I think the faction jumping could be a cool option. But it is impractical and unlikely to happen for any number of reasons. Other people can talk about those. I just wanted to point out that the Imperial Agent story is perfectly designed for faction jumping. Moreso than either the bounty hunter or the smuggler. (I shan't spoil anyone...go youtube the ending for yourself. Or play an agent - incidentally it's my favorite storyline.)

If the convo wheel represented the thing that ran through my head then no dark side choices would appear. Not ever, on any of my many, many characters. No attack first choices would appear. Because my characters always try to talk their way out of physical confrontations. And many, many choices that don't exist would suddenly appear on screen representing what actually goes through my head when I play through the talky bits.

“The big lie about lesbians and gay men is that we do not exist.” -Vito Russo, The Celluloid Closet (1981) That's a quote from a book (later made into a documentary) about LGBT representation in film 30 years ago. The documentary argues that representation of a minority group like the LGBT community in media had been traditionally underwhelming - either because LGBT characters were non-existent or presented as completely unnatural and farcical. Film and video games have their differences but I would argue that the comparison is relevant as both are media sources that imitate life. Asking to toggle relationships with the implementation of SGRs is asking to reinforce this lie of non-existence. According to "Emma Westecott, a games research fellow at the Newport School of Art, Media and Design.... 'The lack of opportunity for identification through role models leads to self-censorship." Meaning that something as innocuous as submitting to the demands of folks to toggle SGR out of existence can be detrimental to the healthy social, emotional and by extension physical development of young people; most particularly to the development of young LGBT folks in this case. The article is about how women are represented in video games but I'd argue that gender, sex and sexuality are inextricably linked. Our perception of one colours our understanding of the others. And this article published on IGN reiterates Westecott's point in easy to understand terms. According to the author: ...this visibility actually is important, for the same reason as having believable and relatable female characters is important: because by catering exclusively to straight men, you're excluding more than half the population, and limiting video games creatively and commercially to a restricted audience. (Plus, we'd look all backwards and narrow-minded in front of all the other, bigger art forms, and that's never good.) They also incidentally praise Bioware for its forward thinking progressive views. Someone did ask for an intelligent and reasoned explanation of why a toggle was a bad idea, right? There's one.

I believe Koyaanisqat was referring to the purported natural 'disgust' of straight people for homosexuality as learned. Which it is. Pick an expert, choose your field - sociology, biology, psychology, philosophy - all will agree that the way we react to the world around us is learned. As for your point: you are mostly correct if we generalize (which is always dangerous). There are attributes that are considered more favorable in sexual partners than others. But if we look a little closer we see that: A) the attributes you refer to are related very closely to mating - as in child rearing. As in sex with the purpose of reproduction. Which not all sex is, even in hetero couplings. Sex with the purpose of reproduction is not sex with the purpose of furthering and solidifying intimacy is not sex solely for pleasure. Preferred attributes in a partner are entirely dependent on the purpose of the sexual interaction. B) even these attributes (for a preferred mating partner) are social constructs to some extent and therefore changeable. A successful hunter, for example, would be next to useless as a mate in modern western society. But a someone good with math (a computer programmer, accountant or portfolio manager) or with words (a journalist, academic or author) would be infinately more desirable. C) Keep in mind that until recently (and even now in some cases) anything outside of the norm (as prescribed by the church, the academic elite and state) was discounted as sinful, abnormal or indicative of sickness - i.e. not worthy of exploring. History and its study are a limited view of people's reality in past generations. Same gendered relationships have almost definately existed (and in many cases were socially and culturally accepted and revered) for as long as hetero relationships have been around. TL; DR: homosexuality does not 'naturally disgust' straight folks. A little knowledge is dangerous.

I take your point of Star Wars as 'family entertainment' in its initial construct. And this game is based on the Star Wars IP but it is NOT meant to be family entertainment according to the esrb rating. Should SWTOR have been designed so that families could play it together? Maybe. But it wasn't. If it had been, the violence, a LOT of the dark side choices, dialogue, gore, most of the relationships (even hetero ones, especially the xeno oriented ones) etc. would have to be toned down or entirely axed. (And I wouldn't still be playing that game. I can't stand Lego Star Wars but often get sucked into playing it with my nieces and nephews. I hate every minute of it but I suck it up, because it's part of our shared experience. Should family entertainment not also reflect the real world when possible? One could argue that homosexuality is too complex an issue to expose children to. I've never met a child who had a problem with it. But my experience could be the exception that proves the rule I suppose. And what about the families that have homosexual members/parents? Children of same sex couples are hyper exposed to same gendered relationships? They don't deserve to be represented in family entertainment? In any case mainstream media and everything from walks in the park, to daycare/school interactions will eventually lead to a child learning that not every relationship conforms to the same standard of normal. So when are they allowed to be exposed to the reality in which they will spend their entire lives?

Seriously? Okay then, since we're talking about it, here's my two cents: Same gendered romances exist in the real world where you have no (rational/legal) choice (at least in North America) but to (minimally) tolerate them. In game the possibility of same gendered romance also exists. Which means the game is more reflective of a real world environment. Which is what I want in an RPG. Arguably, anyone who loves RPGs wants the complexity, challange and nuance of real world person to person interaction to be reflected in their games. It's called depth, which leads to immersion. And same gendered romances are part of creating that. Short of hiding under a log you can't turn off the existance of same gendered romance in the real world. But you can choose not to take part in them, or to associate with those who do. Which is exactly how it is in game. Basically: Since Bioware won't let you hide under a log in game, just don't choose the options that (for some reason I cannot fathom) offend you. PS: This game was not made for children, it has a teen/16+ rating. If you want to let your kids play it, go ahead. But no complaining about things in game that aren't suitable for their (not-so) sensative brains.

Is this some sort of Star Wars idiosyncrasy I don't get? I have a bunch of chars on Prophecy of the 5 and the jawa chat there is regularly occuring and long winded.