And yes, I’m certainly guilty of the whole “I hate you!”/”I love you!” bipolarity in dialogue choices, but then, most of the stuff I’ve written so far involves the player character having never met any of the NPCs before, so greater player freedom actually works in this case. (Mind you, I share the same sentiment about “blank slates”; when Phlegmwad says he loves or hates someone, he does so in a characteristically Phlegmwad way. In other words, you are not Phlegmwad himself, but more like Phlegmwad’s conscience.) You, on the other hand, are writing characters who are already very emotionally invested in one another, so the approach you’re proposing makes a lot more sense. I’m really eager to see how it all turns out!

After a second look at Chivalry Is Dead and reading some of your design ideas for it (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,769) I suddenly feel several months behind the curve! My game (the cancer one) is using an affinity system as well (even uses the same word in code) that restricts what characters are able to say at any given time.
My hopes in using it are to create a “believable” story. To me, adventure games don’t feel “real” because the developers try to give you as wide a spectrum of dialog choices in order to accomodate multiple player types. You end up with dialog choices like “I hate you!” and “I love you!” on the same screen. I can understand that this is desirable for many games where the projection of the player’s attitude should be strong, but I prefer games that assign me a character with some degree of personality, and I want to operate from within that character. Roleplaying, you might say, but not in the RPG sense. So, if the design works out, you won’t have characters saying mean things out of nowhere to people they love or silliness like that, unless it’s specifically called for.

I’ve really enjoyed Chivalry Is Dead and Pigeons in the Park! It’s great to know that I’m not the only person to whom a puzzleless adventure game sounds very appealing!