Josh Sawyer's tweets and teasers

[Aramintai]

This was discussed in a previous thread before, I think some people felt that Iselmyr wasn't trying to take over Aloth but was just trying to make him more assertive.  And was trying to get him to hit on people she knew he wouldn't have the guts to do on his own as part of this, such as her comments towards Pallegina.

That still doesn't prove they won't make a gay out of him, just because stereotypes.

 

P.S. Also, I wonder whether companions will have race preferences for romances. Maybe some will only be available if you're of the same race? Which would be more realistic, though options limited, hmm...

Edited January 2, 2018 by Aramintai

[MortyTheGobbo]

I just hope that the whole romance thing won't feel as forced as it does in Bioware titles, where the entire world is MC-sexual no matter what (as long as you play the 'choose the correct [romance] dialogue option' mini-game).

 

This has literally been true in one BW title, and only in the sense that all four romance options swung both ways.

 

Also, even if Iselmyr somehow affecting Aloth's orientation wasn't ridiculous enough, she might not be straight to begin with. She quite possibly hits on Pallegina, for one thing. Unless it's like FlintlockJazz says, and she simply encourages Aloth to do so.

Edited January 2, 2018 by MortyTheGobbo

[Beyond The Sea]

 

I wonder who's gonna be gay this time. Not gonna be surprised if it's the most popular and funny characters as always, just to screw straight players.

This should be Aloth. He is ALREADY half-woman 

 

 

Which is exactly why he shouldn't. Basically all of the male companions from PoE except Aloth are masculine. Edér boast about his sexual experiences with women. Hiravias flirts aggressively with women. Durance likes to call women whores. Kana tries to flirt with Maneha as well. Their personalities suffice to avoid any questions about their masculinity or sexuality. They are unquestionably men. Aloth is the only male companion who is shown to be weak, a coward even. As can be seen right here this creates questions about his sexuality. Aloth being bisexual or gay really would confirm some problematic stereotypes. Nevermind the whole issue of Iselmyr. Being sometimes female has a whole other set of complications. Isemyr would contribute to an association of homosexuality or bisexuality with being transgender. Presumably Deadfire will mostly played by people who identify as straight who tend not to differentiate between sexual identity, behavior and attraction. Nontheless Carrie Patel wrote Aloth and Maneha. Of all writers she appears most eager to write characters who don't confirm to gender roles. Therefore I'd say the likelihood of Aloth being interested in men is unfortunately still quite high if Patel wrote him in Deadfire.

[Boeroer]

I'll put 100$ on Edér being interested in an homosexual relationship. Who's in?

[MaxQuest]

^ Not gonna bet) but I would expect him getting close with Xoti, if the player helps them synchronize their religious beliefs.

[Wormerine]

For my sake, Josh post something (and not romace related.) We are getting another dating thread. 

[Aramintai]

For my sake, Josh post something (and not romace related.) We are getting another dating thread. 

Just makes to show how much people care about this stuff, if nobody was interested there would not be so many replies.

[algroth]

 

 

I wonder who's gonna be gay this time. Not gonna be surprised if it's the most popular and funny characters as always, just to screw straight players.

This should be Aloth. He is ALREADY half-woman 

 

 

Which is exactly why he shouldn't. Basically all of the male companions from PoE except Aloth are masculine. Edér boast about his sexual experiences with women. Hiravias flirts aggressively with women. Durance likes to call women whores. Kana tries to flirt with Maneha as well. Their personalities suffice to avoid any questions about their masculinity or sexuality. They are unquestionably men. Aloth is the only male companion who is shown to be weak, a coward even. As can be seen right here this creates questions about his sexuality. Aloth being bisexual or gay really would confirm some problematic stereotypes. Nevermind the whole issue of Iselmyr. Being sometimes female has a whole other set of complications. Isemyr would contribute to an association of homosexuality or bisexuality with being transgender. Presumably Deadfire will mostly played by people who identify as straight who tend not to differentiate between sexual identity, behavior and attraction. Nontheless Carrie Patel wrote Aloth and Maneha. Of all writers she appears most eager to write characters who don't confirm to gender roles. Therefore I'd say the likelihood of Aloth being interested in men is unfortunately still quite high if Patel wrote him in Deadfire.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Iselmyr herself flirts once or twice with women as well. I'm not sure if that is her just being sassy, or an indication to her sexual orientation; but all the same it *also* raises the point that, even if Aloth were "part-woman", his female half would *still* not necessarily be interested in men, or be uninterested in women.

 

Personally I'm expecting all three original companions to remain either heterosexual or non-romanceable, just because it will keep the whole can of worms about an unexpected sexuality reveal closed - but in the event that one of them *does* turn out to be homosexual... I'm actually half-suspecting it'll be Pallegina. Which would mean bad news for my protagonist, if so.

 

I am betting my coins on the same sex relationships to be had with the new companions instead though - at least so long as a heterosexual relationship with them is made impossible. Otherwise, I also think that we are perhaps not reading enough between the lines about what Josh is saying in his tumblr response. What Josh says is that they want to make companions attracted to a character who only relates to a certain range of qualities - this could be sex, yes, but it could also be race/subrace, or even background, stats and class too. Maybe all these variables will play a stronger role than sex itself when determining whether a character will or won't have a romance with you. In that sense, maybe Edér may be romanceable as a male or female alike... So long as you aren't an orlan. Or, for that matter, Pallegina may be up for having a relationship with your character, provided you are not a priest.

Edited January 2, 2018 by algroth

[rjshae]

Personally I'm expecting all three original companions to remain either heterosexual or non-romanceable, just because it will keep the whole can of worms about an unexpected sexuality reveal closed - but in the event that one of them *does* turn out to be homosexual... I'm actually half-suspecting it'll be Pallegina. Which would mean bad news for my protagonist, if so.

 

The sexual orientation of god-likes; that's a whole can of worms right there. The whole concept of god-likes seems rather cruel of the gods, in my mind.

[smjjames]

 

Personally I'm expecting all three original companions to remain either heterosexual or non-romanceable, just because it will keep the whole can of worms about an unexpected sexuality reveal closed - but in the event that one of them *does* turn out to be homosexual... I'm actually half-suspecting it'll be Pallegina. Which would mean bad news for my protagonist, if so.

 

The sexual orientation of god-likes; that's a whole can of worms right there. The whole concept of god-likes seems rather cruel of the gods, in my mind.

 

 

Pallegina's 'romance orientation' (if you will) wasn't hinted at in PoE1, I don't think she ever tried to flirt with anybody. Wouldn't be surprised if she came out as asexual or just not interested.

 

Also, the sexual orientation of godlikes is as much a can of worms as anybody else. They're infertile, yes, but that just means they cannot produce children, not that they don't have the equipment for it.

[Salinger]

If I'm not mistaken, Iselmyr herself flirts once or twice with women as well. I'm not sure if that is her just being sassy, or an indication to her sexual orientation; but all the same it *also* raises the point that, even if Aloth were "part-woman", his female half would *still* not necessarily be interested in men, or be uninterested in women.

Iselmyr is rude, aggressive and impudent as stereotypical butch. So making her interested in women that would be problematic stereotype, not feminine Aloth being gay.

[smjjames]

 

If I'm not mistaken, Iselmyr herself flirts once or twice with women as well. I'm not sure if that is her just being sassy, or an indication to her sexual orientation; but all the same it *also* raises the point that, even if Aloth were "part-woman", his female half would *still* not necessarily be interested in men, or be uninterested in women.

Iselmyr is rude, aggressive and impudent as stereotypical butch. So making her interested in women that would be problematic stereotype, not feminine Aloth being gay.

 

 

 

Theres also the five year span between the end of PoE1 (have they decided on a rough year for PoE1 to end? given that the months roll by during playtime) and the start of PoE2. Which means that depending on what happens to Aloth in PoE1, there's a chance of Iselmyrs character having grown and changed since.

[algroth]

 

If I'm not mistaken, Iselmyr herself flirts once or twice with women as well. I'm not sure if that is her just being sassy, or an indication to her sexual orientation; but all the same it *also* raises the point that, even if Aloth were "part-woman", his female half would *still* not necessarily be interested in men, or be uninterested in women.

Iselmyr is rude, aggressive and impudent as stereotypical butch. So making her interested in women that would be problematic stereotype, not feminine Aloth being gay.

 

I can see that, but all the same I was commenting on what I recall seeing in the original Pillars, in which I recall Iselmyr flirting or catcalling women, Pallegina specifically if I remember correctly. So I can see a basis with which to argue that just because Aloth has an awakened female past in him, it isn't indicative of his sexuality at all.

 

But to echo what Josh said in his tumblr, if you approach the presence of a homosexual character as one dictated or prompted by representation, then you'll always run into trouble because that character will always be misrepresenting of one section of the community or other. It's best to simply think of them as individual people who simply are the way they are and speak only about their own character, and not as a stand-in for a minority or other.

Edited January 2, 2018 by algroth

[Beyond The Sea]

Personally I'm expecting all three original companions to remain either heterosexual or non-romanceable, just because it will keep the whole can of worms about an unexpected sexuality reveal closed[...]

 

Otherwise, I also think that we are perhaps not reading enough between the lines about what Josh is saying in his tumblr response. What Josh says is that they want to make companions attracted to a character who only relates to a certain range of qualities - this could be sex, yes, but it could also be race/subrace, or even background, stats and class too. Maybe all these variables will play a stronger role than sex itself when determining whether a character will or won't have a romance with you. In that sense, maybe Edér may be romanceable as a male or female alike... So long as you aren't an orlan. Or, for that matter, Pallegina may be up for having a relationship with your character, provided you are not a priest.

 

Yes, Edér talks about sex with women. In don't recall him ever expressing any interest in men. At least some people might well consider it a retcon, even if he were bisexual.

"Some characters will prefer a different range of characters than others" I thought was referencing relationships based on reputation as described by Sawyer in the relationship backer update video. For example Edér would not be romantically interested in someone who is cruel to animals.

   

Because of varying character heights and costs of creating versus one-time use alone smaller games usually don't have romantic animations, hence any race gating aside from narrative reasons is unnecessary. Romantic relationships still have to be written and possibly recorded. Obviously if you create more gates, fewer character will see that content. If it's not much content it's fine, just another choice strong in reactivity but limited in scope. The bigger gated content gets the less justifiable the gate becomes. Work is limited. If a writers spends time on writing a long romance gated by species, sex and reputation, then that writer won't be writing something else.

Indie games like Divinity: Original Sin 2 or Stardew Valley don't gate relationships by anything other than reputation achievable by anyone. It's not ideal, I personally don't prefer it, but from a production standpoint making all love interests bisexual is most efficient and it offers the greatest choice variety for all players.

Previously I had expected Deadfire to take a similar course. Now it seems that is not the case. 

 

By the same logic having defined sexualities easily favors straight male players as they are most often the biggest player demographic, thus receiving the most resources, with female players coming second, followed somtimes by less universally appealing love interests like aliens, robots or furries and gay players pretty much being lowest priority. Granted the sample size of games isn't very big.

 

I said before Serafen and Tekēhu might possibly be considered too alien to be popular love interests based on roughly the same principles as above. If you make a conventionally attractive woman and a female dwarf or Orlan love interest, convention dictates the attractive woman will be more popular, and the work invested in the Orlan will be seen by fewer people, it becomes worth less so to speak. Though Sawyer's post about leaving the preferences of characters up to the narrative team and his admission that not everyone can be pleased indicate otherwise. 

He mentions gay characters, yet he writes out "we have men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women." It could have many reasons. Fantasy games tend to avoid the word gay. Or maybe Deadfire has straight and bisexual characters, not gay and lesbian ones.

 

[Lephys]

Iselmyr is rude, aggressive and impudent as stereotypical butch. So making her interested in women that would be problematic stereotype, not feminine Aloth being gay.

 

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one. In other words, saying "we can't make her interested in women, because that would be a stereotype" is just as ludicrous as saying "we have no choice but to make her interested in women, because all people with her characteristics are interested in women."

 

If you don't let some characters coincidentally fit with some stereotypes, you end up creating weird Bizarro Stereotypes. Instead of "All people with short hair like donuts," (just as a silly example), you end up with "All people with short hair HATE donuts," just to avoid the coincidence of having a short-haired person fit the stereotype.

[Salinger]

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one.

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we?

[Juodas Varnas]

 

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one.

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we?

 

There already was one in the first game over a god damn joke-poem gravestone epitaph written by one of the backers, if i recall correctly. (Which is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me)

[JerekKruger]

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one. In other words, saying "we can't make her interested in women, because that would be a stereotype" is just as ludicrous as saying "we have no choice but to make her interested in women, because all people with her characteristics are interested in women."

 

If you don't let some characters coincidentally fit with some stereotypes, you end up creating weird Bizarro Stereotypes. Instead of "All people with short hair like donuts," (just as a silly example), you end up with "All people with short hair HATE donuts," just to avoid the coincidence of having a short-haired person fit the stereotype.

 

Whilst I don't disagree, if characters with a given sexuality are more often depicted as conforming to a given stereotype then I think don't think it's a bad thing to create some who don't. That said I honestly don't really know what the typical depiction of gay/lesbian/other characters in RPGs is these days as I haven't played an RPG with romances in a long time

[Lephys]

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we?

 

Well, there are two types of people in the world:

 

Those who adhere to reason, and those who do not.

 

People can dislike things for any number of reasons, and every single person could dislike the same thing for a different reason. The only sensical thing to do is to adhere to reason.

 

Look at it another way. If everyone's correct just because they think something, then everyone's wrong as well, because someone else always thinks someone's wrong. It makes no sense.

 

Most SJWs have a good point somewhere that they're starting from, but they essentially become addicted to fighting for a cause, so they have to make EVERYTHING about their cause. It's funny how much discrimination goes on in the whole "your opinion is wrong because this person I'm fighting for's opinion can't be wrong!".

 

*shrug*. All things in moderation.

[smjjames]

 

 

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one.

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we?

 

There already was one in the first game over a god damn joke-poem gravestone epitaph written by one of the backers, if i recall correctly. (Which is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me)

 

 

It's the internet, there's always something for someone to get offended by.

 

That doesn't mean that the PoE2 team isn't being careful with it, they know it's an area which can blow back against even the most talented and well intented devs.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

I wonder who's gonna be gay this time. Not gonna be surprised if it's the most popular and funny characters as always, just to screw straight players.

This should be Aloth. He is ALREADY half-woman 

 

 

Which is exactly why he shouldn't. Basically all of the male companions from PoE except Aloth are masculine. Edér boast about his sexual experiences with women. Hiravias flirts aggressively with women. Durance likes to call women whores. Kana tries to flirt with Maneha as well. Their personalities suffice to avoid any questions about their masculinity or sexuality. They are unquestionably men. Aloth is the only male companion who is shown to be weak, a coward even. As can be seen right here this creates questions about his sexuality. Aloth being bisexual or gay really would confirm some problematic stereotypes. Nevermind the whole issue of Iselmyr. Being sometimes female has a whole other set of complications. Isemyr would contribute to an association of homosexuality or bisexuality with being transgender. Presumably Deadfire will mostly played by people who identify as straight who tend not to differentiate between sexual identity, behavior and attraction. Nontheless Carrie Patel wrote Aloth and Maneha. Of all writers she appears most eager to write characters who don't confirm to gender roles. Therefore I'd say the likelihood of Aloth being interested in men is unfortunately still quite high if Patel wrote him in Deadfire.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Iselmyr herself flirts once or twice with women as well. I'm not sure if that is her just being sassy, or an indication to her sexual orientation; but all the same it *also* raises the point that, even if Aloth were "part-woman", his female half would *still* not necessarily be interested in men, or be uninterested in women.

 

Personally I'm expecting all three original companions to remain either heterosexual or non-romanceable, just because it will keep the whole can of worms about an unexpected sexuality reveal closed - but in the event that one of them *does* turn out to be homosexual... I'm actually half-suspecting it'll be Pallegina. Which would mean bad news for my protagonist, if so.

 

I am betting my coins on the same sex relationships to be had with the new companions instead though - at least so long as a heterosexual relationship with them is made impossible. Otherwise, I also think that we are perhaps not reading enough between the lines about what Josh is saying in his tumblr response. What Josh says is that they want to make companions attracted to a character who only relates to a certain range of qualities - this could be sex, yes, but it could also be race/subrace, or even background, stats and class too. Maybe all these variables will play a stronger role than sex itself when determining whether a character will or won't have a romance with you. In that sense, maybe Edér may be romanceable as a male or female alike... So long as you aren't an orlan. Or, for that matter, Pallegina may be up for having a relationship with your character, provided you are not a priest.

 

Yeah, personally I think the major factor will be reputations.  If you have a high rep for being cruel, it doesn't matter how nice you are to her face Xoti knows you are scum from your actions and won't drop her lantern for you, but it will open doors for getting Serafen swinging in your hammock.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

For what it's worth, the forced avoidance of a cliche/stereotype is just as wrong as adhering strictly to one.

You forgot how loud minorities can be. If you show their unsightly side, there will be SJW sh*tstorm. We don't want it for Pillars, are we?

 

 

I've seen a great deal more complaining about what "those darn SJWs" will surely do than any actual complaints from that side of the spectrum, regarding Pillars.

 

Without getting into what some hypothetical people might hypothetically do, I agree that avoiding stereotypes can be pushed too far. Josh addresses it directly in his post, pointing towards actual gay people who wouldn't mind a "stereotypical" gay character, because why not?

 

It would certainly be easier if LGBT characters in games weren't so thin on the ground that every one that does appear is held up as representing the whole demographic. But it's not exactly something Obsidian can do much about.

Edited January 2, 2018 by MortyTheGobbo

[smjjames]

What do you mean by 'so thin on the ground'? The three returning characters already have a deep background and I'd expect the other characters to have a similarily deep background.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Thin on the ground, as in rare.

[KDubya]

One of the great things about PoE was that it did NOT have any romances.

 

If I want to have some transsexual escapades mixed in with my swords and sorcery I can go to Bioware.

 

Why spend the time and effort to bring this to DeadFire? The chances that it will be done well is slim to none.

 

Anything written will need to be as bland as possible to avoid the inevitable hatestorm from the Perpetually Offended. Even then the wrath of the righteous will echo across the twitterverse. The outrage from omitting all romances will be limited as its hard to rally against nothing, while anything they do put in will be condemned for being too much/not enough/too stereotypical/too edgy etc.

 

You're not going to write something and have the unwashed hordes come out and say 'good job!' and 'everyone should buy this game and support this effort'. Best case scenario is you limit the calls for a boycott which can be better accomplished by omitting all relationships.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Rosbjerg
pejorative language