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

Well spoken.

That wouldn't work out with that, the kiss itself is consensual, before and after it's nonconsensual. It's a contradiction itself, it needs to be reworked. (and with nonconsensual, it could still trigger people there...)
I do really like that kiss, when it's all consensual, I'd like to see it everyday and not just as an SSD in a breakup scene my Tav would never choose.


@Shyshyn4ik
Well said! That's exactly how I felt about his Spawn ending. He doesn't deserve such a pathetic life in my playthrough. He feels broken when he is damned to stay a Spawn.


Agree and there is nothing to add.

Vampire Spawns are technically "monsters" too, according to DnD lore.

On the subject of spawn Astarion, which is a bit of a side track, I will say that there is an imbalance in that relationship as well that I’d like to see explored. Namely that Tav is mortal and Astarion is immortal. The game touches on some of the problems there with Dame Aylin and Isobel, but I feel like some of the grim realities get hand waved away. It would be interesting for Tav and spawn Astarion to have a frank conversation about what happens when they begin to age; even if it is just Astarion assuring Tav he will always love them.

You see, we have no innocent souls. All spawns are already cursed with the vampire curse and are technically monsters who have no control over their bloodlust. Astarion is special because he has a larva, but the other spawns don't have one and they are, by DnD lore, unable to control themselves. In fact, we either perform a ritual with already tainted dead souls or release monsters that can kill innocent mortals at any time. 7000 spawns for Baldurs City is an incredibly huge number and we are essentially dooming ordinary people to death.
Moreover, I will remind you that according to the rules of DnD, I won't say that this is relevant for the new 6th edition, but in 2.2 and 3, and I've been playing in DnD since 1999, devils cannot make a contract by force, voluntary consent is necessary, which means that all spawns also made a contract voluntarily and gave their souls themselves, that's why they were seduced by Astarion and that's why you can't just replace Astarion with another spawn.
So there are no innocents here, there are those who are confused, who don't understand and who misunderstand, they may be pitied, but there are no innocents. These 7,000 spawn are a threat to the people of Baldurs Gate. I don't think it's right to risk the lives of everyday people for a supposed "redemption". The only redemption according to the monomyth would have been if Astarion had refused to take revenge on Cazador before the ritual and before he met him. If Astarion had gotten his freedom and said that yes, now I want to make things right, I want to be different, I am willing to sacrifice myself. Then and only then would the monomyth work. But now it's just a maximally chaotically neutral act that denies any responsibility and works only to make it convenient for the player to consider himself a hero, but this heroism is very shaky on clay feet.

I generally would like the partnership aspect more explored. I think they did a wonderful job in showing partnership in Gale's case because all of act 3 is him and the PC planing a future together, from dinners with Tara to what to do with the Crown. With S!Astarion that is a bit troublesome because the end of his quest is also the end of his content and many of the options up for choice in the final selection weren't even addressed before. I really like the Underdark conversation you can have with Astarion but it is so buried under other stuff, that I assume a lot of players don't choose that track of conversation. - But I just wrote a long ramble about all that and don't want to derail too much.

How to show an actual partnership in a game is an interesting topic. I feel games in which the player is supposed to be the "hero" more than the protagonist rarely allow them to be vulnerable.

Well said, again, @Shyshyn4ik.

No, it's clearly pointing out that player agency doesn't dictate whether another character is a monster or not just because you'd prefer a fantasy that involves love.

You also don't get to decide when you're afraid in life. You only get to decide how you react to that fear.


Ketheric was a human who fell into darkness due to tragedy.

Astarion is a vampire spawn charlatan. Essentially, Astarion is already a monster, incapable of real love. It's about survival and manipulation. A vampire spawn is literally a monster. He can't love himself, much less Tav.

Worse, Astarion goes through the vilest ritual imaginable involving hell itself. He becomes something far more despicable. The change is evident to everyone. You don't even have to romance him to see the utter corruption.

It's amazing that anyone would believe anything this creature says.



You know what this means? He's not a monster! He loves me, he must do.

Psst, Kethric is an elf or halfelf. Apart from that I feel that the game frequently makes a point of saying that a monster is not defined by what you are but what you do. There are several characters around who belong in the monster category on first glance but are perfectly decent people if you give them a chance. Even the Gur, who are in the monster hunter business, seem to believe in this, especially if Astarion steps away from the ritual.

Not to contradict, just to add nuance because I did quite enjoy this take on monsters.

Actually, this is more like someone deciding that you're afraid of something when you're not. It's like, for example, if you were playing with a neighbor's big dog you always played with and then one day the dog's owner suddenly says "actually you're afraid of dogs." And you say that you're not, but they just keep repeating "no you're afraid of dogs."

I beat the game twice with Ascended Astarion, and my character wasn't afraid of him. Now suddenly after the patch they have to have a fearful expression with him, even though I think it's wildly OOC for my durge to be afraid of him.

I’m still not quite convinced by the relevance of the argument I answered to, in terms of biases and a propos, but so be it. I don’t think, at least in my previous messages, I conflated player agency with a carte blanche to dictate anything, and to change a monster into anything else. Besides, it’s not because someone is supposed to be a monster that love is absent. Nuances also exist, and in an experience where nothing is absolutely stated, well…

I merely said I thought it was kind of cheap to have the player’s character taken over in some respects, the rest around becoming clunky, to tell the story of a guy that might be all about abusing me in turn because he changed for the worst.

I definitely do not choose to be scared in real life. The same way I might read a story and a character a certain way, and be wrong. The various characters I play might not have the same read though, and some of them might not loose their nerves so easily too. Which those kisses will not account for the way they are. And I agree that it is quite comical when they are repeated.

Again, since we’re talking about real life, there I have options. I’m scared or hesitant to kneel, and still have a tadpole that offers me some respite ? I can say no. I can try to have a conversation on such an event, one so new and potentially surprising that it should supposedly definitely shatter my rose tainted glasses. But I don’t think it has specifically been implemented to accompany those new kisses.

And yes, it has a potential to scare, without giving us a choice, like in real life. So, I would be tempted to say that, with that in mind, releasing it without trigger warning in a patch advertised in part as “romantic things for Valentine’s Day”, when people were accustomed to something very different, might not have been the biggest idea ever.

Edit, just to add. I have played some characters who could be considered monsters in their own right (and not even Durges), who do not have to believe certain companions to like them and to want to consort with them. I mean, roleplay. Do they have ideals in mind ? Probably. Are they going to get scared, rinse and repeat ? Debatable. Would they not jump on such a created occasion to ask questions, rant, or plot later ? I doubt it. But, again, I think there is a missed opportunity to make such supposed token scenes of good and coherent use within the story.

My point, which I consider to be nuanced, is that AA is open to interpretation, within certain parameters.

I have not said that AA is capable of love. My personal opinion is that he is not, because love requires a capacity for selflessness that AA, an unapologetic narcissist, does not possess.

That does not mean he will terrorize Tav, or even that he wants to victimize them. I believe AA wants a doe eyed, complicit consort who will admire his every action because it will feed his ego and distract him from how hollow his existence might otherwise be. And I think it’s alright for Tav to be on board with this, and even happy to go along. If that is what their player decides.

Um, you get a line right after Astarion ascends to tell him you don't fear him.

Players should have control over their character in an rpg. This is why fans didn't want a voiced character because they didn't even want Tav to say a line in the way they wouldn't want them to say it.

Of course fans are not going to be okay with Larian deciding on their behalf to be afraid.

Especially when it breaks story continuity. If I pick dialogue telling someone I'm not afraid, the game shouldn't force a fearful reaction. It breaks the roleplay.

So many responses since last I looked. Very interesting.

I agree with @Anska 9 times out 10 but in this instance I don't agree that AA is ruled by fear - even though I think they are right that fear at the core of Spawn Astarian's personality. Indeed the authors seem to be saying something interesting and strange about fear. It seems that fear is at the root of Spawn Astarian's (SA's) redeeming qualities. When he feels sympathy for his fellow spawn he does so because he can imagine being in their place. Without something to fear AA worst traits come to dominate. Astarian has lost the core of personality, SA is dead, long live AA the fearless lord who does not respect consent.

Normally when people talk about the virtues of fear they mention the dangers of bravado, recklessness etc. In this case it seems that the Astarian's authors are suggesting that fear is a road to sympathy or empathy.

I think @Every is right, the meeting with illithid Tav is key. He doesn't fear squid Tav when he should: AA's life is in danger if Tav fails that constitution check. AA has not only lost the virtues of the fearful he has also gained the flaws of the fearless.

@Shyshyn4ik

Enjoying the posts a great deal. Like you I've played earlier versions on the tabletop and for that reason I either refuse to make a decision (headcannon says I call the churches of Lathander and Kelemvor for advice) or I kill them because they are soulless and, as I tell the Gur, I was forced to kill 7000 monsters.

But that is headcannon because this is a OneDnD / 6e narrative where the captives have souls and they are innocent because they've not taken a life yet. Does that violate 1-5e DnD lore? Yes. Does the idea one can be forced into a contract against one's will violate 1-5 e lore? Yes. Does that violate OneDnD lore? "ask your DM!" (the answer to every lore question in 6e it seems)

So the entire scenario violates lore but **even with** 6e whittling down alignment to a pile sawdust we can see this as a vile, evil act that fundamentally alters the nature of AA's soul. And it's not at all clear that AA is outside of mephistopheles's grasp. It's clear AA thinks so but he hasn't even read the contract. And it seems that some of the powers that were supposed to come to him haven't. Something tells me that AA is going to a get a visit from representative of the arch devil soon. . .

But evil Tavs should be concerned about the completion of the ritual for other reasons. If you've spent any time around SA you know he's acting weird in the chamber and you know it's because he's being ruled by his fear. If you've spoken to him about power, corruption and fear you know exactly what is motivating him. So you discourage him of out love for him and/or out of love for yourself. Because even the Durge doesn't know that they will still love the creature that completes the ritual. Perhaps Tav was born to rule and SA to serve? No need to let compassion for the unjustly imprisoned influence your decision.

@illeaillas-san

The posts were very helpful, thanks! I really like the writing in this romance and to me it's clear that Tav is supposed to be feeling a sense of dread. If you ask "can you control me" and the answer is "why would I need to" you should read that as an evasive answer.

Interesting, AA, I thought "Evasion" only worked inside of combat now I see that it applies to dialogue checks as well.

And the fact that people are saying "AA only acts this way if you disobey" tells me the narrative is working. Tav is the new Astarian, best not make master unhappy because there's only one way to end this relationship"

Again, this parallels the evil outcomes in the other romances. Oh my goddess, what did I do?

I have two thoughts on this.

The first is with respect to AA missing powers. There are reasons to suspect the tadpole is suppressing them. Wyll makes references to how he used to have access to greater abilities at one point, as does Gale (although with him, it’s unclear whether the orb is the limiting factor). This interpretation gels with the fact that he gains new abilities very rapidly after the Elder brain is defeated. Ultimately, all of this feels like a game design choice and not a narrative device. You can’t break combat by giving anyone god like abilities.

As far as the evasion about whether he can compel Tav, an alternate reading is that he can’t but needs to pretend that he is able to. Although only hinted at, if Tav is a bride and not a regular spawn, then in point of fact he can’t mind control them. I don’t have a definite opinion on the spawn v. bride question but there are enough nods toward that lore in the turning scene to make it plausible.

He only acts this way if you try to break up with him and complain about wanting your freedom. He never lashes out or does anything wrong throughout the game when Tav makes decisions he doesn't like. He encourages Tav to dominate the brain and has zero complaints when they don't.

The special case is Karlach when she can't be turned, but it also relates to Tav rejecting him.

Everything boils down to him getting angry if he's not shown love and appreciation.

I do think AA is ruled by fear, honestly- it seems logical to me when you follow the paranoia of having to stay on top to avoid anything ever putting you in a powerless situation again. Plus to me it seems like this entire route is just running away from all that's happened to him, not facing it and instead shoving it in a safe, throwing it in the ocean, and say he's now a different new man and that his old self is dead (it isn't, and that's worse!). He also strikes me as unable to trust, and that to me betrays fear. I guess it's hard to fully grasp since he's also clearly confident and drunk on power, but to some extent I think that confidence in his power is hiding a lot of shit going on.

Since I was bringing up authorial intent earlier, there are also some things backing this up as well, for the interested!
This is one of my favorite devnotes in the entire game, IDK why it's just so compelling to me: https://imgur.com/a/L7KLVP1
Also, Adam Smith, one of the main writers for BG3 (I think he supervises the entire narrative) had this to say about AA:

"So with Astarion, his evil ending is actually him...much of what he does is out of fear. And as a player, you can say to him, "You're right to be afraid." And that sends him to a really horrible place, and that I think is really powerful."

What is he supposed to face at that point?


I don't recall any dialogue option where I could tell him "Yes, you need to be afraid, you're weak, go for the ritual" I remember him begging me to help him.

When people start using break up dialogue as proof of abuse, it just reminds me of what Astarion says to DU in act 1 when they tell him they aren't feeling well.

"Well, me and my tadpole are getting along fine."

That's how I feel about AA and Astarion in general. He and my DU were like two peas in a pod, torturing and killing across Faerun while trying to save their own skins. I had Astarion at max affinity before act 1 was done.

Me and my AA are getting along fine.

And it's stupid to have my DU looking scared of getting choked after telling Astarion to choke him the night before.

Agree entirely. He loses his brash sense of humour, cheekiness, self-confidence and kinky bone.

UA:
(right after killing Cazador) I want to feel alive again.
(during the graveyard date) It's time to try living again.

AA:
(right after ascending) I feel alive, hahaha!
(unromanced in the epilogue) I've been rediscovering what it means to be alive - more or less.