Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Patch 6 Destroyed Player Agency with Astarion

I don't think it's evil for the sake of evil or that it makes no sense, tbh. Astarion's journey is defined by his relationship with power and his beliefs about the rest of the world (that it's a dog eat dog world where one has to stay on top and care only for themself, to put it bluntly) so to me it'd be more inconsistent if something so drastic as a ritual involving Mephistopheles and 7007 deaths (about which he also mentions he will never be able to forget) didn't cement this belief for him, no exceptions. I don't think he'd be able to let Tav be his equal anymore, because that also puts him in a vulnerable spot, and AA is all about never being vulnerable again. I think it's important that, for the story, its themes and Astarion's character to remain consistent/impactful, for him to not make a convenient exception to this reinforced worldview, as that seems more for the players' sake than the story's, and that honestly seems a bit cheap to me (as it does when there are convenient exceptions to other situations, like Lae'zel being able to maintain a romance with illithid Tav in the epilogue, which doesn't make much sense. Sometimes I think that limits that serve the story are good, and I'd rather these limits are kept for Astarion). I don't think it's meant as a punishment or a moral lesson, but rather a natural development of a well written, solid narrative.

That being said, that's regarding Astarion's character. Tav's reactions to this development (esp this early into the relationship) shouldn't be determined, that is actually where the player comes in. Player agency is tricky since it's never going to be truly achievable, and honestly, it shouldn't be, but there are lines that are easy not to cross, and the upset face is one of them.
The game does let you know about how the relationship is going to change to Astarion seeing Tav as an inferior via that wisdom check (and, regarding the previous point that I think it's consistent that Astarion is demeaning to Tav, I do fully believe his line during his breakup dialogue saying he would've degraded you until you were nothing), but it also reaffirms that maybe Tav is into that. So that ambivalence should be kept.

I agree that the changes are more consistent with the arc of the ascension option. It really is a message about the cycle of abuse.

DnD vampires are very stereotypical—evil, selfish, scheming, hedonistic, and decadent. The Monster Manual even states they are always evil and become evil if they weren't in life. While I respect and sympathize with people who are offended and triggered by the changes introduced in patch 6, personally, I perceive them as a tragic consequence of Tav's hunger for power. Allowing Astarion to ascend means virtually killing the Astarion Tav knows, giving birth to a being who is incapable of love and empathy, ultimately erasing most or all traces of genuine affection. Still, I think that the kissing animation is in very bad taste and unnecessary. I wish there was some kind of warning in the form of the narrator hinting at what turning into a full-fledged vampire can do to Astarion's personality before we make the choice.

Where does it state that ascension will take away his ability to love? Ascension is obviously a morally bad decision since you are sacrificing souls to the hells, but he is suppose to regain the ‘appetites’ of men. I would assume that would include enjoyment of food, lack of vampiric banes like needing an invitation/sun sensitivity, full range of emotions, etc. If you are going to quote the monster manual, the spawn / unascended Astarion should also lack the ability to love.

Either way, people being disappointed that these are the only kisses in the game that have Tav/Durge looking scared is valid in my opinion. Plus, it’s strange decision to make 6 months after release which is why people feel a little blindsided if they had different interpretations over this time for how their Tav/Durge would react/feels in the relationship. It just sort of makes me feel like I shouldn’t buy a game in the future until it’s at least year past release since they may be changes that affect my future roleplays.

You might love your dog, you still expect it to sit when you say so. Astarion's warnings about vampires in act 1 have been in there from the start, so I do not feel like this suddenly changes anything, it just underlines what was there all along.

Still I do agree that the animations, especially the facial animations, are too much for repeatable animations that are used without any direct narrative context and are perceived as public interactions.

AA canonly can feel love. If you try to eat his brain as a mind flayer in the epilogue, the narrator says his brain is secreting love.

Ascended Astarion will never see Tav/Durge as an equal. I think the narrative makes that abundantly clear and, frankly, I think the need to dominate everything is an integral part of his personality on this path.

However, that in no way means that he would physically abuse or otherwise terrorize a Tav/Durge who chose to remain as his romantic partner.

To me, the game has always suggested that ascended Astarion views his spawn Tav/Durge as his most treasured possession. He owns them, body and soul, but he also values them and seems to legitimately want to spend eternity with them at his side. They’re beneath him, but still above everyone else in the world. While I know full well he is lying about making Tav/Durge a true vampire, he seems genuine about them ‘being more than just some spawn’. Which might be naive; the man is so smooth at lying (even as a spawn) that it’s hard to know the truth.

This is a fundamentally imbalanced relationship and it’s completely fair for Tav to have buyer’s remorse. The game does a wonderful job of providing dialogue options at multiple points to represent this perspective. That said, it’s also valid for Tav to decide that giving up personal freedom was worth it for immortality, luxury and vice. Which is where the unhappy facial expressions become problematic, in my opinion. Tav asks for the kiss, so it seems reasonable to assume they don’t yet regret their choice.

I agree. I understand why people are disturbed by this but this doesn't seem like a change, it only makes the themes of the romance explicit.


You right to see that but that's always been the subtext of the Astarian romance. Vampire stories - even Twilight - have an undercurrent of sexual violence. Take a minute to re read dracula and the staking of Lucy. Lucy the virginal demure who transformed into a being that is carnal, wanton and voluptuous.

https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dracula/full-text/chapter-xvi/

Of course I can understand why that might trigger someone but those themes have been present since early act 1 and are true to the genre.

I do think that on this end, the game does a good enough job subtly putting that idea in your head, even back in act 1. I'd prefer for it to remain relatively subtle, I feel like the ending scene of the Spawn route (the morning after where Astarion thanks you) is very, very unsubtle with its message and comes across a bit clumsily written (but I've seen that a lot of people appreciate and love that scene, and I understand, it has very good bits too) so I'd rather the game's not super obvious about the message.




I agree with the treasured possession comment, and the game does seem to reinforce this throughout dialogue, but I also think that depending on Tav's personality, AA might really cross that line in time. It's a very slippery slope. Given that the themes here are all about control and that's what abuse is all about, it seems reasonable that it could degrade that way, although in a way where he feels he's "justified" as it were, thinking that Tav's being ungrateful or needs to be taught a lesson, but also that he's so much better than his predecessor when imparting it (Specifically thinking about how Cazador was impaled for 11 years and thus probably thought 1 year in a coffin was a kindness as a lesson. That whole "If you knew how I had it..." schtick abusive parents tend to pull)



That's a very interesting reading, particularly for people who were around during EA and the discussion around Astarion's bite scene making him look like a creep. It's true that vampires, in their gothic literature days (and well, until sexuality was deemed more okay to display in society), seemed to represent the fears around promiscuity by depicting metaphors for sexual violence.
I was never bothered by the bite scene in EA though, because I'm familiarised with the genre and knew not to take it too seriously. It's my understanding they changed it around a bit for this reason (or maybe because it was goofy that Tav was just sitting down throughout the whole interaction) and I didn't find that necessary, but I know some people appreciated the change.
I want to say I don't think it was intentional (though that hardly matters especially when the themes have such a historic foundation) for Astarion to remind you of a sexual creep, but then again they /did/ play into the whole vampire sex schtick and then deconstructed it. I guess it makes sense the vampire tropes are reinforced for the ending where you tell him to stick to that schtick.

I quite like how the game always leans into the vampire / dark romance imagery when it wants to depict a scene as performative, manipulative or - more plainly - when the vampire is depicted as the object of a lustful fantasy: The Act 1 and Ascended romance scenes play heavily with such imagery as does Araj's desire to be bitten by a vampire. Otoh, when the scene is about autonomy the imagery gets deconstructed: drinking blood isn't a sexy kink, it is literally about sustenance and the freedom to pick your own food sources, both in choice as well as in limits, freedom comes with responsibility. The graveyard scene too seems like a classical vampire scene, but it quickly turned into Astarion's first step of reclaiming his life when he gives himself a new birthday. I feel the graveyard in BG3 in general is a somewhat symbolic place, it deals with either clinging to the past or moving on from it - both Astarion and Shart have their scenes there, Karlach and Shart have reflective moments on it and both of the more memorable graveyard quests deal with finding closure and moving on. I mean the little girl and her brother as well as the parents in need of a coffin for their daughter.

Oooh I really like that reading, Anska. Well, probably not so much of a reading/interpretation as an actual, intentional and very deliberate thing, but it's still nice to see it laid out in such a well-spoken way. There's a lot of meat to Astarion's character, a lot of love was put into his storyline.

Are we going to forget about all the other lines in the game where he specifically says Tav is different than the others and they are both better than them? So far the story has always been US against THEM. Even though Tav is not his equal, because they're not as strong as he is, it doesn't mean he has to start abusing them for it. He consistently puts Tav above the rest, but now somehow treats them the worst? This is illogical. In the new epilogue it is even confirmed he shares his power and everything else with Tav. They are acting like a married couple. If they truly wanted to present the story of an abuser and victim they should have done it in other ways where Tav's consent wasn't so explicitly pronounced.


Have you actually done his romance?


This would have been ok if he turned into a true vampire, not a Larian homebrew where he's supposed to become more human.


This.


He reminds me of multiple movie figures with the dynamic of power couples. Comparing it to a relationship between a dog and a master is just reducing it to a kink some people have. What was presented up until this point was a relationship with a classic monarch, he even calls Tav his consort to emphasise this is the type of relationship they have (spouse of a ruler). It reminds me of the way Henry the VIII was presented in "The Tudors" - loving, passionate and spoiling his wife/wives but also being possessive and angry when his majesty was getting disrespected and threatened. Astarion is actually much nicer, because he doesn't punish Tav for cheating on him with Mizora and going back on their word to stay with him forever. He's also the nicest Vampire Lord I've seen.


The gripe people have with this patch is the fact that Astarion's behaviour now contradicts his previous actions and words. They are changing the dynamic of his relationship 6 months after release where paying customers experienced a different story. It would have been different if it was a story they told at launch. Then many people would have just moved on from this romance and never done it again. Changing something completely while disregarding player agency is NOT ok months after you paid for something. It's like going to a restaurant, paying upfront, eating your meal, going to a toilet only to find a dead rodent in your food when you get back.

Advocating for a suddenly changed narrative being more important than the feelings of paying customers and IRL people who got traumatised by it is atrocious. (This is not targeted against anyone in particular, just a general statement.)

This! It is a suggestion and Feedback Thread and players, who are ACTUALLY playing the romance are expressing their concerns and feelings, and even some got traumatized. It would be nice, if people would and could think also of other people, support people (!), who are harmed, instead of being self-centered, especially if they are not even playing this route/romance and not even seeing these sexual violence ingame. Sorry, noone should support and defend harm toward other players or agree with sexual violence towards the character, when a lot of players expresses themselves being traumatised and hurt by it.

Again, it's important to note for my entire stance that I'm not pro-Tav's face, because I feel like that's where you're coming from here, and I'm mostly just saying an eventual or not-so-eventual abusive relationship makes perfect sense. I mostly state my opinions around here in case Larian's reading so they also hear my voice in this whole thing as an AA appreciator, I think it'd be a shame for that aspect (not Tav's face, but this characterisation specifically) to be changed if the impression is that all the people who play it hate it.
Tav isn't ever going to bear AA's worst, mostly because he plans on installing torture pits and ruling the world etc etc. People will die (have died, given his epilogue lines).
Consort Tav is always going to be higher in his "mental hierarchy" than other people- perhaps the highest a person can be for him- and that still doesn't mean they will be exempt from him resorting to abusive behaviours, because he's going to be... abusive towards the whole world, I guess? That's a rather clumsy way of putting it, but I think it works.

I also disagree about Tav's consent being super pronounced, but I see where you're coming from because I think there's a clash between Larian prioritising player agency (yes, I know this might be met with derision as there are a couple things here where it seems to not be a priority, but I do think Larian /does/ tend to prioritise player agency a bit too much in some occasions) and the story, so there are a couple of moments where one can go "Well look at that! He let Tav go!".
To me, the fact that he doesn't let you go once the tadpole's gone and his lines in the epilogue if you complain about not being free are more than enough to see the text's intentions in that regard, I find it quite conclusive.
I do really like someone's reading I saw where he does want to at least believe Tav's into this arrangement, which I think is a fairly good explanation as to why he wants you to be onboard before he turns you instead of just saying "fuck it". Plus I think we are ignoring that they pulled off a lot of nuances of abuse here pretty well, if it was just "mwahahah I turn you against your will and I just insult you and hit you" it'd feel like a quite cheap and black and white portrayal of abuse to me, instead we even have lovebombing. Low standards I guess since I also don't find it super subtle, but I think they did a great job. There's also a fairly patriarchal nature to the toxicity portrayed, this "I'm the provider and I will give you everything" mindset, and I think that's super interesting.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't think anyone's defending or supporting harm or being "self-centered" in what I've seen of this thread, everyone has been quite respectful, I think, and in turn I think it's a bit unpleasant to say people are self-centered for also sharing their opinion. I also don't like jumping to conclusions that anyone who doesn't share your opinion hasn't played the route. It's a quite unfair assumption that I've had people make about me and often ends up in me feeling excluded from AA spaces because my validity as a player is put into question.

Thank you!

Ps: I apologise for getting that other thread locked, it was not my intention, I got too passionate and forgot to be careful with my words.

Everyone who welcomes the sexual violence toward the characters in these new kisses were people, who haven't had the romance - up until now. But I see, you just said you are a


If you think that of yourself. It's your right.

Of course, you can have your opinion and you can like how Tav is portrayed in these kisses. I just said, it would be nice, to think on other people (in fact the majority), who are traumatized and harmed by it and to support these people, instead of just thinking of own preferences (I meant that in general, I didn't call someone out)

From what I've seen, the overwhelming majority of people in this page have explicitly said they disagree with the kisses... The most "contrarian" message is a simple "These changes are more consistent". I've also seen a couple other people -not on this forum- who like AA actually like the kisses in its entirety. It's not the common stance but it certainly exists. From what I've seen, the idea that "everyone who likes this hasn't played the route" (which again, wasn't what people were advocating for here) is more an assumption that is made about people than something that has been confirmed.

Also, perhaps I'm struggling to read tone over text, but I don't appreciate that it looks like you are being passive-aggressive about me liking AA. I absolutely do. Just because I don't perceive his character the way you do doesn't mean I like him any less. 4 out of my 6 runs are with AA. Maybe I'm taking your comment too personally, idk, in that case I apologise, but this is precisely the type of behavior that makes me feel excluded from fan spaces.

This thread is specifically about the agency of the player being removed and the faces being bad. You agree with that and yet once more you're starting a discussion about why AA should be shown as an abuser and that it's cool and refreshing. I really think you should just create a thread about it in the discussion forums because you clearly need to get it out of your system.


He talks about murder pits, not torture pits.


He's perfectly fine dropping his world domination plans when Tav doesn't make the evil choice at the end of the game and wants to travel instead. Then in the epilogue, which sadly only accounts for one dialogue choice (same as spawn ending when you don't go to the Underdark), all he does with Tav is party together.


I see it as him demanding that the deal is honoured. It is a deal with the devil - you get immortality and everything you want, but you need to share that immortal life with him. You wanting to go back on your word is the only time he gets upset and also when he's compared to Cazador - the person he hates the most (in the epilogue he even calms down enough that he doesn't care about it anymore). He seems to be associated with devils in several ways - is ok making deals with them when he's desperate, he feels good in Avernus, he becomes a new creation of Mephistopheles, trusts devils more than vampires, would like to sit with Mizora at Wyll's duke party, he also has a very transactional mindset and doesn't like do to anything for free, he rewards Tav for helping him. Is Raphael demanding his deals being honoured an abusive thing? Of course not. Astarion was a magistrate and he thinks in terms of law and justice. Tav enters a contractual marriage with him when they agree to be his spawn where the roles and rules are clear. Likewise, him being abusive for no reason is him breaching their agreement.

If there is enough space for a thread specifically talking about a writer in which there is no space for actual feedback for the game in the feedback forum (as the only feedback I could take away from it is fire/replace this writer) and space for the posts only including memes, I thought this space could be flexible enough to add my two cents in a reply to someone as to why I don't think it's sudden or doesn't make sense as that seemed to be part of the feedback Larian was getting and I want my voice to be heard as well in that department, but alright, I'll be off again.

That being said: I think there's a stark difference between a romantic relationship and a deal, I don't think it's necessarily not cool to see it in those terms, I think that's a neat concept, but in terms of saying that's why it couldn't be abusive I don't think it's super solid.