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

Hes technically "supposed" to be non monagamous, but only because Larian wrote him expecting players to already have romanced someone else, SH/Astarion in particular. Its almost like they never expected anyone to want to only romance him. Which is silly because thats the reason people wanted him added in the first place, so they could romance him like the other companions. I dont believe he was meant to be aromantic, it doesnt make sense to add him as a romanceable character, which is the main reason people in EA wanted him added, just for him to be aromantic.

Yes this. I feel like at least we are getting the option to leave with him. Honestly, this is the only improvement that I can see them making. Well I hope to be wrong and more dialogues will be added for him in Act 2 and 3 (or even quests) but it's best to keep our expectations low.

He says his heart isn't easily moved, not that it's never moved, and he uses a lot of romantic language, so I don't think he's being presented as aromantic.

I can help with that one! Similar to how asexuals don't feel sexual attraction, aromantics don't feel romantic love. It's important to remember that aromantic people can still cherish friendships and other relationships, but their interest isn't in romance. Sometimes people will be asexual but still feel romantic love (hi, hello! it's me! I'm asexual and gay married!) A tricky position societally speaking is when people DO have sexual attraction but do not feel romantic attraction. The reason I bring this up is because oftentimes aromantic people who are allosexual (experience sexual attraction) are considered to be heartless and cruel for not being romantically involved.

However, as some others have said, it sort of feels to me that this is on accident and maybe they didn't really intend for him to be aromantic? It certainly seems weird for him to be a "romance" option if he's aro. That's not to say being aromantic is an inherently callous or bad thing, but it's just weird the way it's written and presented I guess?

Thanks!

I might add to that, for characters (and people!) who are sexual and sexually interested beings, but heavily towards the aromantic end of the spectrum, there are positive and healthy ways to express this, and to interact and share relationships with others, and there are destructive and negative ways, just as for any other person and any other relationship.

The important thing in video game representation is that, when you're representing a minority or less-represented thing, be it people, preferences, sexualities or relationship styles - anything really - it is important to put the healthy representation forward first. We're in a position where it's okay and can even be interesting and compelling to present broken, hurtful or destructive monogamous and/or normative relationships, because we have a *lot* of other healthy examples already that we can balance them with, and most folks have a fairly solid idea of what is healthy and what isn't there (er.... generally...). But, when you're putting forward something that doesn't have a lot of representation, if you lead with an unhealthy or toxic representation, or one that repeats harmful or negative stereotypes, you mostly only do harm to the group you are trying to represent, because of the lack of healthy and positive examples for comparison in widespread media, and the generally lesser understanding and familiarity that you're already facing when you put it into your work. It is so important, when representing under-represented elements, that you show the ways it which it is and can be healthy and positive first; get that out there, raise that awareness first; then it becomes easier to explore the more destructive and toxic elements without doing harm to the communities or groups of people you're depicting.

Niara and others on this. I have to make two prefaces:

1) I've not romanced Halsin and only seen the bits that people object to on youtube
2) I have the greatest respect for Niara and largely agree with her point about representation

But as someone who is poly I do consider relationship anarchism a type of poly. I even consider free agency at type of poly as long as doesn't include rules on avoiding loving attachments (as is sometimes the case with some lifestyle sorts)

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/relationships/a45467577/relationship-anarchy/

My experience - you don't have to read it.


Now this not comment on other problems people have with Halsin - apparently he pushes after an explicit no - and that's sex pest behavior. But can someone refuse to commit - because labels come with (often unvoiced) expectations - and still be poly? I would say so, yes. I mean they end up on the same dating apps, share the same vocabulary, read the same books and, most importantly, recognize each other so . . . I remember one couple on OKC that lived together for 8 years agreed they were poly but refused to call what they had a relationship

Advocating for breaking forum rules is not okay, and is unwise when you're already on thin ice for repeated and heated posting when there have been multiple requests for folk to stop that.

That's earned some time off. And fair warning that if we have reasonable suspicion that an account has been created for the purposes of evading a suspension, then that can lead to both the alt account and the original one getting permanent bans.

I've seen this thread tons of times and kind of wanted to add my thoughts to it. I don't expect any of them to be groundbreaking or new but, I like Halsin and would love to see a proper polyamorous relationship added.

As others have mentioned, Halsin was written with an aversion to the word/label "relationship." This seems to be a huge oversight if the purpose was poly representation.

I'm monogamous myself but my partner and I have explored to see if poly would be an option for us before so research was done. It doesn't compare to first-hand experience though so, bear with me here.

My understanding of what poly requires by definition is a relationship and commitment to the other person, just not ONLY to that person. Open communication and active consent are core tenants and when they are not actively reinforced always, you have a toxic relationship on your hands.

What Halsin is proposing seems to be an open fling. He doesn't want commitment, he doesn't want relationships, he clearly sucks at the open communication part, and consent is clearly ambiguous (which is a big no-no).

These need to be improved upon if Larian's intentions were to give a polyamorous option to players.

Additionally, I wanted to add my thoughts as a die-hard Astarion fan: please please don't make him an option for a three-some with Halsin or the bear version anymore.
Astarion, once you know him better, would not know how to say no to these sexual advances and since consent is vitally important to all encounters, Astarion is probably the worst option when it comes to Halsin's sexual adventures. Astarion is a SA survivor and needs time to heal and slowly enter back into sex comfortably. Being proposed a 3-some that he doesn't know how to say no to that would likely be too much for his trauma response to handle is tone-deaf and I wish it wasn't an option...

And who would you chose for that? As Shadowheart romancer I'm fully against adding in there too.

Word.

I know this isn't an Astarion thread and I'm not trying to derail the convo--just wanted to come say, yeah I feel this way too. When you ask him how he feels if you take Halsin up on his offer his reply is go have fun. In my mind there is an emphasis on "go". For me, this is his truth at this time. Go--come back! but go on without me.

*grin*

I need to know more about SH personally to give an informed opinion but my surface-level knowledge of her (never romanced her) is that she's also a SA survivor so I would agree she's not a great option either.

Here's the thing though: if Halsin was truly poly, and SH had given clear indications that that kind of relationship was okay with her, she wouldn't be a terrible option.
But since we get a sex-pest from Halsin and not a true poly relationship, it would likely just be more sexual trauma for her to sort through. This is just my opinion though.

I good alternative would be Wyll, Lae'zel, or Karlach if she gave informed consent.
All 3 characters have the gumption to say no when they're not comfortable with it and, aside from Wyll, they've all expressed that Halsin was handsome and interesting.
SH expresses interest in Halsin but it feels forced and Astarion outright dislikes him, calls him annoying, and makes fun of his nature bullshit all the time. They both just suck as options...

Lae'zel for sure would be a good option for poly romance. Maybe Karlach too. I'm not sure about Gale and Wyll, don't think it would be a good theme for them, but I've never romanced them, so maybe people with experience could tell us more.

I think Astarion is there specifically because he can't say no. The player has the opportunity to be an abuser or feel horrible later on. To me, it's icky. But so is ascending Astarion, and many players choose that.


Fandom aside, Shadowheart comes from a background of "short term amusements" and really doesn't care.
Lae'zel comes from a society where sex isn't even for breeding purposes, and propositions the player early on.
Karlach is "pent up" and has said she wants to make up for lost time.

Would those be romances? Probably not, given where they are with a romances by then, but they should IMO be open to flings.

I do think they missed an opportunity with Wyll to make him a bit spicier. He flirts with everyone and is attracted to Halsin. But as he is written now, it really wouldn't make sense to shoehorn it in.

There's this thing called character development and that is obviously not her feelings on relationships later in the game especially the Selune route. As was mentioned in the Shadowheart thread before it was wrongly closed it is very silly to use this banter as an argument. I think it goes something along the lines of her referring to a hypothetical long term lover waiting for her as a lovesick puppy in a condescending way which is what she becomes herself as she's waiting for you to return to her, at least in the ending where you save her parents.

It was mentioned countless times before, but yes, SH denies any poly proposal in act 2. Act 2 her banter with him is also more "hostile". SH "interest" in him is only in act 3 his poly proposal, drow scene(fantasies and all that stuff) and banter that occurs after her skinny-dip scene. All those 3 interactions(especially 2 and 3) are the the reason SH fans are upset around all this situation. Feels very OOC for her, considering her story and her overall goals. But yea, better not to delve into this stuff again, because it was voiced countless times already.

But sir, it is her 1 of the first banters, before any relationship. What she becomes at the end of act 2 is important. I would say that she probably becomes 1 of the most "attached" romance partners through her romance story(on Selune path at least). Also "short term amusments" argument is valid for Shar path I guess, because she can't offer more than that.

She does neither of these things. She's against an open or poly relationship just like every other origin companion when they're romanced and she does not show any interest in him whatsoever except during Halsin's romance dialogue which is completely out of character for her, just like it is for Astarion.


Shadowheart:
Even if this background were truth, she never acts upon this during the game so she's evidently not remotely interested in it and if she ever was she has completely developed out of it like Bigli said. But her relationship with the only person she seemed to get along with at the House of Grief was a platonic one, so I'll still consider this nothing more than a contradiction in writing that's only mentioned during a completely optional event (you cheating with Mizora).

Lae'zel:
She develops out of this mentality during her romance, so she wouldn't be a good fit if romanced.

Karlach:
This is the only one that could be argued for, but they decided against writing her that way. It wouldn't take quite as much change to make it consistent for her though.

If they wish to continue Halsin as a poly companion (and I can believe this could still sort of be considered poly based on the above posts from Niara and KillerRabbit, even if it's not a great representation of it), then they should dial it down to act 2 just like every other companion's romance. They should also have every other companion that you are still on the romance path with break up with you, just as they do with one another, because none of them are poly at that point except maybe Karlach.

Then, they should give you the option to add UNromanced companions to the mix. They never got their romance character development, so they may still be up for a fling (to start things off with). Mainly Lae'zel, Karlach and Astarion come to mind. Lae'zel is clearly not interested in a relationship initially, just a one night stand. Karlach is desperate for action, she'll go looking for some if you don't romance her already anyway. Astarion could still be interested for the sake of seducing you (and in this case, Halsin too) for protection if he never got to do it in act 1. I think Shadowheart, Gale and Wyll are a tougher sell even when unromanced, but 3 is still a lot of options; more than he has now, of which both are inconsistent with their character.

Would any of these 3 work long term when it comes to consistency in their story? I don't know, that's up to the writing to decide. But it would be a miles better selection than active romances in act 3 after they've already been clearly marked mono throughout the game, which is why they're the player's only remaining romance in the first place.

As I said a few days ago:


I'm getting very frustrated at having to call out folk for repetitive posting on this topic. I say again: please, please recognise when you've made your view clear, agree to disagree and move on. And if you think you're saying something different but have published hundreds of times in less than a couple of months on related topics, I can assure you that the chances are very slim that you're saying anything different enough to warrant yet another interjection on the topic. While I don't like to do it, if folk can't recognise themselves when it's time to stop and take a break, I'll have to decide for them.

I have also warned against attempts to derail this thread by those who caused the Shadowheart thread to be closed as a result of spamming the forum with repetitive posting, refusal to agree to disagree or respect the rights of others to hold or express different views, and failure to treat a topic that has clear implications for personal elements of people's real lives with due care and consideration. Unfortunately, I see a resurgence in this behaviour, aggravated by challenging moderation decisions about that thread. That's also behaviour that is going to lead to taking a break from these forums.

@The Red Queen

I apologize that my comments seemed to have spurned the off topic convo, I wasn't trying to send it in that direction.
To be completely honest, I read the last 3 pages of the thread before commenting but I definitely didn't read the whole thing so I apologize that you mentioned warnings before; I didn't see them.

Sorry to everyone! Chaos was not the intent.

Sorry, I assumed that vx_phoenix_vx maybe haven't read Shadowheart's thread or entire Halsin's thread, so I decided to discuss a bit.