A talk about cats led me down a terrible path

[Vince]

So, I see a lot of posts about all the gay advances in the game. With a lot of push-back, people claiming anti-LGBTQ bs. Here's the dialogue I experienced that pissed me off and put me in the "Larian screwed up with gay companions" group:

I like Gale. I think he's a cool, funny guy. Real friend material. And thus I talked with him about all the trivial stuff. So when he started talking about his cat, I was all for it. I didn't know this subject was the tunnel either into his rectum, or into becoming labeled a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ animal-hater.

Why? Because during the cat conversation with Gale, I ended up with 3 dialogue options. The first two practically exclaimed my erotic love for Gale, while the last one had me say this, and I paraphrase: "Would you stop talking about your stupid cat already? Don't you have more interesting things to say?"

I was forced to choose the latter for obvious reasons -- because my Ranger isn't gay -- which prompted Gale to say something like: "You're not an animal person, are you?"

Well, Gale, I'm a Ranger and my main purpose in life is to protect nature and its animals from those who want to do them harm. So, in no unclear term: Go F yourself.

Sadly, I didn't get that dialogue option.

In the end, I reloaded and ignored the cat subject altogether.

That didn't help, though. A few nights later we were practically holding eachothers' hands while looking at the night sky, completely devoid of player agency.

Edit/Add: The problem, of course, is that the game isn't coded into acknowledging a difference between genders. To the game, we're all unisex. So in this way, every companion is gay and also isn't. *cough* reductio ad absurdum *cough*

[Goldtooth™]

"Stop talking about your stupid cat" is not being an animal hater.

Much like the other two dialogue options are not "entering his rectum" or "eroticly proclaiming love".

You think too much about dialogue and then decide what they mean. You imply meanings and then believe them, that isn't what the dialogue is saying.

[Vince]

Originally posted by GollumGollum.Ttv™:

"Stop talking about your stupid cat" is not being an animal hater.

Much like the other two dialogue options are not "entering his rectum" or "eroticly proclaiming love".

You think too much about dialogue and then decide what they mean. You imply meanings and then believe them, that isn't what the dialogue is saying.

He literally replies with: "You're not an animal person, are you?" or something almost exactly like that. So the joke's on you right now, sorry.

[Zerostalgia]

Originally posted by Vince:

You're being dishonest right now. When was the last time you were sitting LIKE THAT next to another male friend. I'm pretty feminine and love my bro hugs and emotional moments. This scene is different. It's set up for romance. It's exactly the same scene whether your hero is male or female and whether or not you've been flirting with Gale or not. It's lazy.

But it seems you're (deliberately?) not getting my point. My point is that romance is ALWAYS looming over your head, somehow more with the men that with the women in this game. It's bad, lazy writing.

Probably when I was at a music festival.
If you think that them using the same animation for sitting next to a character (the economic choice) in a scene with sex and a scene without it makes the scene without sex sexual that's a you problem.
I didn't find the scene sexual because I had told Gale I wanted to be friends with him.
The context determines the reading of the text.

[Dragonirian]

I am very interested to see statistics of non-enemy character deaths by player's hand.

[Zerostalgia]

Originally posted by Dragonirian:

I am very interested to see statistics of non-enemy character deaths by player's hand.

Given you espouse that all LGBTQ ally-ship is only virtue signalling and people really just don't care, wouldn't the survival rates just eclipse what you're crossing your fingers for because people don't care?

[Dragonirian]

Originally posted by Zerostalgia:

Originally posted by Dragonirian:

I am very interested to see statistics of non-enemy character deaths by player's hand.

Given you espouse that all LGBTQ ally-ship is only virtue signalling and people really just don't care, wouldn't the survival rates just eclipse what you're crossing your fingers for because people don't care?

I'm just curious.
I fully expect most people to keep all companions for the first playtrough.
I'm just curious about the statistics of which ones were killed by the players the most.

[EricHVela]

I talked to Gale about the not-a-cat and about performing magic. Still, no romantic advances from Gale. Supposedly, there's supposed to be some illusion before you reach a certain event in the game, and after that point, there's no chance. I'm past that point. So, I guess I successfully navigated around Gale's romance without trying.

What's weird to me is that my character had a dialog option to break off a romance with Garlach that I wasn't aware was happening. I checked the conversation log and found nothing that asked for or confirmed a relationship. She was sad, but I, the player, am a bit confused about that one. Is it because she can't touch anyone that someone chatting with sympathy is a relationship? Oh well. I guess I'll let her and the other character (who hasn't made a move on my character) fight it out next time and see who wins.

[['w']]

Originally posted by Vince:

Originally posted by Cipher:

What if you are playing a Druid that loves animals?

Are you still "gaming" the approval system or just roleplaying?

What if you are playing a female Druid who loves animals but is also only into girls?

The interactions with the companions are terribly written.

Exactly. His comment was bogus. I think I play this game 80% for the role-playing aspect. So I indeed care if Gale thinks I hate animals, lol.

Hell, maybe the devs made this so men can relate a bit more to the #metoo movement. Because if Gale continues on like this, I'll cancel the dude. How much no's does he need to hear before he stops flirting with me ffs!?

wait until you sit with him until sunrise, because he is afraid to die and next thing is you are almost in a relationship, gladly it didn't cancel Shadowheart

PS: My druid loves cats... and now he is supposed to hate them, okay Larian, I'll suck d. just so that I don't have to be a cathater... well nope

[Zerostalgia]

Originally posted by |wilb|:

wait until you sit with him until sunrise, because he is afraid to die and next thing is you are almost in a relationship, gladly it didn't cancel Shadowheart

PS: My druid loves cats... and now he is supposed to hate them, okay Larian, I'll suck d. just so that I don't have to be a cathater... well nope

You mean this scene?
https://youtu.be/8zlGVPhQnZY
My character didn't say he hates cats and no matter what I can't pick an option to romance him, because I turned him down politely.

[AA]

I spurned Gale (and Laizel) in different saves, and that was the end of that. There are times when the dialogue allows you to just leave the conversation without engaging further.

[Zengar]

I agree with the general sentiment. I understand making everyone into the player for convenience sake, fine. When I got the now "infamous" Gale scene about magic it also got me by surprise. I have a bard/paladin and that convo has special options for bard to talk about the weave.
The setup felt a little gay, with the expressions and all, but I wanted to talk about magic and the weave with the wizard, I may even get some power, who knows? But we all know what happens after.
Now, even though it got me by surprise I wasn't mad. We are all time bombs, he has two time bombs even, I get it. It was still fine at that point.
But what got me mad was turning him down. I said something about being a good moment to call the night and go to sleep and Gale got all melodramatic, about almost getting the magic, but then loosing it to nothing and so on. And right there, I felt the game was trying to make me feel guilty about turning him down.
I tend to not meta roleplay and try to understand everything in term of in game logic. But this thing just took me out of the game completely. Isn't this kind of advances then guilty tripping the other party when he refuses, precisely what women refer to when they talk about toxicity and lack of respect?
It even left me with the feeling that Gale was absolutely bullshiting me when he said he was Mystras partner. In retrospective, it sounds like an effort to try an impress.
I don't know, maybe Larian intention was exactly this, to create a companion that sexually harasses you and then guilt trips you if you refuse. If that is the intention, then mission accomplished, but such a weird choice to make this situation with a companion instead of some NPC in the world.

[['w']]

This was the third time, solved it nearly the same way, after the night the choices you get when talking to him make you seem a little needy towards him.

Anyway, I solved act2, last fight without him, and no idea why suddenly it seems as if he didn't have to blast himself up, so no idea, somehow it feels like a gap.

Regarding cats, that happened at the party, end of act1

Originally posted by Zengar:

I agree with the general sentiment. I understand making everyone into the player for convenience sake, fine. When I got the now "infamous" Gale scene about magic it also got me by surprise. I have a bard/paladin and that convo has special options for bard to talk about the weave.
The setup felt a little gay, with the expressions and all, but I wanted to talk about magic and the weave with the wizard, I may even get some power, who knows? But we all know what happens after.
Now, even though it got me by surprise I wasn't mad. We are all time bombs, he has two time bombs even, I get it. It was still fine at that point.
But what got me mad was turning him down. I said something about being a good moment to call the night and go to sleep and Gale got all melodramatic, about almost getting the magic, but then loosing it to nothing and so on. And right there, I felt the game was trying to make me feel guilty about turning him down.
I tend to not meta roleplay and try to understand everything in term of in game logic. But this thing just took me out of the game completely. Isn't this kind of advances then guilty tripping the other party when he refuses, precisely what women refer to when they talk about toxicity and lack of respect?
It even left me with the feeling that Gale was absolutely bullshiting me when he said he was Mystras partner. In retrospective, it sounds like an effort to try an impress.
I don't know, maybe Larian intention was exactly this, to create a companion that sexually harasses you and then guilt trips you if you refuse. If that is the intention, then mission accomplished, but such a weird choice to make this situation with a companion instead of some NPC in the world.

Felt the same with Wyll dancing scene.

The male player character has one movement set during conversations I believe, behaving like a prancing pony.

Not okay when I want to roleplay a warrior for example

[cfehunter]

I'm happy that gay romance options are in the game. Unfortunately Gale in particular just won't take no for an answer, but given his personality that may be an intentional narrative choice. (I can't go into details without spoiling)

The fact that you have very little say in how you act towards him in certain scenes isn't great. Regardless of the gender of the player avatar, the game quickly throws you into intimate situations with Gale without any explicit intent.

[Goldtooth™]

Originally posted by Vince:

Originally posted by GollumGollum.Ttv™:

"Stop talking about your stupid cat" is not being an animal hater.

Much like the other two dialogue options are not "entering his rectum" or "eroticly proclaiming love".

You think too much about dialogue and then decide what they mean. You imply meanings and then believe them, that isn't what the dialogue is saying.

He literally replies with: "You're not an animal person, are you?" or something almost exactly like that. So the joke's on you right now, sorry.

Yes, one random guy says You aren't an animal person. Why do you care about Gales Opinion on your characters life? You offended him, and he tries to offend you.

[Goldtooth™]

Originally posted by |wilb|:

This was the third time, solved it nearly the same way, after the night the choices you get when talking to him make you seem a little needy towards him.

Anyway, I solved act2, last fight without him, and no idea why suddenly it seems as if he didn't have to blast himself up, so no idea, somehow it feels like a gap.

Regarding cats, that happened at the party, end of act1

Originally posted by Zengar:

I agree with the general sentiment. I understand making everyone into the player for convenience sake, fine. When I got the now "infamous" Gale scene about magic it also got me by surprise. I have a bard/paladin and that convo has special options for bard to talk about the weave.
The setup felt a little gay, with the expressions and all, but I wanted to talk about magic and the weave with the wizard, I may even get some power, who knows? But we all know what happens after.
Now, even though it got me by surprise I wasn't mad. We are all time bombs, he has two time bombs even, I get it. It was still fine at that point.
But what got me mad was turning him down. I said something about being a good moment to call the night and go to sleep and Gale got all melodramatic, about almost getting the magic, but then loosing it to nothing and so on. And right there, I felt the game was trying to make me feel guilty about turning him down.
I tend to not meta roleplay and try to understand everything in term of in game logic. But this thing just took me out of the game completely. Isn't this kind of advances then guilty tripping the other party when he refuses, precisely what women refer to when they talk about toxicity and lack of respect?
It even left me with the feeling that Gale was absolutely bullshiting me when he said he was Mystras partner. In retrospective, it sounds like an effort to try an impress.
I don't know, maybe Larian intention was exactly this, to create a companion that sexually harasses you and then guilt trips you if you refuse. If that is the intention, then mission accomplished, but such a weird choice to make this situation with a companion instead of some NPC in the world.

Felt the same with Wyll dancing scene.

The male player character has one movement set during conversations I believe, behaving like a prancing pony.

Not okay when I want to roleplay a warrior for example

You can literally shut the entire conversation down immediately.