I must admit I didn't read all six pages, so take my two cents on the weight they have:

This game will always have a problem in justifying the leadership of the MC for the simple reason that this is not a Single Player game: this is a co-op game that CAN be played as a single-player, not dissimilar to a game such as Wasteland 3.

Like it or not, Larian is trying to recreate the experience of a DnD table, in which the "leadership" is typically shared among all the players or, following the Wasteland 3 example, among the two rangers.


Since, potentially, all 4 members of the party may be played by 4 players, I think there are only two available choices:

1) At some point in the plot, there is a reason why one particular character is elevated as the leader of the group leaving the others at his commands (knight-squires relationship), de facto making one character more important than the others;

2) A leader is never elected, allowing each player to feel equally important.

I don't really know, for this kind of game, which solution is better.


In my headcanon, my Tav is the leader of the group because the other characters would constantly be bickering together without a "third party" taking the decisions amid all the contradictory inputs and strategies on how to move forward. Btw, this is the reason why I will always play as Tav, because if I would play as any other OC and put myself to roleplay as they would, there would be no reason for me to follow anyone or any reason for them to follow me.

At the end of the day, I try not to put too much attention on this narrative inconsistency (we can find it in almost every single game out there) for the sake of playing the game. Imho there are many more immersion-breaking features in the game right now (I still cannot cope with the always available fast-travel, even in the middle of an enemy fortress).