Sexuality and NPCs

@FayI Lol. I just realised that in your game this would mean that my MC would have an all women crew. XD

@Kaelyn I think to be hit on by your own gender depends on the place? I mean it’s not really surprising for a girl to initiate that kinda stuff with @poison_mara on an lgbtq+ party, but I think if you don’t go to that kinda places then it makes sense for homosexual people to be less forward? After all it’s not like it’s written on people what sexual orientation they have and since the majority are hetero…


Can we gay folk not like, just… assume otherwise, just guess, sometimes? Why does our flirtation have to be confined to designated “LGBT” spaces?


That sounds like a more ideal world than we live in I think. But what would happen if a guy makes the mistake of hitting on a hetero man then I think instead of just rejecting him with a simple no chances are that he would take it as an offense. As long being gay is something to insult other people with and joke about than I don’t think it’d be handled the same way as hetero people hitting on eachother. Otherwise there wouldn’t even be a need for LGBTQ people to have their own spaces?


It already happens. Gay panic defense.

You know, we can be optimistic, sometimes, and hope for the best?

What’s this even about? “LGBT” people must flirt in our Designated Gay Zones or else face death?


Wish I could be as optimistic as you then. I just tend to be more on the pessimistic side (way to play into stereotypes about hungarians, lol).

Edit: I didn’t say gay people should be only allowed to flirt in LGBTQ parties and stuff…
Maybe it’s just me but when I find a woman attractive I’m normally afraid to set my hopes high bc the chances are too high that she is only interested in men. All I’m trying to say that at a lesbian bar or whatever these places are called I’d probably sooner try to “hit on” a woman (once I get over my shyness) assuming the chances are higher there that the woman I show interest in is actually interested in my gender, or I’d less likely assume that a woman flirting with me is just being nice to me (not counting such obvious flirting that’d it’d take a complete idiot to misunderstand the situation).

Uh, and probably we went off topic again, sorry.


I can think of a few, actually. They all happen to also be gender-flippers, though. Some I thought were handled better than others.

Choice of Robots: There’s always an opposite-gender romance available; Tammy or Silas. (There are some slight differences between the two, including completely different appearances, but they’re mostly the same character.) In this case, there’s a note in the code that they’re always opposite in order to tempt the most people into going down that route. So I really don’t think this succeeds at its goal… wouldn’t it have made more sense to match, as first priority any romance option that had previously been picked, and as second priority, whichever character you’d chosen near the very beginning? :confused: Those would be much clearer indicators of preference.

A Midsummer Night’s Choice: The Maroon Knight is always the opposite gender to you. I might’ve enjoyed a same-gender version there, but I can see how it fit given the plot and setting.

Tally Ho: If you have a binary gender, Frankincense is always the opposite; if you’re nonbinary, Frankincense is the opposite of Rory. So I’m not sure if Frankincense is strictly heterosexual, exactly. Anyway, this is an implementation I thought went particularly well, especially being balanced with Rory, who’s always same-gender if you’re binary, and chosen if nb. Very balanced.

There are also characters who are bi but have a preference, like in Zombie Exodus: Safe Haven, Woody is easier to romance if you’re female, but can be romanced by anyone. This can be a way to increase variety in orientation without shutting anyone out.

Anyway, I’m not against exclusive orientations as long as it’s balanced. If it’s written so that someone playing as gay is going to have a worse experience than someone playing as heterosexual… maybe don’t do that?

As a shameless plug, @ParrotWatcher’s The One Chosen is currently slated to have two nonbinary ROs, plus one character who matches the MC, meaning three nb romances if the main character is nonbinary too! Though there’s going to be a bit of a wait in the story before romance actually starts for anyone.

Though if you have mostly bi/pan, with a few single-gender orientations, that would cut down the number significantly. And I have seen some games with very high numbers of ROs—though those often aren’t particularly locked anyway. (E.g. Zombie Exodus: Safe Haven, which I think only has one fully locked character so far, plus some with preferences. Or Keeper of the Sun and Moon, which doesn’t have any gender locking.) It does take a fair amount of writing, but when the author’s really into it, it can make for a pretty lively cast.

Okay, well, I don’t want to dogpile too much here, and I can see from later posts that you’re not promoting this attitude, but… that is a really harmful attitude. It’s exactly the sort of thing that can make being gay rather unnerving—and I can tell you, the risk of “someone might lash out at me” is rather worse than the risk of “I might be asked out.” All it means is the gay guy (or bi guy, for that matter) is interested in going out. It doesn’t mean he’s assuming you’re gay… it just means he’s not assuming that you must be straight. I generally don’t make assumptions about what people’s sexual orientations are. If I do, I’m bound to be wrong. Also, there is nothing wrong with being gay. It is not an insult.

This standard would require that everyone verify others’ orientations before ever asking anyone out. I don’t see heterosexual guys doing that each and every time.

Of course, there are ways of hitting on people that are bad and/or threatening no matter who’s doing it. If someone’s not taking no for an answer, or behaving inappropriately, then yes… that’s wrong, and it’s still wrong even if a gay guy is doing it to another gay guy, or any other configuration… being a straight guy hit on by a gay guy has nothing to do with it.

Also at one point, I did, possibly, sort of, ask out a guy who turned out to be heterosexual. It was a bit nebulous whether it was just a friendly hangout or what. Anyway, he just sort of subtly worked into the conversation that he was heterosexual, and we kind of just left it at that. It’s not too hard to handle such situations gracefully.

As far as games go, having a character be interested or ask you out—provided this character doesn’t know your orientation—is fairly realistic. Something like a forced kiss, on the other hand, isn’t really the best approach for any configuration.


And that one locked character keeps making me arguing about it’s unfairness (also once again a gay male character to represent homosexuals while lesbians get forgotten, tho I highly doubt that would have been @JimD’s intention it’s just why I’m kinda passionate about it). But that’s beside the point here.
Anyway I get your and @derekmetaltron’s (after he explained it better to me what he meant in the post I replied to) point.

I should note that I haven’t completely finalised the ROs yet. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: There will be at least one nonbinary RO, though. :slight_smile:


Oh yeah, that has a somewhat complicated story behind it, because Tommy originally was written as always dying, but a rescue option was patched in… and given that he had already been noted to be gay, he wasn’t about to change that. And that’s how ZE:SH got a specific locked character.

We’ll see what the next part of the game has in store :thinking:



Rosie will be a locked lesbian RO. Part of her additions are coded. I just ran out of time for Part 2.


It’s not your game only which I have this issue with and despite this let me make it clear I’m still a fan of your game. What bothers me even more the author of Dragon Racer admitted it themselfes that while they might have written a gay male RO they forgot about that there might be people interested in a homosexual female RO.
And in general it seems that when it comes to representation gay males seems to be taken more seriously or more often used. Tho irl life… Okay idk who gets the worst of it. Between guys the word “gay” gets often used as offensive word or they are made fun of, while we lesbians don’t get taken seriously hence why the offers from men to join in as third party…


I wasn’t saying it isn’t a harmful attitude, more that some people do feel that way in that context, though I think most considerate heterosexual people these days will just blink, thank them but make it politely but firmly clear that they are straight. I am sympathetic that from the opposite perspective it must be much more unnerving since you’re risking a more unpleasant or even violent response of course. And making assumptions in either case can be problematic. I also know there’s nothing wrong with being gay but do remember even today there are certain groups and faiths in society who can take the implications as insulting. It’s not right, but it can happen. And not everyone gets the signs of such situations as others, I suppose? Remember that some straight guys can be idiotically unaware at times when a woman is hitting on them. :grin:




You are correct. In real life, there are certain groups who want to purge the world of homosexuality and will use (and have historically used) violent means of accomplishing that. But we’re talking about a game. Writers have the power to create a world where LGBT+ people are free to be as they are. And if they do, and if you, a reader, choose to interact with that story, then you don’t get to dictate anything. If you’re insulted by a fictional man asking you out, that’s on YOU and no one else.

Let me also say this: you don’t need to aggressively clarify your straightness in order for it to be valid. Why do you need to clarify that you’re straight at all? Why not just be flattered that someone respectfully took an interest in you and leave it at that?


While I don’t think people need to be aggressive regarding their sexuality or preference or whathaveyou, I think a lot of the times people do clarify for others because it sets a precedent for people. While yes, I do believe it can be flattering knowing any individual has taken an interest in you, I think a lot of people would also agree that they wouldn’t like to be hit on by those they’re not attracted to. This is something that anyone on any spectrum can probably relate to, and I believe the clarification is used more as an indicator to nip flirtations in the bud rather than risk setting a precedent in the other’s mind that you’re okay with it and having it happen again.

This can, of course, be handled in a graceful manner, and I don’t condone people flipping their shit or being completely appalled by having someone flirt with them, unless the flirtation itself is like borderline abuse.

You say this applies to everyone, but you need to understand that the idea that a gay man would flirt with someone after being turned down once already plays into the gross stereotype that LGBT people - but gay men specifically - are predatory.

1 Like

I’ll make this my last response as I don’t wish to promote a back and forth.

I did not institute this idea into my response. In fact, I argued that the clarification was used to turn someone down. I did not state that gay men specifically attempt to leap onto anyone or act in a predatory manner. Here’s an example: You’re sitting alone at a party. You’re a straight man. Another man walks up to you and begins flirting with you. You’re flattered, but you let them know you’re not interested in having a relationship with another man. The other man takes this as a sign to not flirt anymore, because they’re not into it. End.
My argument is that the clarification is used to turn people down and make sure advances aren’t continued. This is opposed to if you become flattered by the flirtation and joke along or whatever you do, the other individual may see it as you taking the flirtation at value, and that leads to them continuing the flirtation. I believe this can be applied to ANYONE. Not just a gay man, but if you were specifically attracted to someone, and someone you’re not attracted to flirts with you, this is consistently used to de-escalate. I’ve flirted with woman who I found out were lesbian, I talked to them and they go “haha, oh sorry, I don’t really like guys”. Okay, that lets me know not to press it.

I don’t believe there’s a stereotyping involved with that.

People need to be able to gracefully deal with someone they’re not interested in attempting to flirt or otherwise verbally hit on them. It’s better and more reasonable to be flattered then to get mad or feel insulted. If they can’t take a polite no for an answer or if they attempt to touch you inappropriately without your approval then it’s an entirely different story. Feel free to get outraged then.


Let me propose another scenario for you, as you seem to love these: You’re sitting alone at a party. You’re a straight man. Another man walks up to you and begins flirting with you. You’re flattered, but not interested. So you say, “Sorry, I’m not interested”. The other man takes this as a sign to not flirt anymore. End.

I have a feeling that the women whom you flirted with weren’t comfortable enough with you to simply tell you “no”.

Yes, that would be the point of establishing an excuse: In social situations not everyone wants to be the asshole. It’s much more preferable to let people down easy with the knowledge that they aren’t attracted to men/women/whoever, then to look at someone and go “Nope, not interested in you.”

Many social environments rather encourage the ability to not burn bridges like that. I’m actually still friends with the woman I referenced before, and we go to trivia with a group every other week, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that the precedent was established beforehand.

Basically, (most) people prefer to let others down easy. That’s why they use that tactic instead of flat out denial. It’s a courtesy most of the time, rather than a means of vilification.

I feel as though we’ve gotten off-topic. The original issue was with a game character, specifically, you - the player - interacting with a fictional gay man. Again: this is not real life.

Anyway, there should be no bridges burned in the simple response of “Sorry, I’m not interested.” Most people would not find that offensive at all.