineer exists in ME verse. I'm all for that type of impact being explored, if it actually exists in the verse.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 30 juin 2013 - 07:49 .

[Plaintiff]

daaaav wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



How far does gender segregation in a plot have to go before it becomes unacceptable to you? If Manquisitor gets to go on adventures, while Femquisitor's entire story consists of staying home and making sammiches, will you acknowledge that as problematic? Or is that cool with you?

Where is your limit? What content is acceptable for gating behind gender barirers and what is not?

Speaking of slippery slope claptrap...

I'm not suggesting that gender segregation automatically leads to that. I'm merely trying to guage at what point he would begin to disagree with the magnitude of it.

[someguy1231]

Random Jerkface wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...
Restricting a mechanic that was included literally only to make the game more personally enjoyable does nothing but inconvenience people who are often inconvenienced (or straight up punished) in the first place.

Cry me a river for those people. I'm firmly of the belief that an RPG should offer significant enough deviations in content that experiencing all of it would require at least two full playthroughs. I had to do three full playthroughs and a partial fourth of DA:O to unlock all achievements and see all content and endings, but you don't see me whining about it.

Now, sis. You know that's a false equivalence.

Your distinction between "narrative" and "mechanical" choices is meaningless to me. A world in which a player's gender matters only increases immersiveness and strengthens suspension of disbelief for me, just like it would for class or origin, as you mentioned. It doesn't matter to me that romances are optional. Many of the ways class or origin could impact the story could also be optional, such as unique sidequests. In fact, the romances themselves are effectively glorified sidequests. You may think it's a "false" equivalence, but it doesn't matter to me how content gets blocked or opened up to me. I deny that your distinction which led to your accusation of "false equivalence" even exists.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Silfren wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@LPPrince: Thanks for the link. It would be nice to see how Mr Gaiders proposed handling of the LIs plays out. It is interesting. It doesn't look like all followers will take the bi route, without forgetting sexual diversity. It also doesn't mean all romances have a happy end. I hope it gets implemented. It sure will get a lot of forum attention. Ghehe.

...Shyeah.  That's not his proposed handling.  It's the way Gaider would like to do it in a perfect world where he has all the resources he needs.

Yeah. I worded that wrong. Sorry about that. I do understand that there may be other priorities and resource considerations. That's why I hoped it gets implemented. And maybe something rubs off from it anyway.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 juin 2013 - 07:50 .

[Plaintiff]

someguy1231 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...
Restricting a mechanic that was included literally only to make the game more personally enjoyable does nothing but inconvenience people who are often inconvenienced (or straight up punished) in the first place.

Cry me a river for those people. I'm firmly of the belief that an RPG should offer significant enough deviations in content that experiencing all of it would require at least two full playthroughs. I had to do three full playthroughs and a partial fourth of DA:O to unlock all achievements and see all content and endings, but you don't see me whining about it.

Now, sis. You know that's a false equivalence.

Your distinction between "narrative" and "mechanical" choices is meaningless to me. A world in which a player's gender matters only increases immersiveness and strengthens suspension of disbelief for me, just like it would for class or origin, as you mentioned. It doesn't matter to me that romances are optional. Many of the ways class or origin could impact the story could also be optional, such as unique sidequests. In fact, the romances themselves are effectively glorified sidequests. You may think it's a "false" equivalence, but it doesn't matter to me how content gets blocked or opened up to me. I deny that your distinction which led to your accusation of "false equivalence" even exists.

So, let me get this straight: You more readily accept the existence of dragons, demons and magic because not everyone in the setting is bisexual. And when that changes, the entire illusion collapses around your head like a house of cards.

Is that about right?

And to follow-up: Would you accept an "all-bi" setting if the dragons, demons and magic were removed? Or does all-bi just destroy immersion all on its own?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2013 - 07:52 .

[Allan Schumacher]

someguy1231 wrote...

Cry me a river for those people. I'm firmly of the belief that an RPG should offer significant enough deviations in content that experiencing all of it would require at least two full playthroughs. I had to do three full playthroughs and a partial fourth of DA:O to unlock all achievements and see all content and endings, but you don't see me whining about it.

The romances in DA2 do NOT undermine the requirement for you to have multiple playthroughs in order to experience all of the content.

In fact, if seeing all of the romances through to their end, as it stands, would it not require you to still play DA2 at least once for every romanceable character?


I understand that you like mutually exclusive choice, and the romances in DA2 are.  You can't complete all of the romances in a single playthrough, even if they are all open.

[Silfren]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Silfren wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

@LPPrince: Thanks for the link. It would be nice to see how Mr Gaiders proposed handling of the LIs plays out. It is interesting. It doesn't look like all followers will take the bi route, without forgetting sexual diversity. It also doesn't mean all romances have a happy end. I hope it gets implemented. It sure will get a lot of forum attention. Ghehe.

...Shyeah.  That's not his proposed handling.  It's the way Gaider would like to do it in a perfect world where he has all the resources he needs.

Yeah. I worded that wrong. Sorry about that. I do understand that there may be other priorities and resource considerations. That's why I hoped it gets implemented. And maybe something rubs off from it anyway.

I edited my post above to include Gaider's actual words on this subject.

I think we can expect DA:I to go the same route as DA2.  I'm quite confident of it, in fact, given Gaider's position on privileging fairness over exclusivity and alleged realism.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 07:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The same reasons we might treat an inanimate object we find compelling differently than from one we don't. We find something good and desirable, we want to preserve it and be exposed to it. We don't necessarily have to, but it's natural and justified to do so. We can't appreciate beauty without that appreciation inevitably bleeding into our actions.

As for a concrete example, that's a bit tricky since it's going to vary a great deal from person to person and going to be hard to pin down anyway. I think a decent example would be that I would probably be more patient with someone I'm attracted to than someone who I'm not.

Okay, I understand what you are saying. How does that relate, specifically, to the idea of how orientation is played out in something like DA2?

I understand, and agree, that the aspect of someone feeling attracted to someone affects their behaviour. I don't see why that attraction, however, would be any different if someone was gay/bisexual/heterosexual. It just changes the potential targets of the affection.

[What a Succulent Ass]

someguy1231 wrote...

A world in which a player's gender matters only increases immersiveness and strengthens suspension of disbelief for me

And your point? Which part of what I described would make the PC's gender "irrelevant"? I don't understand, b. I'm just a hood n*gga who don't read good.

But also:

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I understand that you like mutually exclusive choice, and the romances in DA2 are.  You can't complete all of the romances in a single playthrough, even if they are all open.

So where is the problem?

[someguy1231]

[quote]Hazegurl wrote:
I didn't realize that Fenris, Anders, Isabella, and Merrill represented every single being living in Thedas. Ya know, cause when I role play I pretty much assume that each person is there own individual self and not the entire country or region they live in.
[/quote]
If you like to believe each person is "their[sic] own individual self", then giving them a firmly-established sexuality would only enhance that.

[quote]Hazegurl wrote:
And as a role player I prefer to simply immerse myself in the story and not think of how I as a player must make Z choice to get X outcome.
[/quote]
Then you are why RPGs are being more and more dumbed down in recent years. This ties into something I mentioned earlier in this thread, where people want all LIs available regardless less out of "inclusiveness" and more out of laziness.

[quote]Hazegurl wrote:"Also, I loved that Engineer interrupt. It's only natural that an Engineer would be able to fix it, afterall, it is a world where that is sort of an Engineer's job. "

You wrote: "And I'd like that impact to be explored further, not just with class, but also with origin, race, and yes, gender. "
[/quote]

You've missed the point. An Engineer exists in ME verse. I'm all for that type of impact being explored, if it actually exists in the verse.
[/quote]

And gender is something that also exists, both in the ME verse and in Thedas. For example,  it's already been mentioned that the Chantry is a primarily matriarchal institution. Have that impact the player's gender somehow. The same goes for LIs.Including a few bisexuals is fine, but making all of them that is just lazy. Make a few LIs that are firmly ****** or heterosexual, then have them show it by refusing to pursue a romance if the player isn't their desired gender.