Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Companion Approval

This is a major pet peeve of mine in almost every single RPG. Whilst we as players do not have enough of the game available for us to test for me to say whether it is handled poorly in BG 3 as well, the early state of things hints towards the situation being the same. A good companion influence system should do the following.

1. Allow actions taken by the player to influence how a companion perceives them. An example of this would be, if say a companion disapproved of drinking and you took them to a bar and got drunk. This would lower their approval towards you.
2. Allow actions taken by the player to also influence how the companion perceives those actions. An example of this would be, if a companion that approved very strongly of you, but disapproved of drinking was taken to a bar and you pressured them into drinking. Gradually over time, their dislike of alcohol would be eroded. Ideally, there should be (rare) moments where a companion has a "crisis of conscience" and changes their mind about something that was a core part of their belief. These should be exceptionally rare, but make for much more relatable characters.
3. The companion needs to "remember" what actions a player has taken. An example of this would be, if some months after a companion's dislike towards alcohol was eroded, they commented, "remember how I acted when you first got me to drink..."
4. Whether a companion approves or disapproves of an action should not be stated clearly to the player, it should be something they infer from the dialogue. Having approval clearly stated encourages metagaming dialogue.
5. Companions need to discuss things that happen among themselves when you are not present (campfire discussions).

The problem with approval systems in most RPGs is that they tend to only address the first of those 5 points and allow the companion's approval of the player to change depending on the actions they take. This seems to be the case in BG 3 as well, although BG 3 does seem to be addressing the 5th point. The reason ignoring the 2nd, 3rd and 4th points is an issue is it creates very 1 dimensional characters, whose convictions never change and who are very easy to game and manipulate the way you want to. Sometimes, a companion should disapprove of something you are doing, but then later on change their mind about it and comment on it. Moments like that make for far deeper characters than the simple gamified characters present in most games.

BG 3 should really address the 2nd to 4th points if it wants to push the envelope of the genre in this area and the 4th point isn't even that hard to address.

+1

I feel like they are a bit too hardcore in their beliefs sometimes. They should be able to respect you for your decisions and your leadership even if they don't agree with your decision and let them do what they want all the time. Also, if you act against their interests too much I'd be fine with the walking off, much like many of the BG2 companions did or like the choice between Alistair and Loghain in DA:O.

Lae'zel is a good example of awkward relationship interactions. She perceives her own race as superior in so many ways and typically favor backbone and strength, but if you put hard against hard she doesn't respect you one bit. If you instead bend over backwards, playing into her racial prejudice, she will like you for some reason. Maybe that will make sense eventually if you do play into it, but it feels very wrong to me.

Gale on the other hand is straight forward favoring good actions, which is fine. Shadowheart is enigmatic, which is also fine because of her character and backstory.