Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Halsin Romance, Expectations and Obligatory Poly

It's a start.

Now, would you do me a favour and read this, and see if you feel like these choices added would have a negative impact?: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=907260#Post907260

I hope it works! Question, though, what part of this below is unsatisfying? Is it because you want to say "No, I don't want to ever allow for it being a discussion in the future. If we are together you're with me and only me"?

New option: "I remember you saying so. I am willing to respect your nature, and I will not bind you, but I only want you. I hope you can accept that difference too."
Halsin: He smiles a little, though clearly nervous. "I can, but you should know you are all I want. But I exist in fluid relationships, where connections evolve and grow. It changes with seasons, and each spring we decide which plants to regrow and which to change. It would be against my nature to promise you forever, but I am invested in joining our efforts and making the wilds we share grow and thrive. I only ask that we not put limitations on what we are, but allow for it to evolve, without the social constructs that civilization would force upon us."

Tav:
1. Takes his hand in theirs. "Then yes... You can share in my heart."

I haven't had time to read it yet, but people here probably enjoyed it.
I still have something to do, then I'll read your suggestion.

No worries. I am trying to find a constructive compromise, that will allow for people to have more agency without compromising or scrapping existing content.

To me the relationship in the above conversation seems very imbalanced. She is offering to put everything into the relationship, and he nothing.

The thing here is, that Halsin is very about the "now". It's not that he's less committed, it's just that what you are to each other will change and evolve. You can still put a label on it, but that label should describe your relationship, not confine it to a one end point. To someone like Halsin, how long it will last does not define the quality of the relationship.

That crucial instability is fundamentally unappealing to some people, but it's also not something you can remove from the general philosophy. It's a cornerstone of sorts.

This is how I would like the romance to start but with 2 choices/paths for Tav (playersexual):

H: "I only want you, but I won't hoard you to myself."
Tav: "Please do, because I only want you too." (Starts mono path)
Tav: I don’t want to hoard you, either. (Starts poly path)

That's actually the opposite of what he says.

Translation: "I agree to having that relationship with you. I just hope that in return we keep making changes and discussing our relationship along the way, and make changes as we feel is necessary."

In your head cannon that would be "we always agree on it being the two of us, when we talk about our relationship"

But it makes it open to reevaluate a relationship on both parts.

Specifically this will be needed, otherwise you will have an ultimatum against and ultimatum and that will go up in flames real fast.

This exactly. And it doesn't mean that there isn't safe and secure attachment. In a way it's about constantly ensuring that it is a healthy attachment by not assuming that "this is how it is and is always going to be".

It is a philosophy where you're dedicating yourself to making an effort instead of assuming an effort.

I don't know how one can interpret his "I only want you" any other way than that he (for the time being) only wants Tav. He makes a VERY clear emphasis on the "I" in that sentence, which clarifies that HE only wants Tav (and no one else), but that he's willing to let Tav be with others (presumably if they want to, but that's never stated, which in turn can be interpreted as if he's encouraging/pushing towards it).

So with Icelyn's suggestion, there's two options that to me makes sense. Either Tav says they only want him too and they move on from there in a "union" that for the time being only includes them, and if anything would change about that, they'd talk about it. Or, Tav wants to be with others also (even if Halsin for the time being doesn't want that), and they just agree to probably consent to any additions to their "union".

Well yes, he clearly says that he only wants Tav (because, as he says during his confession, they stirred his heart), there is no problem with that, and, I guess, it is clear that when such strong feeling appear in his heart he sees himsels attached to this specific person for the time being. But what *I* personally don't relly like is the previous phrase (yes, the "relationship" thing, bla-bla-bla, which was discussed 100 times in a row). How this phrase is constructed feels just not right, this is what bothers many people. Let's say the delivery of his thought about relationships was made messy, imo, and this is why some people started questioning whether or not Halsin really wants to be with Tav. When you put two almost opposite statements (or statements which can exclude each other, let's put it that way) it may confuse. Phrasing should be fixed.

Oh, I agree. Fully. What I am, saying is that for someone who is a relationship anarchist, they believe that a relationship should always be open to the possibility of change. It's sort of not making promises you might not be able to keep.

Like you can't promise that nothing horrible will ever happen in your lives, but you can promise that you will try to make it work and be open to making changes as is necesarry.

Yes.Exactly. The paths should be separated. Before Halsin starts talking about he wanted to share Tav with the whole camp, it would be nice to ask Tav what he thinks about such a relationship.
All these long conversations, discussions of the contract on 100 pages. It resembles the games of couples tired of each other.
I do not know how it works in the minds of poly people. I don't understand how you can seriously discuss the possibility of infidelity at the height of the romance.
At the moment when the partner has a worm in his head and he maybe die tomorrow.
All this talk is so ridiculous and hypocritical.
I miss the romance of Bioware. Although when I played their games, they didn't seem perfect to me either. But they were more like a relationship between people. Not a collection of slogans for the agenda. Like here.

I most certainly won't complain if they do this. I just hope we won't be disappointed... again.

I don't know about Larian and their writers much since BG3 is the only game I've ever played (though I have all Divinity games and I will play them eventually), but BioWare have long story of writing romances in their games, they are very experienced, they did experiments (for example, when they made all romantic interests in DA2 bi), and from my point of view romances in their games are well balanced. Yes, there might be some imperfections, but stil their works are a good example.
I'm not saying romances in BG3 are bad or worse tham examples from other games - romances which were written long before release are made well, characters are good, but their romances are "standard" monogamous, which, I guess, are not so difficult to write. It's just our poor Halsin got stuck in this unpleasant situation because of his lore (I don't remember any character who had something similar, but I don't have that much experience in games where you can romance someone, so maybe there were something like that somewhere. I only remember cases when you could go to brothel with your LI and have somebody else, but it has nothing with relationships) and time limit.

I don't think Larian romances are bad, no, but I do feel that we see less consistent writing in terms of quality of the romances and the characters. Rooney, who wrote Astarion and Fane, is truly talented in this aspect of his writing.

Halsin, Shadowheart, The Red Prince and Beast are written by the lead writer. He is clearly talented, but I do think that he falls short in terms of romance and companion complexity. His characters have a tendency to take it a step too far in terms of being joke characters.

It should always be open, mono option makes Halsin like all other companions, what should it be?
Everything he says about commitment and relationships makes it more than clear, he wants to keep everything open and free, what mono players think is irrelevant, Halsin is just poly. Point.
I haven't had time to read it yet, but you can't please everyone. Larian cannot and does not have to please anyone.
It is what it is, just like all mono companions can't poly, so Halsin can't and doesn't want to be mono, nothing with an option.

I don't have a problem with Halsin being poly. But imo being poly is not the same as dropping someone as soon as you're not interested anymore. And that's the problem I had with it.
As someone who creates characters, thinks of a back-story and gets pretty involved in them, this relationship was just painful. I thought Halsin would be the perfect match because he seemed like a kind-hearted, wise and mature man. Imagine my surprise when my character sacrificed herself to become a mind-flayer and this man just told her to go into hiding. He would go help refugee children and no, my character couldn't come with him because that would scare the kids.
Yes, it's great that he's going to help those children and no, I wouldn't expect him to still want to be romantically involved, but some support would have been nice. This was such a downer and not at all what I expected. It just seemed so cold and out of character for him.
I even went back and replayed the entire ending and chose to go with Karlach and Wyll to Avernus. If you do that you don't even get an ending with Halsin at all. Like he never even existed in your life.

You have to have companions in the group otherwise there is no end

Good romans by other companions?
You must not be following the topic. I wanted to have an affair with Shadowheart for my new male character and do you know what awaits you there? Frustration and polygamy at the end. And of course mostly she leave you alone.
In the subject of Astarion, to everything is not too positive with the final of his novel.
I haven't read Karla topics yet, but I think it will be fun there too.
I played DOS 2 without romance at all. DOC 2 is not a very "serious" game, and I didn't want to start a romance. The promise of romance in BG3 was very impressive, but in the end almost all are unhappy with their development.
Would you like to know how and in what does ex-girlfriend fucked yours boyfriend? Geil talks about it in detail.
Although compared to the others, Geil is the only one who is at least interested how Tav feels. The rest of the companions are not interested in this at all.

I don't believe Larian couldn't make good novels. Most of the audience has an average taste. Good guy, bad guy, good girl, bad girl all these classic stereotypes works great with proper processing. That's what Bioware did.
A million romance novels are bought for a reason.
The Larians decided to be original and part of the audience certainly liked it, but clearly not the main one. Of course my expectations are my problems.
But when you start a romantic relationship with a character who was added on demand. You expect this to be done for everyone, not for a select few.