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

It's about the general argument about the characterization as a whole. In that sense Backinstyle has as correct an interpretation as anyone else at this point. The problem is that he is going out of his way to repeatedly deny the validity of any other interpretation up to and including saying existing content doesn't count as part of valid interpretation. That's not misinterpretation, that's just trying to shut down other opinions.

In my estimation if the romance goes there and the player commits to it then that's part of the romance for that playthrough, and it won't go there for every player or playthrough thus the different experiences and interpretations. He has with 100% consistency denied the validity of every reason anyone has brought up for interpreting Shadowheart as even just open to the idea of poly much less how people might interpret her after she says she's okay sharing and then continues on to say she enjoyed it.

On that note I'm not interested in debating logical vs contextual/interpretive reading with you as we both already know exactly where that brick wall is because we've already run into it before.

Why would the writers convolute the scene like that? That's just unnecessarily confusing for ppl, if they went with anything other than the obvious here. Most ppl here, and Im sure most ppl in general, know she was simply talking about the wine. Anything else is just overly complicated for what the scene is: just a simple date night together sharing wine.

The words "not tonight" are such a common thing for ppl to say to one another. I have no idea why you're considering this as an argument. Like oh no they used the same two words together, it must be a conspiracy! Lol

~Personal Interpretation~ just as your interpretation is personal to you. For instance I clearly don't agree with your interpretation, but I also don't agree with KillerRabbit's about the wine dialogue because I have a mysterious THIRD interpretation (it's not that mysterious I talked about it yesterday). Imagine how many different interpretations there are between MILLIONS of individual players who do not aggregate how they read dialogue based on what other people find objectionable or not. You should not presume to speak for "most people".

Let me try to explain this differently. In writing, there are things called plot lines. Now when we choose to romance SH, that main romance and its content only (without anything optional), becomes plot line A.

Now the optional porn stuff doesn't even become plot line B because it doesn't actually have any plot. Plot requires cause and effect; a beginning and an end. The optional stuff does not have this. It has no effect on you or the relationship. The ending of the game proves this. Therefore it can't actually be considered a part of the story at all. No plot, no story.

It's just something there for entertainment, but has no actual value.

Because good writing is multi layered. And that's the way flirting works. Words that mean one thing in one context mean another thing in the context of flirting.

Let's talk about a truly great writer.

When I first went to college I thought the love of Shakespeare was snobbery. "Oh, yeah, some old dead white guy. People just think he's great because he's difficult to understand" But good bhaal was I wrong.

The truly wonderful thing about S. - besides his amazing vocabulary - is his ability to sandwich in multiple layers of meaning in just a few sentences. When you really get into S. you will find 2, 3, 4 layers and -- in the case of one sonnet -- 5 layers of meaning. In a single sentence! I've never seen his equal. It's stunning. And of course you ask yourself - am I just imaging this? Can there really be 4 levels of meaning in this sentence?! But then you ask yourself "do I ever find 4 layers of meaning with any other author"? And why do so many scholars agree that there are layers of meaning?

Let's take an example not from a play or poem but from his will. S. left "the second best bed in the house" to his wife. What did that mean? On one level - the surface - it told her what bed she was getting. On another level he was admitting to his infidelity. Now the bit that is debated is: was it an insult or not? Some people argue that it was - he was taking a swipe at wife by telling her that the dark skinned sex worker he liked to visit was the better lover. Others say it was a kindness. In his time, the best bed in the house was reserved for guests and the married couple slept in the second best bed. So perhaps S was saying "I always returned to you, she was just a guest"

One short sentence - three layers of meaning and the third level could mean one two different things but was left deliberately ambiguous. He was amazing. Better than anyone else. Well, perhaps he was a shit husband but his way with words . . .

I won't cost that much to rent Sideways. Do it. Once you start seeing layers of meaning in words new worlds will open to you. You won't be confused, you will have found a new source of pleasure

Remind me please?

Fine, I'll indulge you. Here's the facts about what actually happens. Not what happens in your mind, but in the game. I will, for the sake of clarity, quote the entire conversation, including all relevant dialogue paths (optional dialogue that can be skipped past will have an (O) in front of it, different choices numbered (1) and (2)). This is all so you understand how badly you interpreted this scene for the sake of your own headcanon in the case of no other companion being involved, and how badly you ignored character development in the case of another companion being involved.

If you go to Shadowheart without going to another companion first:
Shadowheart: Share a bottle with me?
(O)Tav: Just a bottle?
(O)Shadowheart: It's quite a bottle. I liberated one of the finer vintages earlier.
(O)Shadowheart: Best enjoyed someplace private, I think.
Tav: I'd be glad to.
Shadowheart: We should wait a little while. Until the others have drifted off.
Tav (1): Not keen on sharing with others?
Shadowheart (1): Not tonight.
OR
Tav (2): I'll find you after everyone's turned in for the night.
Shadowheart (2): Best not keep me waiting, I'd prefer not to entertain myself...

So lets ignore what actually plays out for now. In that sense, it's still open for interpretation. The optional dialogue is you hinting at wanting sex with her. This cannot really be interpreted another way. She doesn't want that, as is implied by the dialogue. Her saying "best enjoyed someplace private" is irrelevant, because it will be repeated in the non-optional dialogue.

You then agree to sharing a bottle with her. She mentions that she wants to do it after the rest has gone to sleep. You ask if she doesn't want to share it with others, OR you simply agree. She says not tonight, OR she tells you not to leave her hanging. Again, lets ignore what actually plays out. She wants to wait with sharing the bottle until the rest are asleep. You wonder if she's not interested in sharing it with others. The logical, most basic interpretation is that you simply ask if she's not interested in sharing good wine with the rest of the folks at the party, and she implies she wants to share it with you alone. She's asking you on a date. However, here you can also interpret it as her asking you for more.

However, the only, and I mean ONLY, way you can interpret the "not tonight" in a sexual way, even if you think her proposition is sex, is by interpreting it as you implying that you want a full party orgy and she doesn't want that tonight. This already makes ZERO sense, but remember we haven't looked at what actually happens yet, we're still interpreting.

Which we're stopping here. It's reality check time. You start the long rest. The scene plays out. It's a first date. You share a bottle, just as what was implied, said, and now done. There is no sex, in fact a second attempt made to make it so is shut down again. Any interpretation of "not tonight" meaning more than just sharing a bottle at the party is therefore, completely, and utterly, wrong. And it was already a massive stretch.


If you go to Shadowheart after going to another companion first:
Shadowheart: Share a bottle with me?
Tav(1): I'd be glad to.
Shadowheart(1): I won't keep you long - I gather you've already made plans with someone for your evening.
OR
Tav(2): Just a bottle?
Shadowheart(2): Just a bottle. I think you have other plans afterwards - wouldn't want to keep you.
Shadowheart(2): ...Well, maybe I would. But first come, first served.

(Both the above lead to these 2 replies)

Tav(1): I've arranged for some... company, yes. It could be a long evening.
Shadowheart(1): There - some liquid courage. And try to get some rest too if you can; tomorrow's another day.
OR
Tav(2): Maybe those plans could change, for the right person...
Narrator: *Shadowheart says nothing, but the glimmer of interest in her eyes is unmistakable.*
(O)Tav: I don't suppose you'd consider some sort of shared arrangement?
(O)Shadowheart: Not tonight.
Tav(2): I'll find you later, once the camp's asleep.
Shadowheart(2): Best not keep me waiting. I'd prefer not to entertain myself...

So she knows you have plans, but she's still interested in sharing the bottle with you. If you tell her you are going to honor those plans, she does EXACTLY what she says she will and said she will in the dialogue where you don't go to another companion first: she shares the bottle with you, but now on the spot.

If you indulge her interest, you get to ask her if she wants a shared arrangement. This heavily implies a threesome. This time, the "not tonight" is her saying she's not up for that tonight. She wants a night just with you. As we know, she doesn't even want anything sexual in the first place. However, you can interpret this "not tonight" as her being open for a threesome with that origin companion another time. Regardless of you asking for this, the rest plays out the same as before. You get your first date, nothing more, which means she never meant to share anything more than a bottle with the rest at the party, which is also shown by her sharing it with you on the spot if you double down on going with the other companion.

So that leaves the question of the interpreted interest in a threesome - everything else, you misinterpreted.

Well, guess what. We know what happens with this, too! Screw interpretations, bring on the facts.

Just like I said many, many posts ago, this implied threesome is with another origin companion. And do you know when else such a proposition with other origin companions is made? In act 2. Up to 5 times, including with that same origin companion. And she shuts all of them down. Because she, if she was ever interested in the first place (this is left to interpretation), is no longer interested in it (not left to interpretation, because she shuts the idea down even with the very person that you suggested it with in the first place). This is because she's now in love with you. It's not about asking you for a first date anymore to see if she really likes you. It's her actually really liking you, and thus no longer even considering the idea that she may have considered at the party. She's entirely, utterly, mono at this point, and wants only you. That's the character development she went through. Assuming anything other than that is insanity. Just like me making this post was insanity.

Edit: Rephrased one line at the end.

You can't go into writing structure and technique with this either because tons of writers absolutely want their readers to have fun with their own interpretations of things. Even in the rare case when an audience does get the Word of God from the writer Death of the Author exists for a reason; because sometimes authors aren't just inconsistent in their writing, but inconsistently remember their own writing because humans aren't static entities and how we see things differs between each other and over time. If I argue with you about the content of the ending this will just go in the same damn circle because you've already made clear that if you personally define it as optional that means NO OTHER PERSON IN THE WORLD is allowed to let it affect how they interpret character development which is, pardon my language, absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Every Origin character (arguably except Karlach) can end the game as two completely different people in terms of their beliefs and convictions, with TONS more nuance between those primary two results based on your choices and relationships with them. There is simply too much to point at any of it and say "only this one thing is correct." It is just as correct to say that Tav doesn't know what Shadowheart's relationship preferences are in a playthrough that you never approach or learn anything about her romantically in which case it would be presumptuous to call her EITHER mono or poly because in that playthrough you simply don't discuss the subject with her at all. It is designed first and foremost for individual players to make their own judgements calls about pretty much everything choice-based. You've made yours, and others have made theirs, and others are not all going to have judged the same as you do. This should not be so difficult for you to understand. No one is asking you to find any way you possibly can to justify why you're right, because everyone already accepts your interpretation is valid. What people are asking is that you accept their interpretation is also valid. If you can't consider what others think as valid, you have no reason to engage in discussion with them other than to shut their opinions down. Mich isn't exactly super open to other interpretations being expressed either the way he constantly tries to find logical fault in them.

For the record, I have most certainly used analogous innuendo to carefully suggest something about myself to another, when I'm not sure how they'd react, or when I don't wish to be overt about the topic (especially a personal or sexual one).
I don't, personally, think that the wine dialogue was intended to be double layered (I don't believe Larian has the authorial skill to do that deliberately), but I also don't think that reading it as such is unusual - If I were Shadow in that scene, and spoke so, I'd definitely understand and forgive a person who read more into it than I intended to put there, if it wasn't my intention to imply that information.

Everyone here is working with a personal interpretation and reading of the scene - Everyone
Everyone here is working with incomplete information - Everyone

We actually do not know - none of us know - whether that scene was intended to be multi-layed in its meanings or not. We don't have that information, and we may never have that information. the idea that there may have been more to it than the face-value words spoken is entirely reasonable, but it's also not something we can prove or disprove, short of an official comment from her writers.

Everyone needs to acknowledge this and to admit that how they see a scene, and what they feel it shows, or does not show, and especially what they take a character to mean or not mean by the things they say, is Not in any way an objective truth or fact. - Everyone

It's been warned about that trying to tell other people that their opinions about the meaning of a scene are invalid is not acceptable. Treating other posters in condescending or belittling ways when they do not see things your way, or do not agree with you, is also not appropriate; several folks here have been doing that, and I'd like to ask you to please stop... it takes away from the discussion.

At this point you are just outright ignoring all logic and arguing facts. If it doesn't affect the story, it doesn't matter. There is no interpretation here. That is how plot works, for a fact!

If the optional porn stuff mattered the writers would have shown it did! That is fact. Stop trying to gaslight me. I learned about story structure and plot in high school, this is something most ppl are taught.

In all of the other plot points, there is cause and affect. There isn't with any of the porn stuff. It makes no sense that there's no change in the ending for it. Therefore, we must conclude that it's not considered to be part of the actual story, unless they add an ending for it. Because that is how plot - writing stories - works. And you cannot dispute this. It is fact. Trying to say otherwise is completely nonsensical.

(My emphasis added)

This is very helpful, thanks! We are discussing a video game romance. We're all mad here

To use some words you suggested recently. Would you reply to this sentence "would you like a punch in the face"? With: "not tonight"? Perhaps. But if you did you would probably be making a joke. You'd be playing with irony. Because (with very rare exceptions) people don't enjoy being punched in the face. The answer to that question is "no". No, you want don't be punched. You wouldn't say "not tonight" which implies that perhaps you wouldn't mind if I asked the question again on Saturday night.

While this is likely to get me accused of 'flooding' poly comments again - I was once with someone who kept mentioning another person she had a great sexual relationship with. After they were mentioned about 5 times I asked her if she wanted to involve them and the answer was "not at this point, it would be too confusing". But later . . .


So, yes, my interpretation is influenced by life experiences - and Auric and Niara are correct to emphasize that we ALL interpreting - all of us. Humans are flawed creatures and we are forced to interpret the world through the limits of our experience. Hell, we can't even see in the dark! In my experience it's not at all unusual to for a relationship to start with two people and then expand.

I agree with Auric - one SH's boundaries is that she MUST be primary, she is unwilling to be the secondary in the relationship. As someone who is usually the secondary in relationships I found the "spare lover" a bit insensitive but think the author meant it to be coming from a place of pain. In my interpretation - SH who has just had her entire reason living taken from her at the time she commits to the relationship - is looking for an anchor, she needs rock to stand on. But, once her feet are on solid ground, once she feels secure, once she knows Tav won't abandon her she's happy to explore. Backpacking rules apply - establish base camp before you explore.

What is obvious is that "not tonight" was said twice - once in wine conversation, once with the twins and then "tonight" happens.

Btw, how did you extract that text? That was very helpful

Not relevant at all to the conversation, is it? This isn't what plays out. You are comparing apples to oranges. Stick to the apple we're discussing.

We indeed all interpret things. Interpretation stops being relevant when facts are out there. I've shown you the facts. Now it's your turn.

Nothing is written in the game to support this, therefore you are making this up. Or do you have evidence from the game to support this claim, and to support who you think she's "threatened" by, and who not?

Then you are free to explain to me why she'd be okay with it in act 3, but not act 2 with the very companion she was potentially interested in doing it with in act 1. Go on, I'll wait (I'll see it later, going to be gone for a couple hours). I've posted the entire thing. All the facts are laid bare. And no, I don't want to hear "she's a primary" and thus "threatened", because that's all made up. I want actual proof from something in the game, not in your head.

I am a serial saver. I have saves for a lot of different scenarios, in case I want to indulge in "What ifs", romance different companions without having to start a new playthrough, et cetera. I played them out again, typed out the text, that's it.

And here we are again. "I interpreted it a certain way based on my lived experience" met with "well screw that, the game the way I read it says no and that's factual" even when the game absolutely has content explicitly saying yes. What value is there to this type of discussion. Notice the lack of a question mark there.

You're saying I read actual cutscenes that play out to explain what was meant the wrong way? Should I remind you again that your, and my, interpretation become irrelevant when the meaning is explained by the author? Stop arguing with facts, please, and explain to me why "yes" is said in act 3 when "no" is very clearly said in act 2, even regarding the very companion "yes, but at a later date" was implied with in act 1. With in-game facts, not what's in your head.

Anyway, gone for a while. I hope you two can find some evidence in game to back up your claims meanwhile. Maybe John did leave you some random clue that I and everyone else skipped over.

You would have to either make things up or again draw meaning from nothing. Even if she were secretly poly this entire time with hidden messages about her that apparently a small percentage of people can see, it would still be deceptive and silly on the writer's part in the first place. Neither of these scenarios are good at all. The only time the game explicitly suggests that she's poly is... Halsin, which still remains inconsistent with what majority of people doing her romance will see, and nothing is ever going to change that.

Isn't it? "Not right now" is not absolute no. This human said not right now just as SH said not tonight and then later said "yes, let's have the twins AND Halsin" For you there's a disconnect between "not tonight" and "okay, tonight" for me there is no such disconnect. Because I've been in an analogous position - not to sharing now became a yes to sharing later. It's relevant.

I'm inviting you see the world through my eyes. You have an opportunity to think "how does someone who is not like me view the world"?

Again - not tonight.

Tav:"Do you want to play BG3 together?"

Shadowheart: "Not tonight, let's play scrabble" Does that Shadowheart never wants to play BG3? Is Shadowheart a monogamer? Will she only play scrabble and no other game?


Lol. You have not. I repeat - you want to change "the facts" The facts A) are that SH drinks wine with and then kisses Tav in the morning. Yes, those are facts. The idea that his makes her mono is your interpretation. I don't agree.

Indeed you would like to change "the facts" - to have "facts" removed from the game - the fact that she flirts with Halsin, the fact that she expresses a desire to sleep with Halsin, the fact that she is fine with Tavsleeping with Halsin, the fact that she sleeps with Halsin, the fact that she is okay with Tav sleeping with the twins, the fact that she sleeps with the twins, the fact that she forgives your infidelity with Mizzora.

Thems the facts mam.

Perhaps you could extract the dialogue for the exit from the Guantlet of Shar? She's lost everything. The ground beneath her feat has shifted. She's trying to get her footing.

I think she's in a vulnerable position - would you not agree?




Fine. I don't want hear that she's obviously mono but here we are - when the thread is locked we will no longer have to listen to one another. I think the difference is that I and some others acknowledge that we do not have god level ability to discern truth from fiction while you claim to have supernatural powers. And good on you. Please use those powers to make me rich and beautiful.


Why do you think so many people are mentioning that it ALL in everyone's head? All of it? All of us? Is this some conspiracy against you? Do we all have tadpoles and mentally agree to make the same point? Or perhaps you and I should listen to the chorus?

I am a serial saver. I have saves for a lot of different scenarios, in case I want to indulge in "What ifs", romance different companions without having to start a new playthrough, et cetera. I played them out again, typed out the text, that's it.[/quote]

Sincere thanks for the work! Now I feel lazy.

I have to ignore this person I can't take it anymore the constant gaslighting based on their own personal feelings instead of what's in the game.
I will not have my opinion of her poisoned by you people. She is not poly. I will not accept her as poly. I do not care what optional scenes they shoehorned in the game for her for degenerates like her writer. They are fanfiction as far as I am concerned and I will never accept them as part of her character.

I'm kinda shocked KillerRabbit has stuck with the argument so long considering how you continue to demean lived experience coloring interpretation as irrelevant. Again, god forbid people think differently, interact with and understand a videogame differently. There's no value in acquiescing to your demands. I will not stop "arguing with facts" because the ROLEPLAYING VIDEOGAME is open to be interpreted however a player wants and the content does exist supporting it, that's one of those facts you're so fond of demanding. You're hung up on what you see as inconsistency, and that's fine for you. I'm not because I like to insert more of my real life experience into the interaction than you seem to. You seem to see every dialogue as nothing more than the written words with no subtext, implication, insinuation, or innuendo, no room for characters to reconsider if it isn't explicitly presented to you in plain text in the scripting before your choices initiate it. I don't see it that way (especially since Shadowheart in particular is as fond of intentional vagueness as a character ever gets in the game). I don't believe most authors would see it that way which is not a statement of what you think of authors, just that I personally believe, specifically in this case, they wrote it with intent to be interpreted by the audience.

So tell me when the brick wall starts to give, I guess.

It's also very interesting that the people who most vehemently deny the validity of any non-monogamous reading are now going around accusing people of gaslighting and degeneracy. They aren't being told they're wrong, they aren't being told to change their views, they aren't being repeatedly challenged to empirically prove their experience deserves to be acknowledged by people with no intent of ever doing so, and they've been told repeatedly that their interpretation is valid. But that is the degree to which they deny similar validity to any other experience or interpretation besides their own. And that is where the argument will continue to stem from.

Lol I know right. Like it's blatant porn without plot: "A piece of erotic fanfiction with little to no regard for characterization or plot"

It is merely there for entertainment. They could remove it entirely from the game and it wouldn't affect your relationship with SH, because it has no actual value. You still get the same ending lol

But congrats to those who think this makes for great polyamory representation I guess.. being equated to nothing but an orgy.

I believe this thread has lost the plot beyond redemption and is now just reports and bickering every other post - it's lived its due course.

I am not going to time anyone out but I do ask you collectively to reflect on why I say enough is enough and refer back to the multiple attempts Red Queen has made to explain what kind of attitude and behaviour we expect from you and to one another.

If the same attitude repeats from the same users in other threads, we may find it necessary to take further individual action.