Originally Posted by robertthebard
4. Speaking of the tadpole, I've been told that it's narratively insignificant, or isn't sufficient reason for them to follow you. Given the examples cited here, and considering the life and death nature of what's going on, according to everything the characters know at the time, how is self preservation not a sufficient reason to agree to follow whomever the main character is.
In Lae'zel's mind, SHE's the main character. Her personality is brash/arrogant/self-concerned, so even saving her from a cage imo isn't sufficient reason for her to defer to Tav as the leader. Why doesn't she try to force Tav to follow her, especially if/when Tav avoids the Creche? "You there, [lowly human], you saved me removed a slight inconvenience. Now you get the privilege of following me."

Similarly, Gale clearly knows much more than non-spellcaster characters (he says as much when you meet him) and is also arrogant. Sure, there's strength in numbers, but initially there is no reason to follow Tav over one of the other party members or take the lead himself, especially if Gale thinks he knows more about what is going on.

For the other 3 party members...Astarion is sheltered and probably beaten down into a tendency to submit, SH is a tsundere who's missing memories, and Wyll is incompetent (mechanically->I think he's knowingly "faking it until he makes it"), so it's just barely acceptable that they all defer to Tav.

Basically, it feels like you have to headcannon things in BG3 to explain why every single companion is blindly following you. Whereas in other games, the MC is usually given some sort of special power/calling/authority/tie to the story, which helps explain why you have followers.

Alternatively, if there were more consequences for not doing what companions wanted (e.g., quickly going to the Creche), then I'd be more okay that companions initially follow Tav. I really like that Wyll will leave if you side with the goblins.