Ce sujet est fermé
Bah, can we move on from sexualities to beliefs, gating romances? For example, Solas/DHMG dumping our mage-hating PC, or Cassandra, saying firm No © to our Chantry's basher. How would it affect gaming experience?
I wouldn't mind that. Granted, I wouldn't want to totally knock someone out of a romance, but I certainly wouldn't mind having to work our asses off to get a romance though.
Bah, can we move on from sexualities to beliefs, gating romances? For example, Solas/DHMG dumping our mage-hating PC, or Cassandra, saying firm No © to our Chantry's basher. How would it affect gaming experience?
I think this would make the experience genuinely more "realistic", if I can use such a currently loaded term.
I was not at all a fan of how rivalmances worked in DA2. If we want to better develop character personality and agency, I have a hard time understanding why this isn't the main focus.
Bah, can we move on from sexualities to beliefs, gating romances? For example, Solas/DHMG dumping our mage-hating PC, or Cassandra, saying firm No © to our Chantry's basher. How would it affect gaming experience?
Yes, this would've been better imo.
Wow this thread moves fast.
I know a woman who's told me that when she was young she was straight. She was attracted to men, she enjoyed sleeping with them, and she had romantic relationships with them. She wasn't interested in women.
Now, she's mostly interested in women and doesn't feel much attraction to men.
Is she lying? Is she an idiot who doesn't understand her own sexual history?
Weird, I don't remember implying anyone was idiotic? Hm.
I agree that it evolves but I still think you're still born that way, to say someone is a certain sexuality because they're 'lonely' is what that was in response to.
I wouldn't mind that. Granted, I wouldn't to totally knock someone out of a romance, but I certainly wouldn't mind having to work our asses off to get a romance though.
Yeah this. Just disagreeing shouldn't completely lock off. Now being a mage hater and not someone who wants slower reformation should lock out of the romance because at that point there's not even an attempt to meet the character halfway.
Basically aggressive Hawke that hates all mages and feels they're snakes in the grass shouldn't have been able to rivalrymance Anders.
Aggressive Hawke that distrusts many mages and feels they're too dangerous to be let out of the circle shouldn't have been able to rivalrymance Anders.
Hawke that distrusts some mages and feels pure freedom without any restrictions just isn't feasible to either side but was willing to compromise if the mages were should've been able to rivalmance Anders. (and yes you can play this Hawke).
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
Their promiscuity is part of their sexuality.
I think this would make the experience genuinely more "realistic", if I can use such a currently loaded term.
I was not at all a fan of how rivalmances worked in DA2. If we want to better develop character personality and agency, I have a hard time understanding why this isn't the main focus.
I agree. It would certainly make for more sensible characterization, at any rate.
I liked the idea behind rivalmances. I liked that it essentially added another dimension to the romance, where you could butt heads and be at odds with one another, but still be attracted. But unfortunately the way you gained rivalry points was through standing for everything the character despised. With any luck there will be other ****** for tat style romances.
Really, I can't say t*it-for-tat? Okay then.
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
Depends on how much I liked the LI and how strongly I liked my character how they were. 
some might've let the LI tempt them to more moderate pastures or others would've dug in their heels and went nope.
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
Id find a complimentary romance option.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
In a diplomatic playthrough I'd probably change my views but on something that's more aggressive I'd find someone new.
Yeah this. Just disagreeing shouldn't completely lock off. Now being a mage hater and not someone who wants slower reformation should lock out of the romance because at that point there's not even an attempt to meet the character halfway.
Basically aggressive Hawke that hates all mages and feels they're snakes in the grass shouldn't have been able to rivalrymance Anders.
Aggressive Hawke that distrusts many mages and feels they're too dangerous to be let out of the circle shouldn't have been able to rivalrymance Anders.
Hawke that distrusts some mages and feels pure freedom without any restrictions just isn't feasible to either side but was willing to compromise if the mages were should've been able to rivalmance Anders. (and yes you can play this Hawke).
In the case of Fenris, I liked playing a mage character that could in a way, help him to evolve and grow past the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of magisters.
In the case of Fenris, I liked playing a mage character that could in a way, help him to evolve and grow past the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of magisters.
Yesss! Same.
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
I create many characters.
In the case of Fenris, I liked playing a mage character that could in a way, help him to evolve and grow past the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of magisters.
But did you play a crazy bloodmage who was routing for mage freedom and wanting to burn all templars?
In the case of Fenris, I liked playing a mage character that could in a way, help him to evolve and grow past the abuse that he had suffered at the hands of magisters.
True but I don't think a radical bloodmage pro-mage freedom Hawke (who is even worse than Anders at the whole FREEEDOOOM) thing should've been able to romance him.
He like Anders should've had moderation gates. And bloodmage should've been an instant dealbreaker.
I do love rivalmancing him with snarky Hawke though. Snarky Hawke makes DA2 okay.
I know a woman who's told me that when she was young she was straight. She was attracted to men, she enjoyed sleeping with them, and she had romantic relationships with them. She wasn't interested in women.Now, she's mostly interested in women and doesn't feel much attraction to men.Is she lying? Is she an idiot who doesn't understand her own sexual history?I think it's important to remember that sexual development isn't a one-size-fits-all deal. A person's sexual habits, desires, and identity can be the result of a multitude of factors.If Zevran says that he's bisexual because he's able to perceive the beauty in all things then that's his bisexuality, and not representative of every bisexual person ever.
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
I would probably not romance a character if their beliefs conflicted too heavily with mine, but I'm fine with that from a narrative position.
To be honest, though, I already do this. It's why I never romanced Fenris.
But did you play a crazy bloodmage who was routing for mage freedom and wanting to burn all templars?
Uh, nope lol. I played a mage who saw the Circle as somewhat necessary, but needed to drastically fix power imbalances between mages and Templars (I'm looking at you Seekers...). And so, I leaned more on Pro-Circle side. And I was a force mage and spirit healer.
Thanks for the answers, that's what I had hoped for as well.
But would you rather change your beliefs to romance a certain character, or would you look for a romance option, that would compliment your beliefs?
I would actually do it both ways. It's fun to romance someone who shares your beliefs, but it's also kind of interesting to come around to sharing the beliefs of others. I've always allowed my PCs to be influenced by their closest allies, to some degree, and it makes the relationships feel more dynamic, in a way.
Line up and I'll hand out the facepalm images. Don't worry, we have enough for everyone.
We should probably have a rigorous and shared definition of bisexuality before answering this question. That said, I think sexual orientation is a combination of both genetic and environmental factors. If Zevran were born and raised in a completely different environment, it's possible he wouldn't be bisexual.
That's fair enough. It's part of why I am inquiring about it, because I have read up on the idea of biological and environmental factors influencing sexuality. The idea of the fluidity of one's orientation and so forth, and what may (or may not) influence those things.
It may be, but I don't think it ought to be a consequence of his lifestyle though, so when assessing things such as the believability of a character I was hoping on examining the notions of "This person is believable because of X," rather than "This person is believable, and happens to have X."
For what it's worth, Inquisitor Julianos, I'd be lying if I said that I couldn't relate first hand to your perspective. It's something that I don't really believe so much anymore, but I had some people poke me and make me go "must this be the way things are" on a variety of topics, including sexuality.
True but I don't think a radical bloodmage pro-mage freedom Hawke (who is even worse than Anders at the whole FREEEDOOOM) thing should've been able to romance him.
He like Anders should've had moderation gates. And bloodmage should've been an instant dealbreaker.
I agree on the BM. I was a moderate mage, which I think worked well in terms of Fenris's character. Anything more radical should have been closed off.
Uh, nope lol. I played a mage who saw the Circle as somewhat necessary, but needed to drastically fix power imbalances between mages and Templars (I'm looking at you Seekers...). And so, I leaned more on Pro-Circle side. And I was a force mage and spirit healer.
Nothing wrong with that. My examples where mostly extremes that make no sense why said character would be into that. Something like that mage with Fenris for the most part is good.
Uh, nope lol. I played a mage who saw the Circle as somewhat necessary, but needed to drastically fix power imbalances between mages and Templars (I'm looking at you Seekers...). And so, I leaned more on Pro-Circle side. And I was a force mage and spirit healer.
See that's moderate so it'd been fine
Retour en haut