Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Story & Character Discussion Shadowheart Romance and the Hidden Fetish - (Spoilers inside)

It's almost like Halsin is the one causing inconsistencies due to the circumstances of his disrespectful writing when roleplaying an open/poly Tav, whereas with Shadowheart that content (not involving Halsin) is a valid part of what some players can experience about her character in their playthroughs romancing her.

It's still inconsistent with her writing in act 1 and 2 no matter how you slice it. So I think both SH and Halsin are inconsistent with how they are written.

My goodness I've missed a lot. I'll just reply to two general things because.. there's too much otherwise. Sorry if these have already been covered en masse (I did read most of it, don't worry!).

1.
The act 1 wine dialogue. I've read the argument that it is supposedly her being playful, but if you look at what happens, it's actually exactly what she says it is. She doesn't want to share because she wants a 'first date' with you, alone. And all you do is kiss by the end of it, assuming you even succeed the insight check (not a tough one, mind). And after that, she'll talk about how she was genuinely happy about that first kiss. So no, it's not her being playful. It's just her wanting to share a bottle, but she doesn't want to share it with others there. So even if you ignore her character development, her comment about "not tonight" actually does not indicate anything more than her unwillingness to share a bottle of wine with anyone but you because she does not consider it part of the party going on (where a lot of wine is being shared, you can drink Astarion's!) - she considers it a first date with you. Which it is.

You asking if she doesn't want to share a bottle with others is, after all, a reply to her saying she wants to wait with sharing it until the others are asleep. Another implication that she wants to share the bottle (not anything else) with you and not with the others while the party is still going on.

2.
This is mainly for Netav. I'm afraid that while you prefer to read Halsin as a fling, the game doesn't seem to agree. I completely forgot about this previously when talking about it but don't forget that Halsin will actually be considered a romance partner after your sex scene together and you can continue kissing him all the way until the end. You can also break up with him. He becomes no different than any other romance, so there is no fling, it's actual romance. If that wasn't enough, the writers themselves called him poly, so the assumption of him being a fling because nothing else except "this is an inconsistency" would explain why she would accept him and not the others is unfortunately false until they change their stance, change the dialogue, and make it an actual fling (remove the romance trigger after your sex scene together, so you don't get romance specific dialogue with him).

Not something I want them to do, of course. For the sake of those that like Halsin I really want them to make him into a proper romance partner that gives them what they asked for, and turning him into an actual fling is the complete opposite of what they hoped for.

So it would seem we're back to square 1. The only line that could've possibly implied that she is open to sharing is not actually related to anything romantic (and would've been developed out of in act 2 anyway), and the idea that she would be up for open relationships because Halsin is considered a fling is unfortunately debunked by the game itself considering Halsin more than a fling. She's mono for ~2 hours of her romance content (almost the entire romance part), but for 3 scenes that amount to about 5 minutes that do not have consequences to her romance or add character development, she's randomly open for more without any explanation why. After which she's back to mono again.

TL:DR: It's an inconsistency, unfortunately, and we'll have to live with knowing it is until they change/remove it or change her story drastically to have it be consistent with it. Either way, I'd be content, even if I have my preferences on how they deal with it. I just want the inconsistency gone.

I think it's deeper than that. Try streaming this movie - it's fantastic movie where people are talking about personalities, psychological struggles and relationships while ostensibly talking about wine. Here the MC is talking about his favorite wine but his date is savvy enough to figure out that he's talking about himself:

There we go. Thank you for explicitly outing yourself as a bad faith actor with an agenda instead of actually engaging with what makes sense given what is in the game.

'What is best' is not, and has never been, the topic of this conversation. I would advise everyone to ignore KillerRabbit as they are not here to actually discuss your concerns and indeed have a vested interest in pretending they aren't valid.

you're welcome

Bad faith is not a matter of respecting opinions.

God no. I can put up with inconsistencies that I can choose to not just engage with but if they were to rewrite her to make her strictly poly it would ruin not only her but the entire game for me and probably many others considering shes one of if not the most popular romance option.

I'm sure it's a good movie, and the conversation indicates such, but I do not see how it is even remotely related to her simply saying she doesn't want to share a bottle of wine with the others during the party but instead wants to share it with you alone after the party?

Which is exactly what she does, and even your attempts at making it more than that are shut down by her. So reading more into it than it is, is reading more into it than what actually happens. Which doesn't make sense, does it.

On a sidenote, you should probably throw all these links you're adding to the topic in a spoiler tag. They're taking up quite a lot of space.

What I mean is that by removing the inconsistency from it all, they wouldn't be removing her mono romance path. They would simply make her poly/open romance path actually make sense. And by having it make sense, it also means that we get some closure as to why she'd even accept it in the first place, which we don't have right now. We still don't have to pursue it, but if her argument is - for example - "I'm fine with whatever you want so long as you don't forget about me", then I'd be 100% okay with that. Of course it needs to be more nuanced than a single line, but I hope you get my point.

To me, that's similar to choosing to spare or kill the Nightsong. We know the other path exists, and we know it's not quite as romantic (to us, anyhow) but we can avoid it entirely and it's explained why it exists.

If you follow the link you can watch the entire scene - best scene in the whole movie. (although the merlot scene is hilarious) You miss out the character development - this guy is a wash up, a fraud, a bit prickly . . . - but you can get much of that from his appearance. The follow up is worth while because she describes what she wants from the night and from a relationship. All while discussing wine, of course.

If we agree that the wine conversation in BG3 is like the wine conversation in this movie. Then then Tav has the option say - want to involve others and SH is indeed saying "just you tonight"

Which is consistent with her reaction to the twins. If you run from chapter 2 right into the brothel SH will say something to the effect of "that's a possibility but let's wait until we've had our first time together" As I see it (and believe me I know you don't) the two conversations are mirrors of each other.

Maybe later but I want you all to myself for the moment]

TBH, I wonder if the BG3 wine scene was inspired by this movie.

We do not agree that the wine conversation is like the conversation in the movie. It is absolutely nothing like that and you have a VERY wild imagination if you think it is. She literally says nothing more than asking to share a bottle of wine with you, and if you ask if she doesn't want to share it with others during the party, she says "not tonight" because she wants to share it with you alone after the others are asleep.

That's not her being a fraud, or her going in depth about what wines she likes while actually explaining who she herself is. That's just her asking to share a bottle of wine with you after the party instead of with the others during the party, which is exactly what she does. Sorry to say.

Then we understand where we disagree. I believe there is a subtext to that conversation that you are missing and that is part of the reason the chapter 3 seems disjointed.

Btw, the fraud comment was directed at Miles, the MC of the movie Sideways. Highly recommended.

I don't think there's subtext to that conversation that anyone is missing, I think there's subtext to that conversation that you are making up. Just like the subtext you made up when saying she's not "threatened" by Halsin, but is "threatened" by the rest.

Which is fine, don't get me wrong. But we can't see the headcanon that you add to the game in your mind, because it's not in the actual game.

Dear one, I got it. We all get it. I literally said that I knew your position. (and to be blunt the subtext was: you don't need to repeat your position yet again)

I've lost count about how many times you've repeated yourself. You: a) don't need to keep reinstating your position. No one is going to be convinced by rote repetition b) please try to express yourself without implying that I am "making stuff" up. It's insulting. And by insulting me you demean yourself because you are demonstrating that you are incapable of carrying on a conversation without insulting others. I see something you don't. I could be mistaken but that doesn't mean I am making things up.

In no way, shape or form was that meant as an insult. I am sorry if you perceived it as such.

The reason I and others have ended up repeating ourselves is because you have, for about 5 pages now, not really had much more of an argument than these two points and both of them include you adding subtext to the game that isn't in the actual game. That's why I call it made up. There's nothing wrong with making things up. The entire game is made up, after all. But what you make up for your own roleplayed story doesn't actually get added to the game. Therefore, we can't see it.

Lets agree to disagree, either way. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Though I must say, if you bring these same arguments up again, you can't blame me or others for arguing against it. Repetition goes both ways.

Agreed. It's pointless engaging with someone like that.

Very well but I hope you understand that I see you doing the same thing. Right? I understand that you believe that I am seeing things / making this up / fooling myself by believing that the this conversation - ostensibly about wine - is actually a conversation about the bounds of a potential relationship. I understand that you believe my position lacks evidence. Is that right?

Do you understand that I believe you are doing something similar? Denying subtext, making a molehill out one conversation and that you position could only be maintained if you removed large portions of chapter 3, removed the sharing line from chapter 1 and rewrote the dialogues after the temple of shar?

To be clear I'm not asking if you agree. BELIEVE ME I know you do not. But I am wondering if you've actually engaged with what I've said in any meaningful manner.

No one else here has ever claimed that mono was "the best" or superior in any way. All we've said is that SH doesn't seem to be poly in the game. That's the difference.

Anyway, we're done here.

Lol. Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is acting bad faith.