Player sexual companion

[smjjames]

The interaction between Pallegina and Tekehu should be interesting, since they're both godlikes.

[Beyond The Sea]

If you debate what confirmed means, you might as well debate what defines a video game romance. If you want to secure an exactitude of words, relationships of a romantic nature have been confirmed to be part of the relationship system by Sawyer.

 

All companions will have a number of relationships that can form with each other or the Watcher. Some of those will be romantic in nature, but certainly not all of them. The form of each relationship will depend on the individual companion.

[Sakai]

Scratch that. We had that back in Dragon Age and I did not enjoy it. PoE was really good in avoiding all that crap, for the most part. The characters aren't models to be gawked at and the game is not a dating sim. Just no. Also that about "mostly male base"? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

I find this kind of attitude peculiar. It's one thing to say you don't want romances to be shallow, as they often tend to be in Bioware games, but another to be so sex-negative. What's wrong with wanting a visually pleasing female character? I doubt that if a woman made similar request about male characters, you'd say the same to her. But if a man asks it, then it somehow becomes morally wrong. As if it is a sin to even mention the words woman and sexuality in the same sentence. 

 

Also, how exactly is pointing out the demographics that are beyond our control a "self-fulfilling prophecy"? 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Sakai

[Wormerine]

 

Scratch that. We had that back in Dragon Age and I did not enjoy it. PoE was really good in avoiding all that crap, for the most part. The characters aren't models to be gawked at and the game is not a dating sim. Just no. Also that about "mostly male base"? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

I find this kind of attitude peculiar. It's one thing to say you don't want romances to be shallow, as they often tend to be in Bioware games, but another to be so sex-negative. What's wrong with wanting a visually pleasing female character? I doubt that if a woman made similar request about male characters, you'd say the same to her. But if a man asks it, then it somehow becomes morally wrong. As if it is a sin to even mention the words woman and sexuality in the same sentence. 

 

Also, how exactly is pointing out the demographics that are beyond our control a "self-fulfilling prophecy"? 

 

Well, if a woman's criticism of a video game characters is that they are not sexually attractive for her... I probably wouldn't be interested in her opinion much. Its like going out off a movie and someone says: "I wish the actors were cuter." Or leaving a concert and complaining that musicians weren't attractive. I just don't get that. In movies I expect good acting, from musicians good music making. From RPG characters I want them to be useful in combat, and interesting to interact with/talk to. 

 

I don't think eneyone is against a good romance, but you don't see those often in games. Similarly, I don't mind my actors/muscians being attractive as long as they do what they do well. If they can't act/play but they work because people can drool on posters than I have an issue with it. 

[Sakai]

Well, if a woman's criticism of a video game characters is that they are not sexually attractive for her... I probably wouldn't be interested in her opinion much. Its like going out off a movie and someone says: "I wish the actors were cuter." Or leaving a concert and complaining that musicians weren't attractive. I just don't get that. In movies I expect good acting, from musicians good music making. From RPG characters I want them to be useful in combat, and interesting to interact with/talk to. 

That's a bit of a narrow minded perspective. Watch Rammstein live shows. Sure, they make good music, but they are also so much more than that. They are as much performers as they are musicions. Similarly with games, they can be about combat or whatever, but they also can be much more than that. And my point wasn't that "attractiveness" of a companion is somehow more important than anything else, but rather that it is weird to judge people for wanting a companion that is attractive. Games, and RPGs in particular, are wish fulfillments, and romantic/sexual fantasies are no less valid than any other. 

[MortyTheGobbo]

I don't get why some people are so opposed to romance, either. They're stories, like any other, in a game where we pick and choose them. We can already take different attitudes towards our companions. Why not add romance and/or sex into the mix? If you don't like them, well, don't pick them. That said, I do hope we can't accidentally end up on a romance path with an NPC. Looking at you here, Kaidan "I can't take a hint" Alenko, but also Jaheira in BG2.

[znin21]

i wouldnt mind seeing more action with the ladies and if it goes both ways as long as i dont have to hear about it if im a male pc its cool too.....but and its hopefully a very small one too in terms of what we would be up against in doing such a thing is 1 staying away from like someone put it in previous threads too much fling and cling with the dialog and 2 yeah not just making it a waste of money and move on from just learning from a immature notion or mistake made by the PC AN ACTUALL MARRAGE OR MEANINGFULL RELATIONSHIP,

[Wormerine]

 

Well, if a woman's criticism of a video game characters is that they are not sexually attractive for her... I probably wouldn't be interested in her opinion much. Its like going out off a movie and someone says: "I wish the actors were cuter." Or leaving a concert and complaining that musicians weren't attractive. I just don't get that. In movies I expect good acting, from musicians good music making. From RPG characters I want them to be useful in combat, and interesting to interact with/talk to.

 

That's a bit of a narrow minded perspective. Watch Rammstein live shows. Sure, they make good music, but they are also so much more than that. They are as much performers as they are musicions. Similarly with games, they can be about combat or whatever, but they also can be much more than that. And my point wasn't that "attractiveness" of a companion is somehow more important than anything else, but rather that it is weird to judge people for wanting a companion that is attractive. Games, and RPGs in particular, are wish fulfillments, and romantic/sexual fantasies are no less valid than any other.

As I have stated I have nothing against a good romance. I am not against an ttractive performer or good showmanship even if it is not what might be mainly interested in. I am happy to be proved wrong and relationship system Deadfire might ensure that romances aren't coming of of blue. Yes, games can be wishfullfilments and powerful/sex fantasy but they can be so much more. They can be good stories. With interesting characters and thought provoking ideas. If obsidian wishes to add romances to the game as they believe it will improve the story they are telling I am all for it. But when someone says "all those interesting female characters aren't hot enough for me. I am not interested in a female character I don't want to bang" I raise my eyebrow. Sure, everyone has their taste and look for different things in games and it's fine. But I liked PoE and I wouldn't want Deadfire to turn into cruise ship full of romances and broken hearts drama. Because I liked Pallegina, and I liked Sagani. Making them look like porn starts and them trying to sleep with my character isn't something I particularly want. I never like Ashley from Mass Effect but at least she looked like a human being before the doll face plastic surgery she got between ME2 and 3.

[Beyond The Sea]

There probably won't be anything animated. It's writing and maybe some voice acting. Compared to the rest of the game romance is usually a very small and optional part of a game. It makes some people happy. Why is that a problem? It's not new either. Baldur's Gate had romance. In Planescape Torment you meet your ex-girlfriend quite early on. Romance is not a new SJW Bioware invention but I'm afraid that's basically what much of this dislike of romance really amounts to. Some people don't want gay characters in their games. Some people want games to be tailored to be towards straight while men only. They want this to be their thing, not too dissilmiar to sport fans except for geeks. A place for men to be real men among real men, away from women and minorities that make them uncomfortable.

[Wormerine]

There probably won't be anything animated. It's writing and maybe some voice acting. Compared to the rest of the game romance is usually a very small and optional part of a game. It makes some people happy. Why is that a problem? It's not new either. Baldur's Gate had romance. In Planescape Torment you meet your ex-girlfriend quite early on. Romance is not a new SJW Bioware invention but I'm afraid that's basically what much of this dislike of romance really amounts to. Some people don't want gay characters in their games. Some people want games to be tailored to be towards straight while men only. They want this to be their thing, not too dissilmiar to sport fans except for geeks. A place for men to be real men among real men, away from women and minorities that make them uncomfortable.

ok, so the reason why "romance" in RPG worries me, is not that it is there, but that it seriously limits who your companions are. Yes, romances aren't new. Both Baldur's Gate's and Planescape romance options are really limited. In Planescape you can really only romance Annah. In BG2 you have a choice between 3 women and one man. Moreover, in BG you can't interact with everyone, which limits the possibility of "everyone want to bed Shepard" effect. As RPGs want to allow you to create a wide variety of characters, Devs provide a wider choice of romancible (?) companions to accomodate yours (your) characters... hmmm... preferences. That's cool. But you end up with a cast of companions, who for the most part are attractive, romancable dolls, with maybe one odd ball and one wise man/woman. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design. I liked Jaheira/Viconia/Aerie as well, but since then I saw enough copycats to get bored with those stereotypes. 

 

Again, I am not too worried. Obsidian knows what they are doing. They said they don't like jRPG-like dating modern RPGs are using. I am curious what they will do. 

[MortyTheGobbo]

Right... except not everyone wants to bed Shepard (or the Warden, Hawke etc.), because there's more than a few of non-romanceable characters, and most of those who are prefer one gender. Fearing characters you can't romance won't be included is verifiably absurd.

 

Furthermore, you can just... not romance anyone. I've done that in DA, ME and Jade Empire, with some characters. The non-romantic relationships with those characters remain compelling. Which, you know, they should be, since you can only romance one person at a time. BioWare's writing has its share of faults, but the "dating sim" meme is ridiculously overblown.

Edited August 1, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Wormerine]

Right... except not everyone wants to bed Shepard (or the Warden, Hawke etc.), because there's more than a few of non-romanceable characters, and most of those who are prefer one gender. Fearing characters you can't romance won't be included is verifiably absurd.

 

Furthermore, you can just... not romance anyone. I've done that in DA, ME and Jade Empire, with some characters. The non-romantic relationships with those characters remain compelling. Which, you know, they should be, since you can only romance one person at a time. BioWare's writing has its share of faults, but the "dating sim" meme is ridiculously overblown.

...did you play ME3? Couple "companions" only role in that game was to be romancable, Also did you read my post? My problem is not with romance itself, but how much it limits who your companions can be - they personal problems, history, age, status. If all/most of them are designed so you can choose to date them, it really limits who they can be. If you create only one or two romancable companions your are bound to disappoint some people.

 

Whatever, it will be what it will be.

[Sakai]

My problem is not with romance itself, but how much it limits who your companions can be - they personal problems, history, age, status. If all/most of them are designed so you can choose to date them, it really limits who they can be. If you create only one or two romancable companions your are bound to disappoint some people.

Whatever, it will be what it will be.

That seems to me much more like the problem with the writers imagination, if they keep writing the same characters, than any real limitation. 

[injurai]

I complain about what BioWare has become but... the demand for vapid polyamorous pansexual romps isn't going away. At least some company is drawing that consumer base in, and leaving the rest of the market to explore less pedestrian narratives.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

Right... except not everyone wants to bed Shepard (or the Warden, Hawke etc.), because there's more than a few of non-romanceable characters, and most of those who are prefer one gender. Fearing characters you can't romance won't be included is verifiably absurd.

 

Furthermore, you can just... not romance anyone. I've done that in DA, ME and Jade Empire, with some characters. The non-romantic relationships with those characters remain compelling. Which, you know, they should be, since you can only romance one person at a time. BioWare's writing has its share of faults, but the "dating sim" meme is ridiculously overblown.

...did you play ME3? Couple "companions" only role in that game was to be romancable, Also did you read my post? My problem is not with romance itself, but how much it limits who your companions can be - they personal problems, history, age, status. If all/most of them are designed so you can choose to date them, it really limits who they can be. If you create only one or two romancable companions your are bound to disappoint some people.

 

Whatever, it will be what it will be.

 

 

I have played ME3, and I have read your post, thank you very much. And no, it's no less erroneous than it was before. You have no proof that someone like Durance or Sagani wouldn't be possible in a game with intra-party romances... perhaps because that's a completely groundless concern. Sagani is spoken for - just like Varric or Vivienne in DA:I. Durance is... well, he's Durance. I can't see him in a BioWare game, but that has nothing to do with romance, or lack thereof.

 

I don't know which companions in ME3 are supposed to have been added just for the sake of romance. I suspect you mean Steve Cortez and Samantha Traynor. Which, again, you have no proof for. Besides, who cares? They're decent characters, and pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. And, once again, if "everyone wants to sleep with Shepard" was actually true, Vega, EDI and Javik would be romanceable. They're not.

 

I complain about what BioWare has become but... the demand for vapid polyamorous pansexual romps isn't going away. At least some company is drawing that consumer base in, and leaving the rest of the market to explore less pedestrian narratives.

 

Which BW game might those "polyamorous pansexual romps" be found in, again? Since I'm kind of drawing a blank. Except for that one time with Isabela in Origins.

 

BW romances have never been more than some extra dialogue and cutscenes. Whatever one thinks of that, the idea that whole games revolve around relationship drama is, once again, an overblown meme.

Edited August 2, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[injurai]

 

I complain about what BioWare has become but... the demand for vapid polyamorous pansexual romps isn't going away. At least some company is drawing that consumer base in, and leaving the rest of the market to explore less pedestrian narratives.

 

Which BW game might those "polyamorous pansexual romps" be found in, again? Since I'm kind of drawing a blank. Except for that one time with Isabela in Origins.

 

BW romances have never been more than some extra dialogue and cutscenes. Whatever one thinks of that, the idea that whole games revolve around relationship drama is, once again, an overblown meme.

 

 

I'm saying "the demand for" which drives development of relationship systems that caters that contingent. The fact that romances are just some extra dialogue and jank cut-scenes with steamed mirrors is exactly the problem. Not that it exists, but it's bad design and it's best that such approaches stay endemic to titles that market that audience.

[Mannock]

 

 

. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean with "dating sim" design, but I think Sagani could have been a good fit for a romance. It could have been an interesting scenario where Sagani would have been torn between her family and her feelings for the PC. It wouldn't necessarily have been a "happily ever after" romance, but a very interesting and fulfilling romance none the less.

 

What I'd like more from romances in RPGs is to make them a bit less railroaded. Just like a boss can be difficult to defeat in a game, completing a romance should/could be difficult to achieve too. I think it would both make them more interesting and more satisfactory too (cause it's not just about clicking on the heart symbol seven times during the span of a 30 hour game or whatever).

[Wormerine]

 

 

 

. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean with "dating sim" design, but I think Sagani could have been a good fit for a romance. It could have been an interesting scenario where Sagani would have been torn between her family and her feelings for the PC. It wouldn't necessarily have been a "happily ever after" romance, but a very interesting and fulfilling romance none the less.

 

What I'd like more from romances in RPGs is to make them a bit less railroaded. Just like a boss can be difficult to defeat in a game, completing a romance should/could be difficult to achieve too. I think it would both make them more interesting and more satisfactory too (cause it's not just about clicking on the heart symbol seven times during the span of a 30 hour game or whatever).

 

Now, that's a really good point and an interesting idea. 

[Beyond The Sea]

If you were Sawyer and you had to decide which companions can be romanced, how would you decide?

[algroth]

 

 

 

. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean with "dating sim" design, but I think Sagani could have been a good fit for a romance. It could have been an interesting scenario where Sagani would have been torn between her family and her feelings for the PC. It wouldn't necessarily have been a "happily ever after" romance, but a very interesting and fulfilling romance none the less.

 

What I'd like more from romances in RPGs is to make them a bit less railroaded. Just like a boss can be difficult to defeat in a game, completing a romance should/could be difficult to achieve too. I think it would both make them more interesting and more satisfactory too (cause it's not just about clicking on the heart symbol seven times during the span of a 30 hour game or whatever).

 

 

I do like the position Noah Caldwell-Gervais takes on the way romances are handled in Baldur's Gate II from his own video on the series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWWuUDtSaE he speaks about it around the 1:12:00 mark): basically he points out that one of the interesting things about romancing, say, Viconia or Aerie is that there is a chance to fail at both, because both characters have their specific traits and personalities which you cannot just win over by being 'nice' or rushing to the end result. You can kill off a romance with Aerie if you take things too fast, for example, whereas with Viconia the romance comes not from being agreeable to her whims and ideas but actually challenging them and basically showing you have a spine. One of my biggest pet peeves about future RPGs, be it BioWare or else, which so frequently rely on a numeric "loyalty" value is that romance is immediately associated with that value, and in turn it just feels flat and unrealistic, devoid of any of the character or dynamics a real/interesting relationship would have. Romance is achieved by gaming the system more frequently than not and the end result is some sexy pretend with a videogame character instead of anything approaching an actual relationship, that would ideally require dialogue between two parts that know what they, individually, want.

 

Incidentally this is also why I dislike the idea in Deadfire of having likes and dislikes written down in the journal for each character, because it essentially acts as motivation for gaming your way into being friendly with every companion *despite* what your character would normally say or pick. An attentive player should be able to guess what these are intuitively, and the game should be trying to hide as best it can the 'immediate'/numeric effect our choices have on companion behaviour, so as to make it more about roleplaying and less about 'relationship optimization' or however you wish to call it.

Edited August 5, 2017 by algroth

[Wormerine]

 

 

 

 

. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design.

 I'm not sure what you mean with "dating sim" design, but I think Sagani could have been a good fit for a romance. It could have been an interesting scenario where Sagani would have been torn between her family and her feelings for the PC. It wouldn't necessarily have been a "happily ever after" romance, but a very interesting and fulfilling romance none the less. What I'd like more from romances in RPGs is to make them a bit less railroaded. Just like a boss can be difficult to defeat in a game, completing a romance should/could be difficult to achieve too. I think it would both make them more interesting and more satisfactory too (cause it's not just about clicking on the heart symbol seven times during the span of a 30 hour game or whatever).

 I do like the position Noah Caldwell-Gervais takes on the way romances are handled in Baldur's Gate II from his own video on the series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWWuUDtSaE he speaks about it around the 1:12:00 mark): basically he points out that one of the interesting things about romancing, say, Viconia or Aerie is that there is a chance to fail at both, because both characters have their specific traits and personalities which you cannot just win over by being 'nice' or rushing to the end result. You can kill off a romance with Aerie if you take things too fast, for example, whereas with Viconia the romance comes not from being agreeable to her whims and ideas but actually challenging them and basically showing you have a spine. One of my biggest pet peeves about future RPGs, be it BioWare or else, which so frequently rely on a numeric "loyalty" value is that romance is immediately associated with that value, and in turn it just feels flat and unrealistic, devoid of any of the character or dynamics a real/interesting relationship would have. Romance is achieved by gaming the system more frequently than not and the end result is some sexy pretend with a videogame character instead of anything approaching an actual relationship, that would ideally require dialogue between two parts that know what they, individually, want. Incidentally this is also why I dislike the idea in Deadfire of having likes and dislikes written down in the journal for each character, because it essentially acts as motivation for gaming your way into being friendly with every companion *despite* what your character would normally say or pick. An attentive player should be able to guess what these are intuitively, and the game should be trying to hide as best it can the 'immediate'/numeric effect our choices have on companion behaviour, so as to make it more about roleplaying and less about 'relationship optimization' or however you wish to call it.

Here I will defend the possible benefits of Deadfire system. The problem Dragon Age Origins had was that every companions existed in its own bubble. They would occasionally react to your decisions but for the most part your relations with them happened in conversations in the camp. You would be a different character for each one of them and game rewarded you for this lack of consistency. If Deadfire will track your overall behaviour and decisions, which then will lead to individual conversations then we might be up to something.

[injurai]

If you were Sawyer and you had to decide which companions can be romanced, how would you decide?

 

Remove the popular obvious choices. Roll a dice for the remaining options. Bar the player from taking any part.

[Varana]

The main difference there probably is that BG2 just hid their numeric values in the background. As with all videogame systems, you can game that system. You had to have a certain number of talks with the NPC, you had to reach certain thresholds in their LoveTalk variable (it was actually called such), and you had to pick the right answers in critical dialogues. It was all very predetermined.

 

Newer RPGs, I think, tried to avoid that predetermined path by having various actions and dialogue add up (or subtract) from that variable so players could go several ways with their relationship. BG2 didn't really have to tell the players their exact numerical relationship state - the main reasons to "fail" were specific dialogue responses. In a more open system, they apparently felt the need to give feedback to the player, and came up with things like that gift system in DA:O.

 

Taking something from both examples would be the next step, I think - avoid having the relationship boil down to just a critical dialogue path like in BG2, and give the player less numerical feedback, like through dialogue.

[Karkarov]

Incidentally this is also why I dislike the idea in Deadfire of having likes and dislikes written down in the journal for each character, because it essentially acts as motivation for gaming your way into being friendly with every companion *despite* what your character would normally say or pick. An attentive player should be able to guess what these are intuitively, and the game should be trying to hide as best it can the 'immediate'/numeric effect our choices have on companion behaviour, so as to make it more about roleplaying and less about 'relationship optimization' or however you wish to call it.

I have avoided posting in this thread, and even reading must of it, that is.... until now!  *cue John Cena music*

 

So here is the problem.  There is no evidence to indicate you get a characters "likes and dislikes" in the journal until you actually discover them in game through interactions.  Saying a person should not, or does not, note how other people react to things and change their behavior based on this .... well that's naive opinion.  So noting how your companions react to certain things is natural, and realistic.

 

There is also the catch 22, just because you know Aloth hates animancy, doesn't mean you "have" to agree with him on it if you don't.  It also doesn't mean this Aloth talk is just you and Aloth, while everyone else wears blinders.  Maybe Pallegina is okay with Animancy, you express your support for it to Aloth, Pallegina isn't in the coversation, but she is there.  It can easily tick some unseen box.  This is also key because, surprise, companions will have disagreements with each other too.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Karkarov

[algroth]

 

Incidentally this is also why I dislike the idea in Deadfire of having likes and dislikes written down in the journal for each character, because it essentially acts as motivation for gaming your way into being friendly with every companion *despite* what your character would normally say or pick. An attentive player should be able to guess what these are intuitively, and the game should be trying to hide as best it can the 'immediate'/numeric effect our choices have on companion behaviour, so as to make it more about roleplaying and less about 'relationship optimization' or however you wish to call it.

I have avoided posting in this thread, and even reading must of it, that is.... until now!  *cue John Cena music*

 

So here is the problem.  There is no evidence to indicate you get a characters "likes and dislikes" in the journal until you actually discover them in game through interactions.  Saying a person should not, or does not, note how other people react to things and change their behavior based on this .... well that's naive opinion.  So noting how your companions react to certain things is natural, and realistic.

 

There is also the catch 22, just because you know Aloth hates animancy, doesn't mean you "have" to agree with him on it if you don't.  It also doesn't mean this Aloth talk is just you and Aloth, while everyone else wears blinders.  Maybe Pallegina is okay with Animancy, you express your support for it to Aloth, Pallegina isn't in the coversation, but she is there.  It can easily tick some unseen box.  This is also key because, surprise, companions will have disagreements with each other too.

 

JOHN CENAAAAA!!!!

 

*Ahem*

 

Anyhow, personally I don't see much of a difference as to whether you discover them while playing or not, and the reason is that once they make themselves apparent, it's another incentive to game the system over actually roleplaying and letting your characters agree or disagree, or like or hate, on your decisions based on the decision *you*, without external influence, would make. In any other game that uses a numerical influence system, a character is usually immediately romanceable once you fulfill the sex/race requirements and a high influence rating - by having the game offer a guide as to how to get this 'high influence', it is thereby also handing you the instructions basically as to how to romance that companion.

 

Now, there is also the possibility (which I'd like) that there could be different outcomes to a relationship based on the choices you make and how you play them out. Maybe a high influence will lead to friendship or comraderie, but to actually romance a character you have to be or do something they do not expect or would necessarily "like". As with Viconia, maybe a romance in Deadfire is more tempestuous and thus requires the player to stand up and challenge the companion, and say 'no' to some of their whims. I think that a list of likes and dislikes only works as far as how it conceals interesting results and reactions you may get by *not* following them instead of doing so, but rarely have I seen it used this way, personally.

 

Also there's the problem that I had with Tyranny that I'd like to bring up, particularly regarding your catch-22 and so on, which is that with Tyranny the problem I had time and time again was that expressing an opinion over something never *once* led to friendly disagreements, but immediately instilled FEAR or WRATH on whoever I was talking to. This... doesn't feel natural to me, and it conditions the dialogue way too much. In Tyranny I can see how the point may have been to use these elements to create a sort of "commanding voice" that would guide your character down a path of complicity with any of the two factions in a Milgram experiment sort of way... But in a more normal or traditional situation it feels incredibly awkward, because it goes against rational behaviour: we disagree with people we get along with all the time, and it's perfectly possible to be friends while having such disparities on relevant and passionate topics. On the subject of animancy, for example, I could agree with Aloth and hate it, but by the end of my own play of Pillars I'd like to consider that Aloth and I were buddies *while* I was at the same time a strong supporter of animancy. This makes sense, because that's just how people are. I don't all of a sudden want to find myself in a situation where the only way to have a close relationship with Aloth is by following through with every love and hate he has, as I don't see this as natural character development/relationship either. Now, granted, some things *will* upset some people: I don't think Edér will look at me the same way if I torch a live cat, but that's not because we "disagree", that's because my actions are deeply morally repugnant, and more so by an animal lover. I can see that as something driving 'hate' more so than saying "I don't like pigeons".

Edited August 5, 2017 by algroth