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

@TheRedQueen

And I thank for you kind comments about poly people.

At your request I will avoid any discussions about the quality of research and I'll not link to research articles. I will continue to send links to opinion articles when I think they are relevant to the discussion. In this case I did so because one of the claims made was that a relationship couldn't considered poly / ENM if sex workers were involved. So I thought an article from a married woman who - in consultation with her husband - hired sex workers was relevant to the discussion. We are talking about the game but when claims like "this isn't the way it works" are brought up I thought I think links to pages with definitions aid the conversation and I do think have helped Netav and I come to some points agreement.

I will continue to be very light on the "report" button - as you know I only flag the worst of the worst. (looking at you Dubai call girls) I'm a killer rabbit - most of the time I try to be nice but I can be pretty aggressive when attacked. Calling mods tends to lead to retaliation and the discussion devolves into a game where people goad each other in saying something that could be flagged.

And I appreciate that you are tolerant - if I were to flag something I would Rosten's post. Because I think the claims of "subtle manipulation" are form of trolling. The purpose of which is to invalidate any statement that begins with "in my view" and which I do perceive as an attack since it questions my sincerity and indeed my character. (as you know I have strong feelings about manipulation)


But you were obviously okay with it so I don't want to flag it. Even as I call out @Rosten for playing dirty and acting like an ass.

But, my dear sweet @Rosten I think I've done that repeatedly. SH is okay with Mizorra if you ask, she's okay with Halsin if you ask, she's okay with the twins if you satisfy her criteria. So, if you read the articles I linked your question would answered. I saying you are not ethically non monogamous but you are okay with your partner sleeping with other people under certain conditions is bit like saying you aren't vegan but you don't eat any animal products.

It's intriguing position, one that tells me that you have some reason for avoid the 'vegan' label even if you actions make you - by any / all objective criteria - a vegan.

TL;DR if you have foursomes / fivesomes with your partner, if you give you partner permission to sleep with others you are something other than monogamous and 'poly' works as a catchall.

Not to put you on the spot or in a difficult position ( I really hold no ill will towards you) but you seem to had no issues with multiple attempts to derail the thread with topics and links discussing things that are in no way relevant to the game. No issue at subtle jabs and insults at the 'heteronormative' and the dramatic post and accusations of poly (and its characters) erasure/jealousy. (Not to say that the other side hasn't done the same because they have.)
But my response (Which is the same thing they've been doing and they are the ones that brought in real life/sexuality/sexual practices into this thread.) to an individual that has been derailing this thread for multiple pages is where you draw the line?

Both sides have acted childish at times (and I do not agree with all of it) but to say any criticism (or saying that you dislike something - people are allowed not to be a fan or a practitioner of something?) levelled at poly people is an attack or derogatory is a bit disingenuous.

Either way, you have been kind and fair with me so I'll respect your request and leave the topic of sexuality and sexual practices out of this thread or anywhere on these forums.

(If you decide to ban me for this post well, Que Sera, Sera. See you around but don't close the thread at least not yet for the sake of others.)

You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. Nowhere have I said that I like it or that I have done that. (I know some other posters have shown their distaste for her willingness to share when put into that position by them - the player - but not me) My issue was always with how it was written/handled. That's why I asked you to show me where it is clear that she is poly and not a victim of poor writing/planning.

Very well. Here's one of the three I mentioned. You find the others on youtube.

SH makes it clear that she would have been okay if Tav asked first. Asking first = setting boundaries on the relationship = ethical non monogamy.

Edit: would it have been to have a longer discussion about this in one of the "I want to talk about your relationship" options? Yes. Do I want Larian to revise that in lieu of fixing the end game? Hell no.

Never, because she isn't. She's full mono in the current state and 5 minutes of optional inconsistent dialogue don't change the 2 hours of writing that envelop it.

As Backinstyle mentioned, if they fix Halsin they'll largely fix Shadowheart's problem. And people don't like Halsin. The problem only exists because of Halsin's late addition as romance partner. Everything about her writing is mono, because it was written prior to Halsin's addition. They added him late, felt the weird need to turn him into this abomination he is right now and added a few optional dialogues (except his creepy flirting/self insert, which needs removal) to some existing companions to fit Halsin's agenda, not their own. Which is why those inconsistent moments have no consequences otherwise for those companions' overall romance, while Halsin's horribly written romance.. well, has consequences for Halsin's overall romance.

The fact you can't even force her to break up with you, or even get upset with you, by being the biggest prick in the world shows how badly written and out of character the Mizora scene truly is. And that's ignoring the contradictory statements that are a part of that conversation.

But either way, you're using an optional inconsistency that adds no consequential character development to explain away another optional inconsistency that adds no consequential character development. So long as these choices have no impact on her overall story, are they truly part of it? The answer is no. Because things like this should be reflected in her overall character, but they aren't.

Here's an example: in Smash Bros, you can have Link fight Mario. Does that mean that canonically in either of their story, Link has fought Mario? No. It's not canon, and them having fought in Smash Bros does not change their characters whatsoever. This is the same thing. It's optional - for the lack of a better word - fanfic quality porn content (not Smash Bros, mind), and nothing more.

The other companions are basically just an out of character cameo appearance in Halsin's shit romance.

But this is meta but how to avoid having Halsin in your party while healing the land. Spoilers.

Three 'inconsistencies' (as you know I argue 4 'inconsistencies' ) sounds like a pattern, don't you think? Is it really inconsistent if it happens three times?

Is 5 minutes of inconsequential optional dialogue more than 2 hours of consequential unavoidable dialogue?

You know my position already, right? We've already discussed our differing views on the wine scene and you know I think SH wants a nesting partner so I've answered that question repeatedly. In your view SH is mono in chapers 1-2, in my view we get some foreshadowing / hints that she's open to sharing in the wine scene and that her desire to be first in Tav's heart is not a desire to be monogamous.

I know we are going to disagree but haven't we progressed past the point where you would need to ask me that?

To be clear, I have not read every post in this thread. EDIT: for reasons I hope are clear, given the number of posts there have been since I started to type this post in response to replies to my earlier post above.

I will comment if I happen to see something I think warrants moderator intervention when reviewing active threads, or if someone reports something. It’s not the case that if a moderator doesn’t say something about a post then they think it’s okay, it could simply be they haven’t seen it.

If folk want moderator action then please use the post report functionality, and if they have any issues or questions about moderator guidance they should PM me rather than entering into discussion about it in thread. I am not going to enter into debate here, particularly on potentially sensitive topics.

I will say that apart from the specific things I have called out, and with the same caveat that I’ve not read everything, I have not seen people derailing the thread. I have seen some people saying they think one thing on this topic, and others who think another, and that is okay. I have also seen it going round in circles, but that’s not something any one poster is responsible for. It is open to anyone to take the moral high ground and agree to disagree, and accept that even those with whom they disagree are posting in good faith and are entitled to their views. I have also seen some folk getting frustrated for various reasons, and while I’d prefer they didn’t and we kept things light, friendly and constructive, I also recognise that we’re all human beings (probably!) and there are things about this topic that folk find emotive. As long as we don’t go too far, understand that getting heated or negative will naturally lead to an equal and opposite reaction, and help de-escalate if things get tense, then we’ll be okay.

Not really, it was a rhetorical question anyway, because the answer is set in stone.

Here's a different question. I wonder how you feel about the fact that she doesn't change to your viewpoint, regardless of these few dialogues implying she might. For some reason, after all's said and done, she remains mono. As if those dialogues never happened. Does it frustrate you any? Don't you just wish you had an ending where you could actually be poly/open with a single companion? The only open companion in the game leaves you, after all.

I shouldn't have to go through these gymnastics in order to avoid a character that could potentially ruin my romance for me. I don't even like Shadowheart (sorry for the blasphemy in this thread), but please, that's ridiculous game design.

And there we go, scene number 1.

You say that she has no issue with sharing, she even goes as far to say that she isn't looking for 'something loyal and pure, a swan' but isn't happy with you going behind her back (cheating - which surprisingly in this case she is willing to overlook without breaking up unlike with the others.) And yet she rejects sharing with the same line 'the swan' from the player if you were to initiate sharing/poly dialogue concerning other companions/npcs.

'The way I was raised, the way I was trained...well. It was positively encouraged to get to know each other.' Is her other line in this video. Does casual sex indicate polyamory? If it did everyone would be classified as such so, no. That scene tells me that she is open minded when it comes to sexual experimentation at least. (Which again, changes for this scene but not for others.)

My issue with this scene and my statements in the past that it contradicts what she said before comes from her ending things when you sleep with others. ( I might add the breakup still happens if you decided to pursue someone else that isn't Halsin after the Mizora scene even if you tell her first.) Its not that she might be the way you claim her to be but the way it was handled/written.

The scene and the writing in it are a clear (to me) example of a late addition to the game that goes against what was established throughout multiple conversations you have with her throughout act1/2 and partly 3.

I mentioned this before but if a scene popped up out of nowhere in act 3 where Wyll was saying that he was cool with killing innocent refuges/civilians it would stick out the same way Mizora scene does.

Didn't see that edit. so here's mine - Yes the option 'I want to talk about our relationship' and establishing what the player wants (and if that's possible with this character) would've been a great addition but then again this game lacks so many things, especially in the writing department. (I don't think there is a single character in this game that was well written, the focus was obviously on making them waifus/husbandos.)

No, it doesn't frustrate me that people have a different experience than I do. If you want a mono SH you can have that. (and it's pretty easily

If do I have a frustration when RPGs devote lots of energy to evil paths *when that takes away for the main path*. Steam numbers tell us that 70-90 % of players go for the good path and I dislike what I see as waste of time that reduces my content.

But that doesn't apply here - I think I got my money's worth with BG3 even as I have some critiques. I got hundreds of hours and I never have to see the evil content.

Let me return your question to you - does it bother you that SH can kill the nightsong and pour her blood on the statue of Selune in attempt to deepen the grief of a mourning mother? If not, why does her capacity for evil offend you less than her capacity for ethical non monogamy?

To be honest I just found that by accident. I just responded to Halsin as if he was a quest giver and not a companion and it fell into place.

Again, I have no strong opinions about Halsin. I've never traveled with him and I was surprised to learn that some believe you have to travel with him.

Because her "capacity" for ethical non monogamy is intristicly tied to Halsin

Halsin is only non monagamous because Larian needed an excuse for him to shapeshift into a bear and rail Astarion

If you've read my comment you know that I think this was foreshadowed / hinted at in the wine sharing conversation. I even provided some youtube links to that conversation. That conversation was in the very first EA release so I've been expecting this for 3 years. "not tonight" is not a hard no. A died in wool monogamist would have given a different response.

So this doesn't stick out for me at all.

You are correct that there is contradiction in the dialogues - does Shar encourage casual sex or no? She did at one point but she lost the portfolio of seduction to Sharess. At the same time SH was raised by Viconia deVir so casual sex might have been then norm in the BG cloister.

If they were to remove one of the two dialogues I think I would remove the "no sex" one - simply because of Viconia's influence and because it works well in this scene.

And I think there's another subtext to this conversation -- an indication that Tav's cheating is moving SH back towards Shar. "so it seems like you are actings just like the asshats that raised me. Perhaps you are more Sharran than I thought you were. I guess I'll forgive this but I expected better from you"

There's an even more glaring contradiction in the Dror Ragzlin - mind flayer conversation. Depending on when you interrogate the corpse you are either certain in infected you or are certain it did not.

It's also tied to the sex workers and Mizorra. Ugh. Bear sex. No. Nope. *barf emoji*

Her capacity for evil offends me not for the same reason I will never have her go full evil. Because the only truly evil act she performs here out of her own will is take the Nightsong's blood. Which I agree, is actually very petty of her. But we're all capable of pettiness, and she wanted to impress her evil goddess.

She ends her storyline as Dark Justiciar with you having abandoned her to Shar while you were the only person that could've saved her. She's literally begging Shar to forget not only her murdering her own parents in frustration, but also forgetting that you did that to her. After that, Shar made her forget what it is like to be a good person again; back to square one, except now she's even more of a religious zealot based on position of power.

It fits well. I really like the writing, but I find it dark enough that I will not dabble. I can't do that to a person, fictional or not. The writing about any kind of non-monogamy, on the other hand, in its current state is inconsistent. I've said many times already that I would be content if it was written to make sense so long as a full-mono playthrough didn't get impacted. I still wouldn't dabble, just like her evil path, but I'd be fine with its addition.

But as it stands, a full-mono playthrough isn't impacted (with the exception of Halsin's self insert/flirting, for those that bring Halsin along), however the writing of these half assed attempts at having her fit Halsin as a out of character cameo are inconsistent and don't make sense.

If you don't dabble why are you hiring sex workers? Why are you cheating with Mizorra? Avoid those situations and you will never have a SH who is open to sharing. You don't have have hire the twins. You can say no to Mizorra. And if you rescue Wylls father while defying Mizorra you never have the option to cheat.

You don't have to see that anymore than I have to see evil SH.

Don't cheat, don't try to open the relationship and you will have cinnamon bun romance.