Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why does everybody immediately accept us as leader

It is rather something I asked myself often during the dialogs in the game. I mean a typical DnD group consists of more or less equal partners and if there is a leader it is determined at least in some way. In BG3 we immediately become the group leader and it seems that none of our companions objects. Not even if we act completely against their wishes! And I cannot think of any event or ability that makes us so special that our companions decide to make us leader of the group.

When the player moves a character and the rest follows you can interprete this as a groups will, that's fine. But if one character talks and makes actual decisions and he is not especially nominated by the story in some way as group leader I expect his companions to act in one of 3 ways:

- stay neutral
- approve
- disapprove

And with act I do not mean a change in their approval towards the player character but direct intervention in dialog. That is nothing that has to be happen in every dialog but in some it seems to be missing to make them believable.

Here is an example: In the grove there is a dialog with a Tiefling who will be interrogated by Lae'zel if she's in your party. If you go against Lae'zels will and try to be friendly with the Tiefling she will respond very harshly but do nothing in the end. I mean: At that point Lae'zel thinks of herself as far superior to you and sees some kind of abomination in you. And she is just staying behind thinking "Fine do what you want"??? I would rather expect in such a situation that we get an Intimidation check against her and if we fail we have the choice to either led her interrogate him (with approval loss) or she might even attack us.

Or why is Gale not doing anything during the Arabella incident even if we keep quiet and do nothing although he is definetly pissed about it?! If we manage to prevent it he will just say how angry he is but why didn't he react if we choose to do nothing?

Currently our companions often feel like puppets with an approval value who follows us and let us do however we please in nearly every dialog interaction. It would make a huge difference if Larian reworked a few key dialogs like the two mentioned above to really show that our companions are living beings with a personality and own goals. That want to have a word or two to say in what we are doing. I mean they have a tadpole too. It's not as if they are following you for fun...

As for why we're the de facto leader, it's a cRPG, and someone has to do it. I couldn't begin to imagine the outrage if we were suddenly just a grunt, and were expected to do what one of the other party members wanted to do instead of playing the way we want. I will say that it's another of those situations that will require a metric ton of popcorn though. As to why comps don't react to a lot of stuff outside of what you chose, I'm pretty sure that would be another case of needing lots of popcorn.

Yeah, it feels somewhat strange and should be changed if possible. The companions need to feel more alive for sure.

I agree. It is an oversight in the writing. I'd like the other characters to have more agency.

You have a big influence already by choosing who you want to take in your group. What point is there in having an evil companion if everything he does when you act again heroically and selflessly is grumbling and standing in the corner? Would paint a pretty pathetic picture of an evil companion if you ask me...

This is just a time saving conceit. Spending the time to establish why they take your lead is a lot of time that I honestly have no interest in playing.

Shadowheart seems to want to take charge a lot when she is in your party even though we are the leader.

The character's will go it alone if you do not recruit them though, so it's not like the companion characters are helpless without us.

There is no real reason, but I could find one for a good party:

- Lae'zel is too bossy, contemptuous and agressive. Other party member don't like her and only keep her around for the githyanki cure and her fighting ability. Lae'zel herself said that she needed you only for fighting.
So Lae'zel can't really leave the group as she knows she isn't strong enough, but her relationship with the party is too bad to take the lead.
- Gayle is kind and laidback, so he probably thrust you and let you take the lead.
-Shadowheart is secretive and guarded, and merely using you. Its not in her personnality to lead.
-Astarion is definitly creepy and dangerous. I doubt other party member would thrust him, or even keep him in the group.
-Will could take the lead with his personnality, but because you helped him at the goblin door, he thrust you enough to let you do it in his stead. He seems like a bit of a loner type character too, so if he didn't get along with you he'd probably be on his own.

For a evil party, I think the same hold except Lae'Zel could take the lead (dominant one) and Gayle would probably leave it.


But imo its more like ''hey , its video game, don't go too deep into this''.

Because it is a video game and taking agency away from the player via NPC party members messing up a players plan would likely cause more overall rage instead of enjoyment; This is a isometric RPG, not a TT-RPG. Also as a side note, there is a limit to what party members tolerate. I have turned party members against me and they tried to attack me. Astarion for example turned hostile after I made sweet love to Volo's chest with the business end of my broadsword.

This is a video game and in every video game out their the player character is immediately decided as the leader. I am quite happy the way it is and I have no interest what so ever on going through the whole thing of deciding who the leader is.

I agree with the OP. The other characters should determine whether I can join THEIR group. They should determine when and where I move, what I do and how I do it. I'm just gonna sit back and watch them other Origin characters play the game for me. What? They aren't real? They can't actually lead the group? I don't believe you, and I'm gonna hold my breath and watch to see what they do, no matter how long it takes !!

Well, my character did have to explain to Lae'zel that she was not a subordinate but a partner and that Lae'zel should show some respect.

Yup...I agree and was kind of shocked this question even came up.

OTOH for any Wheel of Time fans, my explanation is that the PC's are Ta'veren

It's not a problem that we are the leader of the group, it's a problem because it doesn't make sense why all the companions blindly follow you. Take DA:Origins:
-Alistair: His personality is that of a follower and he fought with you at Ostagar. Makes sense he'd follow you.
-Dog: Is a dog. But more specifically, you had to save him to get him as a companion
-Morrigan: Her mother tells her to travel with you and help you. As she is an apostate, she can't be the leader of the group and recruit allies.
-Lelianna: She sees a vision from the Maker telling her to aid you
-Sten: You literally rescue him from a cage
-Oghren: Joins you temporarily to find his wife. After you deal with Branka, showing your worth and the valid threat of darkspawn, he joins and recognizes you as a leader.
-Wynne: Again, joins you temporarily to protect the circle. After you prove your worth, she joins you.

Every companion in DAO has their own personality and presence, but also has a good reason for following you. They are told to help you, you prove your worth to them, or they are just unquestionably loyal people/animals. Now take BG3:
-Astarion: Boils down to: "Eh I suppose it's better to work together." Note, "work together." Why couldn't he be the leader and you the follower?
-Shadowheart: Same thing, "it's better to work together". Why aren't we equal partners?
-Lae'zel: Makes the least sense. You fought with her on the ship, sure, but she is a dominant personality. In reality, she would take over or leave. Or you could intimidate her into submission
-Gale: Makes the most sense. He's a happy-go-lucky guy who is fine not being in command, like Alistair
-Wyll: Also makes sense. You save the grove and he follows you because of that, and to have help finding Spike and killing the goblin leaders. After you deal with Spike/Goblins, you have proven your worth to him.

In total, only 2 our of 5 companions in BG3 have reason for you to be the leader (2.5 if you argue that attempting to save Shadowheart makes her want to follow you). However, this is an easy fix! Just add dialogue where companions voice their grievances and/or vie for party lead, and you can attempt to convince them of your leadership skills. These dialogues could happen face-to-face, or as interjections while you talk to NPCs. If they get too unhappy, they might strike off on their own (and you could find them later??). Then, once you've proven your worth (defeating the goblins/getting a big lead on tadpoles) or otherwise made your companions sufficiently happy with your lead, they have a cutscene/dialogue where they commit to follow you.


This is a good example of companion dialogue that should happen with everyone

is there a mechanic for companions to turn against you if they disagree with you too much ? that would be cool

Because we are the player


There are some actions you can take that lead to them attacking you or leaving, but it wasn't something gradual, more like a single strong disagreement.

Every comp here has every reason to at least stay with your group, the tadpole. While I haven't had it happen yet, they can try to kill you, and leave, too. Lae'zel actually makes perfect sense, not only did you fight with her on the ship, but you rescued her from the trap, presumably.

I see it as the Tadpole's in the others head makes them follow the player character willingly because the player character has the leader Tadpole or the "true soul" as its called by others.


Other than that I really don't want to have to go through all that work just to be the leader.

I agree that every companion has a reason to stay with the group; I'm just arguing that this reason (the tadpole) isn't sufficient to automatically cede leadership to the PC.

An idea I had was to, on the first or second night, there would be an automatic group huddle with all your companions. All companions would discuss the group's options with others and you, and decide upon a course of action. In this conversation (different than talking to each companion individually!), you could take a more back-seat type of role and watch the companions debate their preferences, or you could exhibit leadership and try to steer the conversation/others to do what you want. In this conversation, it would become clear that the group is unable to work together, and it is you (somehow) that keeps them together. For example, it is clear from their party banter that Shadowheart and Lae'zel would not work together if they weren't both following you. Just extend this a bit to make it more clear why/when/how the companions all unanimously decided that you were the leader. No one really trusts anyone else, but they all trust you a little bit for [whatever reason] (you're smart, you're charming, you saved them, you're weak and thus they're not threatened by you...)

And oops I forgot about freeing Lae'zel from the cage! I'd still argue that this isn't sufficient for her to grant you the title of "leader" though. Partner instead of subordinate, maybe. Although freeing her after she demands it is a very subordinate-type of thing to do...

Leader? During my playthroughs I'm constantly under stress from the clear domination of certain companions trying to pull the strings. I never really felt like my guy was truly the leader of my party. I may be able to drive but the destination is constantly out of my hands if I want to actually have a friend :P