Baldur's Gate 3

[Norfleet]

Counter-question: If you care so little about this, then why do you even want companions to sleep with each other?

I don't. I am completely unconcerned with whether they do or don't (unless I get my Kwisatz Haderach), but you clearly seem VERY bothered by the possibility of them doing so, and this makes no sense to me.

[Stack of Turtles]

"Shipping" comes from "relationship" and it means when women want fictional characters to **** because they are functionally autistic with no mental filter.

And...why is this any of my concern, exactly? I'm still missing this part.

Because Trickster is also functionally autistic with no mental filter.

[Norfleet]

Yeah, but I don't get it. If I don't want to **** a bear, and I don't want to **** Vergil, and so by my decision to do neither of these things, Vergil fucks a bear, WHY IS THIS MY PROBLEM?

[Trickster]

Counter-question: If you care so little about this, then why do you even want companions to sleep with each other?

I don't. I am completely unconcerned with whether they do or don't (unless I get my Kwisatz Haderach), but you clearly seem VERY bothered by the possibility of them doing so, and this makes no sense to me.

I've already explained why. On a personal level, it might be tolerable. But overall, it's a needless and frankly harmful phenomenon. I've even given an example of the kind of absurdities this will lead to. I'll give another one. For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued? By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

[Norfleet]

For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued?

...because that's the entire point of another playthrough? In a different playthrough, maybe I'm playing as a cartoonishly evil asshat instead. Maybe I choose to go with the other evil ***** instead. What are you even trying to say here?

By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

Look, I'm okay with just right of first refusal.

[GhostCow]

Counter-question: If you care so little about this, then why do you even want companions to sleep with each other?

I don't. I am completely unconcerned with whether they do or don't (unless I get my Kwisatz Haderach), but you clearly seem VERY bothered by the possibility of them doing so, and this makes no sense to me.

I've already explained why. On a personal level, it might be tolerable. But overall, it's a needless and frankly harmful phenomenon. I've even given an example of the kind of absurdities this will lead to. I'll give another one. For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued? By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

It isn't devalued because it's a different timeline where you didn't go after them. The fact that this scenario devalues it for you it legitimate mental illness.

[Trickster]

.because that's the entire point of another playthrough? In a different playthrough, maybe I'm playing as a cartoonishly evil asshat instead. Maybe I choose to go with the other evil ***** instead.

And...? Why should she sleep with and love someone else because of that?

[Norfleet]

And...? Why should she sleep with and love someone else because of that?

Probably because you're a cartoonishly evil asshat that she would never love and doesn't love her, and therefore, since this is the timeline in which the good guy could have had doesn't exist, she either settles for someone else or dies forever alone, which is not traditionally an option women took? Becoming a cat lady is a relatively modern thing.

[rusty_shackleford]

Counter-question: If you care so little about this, then why do you even want companions to sleep with each other?

I don't. I am completely unconcerned with whether they do or don't (unless I get my Kwisatz Haderach), but you clearly seem VERY bothered by the possibility of them doing so, and this makes no sense to me.

I've already explained why. On a personal level, it might be tolerable. But overall, it's a needless and frankly harmful phenomenon. I've even given an example of the kind of absurdities this will lead to. I'll give another one. For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued? By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

This is actually a fair argument.
I can see both sides here, and since games probably should try to please the player(most games), I'd say if a companion can be romanceable then they shouldn't get with other characters if you don't romance them.

As for other characters: stop making everyone romanceable, come on.

[rusty_shackleford]

How about actual reactivity like characters you decide to have in your party get closer, and likewise with those you leave out, or send on missions, etc.,

[Norfleet]

This is actually a fair argument.
I can see both sides here, and since games probably should try to please the player(most games)

Okay, so you can translate this other side to something that makes sense? Because I'm not seeing anything other than the deranged ramblings of a mentally ill person. Make this logically comprehensible to me.

Because it seems to me that there's a sizeable audience that either doesn't care (us normal people), or actively wants to see this happen.

[Trickster]

I don't. I am completely unconcerned with whether they do or don't (unless I get my Kwisatz Haderach), but you clearly seem VERY bothered by the possibility of them doing so, and this makes no sense to me.

I've already explained why. On a personal level, it might be tolerable. But overall, it's a needless and frankly harmful phenomenon. I've even given an example of the kind of absurdities this will lead to. I'll give another one. For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued? By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

It isn't devalued because it's a different timeline where you didn't go after them. The fact that this scenario devalues it for you it legitimate mental illness.

Mental disorders, that's what it is to ramble about some non-existent "alternate timelines," when it's all much simpler: the same person is sitting at the computer, seeing the same character described as loyal, and their love as special. I'll ask again.

Why desecrate that in a game? Why, in your ****** opinion, can't a character just be alone if the player doesn't romance them?

[GhostCow]

I've already explained why. On a personal level, it might be tolerable. But overall, it's a needless and frankly harmful phenomenon. I've even given an example of the kind of absurdities this will lead to. I'll give another one. For instance, I see a character as absolutely loyal to my protagonist, and their love as special and exclusive. Why, in another playthrough, should I have to witness all of that being devalued? By default, all female companions should have a romantic line only for the protagonist, which he pursues at will. It just works.

It isn't devalued because it's a different timeline where you didn't go after them. The fact that this scenario devalues it for you it legitimate mental illness.

Mental disorders, that's what it is to ramble about some non-existent "alternate timelines," when it's all much simpler: the same person is sitting at the computer, seeing the same character described as loyal, and their love as special. I'll ask again.

Why desecrate that in a game? Why, in your ****** opinion, can't a character just be alone if the player doesn't romance them?

I'm not saying they have to date another character if you don't date them, I'm just saying it doesn't devalue the fact that you did in a different playthrough. How are they supposed to be loyal to you if you make a different character that makes different choices? They can't be loyal to the character they were loyal to in a different playthrough because they don't exist.

tl;dr, stop masturbating to anime porn. It's broken your brain.

[Trickster]

This is actually a fair argument.
I can see both sides here, and since games probably should try to please the player(most games)

Okay, so you can translate this other side to something that makes sense? Because I'm not seeing anything other than the deranged ramblings of a mentally ill person. Make this logically comprehensible to me.

Because it seems to me that there's a sizeable audience that either doesn't care (us normal people), or actively wants to see this happen.

You're a mentally ill ****** who can't give me any arguments outside of "mah different timeline" or "why shouldn't I care?". But apparently, it bothers you a lot. That's why you keep butthurting here like the moron you are.

[Norfleet]

How about actual reactivity

Games need more reactivity in general. People should burst into flames or explode when exposed to oxidizers, dissolve into organic sludge when exposed to caustic compounds, undergo nuclear fusion when compressed into the density of a stellar core, spaghettify when exposed to intense gravitational shear, and other fun things.

Mental disorders, that's what it is to ramble about some non-existent "alternate timelines," when it's all much simpler: the same person is sitting at the computer, seeing the same character described as loyal, and their love as special. I'll ask again.

But the entire point of a different playthrough is using a different character, making different choices and seeing what happens had things been done differently. Why should you expect the same results if you do something new and entirely different?

[GhostCow]

Trickster, you realize the character in a game is not you the player, but someone entirely different that you are roleplaying as, correct? Or are you a self insert weirdo?

[rusty_shackleford]

Trickster, you realize the character in a game is not you the player, but someone entirely different that you are roleplaying as, correct? Or are you a self insert weirdo?

The character is me, stop playing as a girl you weirdo

[GhostCow]

Trickster, you realize the character in a game is not you the player, but someone entirely different that you are roleplaying as, correct? Or are you a self insert weirdo?

The character is me, stop playing as a girl you weirdo

If that's the case then you are the one being disloyal by not dating them in every playthrough and it's your fault they got with someone else

[Trickster]

It isn't devalued because it's a different timeline where you didn't go after them. The fact that this scenario devalues it for you it legitimate mental illness.

Mental disorders, that's what it is to ramble about some non-existent "alternate timelines," when it's all much simpler: the same person is sitting at the computer, seeing the same character described as loyal, and their love as special. I'll ask again.

Why desecrate that in a game? Why, in your ****** opinion, can't a character just be alone if the player doesn't romance them?

I'm not saying they have to date another character if you don't date them, I'm just saying it doesn't devalue the fact that you did in a different playthrough. How are they supposed to be loyal to you if you make a different character that makes different choices? They can't be loyal to the character they were loyal to in a different playthrough because they don't exist.

tl;dr, stop masturbating to anime porn. It's broken your brain.

What does loyalty have to do with anything, you stupid ******? I was talking about the exclusivity of love itself. What kind of exclusivity are we even talking about if the developers' philosophy is basically, "Yeah, dude, these are just words. You're being replaced by NPC"?

Before you open your filthy mouth and jump into discussions, reread the posts that have already been written. Because I've already responded a million times to the takes of low-IQ ***** like you.

[rusty_shackleford]

Trickster, you realize the character in a game is not you the player, but someone entirely different that you are roleplaying as, correct? Or are you a self insert weirdo?

The character is me, stop playing as a girl you weirdo

If that's the case then you are the one being disloyal by not dating them in every playthrough and it's your fault they got with someone else

I always date the same characters in replays

[GhostCow]

Mental disorders, that's what it is to ramble about some non-existent "alternate timelines," when it's all much simpler: the same person is sitting at the computer, seeing the same character described as loyal, and their love as special. I'll ask again.

Why desecrate that in a game? Why, in your ****** opinion, can't a character just be alone if the player doesn't romance them?

I'm not saying they have to date another character if you don't date them, I'm just saying it doesn't devalue the fact that you did in a different playthrough. How are they supposed to be loyal to you if you make a different character that makes different choices? They can't be loyal to the character they were loyal to in a different playthrough because they don't exist.

tl;dr, stop masturbating to anime porn. It's broken your brain.

What does loyalty have to do with anything, you stupid ******? I was talking about the exclusivity of love itself. What kind of exclusivity are we even talking about if the developers' philosophy is basically, "Yeah, dude, these are just words. You're being replaced by NPC"?

Before you open your filthy mouth and jump into discussions, reread the posts that have already been written. Because I've already responded a million times to the takes of low-IQ ***** like you.

You are not born with a single soulmate who can only love you. That's life. Grow up

[Trickster]

I'm not saying they have to date another character if you don't date them, I'm just saying it doesn't devalue the fact that you did in a different playthrough. How are they supposed to be loyal to you if you make a different character that makes different choices? They can't be loyal to the character they were loyal to in a different playthrough because they don't exist.

tl;dr, stop masturbating to anime porn. It's broken your brain.

What does loyalty have to do with anything, you stupid ******? I was talking about the exclusivity of love itself. What kind of exclusivity are we even talking about if the developers' philosophy is basically, "Yeah, dude, these are just words. You're being replaced by NPC"?

Before you open your filthy mouth and jump into discussions, reread the posts that have already been written. Because I've already responded a million times to the takes of low-IQ ***** like you.

You are not born with a single soulmate who can only love you. That's life. Grow up

I already answered that crap. You're repeating yourselves.
Seriously, NPCs...

[GhostCow]

>talks like he was raised by 4chan
>uses common internet insults that we've all heard 100 billion times
>thinks other people are NPCs

[Trickster]

But the entire point of a different playthrough is using a different character, making different choices and seeing what happens had things been done differently. Why should you expect the same results if you do something new and entirely different?

How is it "the same result" if the character simply doesn't enter into such relationships with anyone, because romantic influence, in this playthrough, was obviously not exerted on them by the only one who can do it?

God, ******* idiot, turn on your tiny brain for just a second. It's literally like I'm talking to walls.

[Norfleet]

How is it "the same result" if the character simply doesn't enter into such relationships with anyone, because romantic influence, in this playthrough, was obviously not exerted on them by the only one who can do it?

Yes, well, why is it somehow a problem if, because you didn't do that, something else happens? I don't get the fuss.

[Trickster]

Yes, well, why is it somehow a problem if, because you didn't do that, something else happens?

I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!

[Norfleet]

I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!

No, you mumbled words, none of which made any logical sense.

[rusty_shackleford]

Heh, arguing with norfleet.

[Trickster]

I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!

No, you mumbled words, none of which made any logical sense.

Because you have a low IQ and, clearly, can't comprehend my words or think beyond your breeding farm and other tasteless fantasies.

[KOS-MOS]

this whole argument is so ********