Highlights
- Baldur's Gate 3 embraces a "banging free-for-all" approach to romance, where players can pursue any companion regardless of sexual preference.
- This flattening of sexuality reduces romance to fulfilling player fantasies rather than navigating the
- The game's lack of sexual preferences for companions eliminates the opportunity for genuine romantic disappointment and misses the chance for narrative-building.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is fantastic from what I’ve played so far—on course to become one of the greatest RPGs I’ve ever played, in fact. Its evident love of the Forgotten Realms universe, its clever implementation of D&D 5e into a videogame format, its character writing, are all fantastic. But in a game of such breathtaking scope, there are bound to be some little slip-ups here and there, and one of these for me is in the ‘playersexuality’ of the companions.
Basically, the camp is a big ol’ banging free-for-all—come one, come all, come here, come there. Say the right things to the companion you want to roll around the campfire with, and eventually you’re in there; sexual preference is nonexistent. Everyone is fair game. Line ‘em up, pick the one you want (don’t worry, they’re all hotties by any objective measure), and figure out whether they require naughty or nice words to jump into the sack with you.
To me, this flattening of sexuality kinda belongs in the realm of fan-fiction, reducing romance to the realisation of personal player fantasies rather than a nuanced navigation of a given character. I’m not arguing that sexuality should be the defining characteristic of a companion, but on a human level it is a characteristic, and by eliminating it you chip away at that character’s believability. It’s wrapping a blanket around the player and saying ‘there, there. We’re here to cater to your every fantasy,’ which feels in conflict with a compelling roleplaying experience.
Now, this is absolutely not an argument against players getting to play the character they want, or for me to line the characters up and say what each one’s sexuality should be based on how they present. There’s something to be said for subverting expectations between a character’s sexual preference and how they present.
I was listening to a chat with Neil Newbon, the voice actor behind the vampiric companion Astarion. Newbon made allusions to “better representation and choices,” and how good it is to have “normalcy of characters” rather than having them defined by skin colour, sexuality, and so on. “Make everything normalised. That’s the aim of inclusion and representation” was the key line there. Yes, normalisation is absolutely what the game should strive for, but surely that would entail having a healthy mix of cis, gay, bi- or pansexual characters in there who have a sexual orientation, but aren’t defined by it?
Newbon celebrates the pansexuality of Astarion, but does the term (romantic attraction to people regardless of gender) even have any meaning in a world where preference doesn’t exist, and every character is just as flexible? Astarion is no different to any other companion here, and seeing as all sexuality in the game revolves around the player (companions are unable to romance each other) we’re talking here about the weird phenomenon of playersexuality, where the romantic world basically revolves around the player.
There’s a difference between normalisation of sexual preferences and not acknowledging the idea that sexual preferences exist. And that’s saying nothing of non-preference, where a character maybe just isn’t feeling that horny while out fighting and adventuring, or perhaps is asexual altogether.
Take Minsc, for instance. In the original Baldur’s Gate games, he wasn’t available as a romantic companion, which absolutely suits a character who, despite being a full-grown formidable warrior, has an extremely innocent outlook and is something of a child at heart (like Jaheira says in the trailer, Minsc “sees the world differently to most people”). His love clearly manifests as an infantile love for his pet hamster Boo, so just leave him to it! There was a tasteful nuance to Bioware’s original decision with the character, and that’s been flattened in Baldur’s Gate 3, where even Minsc is up for grabs.
Romance in Baldur’s Gate 3 feels more like fan fiction than inclusion, wiping out the disappointment you might feel that a certain character is unavailable to you. Dealing with romantic disappointment can be a great part of the roleplaying experience. It’s a weird dissonance between games and life that in games if you put in the legwork, you’re gonna get rewarded with sex eventually. Life’s not like that, and I’d expect a narrative, character-driven RPG like Baldur’s Gate 3 to try to reflect. Exploring the community’s feelings on this, I had a bit of a chuckle when I read this comment on the r/gaymers subreddit, complaining that about the lack of sexual preferences in Baldur’s Gate 3:
It's frustrating for me because I prefer the realism (hello, thirsting after a hot guy and then he's straight, RIP) so I would like characters to have preferences.
It’s a whimsical comment, but one that actually gets to the heart of the issue. The forbidden attraction or the much-desired romance that remains unavailable for one reason or another—sexual orientation, a loved one elsewhere in the world, simply not liking you ‘that way,’ whatever—is an excellent narrative-building device, and perfect for a game like this.
Larian had a choice to make in the romance department between narrative-friendly nuance and a big ol’ fuck-for-all, and they went for the latter. I’m sure there’ll be plenty who are delighted by that choice, but on a narrative and immersion level, it’s a loss.