Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Fextralive on Companions and Romances - Spoiler

Now, based on what I've seen from both my play-throughs and various videos, it appears that Shadowheart may not actually be evil. There are situations where you literally read her mind and her thoughts are more appropriate for a good character than an evil one. At the same time, you're absolutely right in that she's a cleric of Shar and that means evil.

To me that means the only logical course of action is to start off by considering her as evil, regardless of what I find out later. At the beginning, the only valid opinion a character can have is that she's evil. As other evidence comes in, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether she's actually evil, brainwashed, or something else based on the evidence. But if you accept the later evidence that she might not truly be evil, you have to accept the initial evidence that she should at the very least be treated as evil when you first meet her.

Would you say the same of everyone who worships and/or provides tithes to Umberlee?


I bolded the important part of the quote. At the beginning, the PC doesn't know that she worships Shar. In fact, it is Impossible to know that she worships Shar until after you have earned her favor by doing GOOD things that she approves of.

You as someone who has played through the game in EA have metagame knowledge that the PC does not. It is illogical for the PC to assume she is evil until later in their relationship.

I think Kanisatha's problem, and the problem of many hough not all other people who don't like the companions and think they're too evil isn't an in character one, its entirely based on the fact he as a player has that information and does not want to spend his time in a game that's supposed to be fun consorting with someone he considers morally reprehensible.

As for the difference between worshippers of Shar and Umberlee, to be a Sharran you have to have betrayed and murdered somebody, ideally a loved one. I don't think Umberlee has that same requirement. Thoughni too would like to hear his rationale. And regarding knowing Shadowheart is a Sharran, any have pointed out that onyx disks on her armor are pretty big give aways. And I'm inclined to agree based on the fact we know she's a cleric and if the only identifying aspect of her armor is stone sacred to a deity, that's a pretty strong hint in-charscter.

I went and read more into Shar's cult , and it sounds like SH shouldn't be sharing her worship with you unless she was trying to recruit you. Also, the requirement to become a cleric is indeed pretty terrible, so I better understand where some people's strong feelings are coming from. It reminds me of Mephala or Boethiah from Elder Scrolls.

Based on all the inherent secrecy, it doesn't seem like most people in game would know the Sharran requirements and symbols though (at least without a moderately difficult religion check).

I can say that I am much more excited to have her in my first party now! I need to know more about how she got involved in all of this, as it sounds like there is often blackmail involved.

What I don't get, is why Shadowheart gets so much bad rep, but Viconia is universally liked, despite being a Sharran.
I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I don't remember seeing those comments about Viconia.

I have a similar feeling about Viconia and Lae'zel. Both come from a brutal survival of the fittest culture. Many (including myself) complain that Lae'zel is too evil and unapproachable, but I think she is still learning about Faerûn and how to get along with other species. It takes time to get rid of socialized behavior patterns. In any case, I hope that Lae'zel, just like Vicci, will make this development in the course of the game.

As someone who romanced Victoria back in the day but hate Shadowheart and Laezel this is a question about choice for me. Taking Victoria was very much my decision. There were enough characters to pick a good/neutral party in two whole games and not go through the whole cast. I hadn’t taken Victoria till my third playthrough. In BG3 though being charitable there are three good/neutral characters available in act 1 and another 3 in act 2. You’re forced to take Laezel, Shadowheart, Astarion or Dark Urge on your first playthrough for a good 40-50 hours of the game every single time unless you take a hireling or vanilla origin.

The other part of it is overuse of the redemption arc. If you take Victoria in a non evil party she’s on a long slow and not particularly well done redemption arc amongst 5 other good or neutral characters. But if you’re trying to do a good playthrough in BG3 then all of your characters are on a redemption arc which feels very overused.

BG3 is a story about Redemption or Damnation. This is spelled out early on in dialogue. If you don't like stories about these themes, then its like reading an Agatha Christie when you don't like murders.

The problem here is the writing isn't of sufficient quality to make redemption a proper theme. Planescape Torment was able to tell a story like that, but what we have in BG3 is a bunch of disparate stories of people who have no reason to attempt redemption attempting redemption. The story just doesn't hold together like that. It's a story that only works when its about damnation. You can argue that it should only be played by people who are interested in stories about damnation but we get rpgs of this scope once every decade or so, just not playing it is an unsatisfying answer.

I was 16 when I encountered Viconia, I don't remember the details, but getting close to 40 I would say there is some additional maturity and experience that probably would change my perception of her. But also to be fair - the game industry has gained 20+ years of experience, there are now proper writing teams and a lot more resources available... so comparing the games from the beginning of the genre in this medium with current ones isn't that fair and expectations have definitely grown.


In the end my problem with Larian is far more subtle than just being able to point at 'that one thing'. Its things that you usually only notice while playing. Shadowheart's trope is a known one and one that can work well, yet the execution of it is in my opinion bad. I'm someone who romanced Yen (W3) and Morrighan (DOA) and I have absolutely no issue with woman that can be headstrong and not open, but Shadowheart's writing is to me utterly annoying. The details like 'you have to tell me everything about you because we are in the same boat' followed by 'how dare you ask me anything?' is just an example of poor execution. Yen and Morrighan both had either knowledge you lacked and needed or charisma or manipulation to go hand in hand with them being dismissive. Shadowheart knows nothing, is not more able than you, adds nothing to the plot (besides the artifact she knows nothing about placed conveniently in her hand), doesn't take up responsibility and is demanding while being dismissive of you.

Like with cinematics, narrative in general and gameplay - to me Larian simply often misses the mark in important basics focusing on things they like to tell/show without taking into account what else goes along, relying on the player being interested in the same as them ignoring everything else that happens. So if you don't like Shadowheart or the other characters based on first impression, they do nothing to incite you to spend more time getting to know them and care for their issues. We all know that their very, very special backgrounds don't affect us or the main story and they are abrasive towards the player - so why should anyone who isn't interested in that specific plot actually care? And if there is a redemption arc, why does it concern the player? Following Shadowheart's own wishes I don't ask anything of her because she doesn't want to talk about it.

So pretty typical for a high elf, you reckon?

Half high elf

I'm pretty sure writers were good back then too, at least imo. And according to many people, who claim that stories were better written back in the good old days. And Viconia is still today the epigone of a good character for many players. Yet she is evil and Sharran and everything.
Shadowheart being secretive has a lot to do with her memory loss. She doesn't know, how to answer you, she gets insecure and snaps at you. If you do her romance she explains it to you.
Funny, that you mention Morrigan and Yen, those two are characters I can not stand, the classic bitchy witches ( though to be fair, Sapkowski probably invented that trope with Yen). I don't get that vibe at all from Shadowheart. She is touchy because of her lost memories and protective of the artifact, but she opens up about both after a while.
In the end it all comes down to personal preferrence and I'm not here to tell someone how to feel about a character. I just pointed out, that Viconia seems to get a lot more leeway for being Sharran than Shadowheart ( who even might turn out to not be a real Sharran).

I remember BG 1 & 2 good enough to know what is was about and if I liked it. I definitely don't remember it good enough to judge the writing in detail (mind you I also didn't play it in English back then). Also perceptions of me as a teen were way different than now, especially with experience working in the industry. That's why I'm careful. I've started playing BG1 again 3 years ago, but I stopped without finishing it. The impression was good, but again, before reviewing it in detail I would really need to sit down and play it.


As I mentioned before - while I as a player know that Shadowheart will have a story that explains it and that a part of the money I've spent on the game was invested in making her a key part of the game (not story), my character doesn't and except for the reason of being horny or very invested in everyone the character actually has no reason to listen to Shadowheart snap about until she is willing to tell it. Its the writers job to make me care about their creations and engage with them not mine as a player to find reasons to do so - its questionable/bad writing if its the second.

With Morrighan and Yen you don't need to like them. They are crucial to the plot and actively do something. Which gives you a chance to be exposed to more of their motives and story. You can love them or hate them, they still move something in the plot and have a reason to be there. Shadowheart is objectively useless to the plot beyond the artifact. You can even let her die in the prologue. In this case as a writer you better do a really good job of manipulating the player into giving a damn beyond just trusting the custom skin and marketing have done their part of the job to make the player curious.

Medium elf?

I'm not sure about Yen, since it has been a while since I read the books, but Morrigan doesn't bring much to the table but a bad attitude. Her mother yes, but not Morrigan, at least for me. If you want to do the Dark Ritual maybe, but that is only at the end of the plot. Other than that, she brings you to Flemeth, but it is Flemeth later, who helps you and then shoves her daughter at you. You can even send Morrigan away. I btw feel about Morrigan and Yen as you feel about Shadowheart, they are annoying brats.
I personally had a much better connection to Shadowheart from the beginning. We have the same problem and we agree to work together and she is useful and has good advice.
That is what I mean with different opinions: you think, Morrigan is important, I think, Shadowheart is important. You are annoyed about Shadowheart and I about Morrigan and Yen. Let's agree to disagree, especially since I was talking about Sharran companions and not characters from other fabdoms in this case.

I played BG1&2 a year ago and still like the writing. While a few things would probably be handled different today, the writing is good overall.

Mildly buzzed elf

I think we've veered into a different thread: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=863902&nt=2&page=1

This^.

And this^.

These are my arguments exactly.