KillerClowns

@Cultist: Poe's Law, son. Re-reading while no longer sleep-deprived, it's now obvious you were joking, but there are so many idiots on the internet that assuming stupidity is a pretty decent default stance. Seriously, though, this discussion isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. Aside from a few fools who mistake name-calling for intelligent argument, both sides have been doing reasonably well in making their cases. I'm still of the "trust Obsidian to make the right call" group myself for the specific case, and of the "romance is really nice when done right, but better not done than done poorly" in general.

Could you please clarify what "flexibility" you're referring to? Because both those for and against explicitly defined backgrounds can make an argument that their option is the self-evidently more flexible one. "An undefined background is more flexible, because it allows the player to fill in the gaps with their imagination instead of relying on the designer's predefined options", or "a defined background is more flexible, because it allows far more organic interactions with the world's NPCs instead of merely leaving all PCs generic adventurers of no known background."

I was initially hesitant, but the more I think about it, the better filtering sounds. With a certain amount of leeway -- a dickish character should always have less dickish options open if the player wants them to develop into a more pleasant person for whatever reason. But they shouldn't spontaneously start rambling like a noble hero of old. The area between "no gold? Then the goblins get to keep eating your cows," and "of course I'll protect you from those wretched goblins" should have an intermediary area of "I can't believe I'm saying this, but... fine, I'll deal with your stupid goblin problem for free," while the character shakes off old habits. And maybe have the character take a bluff check or the equivalent for saying something blatantly out-of-character for pragmatic gain (I.E. a jackhole playing goody-two-shoes to endear themselves to a paladin order they plan to betray and rob, where a genuine repentant would at least admit their doubts). Of course, all of this would take a lot of writing, mapping values to dialogue, and overall significant amounts of work. I'm talking idealistically, not realistically, I admit.

Personality should define itself during play, I agree with that much. But things like cultural heritage, socioeconomic background, and religion should be set up pregame to help make it feel more like your character isn't formed ex nihlo, and should be a constant part of the way the world views your character and the choices characters have in conversations. The fact is, even if both are equally honorable and good-hearted warriors, the world will treat a local noblewoman and a poor sailor's son from a far-off land very differently.

Ignoring the old DND alignments, I'd say the Sniper's credo from TF2 sums my default play style up well. "Be polite, be efficient, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet." If there's a peaceful solution, I'll usually go for it. I'll be civil to everyone who isn't actively obnoxious. I'll help the poor just for something to do, but anybody with a fat coin purse had better be willing to part with some of it before asking my aid. But every so often, some people just need an ax to the face, in which case I'll deliver it as soon as an opportunity presents itself, with the only mercy being a swift death. Although, like Keyrock said, sometimes for a change I'll pick an interesting faction/religion and make myself a paragon of its credos and goals. It can be fun to work within constraints like that, and the PE Paladin class, from what I've read, sounds perfect for such game play.

When well written, romances help develop the protagonist and provide opportunities for drama, humor, and character exploration. But when they go wrong, they fall deep into the uncanny valley, with nauseating results. Now, if I was writing an RPG, or advising a novice, I'd say not to bother with romances. There's very real potential gains, but they're not worth the risk. But the PE team aren't me. They're veterans who I trust to make the right call for their abilities and what they feel comfortable with. As for the emotional reactions I have to a well written video game romance? I tend to refer to my PCs as "him/her" instead of "me," but I do get a bit attached to the little chunks of code. So when my PCs get into a romance at my prodding, I feel the same way I do any time a fictional character I like gets in a romance -- an empathetic "good for them," a curiosity to see where it ends up going and what hidden depths are revealed, but not much stronger.